The Maori dilemma: one Pakeha’s view

Press, 10 May 1984, Page 20

The Maori dilemma: one Pakeha’s view

In this, the first of two articles, JOHN GOULD, Professor Emeritus at Victoria University, gives his personal assessment of social and economic inequalities between Maori and Pakeha in New Zealand. He argues that remedies proposed by an increasing number of Maori leaders would be at best ineffective and at worst seriously harmful to Maoris themselves as well as to New Zealand generally.

Two feelings have inspired me to write these articles: sympathy and anxiety. My sympathy with Maoris in their present-day grievances and aspirations is not a matter of knee-jerk liberalism, of the attitude it has become fashionable in some quarters to strike when confronted by a brown face or a deviant belief. Nor is it that my own philosophy and values are particularly close to those of Maoris.

But I believe that in a free and reasonably affluent society like ours matters should be so organised that everyone can develop his or her own talents to the full, enabling each individual to lead, within the law, a life yielding satisfaction and a sense of purpose, and one contributing to the richness and welfare of society as a whole. This opportunity should exist irrespective of race, belief or sex, so that women enjoy it equally with men, agnostics with Catholics, Maoris with Pakehas. I do not think that today Maoris do in fact enjoy this opportunity in sufficient degree. I am sympathetic, too, because as a historian I know that New Zealand society and government did many things in the past which were unjust and damaging to Maori people. Not that I feel any sense of personal guilt for those injustices of the past.

I did not come to New Zealand until 1958 and, as far as I know, none of my ancestors had anything to do with this country (or with the British government of it). So I disclaim all responsibility for the

Treaty of Waitangi, for the settler wars of the last century, and for the dubious means by which in the decades following those wars Europeans acquired millions of acres of Maori land.

However, I think that society has an obligation to try to remedy by good actions today disadvantages which are the consequences of its bad actions of yesterday. The anxiety which is the second motive for writing these words can be more easily explained. I believe that the diagnosis of the ills of Maori society made by an increasing number of Maori leaders is faulty, and that the treatment they propose would be at best ineffective and at worst seriously harmful, to Maoris themselves as well as to New Zealand generally. When I say that the diagnosis is faulty, I do not just mean that the causes of the ills of Maori society are wrongly identified; the degree of ill healthi too, is exaggerated. Though one would not think it to listen to some Maori leaders, in virtually' every measurable respect Maori society has made great strides in the post-war years: in health, in housing, in general living standards, and even — though less impressively — in level of educational attainment. True, the Maori average in such things is still below the Pakeha average, but the gap has been closing, and in many cases closing dramatically. Take just two illustrations from the scores which could be quoted. In 1945 the non-Maori infant mortality rate was 28.0 per thousand live births; the Maori rate

was more than three times as high, at 88.9. By 1981, the Maori rate had fallen to 15.4 — less than half as high again as the nonMaori rate in that year (10.8) and little more than half of the 1945 non-Maori rate.

Or again, in 1945 fewer than 20 Maori homes in every hundred had a hot water system, as against more than three quarters of nonMaori homes. By 1971, the percentages with this facility were 99.7 for non-Maori and 96.6 for Maori homes. There are a number of reasons for these improvements. Particularly important was the rapid urbanisation of Maori people, which put more and more of them within easy reach — which in 1945 the majority did not enjoy — of doctors, public hospitals, wellequipped secondary schools, and similar facilities and services.

Second, post-war governments implemented policies designed to assist the least fortunate groups in society, and Maoris were amongst the chief beneficiaries. For example, Maoris almost certainly made more use than Pakehas, proportionately to their numbers, of the State Housing programme, and — in addition — enjoyed privileged access to a second source of housing assistance under the Maori Housing Act. Finally, both Maori and Pakeha benefited from the full employment and near doubling of living standards in the first 30 years after the Second World War, which put the most basic needs in reach of even the poorest sections of society.

