Defining Maori Groupings

Chief Judge Joe Williams (who was the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court) described four different groups of Maori people:

• The first group is described as the ‘traditional Maori core’. This group is the most ‘enculturated’, or familiar with their culture, is often rural dwelling and speaks both Maori and English.
• The second group is described as ‘primarily urban’ and bicultural.
• The third group is referred to as ‘unconnected.’ People in this group may be biologically Maori but know little of their Maori heritage and culture.
• The fourth group is described as a group of people who are socially and culturally indistinguishable from Pakeha.

Williams, J. (2000). The nature of the Maori community. Paper Presented to PSSM Conference, New Zealand State Services Commission. October, 2000. Wellington

Mauri Tu Mauri Ora Project - Why culture matters to Maori health!

October 19, 2011

Why culture matters to Māori health

Improving Māori health could come down to a stronger sense of cultural identity.

Key health indicator statistics show Māori are disproportionately affected by heart and respiratory diseases and cancer; they are also at higher risk from blood-borne viruses (BBVs) and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

Researchers from the Te Kotahi Research Institute at the University of Waikato are investigating innovative ways to change those statistics by going back to the basics of policy development, service delivery, and cultural identity.

The Mauri Tu, Mauri Ora project, funded over five years by the Health Research Council, is part of an international collaborative health study of Indigenous peoples in New Zealand, Canada and Australia.

The study has explored resistance and resilience – the ways in which Indigenous communities use their strengths to protect themselves from infections such as hepatitis C and HIV, and enhance their wellbeing.

Project researcher Mera Penehira is putting the finishing touches to the final report, and says the international collaboration has been an exciting opportunity. “It’s more meaningful to compare Māori with other Indigenous peoples, and it shows that in some areas, such as the prevalence of blood-borne viruses, we’re doing relatively well.”

Key change points, says Ms Penehira, are at the policy level, service provider level, and community level.

“We discovered a mismatch between policy and service provision,” she says. “Service providers are sometimes not adequately resourced, or they are ill-informed about policy, or they don’t get the monitoring required to ensure they actually implement culturally appropriate services.”

But the research also revealed the importance of a strong sense of identity.

“People who make up the statistics tell us there’s a link between positive cultural identity and well-being,” says Ms Penehira. “It’s not just a health issue, they’re saying being Māori is a key factor in providing protection against HIV, STIs and blood-borne viruses.”

This holistic view of Māori health and wellbeing also helps encourage discussion of risk factors in sexual and reproductive health.

“A critical part of change is to remove the silencing around this topic,” says Ms Penehira. “If we can get people talking about what is at the core of good sexual and reproductive health, things like, whakapapa (genealogy), tamariki (children) and oranga (relationships, health and wellbeing), then we can better protect ourselves against risk.”

The final Mauri Tu, Mauri Ora report will be available from the Health Research Council in early 2012.

Cultural Identity - Excerpts from the 2010 Social Report

Culture refers to the customs, practices, languages, values and world views that define social groups such as those based on nationality, ethnicity, region or common interests. Cultural identity is important for people’s sense of self and how they relate to others. A strong cultural identity can contribute to people’s overall wellbeing.

Cultural identity based on ethnicity is not necessarily exclusive. People may identify themselves as New Zealanders in some circumstances and as part of a particular culture (eg Māori, Chinese or Scottish) in other circumstances. They may also identify with more than one culture.

[N]ew Zealand is a multicultural society...Māori culture has a unique place...[and] under the Treaty of Waitangi, the Crown has an obligation to protect the Māori language.

Defining....identity is not simple. New Zealand is a diverse nation, made up of many cultural groups, with many different customs and traditions. While people may describe themselves as “New Zealanders”, how they define their “New Zealand-ness” will vary from person to person. For example, some people might see a New Zealand identity in aspects of New Zealand’s history or in New Zealander’s achievements in sporting, artistic or other endeavours, while others might see it through a sense of national characteristics or traits, or through national symbols and icons. Māori culture may form one aspect of national identity, since it is both unique to New Zealand and a part of our identity in the outside world.

Cultural identity is an important contributor to people’s wellbeing. Identifying with a particular culture helps people feel they belong and gives them a sense of security. An established cultural identity has also been linked with positive outcomes in areas such as health and education.87 It provides access to social networks, which provide support and shared values and aspirations. Social networks can help to break down barriers and build a sense of trust between people, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as social capital.

However, strong cultural identity expressed in the wrong way can contribute to barriers between groups. And members of smaller cultural groups can feel excluded from society if others obstruct, or are intolerant of, their cultural practices.

