THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1986. The reputation of Maoris

Press, 23 July 1986, Page 18

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1986. The reputation of Maoris

The Maori people deserve the defence mounted on their behalf recently by the member of Parliament for Southern Maori, Mrs Tirikatene-Sullivan. As she put it, every Maori who commits a violent crime also commits a crime against the Maori people. The violent, criminal behaviour of one section of Maoris is offensive to the bulk of law-abiding Maori people; Maori violence though by no means the only violence in society, does indeed encourage potential attitudes of racism in the rest of the community, as Mrs Tirikatene-Sullivan described.

The sad fact is that despite the wellintentioned efforts of law-makers and a host of other concerned groups in the community, race relations in New Zealand are not improving; they may well be deteriorating. No racial or cultural group can be deemed blameless in this process, but Mrs TirikateneSullivan has pointed out that the rate of violent offending by Maoris and part-Maoris is an important factor in setting the attitudes of other peoples towards all Maoris. This may be unjust to the great majority of Maoris; it is unpleasant and displeasing for them; it is hardly surprising.

Part of the key to the problem may lie in that phrase, “part-Maori.” Such people might equally well be described as part-European or part-pakeha. In recent times, however, it has become fashionable to claim Maori ancestry and to describe oneself as “Maori” on the basis of rather tenuous biological links. Such an attitude does no harm; sometimes there are small rewards available for doing so. But the result is to distort statistics and to give a false impression of the level of crime among the relatively small number of full

Maoris who remain in New Zealand’s population. Recent changes in the law have attempted to take more account of traditional Maori respones to problems of unacceptable behaviour and crime. The intention is admirable, provided that it does not lead to a dual system of law or of penalties — a kind of local apartheid. If many “Maori” offenders are, in fact, heirs in part to both Maori and European culture, they are less likely to response to the values and restraints of the traditional marae-centred Maori world. Those who deem themselves to be Maori, when they might equally well be deemed pakeha, will have to accept that their choice of racial identity carries with it responsibilities as well as advantages. As matters stand, when such people are convicted of crimes of violence, they bring only shame to what is, for them, their chosen people.

Mrs Tirikatene-Sullivan made no such distinction among people who call themselves Maori. Her concern is with the behaviour and reputation, and the well-being, of Maoris, whatever their degree of Maoriness. She has spoken with vigour on the matter before. Her great strength is that in doing so, in daring to criticise Maori shortcomings, she runs no risk of being attacked for “racist” views. She can tread where today few pakehas would venture, at least in their public utterances. In doing so, she performs a valuable service to the whole community. In a society where the rate of criminal offending among Maoris is six or seven times as great as it is among non-Maoris, no good is served by pretending that a special problem, apparently based on racial origins, or on attitudes between races, does not exist.