If things have been improving, why should Maori discontent have been escalating, as it seems to have done in recent years? One reason, of course, is that for Maoris — as for most other New Zealanders — the improvement in standards of living which characterised the 1950 s and 1960 s came to a halt halfway through the 19705. There has been virtually no

sustained economic growth since 1975. Moreover, if this year’s cake can no longer be relied on to be bigger than last year’s, neither can we feel sure that it is being shared out as fairly as it used to be. One feature of Sir Robert Muldoon’s period of office — a feature he presumably does not welcome — has been a probable increase in economic inequality.

The most obvious reason for this is unemployment, which falls unevenly on different groups in society, and on Maoris considerably more than on Pakehas. Even amongst those who have kept their jobs, it seems probable that inflation on the one hand, and taxes, subsidies, and government controls on the other, have combined to widen the gap between rich and poor.

Then, too, Maori discontent is more often and more stridently voiced today simply because New Zealand society as a whole has become less tolerant, more divided, more violent. Perhaps Maoridom has been particularly influenced by this trend because Maori population, thanks to the high birth rate, has become more youthful than it was before the war, or than Pakeha society is today. Even in my time there has been a perceptible decline in the moderating influence of Maori elders, simply because their numbers have shrunk compared with those of younger leaders. Finally, Maori attitudes have hardened because as a consequence of urbanisation, of the increasing integration of Maoris into the European economy and lifestyle, and of the influence on children of cinema and television, the threat to the survival of Maori language and culture has become really urgent. What, then, do Maoris suggest? The most persistent theme is a demand for a more sensitive recognition of distinctive Maori

needs and ways of doing things, and a higher degree of Maori control in administering State services directed to Maori people. This demand is in no way new. In its most extreme form it seems to imply that Maoris, either through the Department of Maori Affairs or through some other institution, should control a share of government expenditure equal to the Maori share in total population. Maoris would then either set up their own services in such fields as health, education, social services, or perhaps decide how much and which parts of the non-Maori services to “buy” for Maori consumption. Such a solution would have many drawbacks. Many would oppose segregated facilities on principle, and not the least disadvantage might be the loss of the goodwill of most well-disposed Pakehas. Many of these already find it difficult to swallow what they see as objectionable discrimination, such as the four Maori seats in Parliament, and would be dismayed if Maoris were to espouse what they would regard as a form of apartheid. This may or may not be a reasonable reaction, but for my part I believe that there are already enough people in New Zealand debating our political, social and economic problems in terms of high principle, and I do not want to add to their number. My reaction is more pragmatic: I just do not think it would work. Let us suppose that the political difficulties could be overcome and that the separate facilities for which some Maoris argue are set up. How would things be better? Take one concrete example. It is difficult to provide adequate health services in rural areas. Doctors are reluctant to practise in isolated localities, hospitals are far apart and often can offer only a restricted range of treatments. Imagine separate hospitals and separate doctors’ surgeries for Maori and non-Maori patients. Imagine a Maori woman suffering a heart attack or a young Maori man critically injured in a car accident being taken by ambulance past the non-Maori hospital only 20 or 30 kilometres away, to reach the nearest Maori hospital 80 or 100 kilometres distant. Fanciful? But such absurdities were common in the last days of the old separate Maori schools, less than 20 years ago. Segregated facilities would mean worse facilities for both Maoris and Pakehas, but since they are nearly everywhere in a minority, Maoris would be disadvantaged more than non-Maoris. And who would staff the Maori hospitals, the Maori surgeries? Everyone knows that proportionately to their numbers Maoris are under-represented in medicine and indeed in all the professions. It might be said: very well, but those in charge could simply hire the services of Pakeha doctors. But what guarantee is there that the services of Pakeha doctors would be forthcoming? They are reluctant enough already to serve in country practices or small provincial hospitals; what likelihood is there that they would be more willing or even as willing to do so in a segregated system under Maori control? The area in which Maori demand for change is most insistent is education. This is natural and right, in view of education’s central importance both for language and culture and for jobs and incomes. It is also true, unfortunately, that Maori progress here has been less impressive than in health or housing. Yet even here achievement has been far greater than the more strident Maori spokesmen would lead one to suppose. To be concluded tomorrow.