For openers, we must address the quixotic definition of Maori in S.2 Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974 which most sensible people consider to be farcical because this legal fiction seeks to create a statutory Maori race. If claimants are going to use any level of Maori ethnicity for Waitangi claims etc., then a scheme is required to have authenticated certified documents to ensure whakapapas are accurate, with Birth Certificates, Driver’s Licences and Passports, etc. endorsed, showing the degree of ethnicity attributed to claimants and this must be the minimum prerequisite requirement for obtaining any payments from Waitangi claims, etc. In addition, DNA testing would be mandatory.
All this evidence to be actioned at the cost of the claimant.
It follows that when looking at a tribe of say 2,000 ‘members’, there must be supporting documentation and evidence for each and every tribal member with lists made available for public inspection and then the ethnicity of the whole tribe must be averaged out.
In a worked example, should the perceived grievance claim or any other claim (hard to take seriously) for some reason be successful and for example assessed at say $32 million, then if the average Maori ethnicity of the tribe is 1/8th,, the payment out would be only $4 million and the $28 million balance would be withheld along the same lines as the ‘contributory negligence doctrine’ to the extent of 7/8th representing the ethnicity percentage other than Maori and these funds should be returned to the NZ taxpayer via the Government, i.e, not paid out.
That would be a fair and equitable outcome because taxpayers are entitled to know that all those who are claiming to be statutory Maori are really what they claim to be. They must provide accurate documentary proof because word of mouth mumbo jumbo is not good enough. If part-Maori don’t want such endorsement as to their ethnicity, they need not apply. The choice is theirs. Current assessments would indicate that no one can claim to have 50% Maori ethnicity; therefore the so-called Maori race exists only by statute that can be revoked by a 51% vote in Parliament. Other than by virtue of the statutory definition everyone in New Zealand must therefore currently be classified as non-Maori.
As a SEQUEL to the ETHNICITY EQUALISATION SCHEME article [above] the question has been raised as to whether the Scheme could be applied to other race-based issues and the answer is ‘yes’ this certainly should be done, especially in relation to various race-based land and asset settlement deals.
When you compare the 1967 and 1974 Maori Affairs Amendment Acts provisions you will note that the 1974 Act redefined “Maori” to mean a person of the Maori race and includes any descendant of such person. The change broadened the definition compared to the previous definition contained in the 1967 Act which relied on a specific blood line quantum such as being half caste or more. So why was that necessary? Well, by 1974 it looks like no one could meet the genuine half caste blood line criteria, so it became pressing to create the statutory fiction definition of “Maori” to satisfy the grievers and appeasers.
Conclusion: On the basis of any International legitimate /legal definition of race as opposed to the inane 1974 statutory fiction it appears that no one in New Zealand can claim to have 50% Maori ethnicity (extinct). It follows that with regard to the Maori Parliamentary seats created in 1867 then prospective candidates or voters would no longer qualify, thus, rendering these seats void and non-existent Anyway the seats should have been abolished long ago, certainly at the very latest with the advent of the 1993 MMP Legislation.
The same argument applies to the iniquitous Maori ward representation on local authorities, race-based sports teams and even the current rort based Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011 (MACA) applications and so forth. The list is pretty well endless. Statutory Maori definition is a legal fiction that is costing New Zealanders $ billions of dollars.
Summary: Definitive DNA testing is the answer as it is the only reliable accurate legitimate process to give a proper assessment of eligibility.
Rob Paterson is a retired lawyer, who lives in Tauranga.
All this evidence to be actioned at the cost of the claimant.
It follows that when looking at a tribe of say 2,000 ‘members’, there must be supporting documentation and evidence for each and every tribal member with lists made available for public inspection and then the ethnicity of the whole tribe must be averaged out.
In a worked example, should the perceived grievance claim or any other claim (hard to take seriously) for some reason be successful and for example assessed at say $32 million, then if the average Maori ethnicity of the tribe is 1/8th,, the payment out would be only $4 million and the $28 million balance would be withheld along the same lines as the ‘contributory negligence doctrine’ to the extent of 7/8th representing the ethnicity percentage other than Maori and these funds should be returned to the NZ taxpayer via the Government, i.e, not paid out.
That would be a fair and equitable outcome because taxpayers are entitled to know that all those who are claiming to be statutory Maori are really what they claim to be. They must provide accurate documentary proof because word of mouth mumbo jumbo is not good enough. If part-Maori don’t want such endorsement as to their ethnicity, they need not apply. The choice is theirs. Current assessments would indicate that no one can claim to have 50% Maori ethnicity; therefore the so-called Maori race exists only by statute that can be revoked by a 51% vote in Parliament. Other than by virtue of the statutory definition everyone in New Zealand must therefore currently be classified as non-Maori.
****************
As a SEQUEL to the ETHNICITY EQUALISATION SCHEME article [above] the question has been raised as to whether the Scheme could be applied to other race-based issues and the answer is ‘yes’ this certainly should be done, especially in relation to various race-based land and asset settlement deals.
When you compare the 1967 and 1974 Maori Affairs Amendment Acts provisions you will note that the 1974 Act redefined “Maori” to mean a person of the Maori race and includes any descendant of such person. The change broadened the definition compared to the previous definition contained in the 1967 Act which relied on a specific blood line quantum such as being half caste or more. So why was that necessary? Well, by 1974 it looks like no one could meet the genuine half caste blood line criteria, so it became pressing to create the statutory fiction definition of “Maori” to satisfy the grievers and appeasers.
Conclusion: On the basis of any International legitimate /legal definition of race as opposed to the inane 1974 statutory fiction it appears that no one in New Zealand can claim to have 50% Maori ethnicity (extinct). It follows that with regard to the Maori Parliamentary seats created in 1867 then prospective candidates or voters would no longer qualify, thus, rendering these seats void and non-existent Anyway the seats should have been abolished long ago, certainly at the very latest with the advent of the 1993 MMP Legislation.
The same argument applies to the iniquitous Maori ward representation on local authorities, race-based sports teams and even the current rort based Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011 (MACA) applications and so forth. The list is pretty well endless. Statutory Maori definition is a legal fiction that is costing New Zealanders $ billions of dollars.
Summary: Definitive DNA testing is the answer as it is the only reliable accurate legitimate process to give a proper assessment of eligibility.
Rob Paterson is a retired lawyer, who lives in Tauranga.
6 comments:
It is simple, a DNA test and if you have 50.1% then you are if not you aren not!
A very sensible and realistic article.
It’s all so much nonsense. Maori don’t exist, just part-Whities with a teaspoon of Maori. We’re all Kiwis. The whole Waitangi gravy train should be abolished.
Aside from the fact that Paterson has got his facts wrong about there are no half-Maori in NZ. Such a thing is not going to happen. His comments are offensive to the majority of Maori. David Seymour refers to himself as Maori and not part-Maori.
So what you're saying is the Māori race doesn't actually exist.
I've been saying that for years.
You can see the government deliberately setting the stage for the introduction of apartheid via the1975 TOW Act with this Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974, that created a “Maori race”.
Excellent contribution in the fight against apartheid Rob.
Post a Comment