Maori Cultural Identity Tool - Houkamau and Sibley

The Multi-dimensional Model of Māori Identity and Cultural Engagement (MMM-ICE) is a self-report(Likert-type) instrument designed to assess six distinct dimensions of identity and cultural engagement inMāori populations:

The MMM-ICE is a quantitative index of identity that can be readily compared across independent studies of Māori peoples. The index was developed by Dr. Carla Houkamau and Dr. Chris Sibley in 2010; both of whom are senior lecturers at The University of Auckland. The MMM-ICE aims to provide a culturally sensitive, valid and reliable self-report measure of Māori identity and cultural engagement embedded within an Indigenous Māori context; ‘who’ a person is as Māori, how they ‘fit in’ with others in the socialworld and what that means in terms of behavior. The MMM-ICE is associated with the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study.

The Six Dimensions[edit]

Group Membership Evaluation[edit]

Group Membership Evaluation reflects the basic premise of social identity theory that individuals strive for favorable evaluations of their group or a ‘positive social identity.’^[1] The more positively one’s group is perceived, the greater the positive evaluations individuals can draw from when interpreting themselves. Having a positive sense of self as Māori has the psychological advantage of promoting well-being. Conversely, if people belong to a low status group, they may be prone to a ‘negative social identity’ because they may attach those negative evaluations to themselves.^[2] Thus, having a negative sense ofself as Māori has a psychological disadvantage, as group members internalize the evaluations held about the group category into their own self-concept. Since social identities are not only descriptive but they areevaluative, the position of one’s group within the social hierarchy is viewed as central to the self-experience of individual members.^[3]

Sample Group Membership Evaluation items[edit]

• I reckon being Māori is awesome.
• I love the fact that I am Māori.
• Being Māori is cool.
• I don't really care about following Māori culture. (reverse coded)
• I wish I could hide the fact that I am Māori from other people. (reverse coded)
• My Māori ancestry is important to me.
• Being Māori is NOT important to who I am as a person. (reverse coded)
• Being Māori is NOT important to my sense of what kind of person I am. (reverse coded)

Socio-Political Consciousness[edit]

Socio-political consciousness reflects a perception of the continued importance of historical factors for understanding contemporary intergroup relations; and how actively engaged the individual is in promoting and defending Māori rights given the context of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Issues include support for (or lack thereof) a Māori political party, resource-specific issues relating to theresource allocation and reparation for Māori based on historical injustice, issues relating to the symbolic representation of Māori culture and one’s positive (or negative) affective evaluations of Māori.

A high score on this scale reflects the belief that Māori need to remain loyal to their group and politically unified. Individuals, who score high on this scale are more supportive of The Māori Party (a political partyin New Zealand that represents Māori), and least supportive of The New Zealand National Party (the mainstream centre-right political party currently in power), for example. Such individuals typically identify themselves as both sole-ethnical Māori and ancestrally Māori.

A low score on this scale reflects the belief that Māori should operate independently and that Māori andPākehā historical relations are irrelevant for understanding contemporary ways of 'being' Māori. Those who score low on this scale will generally endorse the dominant ideological positions, political attitudes, and intergroup attitudes of sole-ethnic Europeans. Individuals who score low on this scale tend to identify themselves solely as European but have Māori ancestry.

Sample Socio-Political Consciousness items[edit]

• Māori would be heaps better off if they just forgot about the past and moved on. (reverse coded)
• All of us, both Māori and Pākehā, did bad things in the past - we should all just forget about it. (reverse coded)
• I'm sick of hearing about the Treaty of Waitangi and how Māori had their land stolen. (reverse coded)
• I think we should all just be New Zealanders and forget about differences between Māori and Pākehā. (reverse coded)
• I think that Māori have been wronged in the past, and that we should stand up for what is ours.
• What the European settlers did to Māori in the past has nothing to do with me personally. I wasn't there and I don't think it affects me at all. (reverse coded)
• I stand up for Māori rights.
• It's important for Māori to stand together and be strong if we want to claim back the lands that were taken from us.

Cultural Efficacy and Active Identity Engagement[edit]

Measures the extent to which the individual perceives they have the personal resources required to engage appropriately with other Māori in Māori social and cultural contexts. These personal resources include the ability to speak and understand Te Reo Māori, knowledge of Tikanga Māori and Maraeetiquette, and the ability to articulate heritage confidently (e.g., recite whakapapa).

A high score on this scale would reflect how comfortable and accepted the individual feels when they are among other Māori or in situations which require the active expression of Māori customary knowledge (traditional knowledge) and ways of doing things (such as participating in powhiri and tangihanga). This would also reflect the extent to which the individual is able to articulate and express their Māori identity by engaging in traditional Māori cultural protocols, values and practices.

