THE PRESS SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1984. After the Maori summit

Press, 3 November 1984, Page 20

THE PRESS SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1984. After the Maori summit

Most New Zealanders will be sympathetic to the sense of frustration and the desire for economic improvement among Maoris that emerged from the hui taumata, the Maori economic development summit Most New Zealanders, and surely most Maoris, would not be sympathetic to further demands for special treatment for non-pakehas in social and

economic policies. Some of the more extreme speakers at the conference came close to asking for a kind of apartheid or separate racial development that elsewhere in the world has generally ended in injustice and bitterness. The tone of the final communique from the hui taumata was much more practical. The theme emerged that vigorous self-help among Maoris, coupled with a degree of State assistance, holds the best hope of giving all, Maoris an opportunity to participate fully in the modern world.

.Not all the ills of Maoridom can be blamed on Maoris and part-Maoris; neither can they be blamed, without reservation, on the non-Maori majority. The M.P. for Southern Maori, Mrs Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan, touched on an important issue when she said that the risk of Maori children being abused at home was about five times greater than for non-Maori children. Much is sometimes made of the value of the traditional, extended Maori family. The Maori family unit has not always worked well in recent years. Mrs Tirikatene-Sullivan’s theme might have been developed to notice that poor health among Maoris, poor nutrition, an indifference to education, and an undue readiness among Maoris to resort to violence and petty crime, might all be blamed, in part, on failings of Maori parents. These things are frequently spoken of among pakehas, but are seldom discussed in public. There is a growing mood of disquiet about the behaviour of young Maoris and partMaoris, especially in New Zealand’s cities, but discussion is often stifled by a fear of accusations of “racism.” Maori speakers at the conference were ready to discuss weaknesses as well as strengths among Maoris. This should help to persuade taxpayers — the great majority of them non-Maoris — that modest special assistance for Maori projects will not be a waste of money, For all that, real progress can only come from Maoris’ own efforts. It was encouraging to hear the Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr Tapsell, speak of the need to train young Maoris to handle modern technology rather than see them concentrated in unskilled work. It was encouraging to hear a business delegate from Auckland, Mr Jim Nicholls, plead for a national network of Maori people in business as a means of giving mutual help and of encouraging other Maoris to succeed. New Zealand abounds with Maori success stories, most of them unheralded. Given the desire to succeed, Maoris are as able as pakehas in any

field of endeavour. The outrageous demands of some Maori and part-Maori agitators, and the criminal activities of others, should not be regarded by New Zealanders — whether Maori or not — as typical expressions of Maori attitudes and ambitions. The final communique from the summit also emphasised the need to look forward, rather than to dwell on past grievances. Many Maoris may believe, with reason, that the Treaty of Waitangi needs to be reconsidered in the light of Maoris’ place in the modem world. That should not blunt recognition that the treaty was an enlightened and sympathetic document in the time and place in which it was drafted. The clock cannot be turned back. Even those who are most outspoken in their demands that Maori culture and traditions be given greater attention would not readily accept a return to the Maori way of life of pre-European times. Nor can New Zealand afford to give undue attention to a revival of the Maori language. A contrived or forced bilingualism would do more than anything that has happened so far to divide this country on racial lines. The greatest asset young Maoris can enjoy, if they want to make their way in the modem world, is a fluency in English. Fluency in Maori may be an added adornment. It should not be pursued at the expense of English unless the Maori community indicates clearly that it wants to divide itself off from the mainstream of life in New Zealand and the wider world. By all means let there be a committee on Maori broadcasting. But one of its first tasks might be to establish how many people actually watch or listen to Maori language programmes, and even more important, how many understand them better than they do programmes in English. The language of young Maoris on the streets is not Maori, but a peculiarly stilted and often vulgar version of English. Resources spent on promoting Maori, for whatever worthy cultural reasons, might be better used to ensure a command of English and the opportunities that would open up. New Zealand owes to its Maori people the opportunity to live full and satisfying lives, and the opportunity for economic success. But these are owed to all New Zealanders, regardless of race, and Maoris face few hurdles that do not equally beset other New Zealanders. The hui taumata showed that leaders in the Maori community are well aware of opportunities. The Government has indicated its sympathy towards resolutions from the conference. The biggest task is to persuade some Maoris to make better use of their talents and potential. Here all New Zealanders should be ready to offer encouragement. But the community’s good will should not be eroded by wide extension of the special treatment and benefits enjoyed by Maoris, especially when it is others who would be asked to foot the bill.