Steve Hansen is half right. The plight of the Pacific Islands would, indeed, be improved by more regular exposure to top tier opposition but if the rugby world is ever serious about levelling the playing field, any number of long ignored avenues should be passed under matters of urgency.
The All Blacks' 92-7 rout of Tonga in Hamilton last weekend was an embarrassing look for the global game and perhaps a grave warning ahead of the World Cup.
Time will tell whether going through the motions was a useful exercise for the All Blacks – in truth much stronger opposition could have been mustered domestically.
And while rare are chances to play the All Blacks will always be treasured by the Island nations and their passionate supporters, conceding 14 tries brings little joy.
Samoa were much more competitive pushing the Wallabies in Sydney and hope springs eternal that Fiji can pull off another World Cup shock in Japan but the reality is these nations that contribute so much to the global game continue to be crippled at the knees.
Little is being done to break established control.
World Rugby can spout record investment all it wants but that's merely one aspect. Given historical issues around Island rugby governance, it's clearly not the sole way of creating a vastly improved, sustainable future.
New Zealand and the Sanzaar alliance are as complicit as any about the lack of assistance in helping pave genuine pathways, having frozen out the Pacific nations since Super Rugby's birth in 1996.
Through failed expansion and the single-minded push for greater revenue streams, the Islands never really stood a chance of inclusion.
Meet the new NZ Rugby CEO: The former All Black with the biggest job in NZ sport
3-star hotels, gender inequality: The truth about 2021 Rugby World Cup
Self-serving interest from the Six Nations killed off the Nations Championship proposal which promised to at least welcome Fiji into the bosom of test rugby and see more revenue pumped into tier two nations.
This same look-after-your-own-patch mentality prevents ongoing petitions for change to the inequitable revenue-sharing model from making any headway too.
England and others in the north who have long reaped the benefits of large stadia and extortionate ticket prices kid themselves that 'goodwill' payments made to Island nations for the odd test at Twickenham sufficiently ticks their contribution box.
Yet silence prevails as requests grow louder to alter the model, which allows home nations to keep all gate revenue, even when the bottom line for change is a paltry 10 per cent share.
Such an archaic system is supposed to be balanced by staging reciprocal matches. But not only do top test nations regularly cite infrastructure concerns and shun playing in the Islands, everyone knows this model is a sham because potential revenue from Apia or Suva is dwarfed by London corporate boxes alone.
All this before we come to the complex and controversial eligibility issue.
Other than South Africa and Argentina, every top tier nation welcomes other nationalities on residency grounds. Some inclusions occur naturally through family migration but many cynically exploit the rules to plug gaps.
World Rugby vice president Agustin Pichot has been hot on extending residency stipulations from three to five years from 2020, and is not afraid to call out Ireland who recently selected South African lock Jean Kleyn, one of 17 foreign players representing teams in Japan, over local veteran Devin Toner.
Yet one change that would immediately strengthen the Island nations, and cost nothing, is to allow players to revert back to their nations of birth or descent once they are discarded by leading countries, many after only a handful of tests.
Once again there is no interest in exploring different parameters around this option, either.
Of Fiji's World Cup squad, 68 per cent ply their trade in France and England.
Before being capped by Fiji, that leaves them at risk of being navigated to the English or French national teams and at the behest of wealthy club paymasters.
Often this situation sees contracts used to exploit vulnerable Island players, many of whom are left with little choice but to turn down the chance to represent their homelands, especially come World Cup time.
Consider how much former All Blacks flanker Adam Thomson, and others at his stage of career, is adding to Otago and New Zealand's provincial game.
The same could be true for Joe Rokocoko, Vaea Fifita, Manu Tuilagi, Tevita Kuridrani, Noa Nakaitaci and the thousands of other Pacific Islanders captured by tier-one nations if they were somehow allowed to give back to their roots.
Rokocoko is far more Fijian than Bundee Aki is Irish after all.
With everything stacked against them, and no one in power willing to truly tackle these issues head on, is it really any wonder the Island nations struggle to compete?
The greater surprise is we don't witness more Hamilton blowouts.
So, sure, Hansen is bang on with his suggestion that the Six Nations' vice-grip on the test rugby calendar blockades progress, and more games against tier two would help bridge the gap.
But so much more could also be done to confront the multitude of issues in this vexed debate.
Ultimately, when all boiled down, it's hard to shake the notion that the rugby world doesn't want to implement systems to help the rich Pacific Island player base protect and promote their own.
Because if everything was fair and equal, the balance of power would soon be very different.