Sample Cultural Efficacy and Active Identity Engagement items[edit]

• I don't know how to act like a real Māori on a marae. (reverse coded)
• I can't do Māori cultural stuff properly. (reverse coded)
• I can't do Māori culture or speak Māori. (reverse coded)
• I know how to act the right way when I am on a marae.
• I'm comfortable doing Māori cultural stuff when I need to.
• I have a clear sense of my Māori heritage and what it means for me.
• I try to korero (speak) Māori whenever I can.
• I sometimes feel that I don't fit in with other Māori. (reverse coded)

Spirituality[edit]

Measures engagement with, and belief in, certain Māori concepts of spirituality. This relates primarily to feeling a strong connection with ancestors, Māori traditions, the sensation and experience of waahi tapu (sacred places), and a strong spiritual attachment and feeling of connectedness with the land. This dimension is Māori-specific and is based in unique Māori concepts of spirituality.

Sample Spirituality items[edit]

• I believe that Tupuna (ancient ancestors) can communicate with you if they want to.
• I don't believe that Māori spiritual stuff. (reverse coded)
• I believe that my Taha Wairua (my spiritual side) is an important part of my Māori identity.
• I can sense it when I am in a Tapu place.
• I can sometimes feel my Māori ancestors watching over me.
• I have never felt a spiritual connection with my ancestors. (reverse coded)
• I think Tapu is just a made up thing. It can't really affect you. (reverse coded)
• I feel a strong spiritual association with the land.

Interdependent Self-concept[edit]

Measures the extent to which the concept of the self-as-Māori is defined by virtue of relationships with other Māori people, rather than being defined solely as a unique and independent individual. This portion of the scale assesses a constitutive representation or belief-based component about what it means to 'be'Māori.

Māori are more likely to experience self-conceptualization in terms of important relationships.^[4] This is manifest by a tendency for individuals to see their identity as inherently linked to relationships with others. The MMM-ICE interdependent self-concept scale also relates to the concept of the independent versus interdependent self that has emerged in cross-cultural psychology.^[5] This link suggests that the concept ofself for many Māori may be inherently linked or embedded in a collectivist identity network (see Collective identity).^[6]

Sample Interdependent Self-concept items[edit]

• My relationships with other Māori people (friends and family) are what make me Māori.
• I consider myself Māori because I am interconnected with other Māori people, including friends and family.
• My Māori identity is fundamentally about my relationships with other Māori.
• For me, a big part of being Māori is my relationships with other Māori people.
• How I see myself is totally tied up with my relationships with my Māori friends and family.
• My Māori identity belongs to me personally. It has nothing to do with my relationships with other Māori. (reverse coded)
• Reciprocity (give-and-take) is at the heart of what it means to be Māori for me.

Authenticity Beliefs[edit]

Measures the extent to which the individual believes that to be a “real” or “authentic” member of the social category Māori, one must display specific (stereotypical) features, knowledge, and behavior, as opposed to the belief that Māori identity is fluid rather than fixed and is produced through lived experience.

A high score on this scale therefore represents a rigid and inflexible construction of the essentialised characteristics that determine an ‘authentic’ Māori identity. This relates to various (often Pākehāconstructed) definitions of Māori 'race', such as blood quantum or appearance.^[7][8] A low score on this scale, in contrast, reflects the belief that Māori identity is fluid rather than fixed, and produced through lived experience.

Sample Authenticity Beliefs items[edit]

• You can always tell true Māori from other Māori. They're real different.
• I reckon that true Māori hang out at their marae all the time.
• True Māori always do a karakia (prayer) before important events.
• You can tell a true Māori just by looking at them.
• Real Māori put their whanau first.
• To be truly Māori you need to understand your whakapapa and the history of your people.
• You can be a real Māori even if you don't know your Iwi. (reverse coded)
• You can be a true Māori without ever speaking Māori. (reverse coded)

References[edit]

1. Jump up^ Tajfel, H. & Turner J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel (Ed.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson Hall.
2. Jump up^ Tajfel, H. & Turner J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel (Ed.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson Hall.
3. Jump up^ Tajfel, H. & Turner J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior . In S. Worchel (Ed.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson Hall.
4. Jump up^ Love, C. (2004). Understanding social wellbeing. Māori contributions. Social Policy Research and Evaluation conference, Wellington, November 2004.
5. Jump up^ Kashima, E.S., & Hardie, E.A. (2000). The development and validation of the relational, individual, and collective self-aspects (RIC) scale. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 19-48.
6. Jump up^ Harrington, L., & Liu, J.H. (2002). Self enhancement and attitudes toward high achievers: A bicultural view of the independent and interdependent self. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 37-55.
7. Jump up^ Webster, S. (1998), Patrons of Māori culture: power, theory and ideology in the Māori renaissance, Dunedin: University of Otago Press.
8. Jump up^ Wall, M. (1997). Stereotypical Constructions of the Māori Race in the Media. New Zealand Geographer, 53, 40-45.
9. Jump up^ Houkamau, C. A., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). The Multi-Dimensional Model of Māori Identity and Cultural Engagement. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 39, 8–28.
10. Jump up^ Houkamau, C. A., & Sibley, C. G. (2011). Māori cultural efficacy and subjective well-being: A psychological model and research agenda. Social Indicators Research, 103, 379–398. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9705-5
11. Jump up^ Houkamau, C. A., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). The Multi-Dimensional Model of Māori Identity and Cultural Engagement. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 39, 8–28.
12. Jump up^ Houkamau, C. A., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). The Multi-Dimensional Model of Māori Identity and Cultural Engagement. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 39, 8–28.
13. Jump up^ Houkamau, C. A., & Sibley, C. G. (2011). Māori cultural efficacy and subjective well-being: a psychological model and research agenda. Social Indicators Research, 103, 379-398

