New Deal For Maoris

New Zealand

Sweeping reforms in Maori Affairs.

By Jack Kelleher

DEVOLUTION in the administra tion of Maori affairs by the New Zealand Government? Or demolition?

That was the first reaction to the refor mist Labour Government’s recent green paper inviting national discussion on pro posals to replace the long-established Maori Affairs Department by transferring funds to general departments enabling them to cater more specifically for Maori descended New Zealanders, and also by transferring funds to iwi or tribal groups.

The department’s biggest impact has probably been in providing a central focus and encouragement for Maori culture and arts, already alive and well in musical and regional ways.

The spotlight, however, has been on departmental support for private business deals that seem always to have flaws or al leged irregularities. And the record for Maoris in health, education, employment, adequate accommodation and ability to keep out of the country’s jails has been ap palling. No one doubted that something had to change.

And it was lost on no one that tribal affiliations and tribal leadership had faded as a positive influence on young Maoris.

Inter-tribal warfare had been the main factor in welcoming the original white set tlers and the guns available for pur chase in the tragic land deals. But the tribes were a positive influence, and the sub tribal marae or community meeting house remained a place for spiritual rejuvena tion long after urban Maoris had joined the general movement to the cities.

Maori Affairs Minister Koro Wetere, who started on a month-long round of Maori centres days after producing the discussion paper, is bound to make much of this argument on the marae he visits be fore finishing on funding for a takeover by other departments and by the tribes, if the funding and encouragement is no more than was available to the old department.

The Minister brought 70 kaumatua (elders) to Parliament House for a briefing on the plan, titled He Tirohanga Rangapu Partnership Perspectives which em phasised a new partnership but was seen mainly as a proposed phasing out of the Maori Affairs by April 1, 1990.

Mr Wetere, who has weathered many a political storm in the administration of his portfolio, stressed the need to refocus ad ministration on the tribes. He said it was sad that some young Maoris living in the cities did not know their tribal associ ations. He acknowledged that no iwi or tribes as such existed in the cities and

that it would take time to put appropriate structures in place.

Prime Minister David Lange said the reforms would replace a system devised in the 1950 s and no longer coping. He said most of the ideas in the paper are negoti able but the principles remain firm. The new ministry would have a Treasury-like function; the Government was not pre pared to release control of the purse-strings to the iwi.

He confirmed that the report sug gested “positive discrimination”, a form of affirmative action for Maori staff; if two equally well-qualified people applied for a job and one were a Maori, preference would be given to the Maori.

A seven-point statement of objectives generally sets out to honour the Treaty of Waitangi, separately safeguarded in an ef fectively operating tribunal, and to work for the elimination of “gaps” in policy on education, social welfare, economic and cultural matters. The new Ministry of Maori Policy would be mainly advisory to the Government in the same way as Treasury.

Maori elders and Opposition leader Jim Bolger raised the question of extension of time for submissions beyond the six weeks available. Mr Wetere said he would con sider this, but many of the issues in the document had been “amongst our people for some time”.

First and most influential criticism came from Maori Council chairman Sir Graham Latimer, who referred to an as similation rather than a partnership. He claimed it was a reversion to 1960, when the Hunn Report on the department rec ommended similar assimilation policies, and led to issues such as the Land March and the growth of gangs.

A leader among Maori women, Ms Ti tewhai Harawira, claimed a return of em phasis to tribal authorities meant a return to rule by men. A spokeswoman for a Maori nationalist group, Ms Atareta Poananga of Te Ahi Kaa, charged that the devolution proposals meant demolition of power for Maoris. They would be more di vided than ever.

A practical early effect was on the 1000 staff in the present department. The pro posed Ministry of Maori Policy will em ploy up to 100 people, with an indeterminate number of the balance going to other departments and to the tribal or ganisations that are established. The Pub lic Service Association is the departmental union, and its delegates claimed staff were already getting out when the best people could not afford to be lost. □