Double standard

A very good point is made here by the Labour MP Stuart
Nash. He simply makes a connection of the kind people
don't always readily make, even though it may be staring
us in the face. Nash points out that

(a) Not six months ago Social Development Minister
Paula Bennett released the income details of two solo
mothers after they publicly criticized the Government’s
decision to scrap the training incentive allowance for
welfare beneficiaries;

(b) and now we hear that the IRD reckons 300
property investors have dodged paying millions in
taxes by juggling their accounts—one is believed to
have not disclosed $8 million of profits. (Nash doesn't
say this but it seems some millionaire property
investors cook the books so cleverly that their official
income has been reduced to a point where they qualify
for Working for Families payments.)

So how come, Nash wonders, the tax dodgers aren't
named and shamed by a government minister too?
Because as things stand, you may say, it hasn't been
proved that they broke the law. But then, neither had
the two solo mothers...

At this point it seems appropriate to quote Sherlock
Holmes, who said: 'It is my belief, Watson, founded upon
my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London
do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the
smiling and beautiful countryside.'

For 'lowest and vilest alleys in London' substitute 'the
poor and the powerless,' and for 'smiling and beautiful
countryside' substitute 'the world of big money and men
in suits,' and there you have it. Elementary, my d.w.