The association between Maori Cultural Identity & Various Risk Factors: What the Christchurch Health Study Shows

The Christchurch Health and Development Study (CHDS) has been in existence for 35 years. During this time they have followed the health, education and life progress of a group of 1,265 children born in the Christchurch (New Zealand) urban region during mid 1977. This cohort has now been studied from infancy into childhood, adolescence and adulthood. The data gathered over the course of the study now comprises some 50 million characters of information describing the life history of this cohort. The study has published over 400 scientific papers, reports, books and book chapters describing the 30 year life history of the CHDS cohort.

The study has enabled the analysis of data on people of Maori ethnicity. They have written a number of articles that examine the association between Maori cultural identity (which is really ethinicity) and various risk factors.

Here are abstracts of some pieces of research by 

Dannette Marie

Department of Psychology, University of Otago, Dunedin
and School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, UK

David M. Fergusson
Joseph M. Boden
Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago
Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences

1) Maori Cultural identity and pregnancy/parenthood by age 20: evidence from a New Zealand birth cohort

Ethnic differences in fertility and timing of role transition to parenthood have been the focus of extensive research. The present study examined the associations between ethnic identity and pregnancy/parenthood by age 20 among a longitudinal birth cohort of New Zealanders born in 1977. Those participants of sole Māori identity reported higher rates of both early pregnancy and parenthood than either non-Māori or those of Māori/other ethnic identity. Control for a range of socio-economic and family functioning factors reduced the magnitude of the associations between ethnic identity and pregnancy/parenthood. However, even after controlling for socio-economic and family functioning factors, sole Māori individuals were still at greater risk of pregnancy/parenthood by age 20. Similar results were found for an alternative measure of the extent of Māori identity. It was concluded that higher rates of early pregnancy/parenthood among Māori are associated with factors relating to cultural identity. However, the mechanisms by which cultural identity may be linked to early pregnancy/parenthood are unclear.

http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj37/37-cultural-identity-and-pregnancy-parenthood-by-age-20.html

2) Ethnic identification, social disadvantage, and mental health in adolescence/young adulthood: Results of a 25 year longitudinal study

Objective: To examine the role of cultural identity and social disadvantage/childhood adversity in a 

birth cohort of 984 young people studied to the age of 25. Methods: Date were gathered on mental health, cultural identification, socio-economic factors and childhood adversity as part of a longitudinal study of a New Zealand birth cohort (the Christchurch Health and Development Study).

Results: Those with sole Māori identity had rates of disorder that were 1.28 times higher than those of non- Māori; those of Māori/other identity had rates of disorder that were 1.57 times higher than non- Māori. Regression analyses suggested that the elevated rates of mental disorder amongst Māori were largely explained by their higher exposure to socio-economic disadvantage and childhood adversity. However, even after adjustment, being of sole Māori identity was protective factor that reduced rates of mental disorder amongst Māori.

Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that the risk and protective factors associated with the mental health of young Māori involves an interplay between levels of exposure to social disadvantage/childhood adversity and cultural identity, with secure cultural identity being a factor that may mitigate the effects of exposure to adversity

http://www.otago.ac.nz/christchurch/otago014512.pdf

3) The links between ethnic identification, cannabis use and dependence, and life outcomes in a New Zealand birth cohort 

Objective: To examine the role of ethnic identity in cannabis use, and links between ethnic identity, cannabis use and life outcomes, in a birth cohort of over 1000 young people studied to age 25.

Methods: Date were gathered on cultural identification, cannabis use, socio-economic factors, childhood adversity, and a range of life outcomes as part of a longitudinal study of a New Zealand birth cohort (the Christchurch Health and Development Study). 

Results: Those reporting Māori identity had rates of cannabis use and dependence that were significantly (p < .05) higher than rates for non-Māori. Regression analyses suggested that the elevated rates of cannabis use amongst Māori were largely explained by their higher exposure to socio-economic disadvantage and childhood adversity. Further analyses examined the role of cannabis use in the links between ethnicity and a range of life outcomes, including education, income and employment, mental health, criminal offending, and intimate partner violence (IPV). These analyses showed that cannabis use made a small but detectable contribution to rates of Māori disadvantage in life outcomes, with this contribution being most evident in the areas of crime, education, and unemployment.

