Yes that is the idea — You integrate with us.

The question of authority and the individual from a Maori point of view has to be considered within the context of the total social field. Maoris are born into a world which has a social structure determined by historic antecedents. Briefly, the crucial historic determinants were those of a viable culture overlaid by an era of colonial exploitation and outright subjugation by superior fire power. The Maori accommodated to Pakeha dominance following the crushing of the prophetic movements of Te Ua, Te Kooti and Te Whiti in the 1870's by a policy of withdrawal.

The Maori withdrew to his tribal hinterland, there to "whakatipu tangata" to plant and rear men. It was during this period of withdrawal that the Maori renewed his strength and regenerated his culture. The great leaders of the day. Buck, Ngata and Pomare worked on a wide front of improving standards of hygiene, housing, education and farming practices. Their success was measured by the rapid population recovery of the Maori from 40,000 at the turn of the century to over 275,000 today. They also revised Maori arts and crafts and an interest in Maori songs and poetry. The Maori culture groups that today sing traditional waiata as well as modern action songs are the living embodiment of the vision of these men to maintain the cultural continuity of the Maori. At the heart of Ngata's programme was the renovation and building of maraes, the focal point of Maori community life. Up until the urban migration of the postwar years the majority of the Maoris were born into rural Maori communities within a tribal context.

In such communities there was a well defined social structure and hierarchy of authority. At the elementary level was the whaanau or extended family unit headed by the father. After him, rank was determined by order of birth, the mataamua or first born having seniority over his teina or junior siblings. The spokesman of the extended family on the forum of the marae was the most senior member present, namely the patriarch. In his absence the first born male had the right to speak. At the community level the larger unit of the hapu or sub-tribe recognised certain kaumaatua or elders as leaders by virtue of seniority of descent on a genealogical basis. Despite this hierarchy of elders, patriarchs and senior males, their power was not authoritarian. Apart from some tribes such as the Arawa who did not permit their women to speak on the marae, the marae for those who had rights or tuurangawaewae in was an entirely democratic institution.

Marae or Committee?

Since the members of a sub-tribe were all related there was no such thing as a two party system or adherence to a convention such as majority rule. Because the hapu was a primary group that rested in the ideology of the unity of the kinship group, it could maintain itself only on the basis of consensual decision making.

The marae as an institution was ideally suited to authority based on the consensual decision of the community. The community would meet by day on the marae to consider a take or problem. The aphorisms of the Maori stressed that the democratic process would not be served unless matters were discussed openly on the marae, 'Kia whitingia e te ra, kia puhipuhia e te hau', (That they might be exposed to the bright sunlight and blown about by the wind). This is in contrast to the Pakeha method of sitting in committee behind closed doors.

An important element in arriving at consensual decisions was the absence of a time dimension. If a conclusion could not be arrived at on the marae, then the discussion would continue in the meeting house at night. The physical arrangements in the meeting house of bedding on the floor were well suited to the prolonged discussions necessary for consensual decisions. Those that became hors de combat would fall asleep in their recumbent positions to rejoin the fray at any time in the middle of the night that they felt inclined. Often, it was here that a final decision was made, and in this respect the meeting house complemented the marae. According to the aphorism "Nga korero i kore i oti i runga i te marae me whakatutuki ki roto i te whare." (The discussions that were not completed on the marae should he brought to a conclusion in the house.)

Bogey-man

The authority system I have described belongs to the sub-culture of the Maori, a structure that I have designated elsewhere as the minor system of Maori social organisation. Beyond this is the world of the Pakeha. Maoris born into the minor system and socialised in its ways, soon became aware of Pakeha influence from outside their community. The Pakeha being an outsider to the Maori community may even have been used as a bogey-man by parents. This image of the Pakeha as something to be held in awe is soon reinforced by other contacts. Gradually the Maori child perceives that the Pakeha represents power beyond and above the authority of his community. He is the dairy inspector who can condemn the family milking shed for not being up to standard. He is the teacher who can mete out punishment at school for misdemeanours or slackness in work. He is the shopkeeper who can advance or withdraw credit, he is the postmaster who doles out family benefit, the boss who can give his father the sack, or the policeman who puts bad people in gaol. In this way, the Maori child learns the difference between Maori and Pakeha, between minority and majority group status. He also perceives that in material matters Pakehas are more affluent than Maoris.

