Whilst I wouldn't argue with Peter Dey's claim that discrimination (I assume he means 'negative discrimination”) is a bad thing in our society, his attempted defence of Maori privilege is flawed.
His argument, as I understand it, runs as follows: if you are privileged, then you are better off than others; Maori are not better off than others; therefore, they are not privileged. So far, so good; but the craftiness of his case rests in his selective definition of privilege - for not only can it mean holding an advantage over others (that is, being better off than they), but also having access to rights that others can't enjoy. Maori have such rights, guaranteed by statute: it's called the Maori electoral option. (Exclusive scholarships and selective university entrance criteria are amongst others).
Such ethno-racial differentiation is an affront to egalitarian democracy (but it's fine if you don't believe that all human beings deserve to be treated with equal consideration).
The principal problem with positive discrimination (sometimes called 'affirmative action”) in favour of Maori lies in its failure to acknowledge the philosophical principle of 'distributive justice” which states that the ethically proper distribution of goods ought to be based on need, rather than on race, colour, creed, or any other arbitrary criterion.
The fact is that Maori (however one chooses to define them) are a mixed group: they include the rich and poor; healthy and sick; talented and dull - and to lump them together for the purposes of resource deployment may be politically or fiscally expedient, but it is also morally repugnant. For sure, as a notional social group they may well be disadvantaged both socially and economically, but this reality doesn't justify the creation of deliberate inequity.
The motives may be right, but the method is wrong.
Mr Dey emphasises what he regards as the paltry cost of selective government spending on Maori, but this claim is again subject to the objections that I've just raised.
Anyway, I believe that a civilised society is defined by its observance of universal ethical principles (as opposed to, in New Zealand's case, the 'principles of the Treaty”, which are political in nature), rather than in dollar terms.

Dr Graham Cliff, Katikati.