Conclusions (i) Māori ethnic identification was associated with increased risks of cannabis use and dependence; (ii) the higher rate of cannabis use by Māori could be largely attributed to a combination of socio-economic factors and greater exposure to environmental factors known to influence risk of cannabis use; and (iii) the higher rates of cannabis use by Māori made a small contribution to higher rates of early school leaving, crime, and unemployment amongst Māori.

http://www.otago.ac.nz/christchurch/otago014520.pdf

Maori Descent But Not Maori Ethnicity - Michael Littlewood question's his Maori identity

Listener Article: A question of identity

Michael Littlewood asks why his smidgen of Maori blood should influence the number of Maori seats and suggests it's time for the nation to grow up.

By Michael Littlewood 

18th June, 2013

http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/a-question-of-identity/

My family’s story illustrates what’s right about the way we New Zealanders
do things and also what’s wrong. In the past three years, I have been
tracking down my family’s roots and I now know the names and origins of all
32 of my great-great-great (GGG) grandparents.

Fifteen were from England, 10 from Ireland, four from Scotland, two from
Wales and one, a Maori, from New Zealand. I know quite a lot about half
of them, including, in a couple of cases, their GGG grandparents, but others
are still shadows.

At some point in New Zealand’s entire peopled history, one of the people
or families from each of the main strands of my past arrived by boat: six by
sailing ship between 1823 and 1874, one by steamer in 1892 and one by
canoe about 700 years ago. In all of New Zealand’s 4.5 million inhabitants,
probably only my two brothers have exactly the same racial background that
I have.

Apart from the most recent arrivals, all New Zealanders share different
versions of my story – some slightly different, others very different. That’s
New Zealand’s story; that’s what should make us New Zealanders.

QUESTIONS OF RACE

The individual form in the 2013 Census, like others before it, had three questions on race. Question 11 asked: “Which ethnic group do you belong to Mark the space or spaces which apply to you: New Zealand European; Maori; Samoan; Cook Island Maori; Tongan; Niuean; Chinese; Indian; Other such as Dutch, Japanese, Tokelauan. Please state.”

Based on the nationalities of my GGG grandparents, I suppose I should have chosen New Zealand European and Maori, but I really do not feel I “belong” to those “ethnic groups”. Given that “belong” is as much about perception as DNA, I chose Other and wrote “New Zealander”.

Enoch Rhodes, Michael Littlewood’s ancestor.

As I did that, I wondered what the users of this information would make of my answer. Because mine was an awkward choice from the statisticians’ point of view (it doesn’t answer the real question), I suspect my answer, and the answers from those who did the same as me, will be ignored. The statisticians will probably think that “New Zealander” doesn’t tell us anything. I disagree for reasons I explain later.

But what would they have made of my answer if I had chosen “New Zealand European” and “Maori” as I suspect they wanted? The significance of the answer to this question diminishes over generations. It is now irrelevant and it’s time the statisticians realised that. If your grandparents were born in New Zealand, perhaps even your parents, you are surely a New Zealander, regardless of your racial background.

It’s wrong for the census to ask me questions about my feelings, which is what question 11 really does. It’s also wrong for whatever reason to slice and dice New Zealanders according to their feelings about ethnicity. I understand the wish of statisticians to continue asking the same questions from census to census so they can look at changes over time, but it’s time to stop asking New Zealanders a question about their feelings on race.

For reasons I explain later, I think question 11 is a metaphor for the race-based elements of the current constitutional review.

Census questions 14 and 15 are more directly relevant to the review. Question 14 asked: “Are you descended from a Maori (that is, did you have a Maori birth parent, grandparent or great-grandparent, etc)?”

I assumed that the “etc” included the possibility of a GGG grandparent or even a GGGG grandparent, so based on my ancestry, I should have answered “yes”.

Question 15 then went on: “Do you know the name(s) of your iwi (tribe or tribes)?” If “yes”, the question then allows up to five entries: “Mark your answer and print the name and home area, rohe or region of your iwi below.”

Ann Rhodes, Michael Littlewood’s ancestor.

I know enough about my Maori GGG grandmother to have given the requested information but I did not. Instead, I answered “no” to question 14, effectively saying I did not have a Maori ancestor. I then wrote a note in a self-inserted panel at the bottom of the form to the effect that at 1/32nd, my Maori ancestry is and should be almost irrelevant and I took exception to the possibility of any statistical interpretations being drawn from such a small proportion. Because the census form did not let me specify the number of my GGG grandparents who were Maori, I did not want to participate in that enquiry.

To emphasise that particular 1/32nd of my background would be to ignore the 15/32nds derived from my English forebears, 10/32nds Irish, 4/32nds Scottish and 2/32nds Welsh. I think that is fundamentally wrong.
At least questions 14 and 15, unlike question 11, are not asking me about my feelings on my Maori ancestry.