By comparison with the Pakeha. being a Maori despite all its positive aspects, may end up as a negative quantity. Research by Vaughan1 has shown that up to the age of seven and eight Maori children may suffer from an identity conflict. They think that they look like Pakehas because they have acquired a sufficient knowledge relating to the culture of the out group to want to belong to it. Besides, the Pakeha authorities tend to define Maoris in a negative way. Since the time of Sir George Grey for instance, the Maori has been defined as a "problem", for which the solution was assimilation. In recent years much time and thought has been given to the "problem of Maori education". Last week a headline in an Auckland newspaper following the release of the Social Welfare Department's report stated that "Maoris top juvenile crime list."2 These negative definitions of the Maori serve to deepen the identity conflicts of Maori children. Together with the disadvantages in minority group status they lead to loss of pride and low self esteem expressed in being whakaitia (shy ).

School Makes it Worse

The poor self-image is probably the greatest disadvantage that the Maori child suffers in competition with the Pakeha. He would like to dissociate himself from being a Maori, from minority group status and become successful like the Pakeha; but it is impossible for him to do so. He cannot escape categorisation on the basis of his physical features. Gradually he gets his identity right and he rebels against Pakeha authority that shackles him with minority group status and its attendant disadvantages. Maori children are cooperative and conforming in the infant school. It is in the middle standards about the age of seven and eight when they have worked out their identity and its full implications that they become anti-social and disruptive in school.

School and Pakeha authority worsens the situation for the child by its failure to put a positive valuation on Maori identity. The teachers in the main are monocultural and don't even take the trouble to pronounce Maori names correctly. It is no wonder that school for Maori children becomes a place of failure, a place to leave as soon as one turns fifteen.

Lazy, Promiscuous, Happy-go-lucky'

Maori children give up the struggle against the constricting effect of the Pakeha-defined mythology that Maoris are "fat, lazy, cunning, promiscuous, happy-go-lucky, lacking in ambition, apathetic, shiftless, improvident, unreliable"3 or on the positive side that they're musical, good at rugby and good with their hands, especially at carpentry or track-driving. In the end, only those Maoris who were prepared to conceal their Maoriness or who are endowed with unusual drive could participate in the Pakeha game of social mobility according to Pakeha defined rules.

The Pakeha world is redeemed from condemnation for its institutionalised racism by the presence of token Maoris. They give a shaky foundation to our loudly proclaimed reputation for racial harmony and equality.

But things are changing. With the urban migration in the post-war years the policy of accommodation to Pakeha dominance by withdrawal came to an end. By forsaking his ancestral lands for the towns and cities the Maori signified his desire to share in the cultural goals of the urban industrial system. Metge4 found that the majority of her informants migrated to the city for the big three factors of work, money and pleasure.

Ghetto Paranoia

In the city the Maori has been exposed for perhaps the first time to the possibility of being assimilated by the dominant Pakeha. The Pakeha, who controls the decision making processes that affect the Maori suffers from what I call ghetto-paranoia. It is a state of mind that is peculiar to the majority group and stems from fear, suspicion, ignorance and intolerance about the Maori minority. Ghetto paranoia has its charter in the "We are one people" ideology enunciated by Governor Hobson at the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. From this famous utterance Sir George Grey derived his assimilationist policy as the solution to the "Maori problem".

Through the education system the concept was translated into action by the exclusion of the Maori language. The effectiveness of this policy of cultural genocide is reflected in the retreat of the Maori language. In 1900 over 90% of Maori children spoke Maori as their first language. Today the number has fallen below 25%.

Since the 1960s we have become more introspective about our society. This, together with the availability of tertiary education to a wider range of the social spectrum has led to a flourishing of more liberal thought. The Hunn Report redefined the relationship between Maori and Pakeha as one of integration. Unfortunately, the adoption of integration as official policy has not altered the assimilative ethos of our society that continuously nourishes itself on the mythology of "We are one people." The policy has changed but the practice remains because of the powerful life-giving force of the mythology. Scant attention has been paid to Hunn's formulation 'that integration' means "to combine (not fuse) the Maori and Pakeha elements to form one nation wherein Maori culture remains distinct"5 Maoris of page 13 course have resisted the assimilative pressure from the Pakeha majority, and in accordance with Hunn's evolutionary model have discarded some elements of their indigenous culture while retaining others that are in harmony with the Pakeha culture that they have adopted. For instance, the tangi lasts three days instead of a week or more as in former times. The custom of hura kohatu, the unveiling of a memorial headstone has replaced the hahunga or exhumation of ancestral bones. The urban marae has been updated to comply with the building and health regulations of the Pakeha. Despite these adjustments the Maori is still subject to intensive assimilation pressures from the Pakeha. The Department of Maori Affairs for instance practices a policy of pepper-potting Maori houses in Pakeha neighbourhoods. Behind this policy is the naive assumption that Maoris will become brown Pakehas by blending in with the people of the neighbourhood. Integration, meaning assimilation, becomes complete when Maoris manifest bourgeois behaviour by trimming their hedges and mowing their lawns. The pepper-potting policy is an example of ghetto-paranoia par excellence on the part of Pakeha authorities.

