THE PRESS SATURDAY, JANUARY 16, 1988. Running Maori affairs

Press, 16 January 1988, Page 20

THE PRESS SATURDAY, JANUARY 16, 1988. Running Maori affairs

“Devolution” has for some time been a catchcry in the discussion of Maori affairs, and Dr Bruce Gregory, the member of Parliament for Northern Maori, recently said that he believed that it was likely to take place within a couple of months. As a Maori member he was surprised that he had not heard earlier about how soon the development would happen. Much of the rest of New Zealand will be as surprised as Dr Gregory, because if it does occur soon this highly significant change will affect the whole of New Zealand, and has implications for economic development, race relations, Constitutional practices, and political processes. There is little evidence that all the issues involved have been aired as thoroughly as such far-reaching changes should be.

Broadly speaking, the devolution planned is that the functions of the Department of Maori Affairs will be passed to local Maori groups. - Frequently the term “tribal authorities” has been used for these groups. The Maori terms “iwi” and “rununga” have also been used often to describe these groups. “Iwi” means “tribe,” although it can also be used to mean “people.” “Rununga” can mean “assembly” or “debate.” The stage reached appears to be that a number of groups have been chosen, and final selection is taking place. No list of these groups is available, and although the Minister of Maori Affairs, Mr Wetere, has talked about the Department of Maori Affairs being replaced by a new Ministry of Maori Development, the details of the restructuring are very sketchy.

The main impetus for the idea appeared to come from the national assembly of Maoris held in 1984, known as the Hui Taumati, which brought together leaders from many sections of Maoridom. At that meeting calls were made for Maori people to have a greater say over their affairs. The meeting was held at a time that has come to be known with some accuracy as a Maori renaissance. Te Maori exhibition brought some well-merited international recognition to the Maori. These and other changes came during the term of a Labour Government determined to demonstrate a commitment to things Maori largely because of social concerns.

Devolution will affect some cultural matters, but the radical change will lie in financial and administrative aspects. Mr Wetere interpreted the calls within the national assembly for greater Maori involvement in matters affecting them as a wish to run their own affairs. Devolution is his — and the Government’s — response. In a speech last October he spelt out his intentions: “In simple terms, I want to start empowering the people, by transferring my department’s existing programmes and resources of money, staffing and logistics, to iwi and regional authorities.”

The extent of this transfer has not been made clear, but it may be assumed that a lot of money is involved. The actual expenditure of the Department of Maori Affairs in the year which ended in March of 1987 was $148,182,000. In addition to that, the department received in revenue through interest on loans and other activities the sum of $87,408,000. Apart from the vote for Maori Affairs in the Budget, several Government departments set aside specific amounts in their budgets for Maori programmes.

Money allocated in the Budget comes from the taxpayer. One of the important questions to be addressed is whether a substantial proportion of tax money is about to be administered by groups who are not public servants, and not trained, as are public servants, to spend taxpayers’ money with fairness, and after reasonable investigation. Dr Gregory said that many Maori elders did not believe Maoridom was ready administratively to handle devolution. Mr Wetere is aware of the problem, and has said that management courses were being made available to train Maoris. Dr Gregory thinks that the training should be far wider, and he is right. Mr Wetere regards the administration of the Maori Access scheme and the Mana Enterprises scheme as successful, and the first steps in the devolutionary process.

Getting the finance and the administration right is a matter of crucial importance for the whole of New Zealand, and for race relations. The Maori loans affair was a profoundly disturbing experience for Maoridom. At a time of emerging confidence in themselves, a national emphasis on accountability, and talk of greater Maori management of resources, many Maoris were highly embarrassed by it. On a lesser scale there have been instances of less than strict accounting among some Maori trust boards, and some financial peculiarities in other Maori-administered schemes. If the Government were to hand over huge amounts

of public money to untrained groups what can generously be regarded as teething troubles would multiply, and this would reflect — noticeably, though quite improperly — on the whole Maori community. That would be tragic for the many able and qualified Maoris who aspire to or hold responsible jobs throughout the country.

The groups to which the functions of the present Department of Maori Affairs will be given have not been named. Enough has been said to suggest that tribal associations will be very important. It is doubtful whether that is a wise approach. Maori society, like other societies, has certain virtues, but also certain limitations and vices. One of the factors involved in the Maori renaissance has been a tendency to the idealisation of things Maori. In fact, there are many aspects of older Maori society to which few New Zealanders, especially Maori women, would like to return. Apart from that, the very nature of tribalism is to favour a particular group of a particular origin. Today with inter-marriage between tribes as well as marriage between people of different ethnic origins, tribal affiliations have become mixed.

Tribes are associated with regions. Yet many Maori people have left the region of their tribes and live and work elsewhere. To what extent would these people be eligible to join the administrative group in the area in which they now live? This is further complicated by the drift from country areas into towns. Urban Maoris do not necessarily acknowledge the authority of the hierarchy of the tribe into which they were born. Urban Maoris of succeeding generations may feel even further removed from tribal affairs. The relationship of these people to the groups who will control vast sums of money will be hard to define. It would be naive to believe that tribal rivalries or nepotism have been absent, or will be absent in the future. Many countries, when they pass from being a collection of tribes to being a nation, impose national standards so that fairness among the nation’s citizens is possible. It seems curious for New Zealand to risk a return to tribalism for some of its people.

The effects on the political processes within the country also need to be weighed. A large amount of the country’s taxes is going to be administered by groups chosen by processes which are not yet clear. The amount of money, jurisdiction, and general discretion of these groups to allocate money will all be far greater than, say, school committees — elected bodies which work under strict central Government guidelines. There may be no guarantee that the Maori groups will be elected bodies. They may resemble more the hierarchies of the tribes. If this were so, would Maoris see Parliament and the New Zealand Government as relevant to themselves any longer? Would Maori political power rest in the groups and the structures associated with the groups, or in the Government? The position of the staff of the Department of Maori Affairs also needs to be resolved. Would they simply be working for those groups or hierarchies? What becomes of Ministerial responsibility? What becomes of the repsonsibility of the Government to see that taxpayers’ dollars are all appropriately and fairly spent?

The Government no doubt came to this pass with the best of intentions. The Government is very aware that until recently the Department of Maori Affairs has been a paternalistic institution with some very bad blotches on its record, particularly over Maori land. So the Government wanted to expunge any trace of paternalism in its dealings with Maoris. It is also aware that many of the methods used in the past to assist Maori people have failed. Part of the rediscovery of things Maori has led to a sense of guilt among some New Zealanders of European descent. On the whole, the Government is white, middle-class, and democratic in its views. All of this seems to have led the Government into accepting, without too many questions, the idea of a form of separate Maori development on the ground that that appears to be what Maoris want. Whether it is what all Maoris want is not clear.

The Government has used some sophisticated techniques to find out what New Zealanders want on other issues, but it may consider that opinion surveys do not allow for the Maori way of expressing opinion. However, discussions and decisions at gatherings, which is the Maori way, can lend themselves to the distortions of persuasion by a limited number of people, and the difficulties of positions not being thought through. Of all the issues of devolution, race relations in New Zealand is undoubtedly the most important. It is the Government’s duty to think the issues through, and to make them plain to all New Zealanders before implementing the proposed changes.