However, if I had said “yes” to question 14 and given details of the iwi of Tiraha, my Maori GGG grandmother, Statistics New Zealand could have assumed my Maori ancestry was anywhere between 1/32nd and 32/32nds. That’s because question 15 did not ask for the fraction of my ancestry that Tiraha represented. It is 1/32nd and that’s who I am, not 32/32nds.

In fact, as far as Statistics NZ is concerned, if I had described Tirahi’s iwi, it would have no idea that I was even as much as 1/32nd Maori. The answer could have been the same if Tiraha had been my GGGGG grandmother (1/128th), rather than my GGG grandmother.

MY “WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?” MOMENT

Make no mistake, I am very happy to have discovered Tiraha and to have a photograph of her; seeing that photo was my “Who do you think you are?” moment. But I am also happy to have discovered my other 31 GGG grandparents and to know something of their stories. Because Statistics NZ did not want to know about the other 31 GGG grandparents, I decided not to tell Census 2013 about Tiraha.

So, why is Statistics NZ asking the questions about Maori ancestry (other than that the questions were also in earlier censuses)? Part of the answer is to figure out how many Maori seats there should be in Parliament.

Francis Creighton, Michael Littlewood’s ancestor.

I assume the census data also feeds into the Government’s Budget allocations because of connections between poverty, education and race. However, we should not include race as a qualifier for redistributive aspects of Budget allocations. If people are poor, they need help. If they are illiterate or innumerate, they need different help. If communities need support because of economic changes, we should offer that; but being Maori, even part-Maori or part-part-part-Maori, of itself, should not be a defining qualifier for help.
The time has come to stop trying to define today’s New Zealanders by the race of, in my case, GGG grandparents. Unless Census 2018 asks how many of my GGG grandparents were Maori, questions 14 and 15 should go. If questions like them are to stay in Census 2018, they should extend to include the ethnic background of all 32 of my GGG grandparents. If census respondents cannot answer question 15 for all 32 GGG grandparents, then we should stop asking about just the Maori members of that group.

Anyway, where will it all end? If the focus is on the diminishing share of the population’s DNA that is attributable to just Maori, how will my GGG grandchildren answer the equivalent of questions 14 and 15? 

On the highly unlikely assumption that they collect no further Maori DNA from their own parents or grandparents (my children’s children), my GGG grandchildren will claim just a 1/512th connection with Tiraha. If census questionnaires continue to collect the race data, does Statistics NZ propose to ignore the other 511/512ths of their DNA? What possible significance might 1/512th represent?

On this basis, the number of self-declared “Maori” must continue to grow, even if New Zealand’s overall population doesn’t change. We see that from the census data – so-called Maori as a percentage of the total population were just 7% in 1951. By the last census in 2006, they had reached 16%, an increase of 129% (and that excludes people like me who have a Maori ancestor but do not declare that in the census) compared with a 114% increase in the total population.

This kind of official analysis inevitably becomes a nonsensical reductio ad absurdum and must stop. I understand that doing something about the census questions is not part of the current conversation about our constitution.

CONNECTION TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW

So, why do the race questions in the census matter to the constitutional review? The issue here is the separate representation of Maori through the Maori seats in Parliament.
In “New Zealand’s Constitution: The Conversation So Far”, published last September, the Constitutional Advisory Panel, which is doing the review, does not fully explain how the number of Maori seats is fixed: “Firstly, the [Representation] Commission divides the number of people living in the South Island by 16 … The result is called the ‘population quota’.
“Secondly, the Commission divides the Maori electoral population, and North Island electoral population, by the South Island population quota. This calculation results in the number of North Island and Maori electorates.”

Elizabeth McCabe, Michael Littlewood’s ancestor.

So, what exactly is the “Maori electoral population”? First, we need to know who is a “Maori”. According to the Electoral Act, “‘Maori’ means a person of the Maori race of New Zealand; and includes any descendant of such a person.” So, anyone who claims at least one Maori ancestor can be a “Maori”. In my case, having just one of my 32 GGG grandparents is sufficient. For my (currently eight) children’s children, having just one of their 128 GGGGG grandparents will be sufficient.

Section 45 of the Electoral Act 1993 drives the process of establishing the number of Maori seats. To determine the Maori electoral population, it uses the number of people who have chosen to go onto the Maori roll divided by the “total number of persons of New Zealand Maori descent registered” on the general and Maori rolls, multiplied by “the total number of ordinarily resident persons of New Zealand Maori descent as determined by the last periodical census”.