Pepper-potting Policy

Fortunately, the policy has failed because it is not observed by the State Advances Corporation. Because Maoris are suspicious of the Department of Maori Affairs and also because the majority of them are in the lower income bracket, they go to the State Advances Corporation for their housing requirements. The Corporation stuffs them willy-nilly into places like Te Atatu, Mangere, Otara and Porirua. It is suburbs like these that are erroneously depicted in the media as ghettos. This of course is a misuse of the term because there are no constraints, other than financial ones, as to where anyone black or white wishes to settle in New Zealand. By the same sort of reasoning one might well argue that an "executive subdivision" or a housing estate called "White Acres" in an Auckland suburb are ghettoes.

Contrary to the expectations of ghetto paranoia, suburbs where there is a high density of Maoris have developed in the direction of greater understanding and harmony rather than increased tension. This is because where there is a sufficient density of Maoris they can to some extent overcome problems of social disorganisation resulting from the loss of their kin group by forming voluntary associations. Maori Welfare Committees. Maori Women's Welfare Leagues, Maori Culture Clubs, Maori wardens, Maori benevolent societies. Maori credit unions, Maori churches. Maori sports clubs all operate as integrative mechanisms within the total framework of society. They stress Maori identity, adherence to social norms and the continuity of Maori values. Without these voluntary associations, Maoris would lose their sense of identity and self-determination.

It is clear that the social planners should plan for a high density of Maoris, perhaps up to 50% in new housing estates. The argument for a planned density of Maoris against the official policy of spreading them thinly on the ground can be tested by identifying the places where Maori-Pakeha gang fights have occurred. They have occurred at Papatoetoe not Otara, Palmerston North not Porirua and at Christchurch and Invercargill where Maoris are thought to be as rare as the white heron.

Separatist?

Despite the Maori desire to maintain social harmony in his own way, he is continuously being assailed by ghetto-paranoia. We are all too familiar with the cry of some people to abolish Maori rugby teams as being separatist or even Maori representation in Parliament. In 1969 for instance the Education Department abolished Maori schools and handed them over to the Education Boards. The decision was taken in the interests of an integrated administrative system and out of fear of possible censure by United Nations for having a separate education provision for Maoris. It is doubtful that the decision was based on the best interests of the children and their community. In some districts in the North for instance, small schools in isolated areas have been closed and the children bussed to large central schools. They are the ones who have to cope with the fatigue of two and four hours travel a day.

The decision was a Pakeha one, arbitarily arrived at by Pakeha authorities without consulting the Maori people. This is one problem with ghetto paranoia, it can be rationalised on the basis of the ideal of social equality, of equality of opportunity. Yet we all know that there is nothing more inequal than making unequals equal. If any gains are to be made in Maori education then Pakeha authorities are going to have to learn to share their power with Maoris.

If Maoris want separate provision in education, the right to develop a parallel system where they think that their children can get a better deal than is provided at present in our State schools, then perhaps they deserve it as a minority right.

Racist Churches

At another level it is disturbing to learn that even the Protestant churches suffer from ghetto paranoia. The hierarchy of the Anglican, Methodist and Presbyterian churches view Maori Missions as separatist and wish to abolish them in the interest of an abstract ideal called equality. Equality according to ghetto paranoic thinking means the abolition of Maori identity and inclusion with the Pakeha on Pakeha terms. If this is what the Protestant churches want then I would venture to predict a drop in their membership. It is no accident that the Roman Catholic Church had the highest growth rate of 12% last year. Not only does the Catholic Church grant Maoris inclusion on their terms but it also makes extensive concessions to biculturalism. It even goes so far as to help the people establish Maori community centres. Equality should not be equated with uniformity. It should also mean the right to be different. God preserve us from developing a homogenous uniform and conforming society. To quote a proverb from the third world, "All the gardens of the world are different, it is only the deserts that are the same."