There is a significant disconnect between those “of New Zealand Maori descent” and those who are on the Maori roll. A table of Maori electoral statistics in parliamentary library research paper “The Origins of the Maori Seats” shows that in 1949 (the earliest year for which numbers are given), 78% of all “Maori” of voting age were on the Maori roll. That proportion in 2008 (the latest year for which numbers are given) was 60%, although that is higher than its low point in 1990 of 34%.

About half of all “Maori” of voting age are on the general roll and that has been roughly the case since 1990 when it was 52%. It was 46% for the 2002, 2005 and 2008 elections.

In other words, the increasingly flawed census questions 14 and 15 play a central role in determining how many Maori seats there are. But rather than changing the basis for determining the number of Maori seats, I prefer to see them abolished altogether.

THE RATIONALE FOR MAORI SEATS

Historically, the voting franchise in New Zealand (and in many other countries) was defined by property: to qualify, a New Zealand resident originally had to either own land of a minimum value or be a tenant of a property with a minimum annual rent. That’s because taxes were largely based on property, there being no form of individual income tax.

The Constitutional Advisory Panel says Maori were not individual landowners and as “land was held communally [they] could not vote even though they paid taxes and were affected by decisions”. That is true but it’s not a complete explanation.

The Maori Representation Act 1867 changed the 1852 Act’s requirements by providing for the direct election of four Maori members of Parliament, New Zealand’s first “universal” suffrage, albeit limited to Maori.

Michael McCabe, Michael Littlewood’s ancestor.

The preamble to the Act described why: “Whereas owing to the peculiar nature of Maori land and to other causes, the Native Aboriginal inhabitants of this Colony of New Zealand have heretofore with few exceptions been unable to become registered as electors or to vote at the election of members of the House of Representatives or of the Provincial Councils of the said Colony. And it is expedient for the better protection of the interests of Her Majesty’s subjects of the Native Race that temporary provisions should be made for the special representation of Her Majesty’s Native subjects in the House of Representatives and Provincial Councils of said Colony.” (My emphasis.)

The Act set out that there will be “four members of the said House who shall be elected under the provisions of this Act to represent therein the inhabitants of the Colony of the Maori race” and four “Maori electoral districts”.

Section 2 described who was entitled to vote in these districts: “The term ‘Maori’ in this Act shall mean a male aboriginal native inhabitant of New Zealand of the age of twenty-one years and upwards and shall include half-castes.”

The Act imposed a racial threshold for the franchise, a threshold that persisted until 1975. “Half-castes” presumably excluded those who did not have at least one fullblooded Maori parent, although there had scarcely been sufficient time in the short life of the colony for there to be many potential voters of less than “half-caste”. On that basis, it was then still clear who was a Maori and who was not.

The Constitutional Advisory Panel’s “New Zealand’s Constitution: The Conversation So Far” does not explain that the directly elected Maori representatives were seen as a stop-gap until land-ownership issues were resolved, as it was intended that property ownership would continue to define the right to be a voter. Section 12 of the Maori Representation Act stated: “This Act shall continue in force for five years after the passing thereof …”

At the time, Maori land-ownership issues were expected to be resolved within those five years, but they weren’t – the 1867 Act was extended for a further five years in 1872.
According to “The Origins of the Maori Seats”, “In 1876 the Act was extended indefinitely as European members began to fear that abolishing the seats would result in a flood of Maori voters onto the European rolls, thereby jeopardising the chances of European members in those seats.”

From this distance, it seems ironic that it was the MPs representing general voters who opposed the reform that should now happen.

Opportunities for reform were also missed in:
•1879 when the Qualification of Electors Act gave the vote to all men over age 21 who had lived in New Zealand for at least a year; and
•1893 when women were given the vote. I think it is wrong to use race as a qualifier for anything but especially something as important as choosing a member of Parliament. The fact that being a “Maori” is such a flawed concept makes that doubly difficult.

THE RELEVANCE OF THE TREATY OF WAITANGI

Some suggest we must retain the separate race-based Maori seats because of the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.

For example: “Equally there is no doubt Treaty principles impose a positive obligation on the Crown, within constraints of the reasonable, to protect the position of Maori under the Treaty and the expression from time to time of that position. … Maori representation – Maori seats – have become such an expression.” Taiaroa & Ors vs Minister of Justice & Ors (1994).

As the Constitutional Advisory Panel notes, the Waitangi Tribunal reached a similar conclusion, also in 1994.

Edward Friend, Michael Littlewood’s ancestor.

At the time of the Treaty, representation of anyone in a Parliament, never mind Maori, would probably have been furthest from any of the signatories’ minds, Pakeha or Maori. The preamble of the Treaty’s English version said Queen Victoria was “desirous to establish a settled form of Civil Government”, presumably (if someone had asked) in the form of something that looked like the then Westminster style of government.
There were just three articles in the Treaty: the first article of the English version “cedes” to the “Queen of England” sovereignty over New Zealand. The second guarantees to the chiefs full “exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties”. It also specifies that Maori will sell land only to the Crown. The third article guarantees to all Maori “all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects”.

Putting aside the very difficult issues of translation, of understanding and of intent – whether in fact there was the “meeting of minds” required under both international law and English law – it seems difficult at this distance to see how the Treaty could be interpreted as requiring separate race-based representation in a Parliament that represents all New Zealanders, then described as “all British Subjects”.

Even though the 1994 words of Justice Robert McGechan, that “Maori representation – Maori seats – have become such an expression” of the Crown’s obligation “to protect the position of Maori under the Treaty”, may rationalise what we have now, this seems at variance with history:

• the Treaty itself says Maori should have “all the same Rights and Privileges” as all other British subjects – not special or separate but the same rights and privileges;
• the voting franchise for non-Maori under the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 was founded on property ownership or tenancy – we must guess that if the question had been raised in 1840, signatories to the Treaty would have assumed something similar for New Zealand;
• the Maori Representation Act 1867 was intended, as a temporary measure, to overcome the practical difficulty that many Maori owned land communally rather than individually; and
• once property ownership or tenancy disappeared as a unique qualifier for the franchise, the separate representation of Maori should also have been abolished.

That it didn’t can be explained by contemporary politics, then and now, and has no obvious link to the Treaty.

“Children … will unite our races”. – Hone Heke. Image courtesy National Museum of Australia

Given the now extremely low threshold that establishes whether a New Zealander is Maori or not, it is hardly surprising that the number of Maori MPs representing electors on the general roll significantly exceeds the number of MPs in Maori seats. In 2013, 16 “Maori” MPs represent electors on the general roll compared with just seven separately elected Maori MPs.

I think the distinctions between Maori electors and others, and between Maori MPs and others, are now indefensible.

I’m not suggesting we ignore public policy issues of direct concern to Maori. We do not need a female roll and female MPs to ensure issues of concern to women are addressed; nor do we need an Asian roll and Asian MPs to address the needs of the Asian community. That there are still issues of concern to Maori does not justify a Maori roll and Maori MPs. In 1840, the Treaty signatories did not directly contemplate separate representation in a Parliament of New Zealanders, but even if they had, that is no justification to continue race-based separatism in 2013.

TIME FOR A SIGN OF MATURITY

It’s now time for New Zealand to grow up. Just as significant efforts – which I support – are being made to resolve Treaty grievances, Maori need themselves to cast off the state of victimhood that sees their special needs as demanding race-based representation. I see no chance of this change being accepted by the political entities that currently depend on the presence of separate Maori representation.

That political reality should not prevent the Constitutional Advisory Panel from recommending the abolition of race-based representation, but the proposal would come even more powerfully from Maori. That would represent maturity: thinking about what’s good for the country rather than for a particular part.

Here is a suggestion: after the last Treaty of Waitangi settlement is signed, Maori should petition Parliament to abolish the Maori Roll and separate Maori seats. That would be a hugely unifying gesture, a sign of maturity.

In its history, New Zealand has done a lot of things well and some things badly, although the good has significantly outweighed the bad. Recently, a large change has occurred in the ethnic make-up of New Zealand residents (particularly in Auckland) – again, some of the ways we deal with that will be good and some less than ideal.

We can show the rest of the world what to do about a lot of things, and the way we oppose the growing international drift to separatism and balkanisation is an example. Creating and maintaining a  single New Zealand peopled by just “New Zealanders” should be a constant focus of our attention.

Everyone who lives in New Zealand and who comes here to settle should be or become a New Zealander, perhaps of Maori, Tongan, Chinese or German descent, but first and foremost a New Zealander. We should all hold fast to the idea that there are some things we New Zealanders all agree with. A political distinction or favour based on race, however well-intentioned, is not and should never be one of those.

Ngapuhi chief Hone Heke supposedly said at Waitangi in 1840: “There are too many Europeans here now [to avoid change] and there are children that will unite our races.”

I like the idea that “children … will unite our races”. It’s time our Parliament acknowledged that.

Maori roll

A campaign to get more voters to enrol on or switch to the Maori electoral roll is looking unlikely to result in any extra Maori seats. The 2013 Maori Electoral Option, which closes on July 24, is offering eligible voters of Maori descent the chance to go onto the Maori or general roll or to switch between the two.

Figures to April 24 released by the Electoral Commission, halfway through the campaign, show the number of people switching from the general to the Maori roll (6774) is only slightly more than those going from the Maori to the general (6727).

The number of new enrolments of people of Maori descent was greater on the Maori roll (3404) than the general roll (1473), but the overall 3400 increase for the Maori roll falls far short of the 20,000 extra voters these types of campaign usually attract.

Michael Littlewood retired from the financial services industry in 2008, and helped establish the Retirement Policy & Research Centre at the University of Auckland. 

This article is based on his submission to the constitutional review.