Tyranny of the Majority

My final point about authority from the Maori point of view is the Pakeha's commitment to the tyranny of the majority under the guise of democratic rule. Democratic societies of West-European origin accept the principles of majority rule as a functional convention by which social life is ordered to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. While the convention of majority rule may have been valid in racially homogenous societies such as Victorian England it is questionable in modern racially heterogenous societies. Since most societies of the world, because of the effects of colonialism or migration are heterogeneous, the effect of majority rule in the overall political structure is to create outvoted minorities. Minority rights have no safeguard in democracies and depend entirely on the whim or altruism of the majority. Because of the modern conditions of plural societies what is needed is a United Nations convention on the rights of minorities.

Maoris in New Zealand constitute an outvoted minority who for a hundred years since the civil disturbances created by Te Kooti have waited on the altruism of the Pakeha majority. When they suffered from a sense of grievance, Maoris in accordance with due process have gone with petitions to Parliament. When they failed to gain redress there, they took their petitions to the Queen of England and more recently in 1972 to the United Nations. There are many illustrations of the operation of the tyranny of the majority in New Zealand, how the Pakeha decides on behalf of the Maori what is good for him. Mention has already been made of the treatment of Maori language and culture, so I will pass on to other matters.

A History of Affronts

In 1949 an All Black team went to South Africa without Maoris. The Rugby Union decided to send an all-white team because "Our Maoris" might be badly treated in South Africa. Those, were the days when Maoris were accommodating, they were offended but they did not protest. In 1953 a Pakeha Minister of Maori Affairs decided he was the person best fitted to represent the Maori people at the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. Maoridom was affronted, but again remained quiet. Later in the year when the Queen visited New Zealand the planners of her itinerary did not think to include a visit to Tuurangawaewae the marae of the Maori King. On this occasion the Maoris by judicious lobbying secured a 15 minute stopover at Tuurangawaewae. The outvoted minority had for once succeeded in convincing Pakeha authority that they too were people. In the late 1950's Maoridom was again affronted by Pakeha authority when the late Dr Winiata was rejected for a lectureship in Maori studies at Auckland Teachers' College. He was the most highly qualified man in the land for the post. Needless to say there were no Maori criteria in the job specification or provision for Maori adjudication of such criteria. No Maori sat on the selection panel. In this respect Pakehas are culpable of institutionalised racism. Dr Winiata was rejected because he spoke out for Maori rights, a lone voice that threatened the establishment. Unfortunately Pakeha authority does not appear to heed the lessons of history. There have been a spate of appointments of Maori studies lecturers in Teachers' Colleges the length and breadth of the land in the last two years. In not one did a Maori independent from the Education Department sit on the selection panel to adjudicate on the competence of the candidates to meet Maori criteria such as knowledge of the Maori language and knowledge of Maori customs and marae procedure.

In 1971 the New Zealand Maori Council made extensive submissions to the Government on the Race Relations Bill. Those submissions, a blueprint for racial harmony in the future through the tyranny of the majority have not seen the light of day. The Council made one recommendation to the the effect that interested parties such as the Maori Council, the Race Relations Council and Polynesian representatives should have a say in the appointment of the Race Relations Conciliator. There was already a Pakeha precedent at the time on which this recommendation was based. The Manufacturers', the Federation of Labour and Government as interested parties all had a say in the appointment of an Industrial Mediator. But in its arbitary fashion, the Government of the day made a unilateral decision and appointed Sir Guy Powles. It so happens that Sir Guy Powles was acceptable to the Maori people but that does not alter the authoritarian manner in which the appointment was made and the treatment of the Maori Council as an irrelevant outvoted minority.

Another of the recommendations contained in the Maori Council's submission was one to the effect that at least one of the eight District officers in the Department of Maori Affairs should be a Maori. One would have thought that Maoris by virtue of their knowledge of Maori language, and of marae etiquette would have some advantage overa Pakeha in a post that purports to deal with Maori Affairs.

The matter came to a head in Auckland this year when a new Pakeha District Officer was appointed to the Department. It was disturbing to learn that there were no Maori criteria in the State Services Commission's term of reference for a job in the Maori Affairs. Worse still, it was brought to light that the Wanganui Office of the Department had a higher grading than the Auckland Office because the former had more land to deal with while the latter dealt only with people. The imagination is stupefied that an office of a Maori Welfare Department located in the largest Polynesian city in the world has a lower grading than the one in Wanganui because it only deals with people. What a misplaced sense of values!

We Must Adapt Democracy

How can the situation be remedied? A tentative answer is to adapt the democratic system of majoritarian rule to the needs of a bicultural and plural society. We need to create a pluralistic democracy by making provision for minority views in the decision-making processes of the country. In short, the Pakeha will have to learn to share his power with the Maori, especially in those areas where decisions affect the Maori. For the sake of our children, the future well being of our society may well depend on the greater democratisation of authority.