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.
26 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.
As this article illustrates very clearly, it is way overdue to end ALL official recognition of race or ethnicity in ALL legislation in New Zealand.
With race/ethnicity no longer having official status, there would be:-
NO more race-based seats
NO race-specific party in Parliament.
NO more race-based wards in local government.
NO more census questions about ethnicity.
NO more co-governance.
NO more so called “Treaty” claims of unending victimhood.
NO separate Health Authority.
NO Waitangi Tribunal !
NO racial apartheid !
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.
Referendum now.
Chuck Bird, I think you will find David Seymour prefers to describe himself as a New Zealander with some Maori heritage. A lot of those that claim to be Maori accuse him of being the wrong sort of Maori. These same Maori are happy to pretend that there is no whiteness in their wakapapa.
I agree, let's cut the crap - we are ALL just Hooman Beans
It is accepted that no persons of full maori heritage exist now. Thus, the first maori + European coupling would have produced 1/2 maori children. From then on, each succeeding generation would have seen a dilution of the maori bloodline, even if the half-maori children mated with another half-maori their kids would be 1/4 maori. And so it would go; no half maoris left. Down the generations with intermarriage, the proportion of maori DNA becomes smaller and smaller. Unless those people possessing such small amounts of genetic heritage are exceedingly blinkered, they cannot in all reality claim to be maori, except of course if it gives them a monetary and social advantage. We may as well all claim to be Neanderthal given the fraction of DNA from that human gene pool most of us are said to inherit.
I will agree but only if claims to being maori are backed by official documentation (i.e. birth records etc.) from the pre-Cook era.
Ask Winston Peters if he is 50% Maori ancestry. There are others who are 50% Maori ancestry.
Well Chuck, if you consider that the comments are offensive to the majority of Maori, do you not consider that what has happened and what is happening is offensive to the rest of us.
Just ask around, I know I am offended by my hard earned money being given to trace blood Maori for something mainly unrecorded that I had no part in.
For many other things as well, now I think of it.
I laughed when watching the Maori All Blacks on TV last weekend. More than a few on the field must have inherited their Maori bloodlines a long long time ago.
Who would remember that fair haired blue eyed Christ's College old boy Damian McKenzie was once a Maori All Black. And when he retires from a highly remunerated rugby career his children will qualify for preferential entry to a range of University courses.
My partner teaches science. She was shocked to hear that her brothers two daughters won entry to med school on the basis of his mother in laws then discovered 1/16th Maoriness. One of the two quickly failed the other struggled through. This Maoriness was also previously unknown to other local Maoris and the local marae. His wife 1/32 Maori, his daughters being 1/64th Maori. That makes them 98.5 % New Zealander, 1.5 % Maori. But that 1.5 % Maoriness gets them into Med School with an average mark of 65% whereas New Zealanders need to score over 90%
My partner was particularly angry that that despite scoring in the 90's former students of hers did not win acceptance to med school simply because their skin was not brown enough.
Apart from being racist ,this is most clearly dumbing down the medical profession in New Zealand as the med school grades of the racially selected candidates clearly show.
Friend of mine admitted to me her three sons had won entry to various courses and scholarships on the basis of her very distant Maori connections. Considering her three sons were all very tall, blue eyed and fair haired I would have thought they were more likely to be Viking rather than Maori. And indeed the family trace their roots back to Dannevirke and Norsewood settled by Scandinavians.
My own 3 kids have degrees in Engineering ,Science and Law, a Masters degree a number these degrees with honours. They and their friends express open disapproval and and disdain for those who won selection for their courses on racial grounds, And likewise they were angered at the non acceptance of friends despite their having considerably higher marks than those selected on racial grounds.
A truism of higher academic learning is that the quality of graduates is very much a reflection of entry standards and the calibre of those accepted. The scheme of accepting those of lesser ability on the grounds of their Maoriness, or other ethnic or socio- economic disadvantage is simply dumbing our country down further. And heaven knows to raise living standards we need to be smarter and more competitive, not dumber.
Feel 1.5 % Maori bro ! Haeri-mai bro, kapai , your in ! No birth certificates ,no family trees needed, no DNA tests, just go down to the local marae and tell them you feel you belong ! That's it , your in ! Welcome to the world of never ending social welfare benefits, preferential health care, preferential housing, preferential education no sense of personal responsibility for your family. Join a gang, do meths. And what about the next generation 1/128th Maori, less than 1%, can you still demand this never ending suffering due to post colonial trauma and newly discovered post genocidal trauma and subsequent range of preferential tentitlement ?
And tell me Debbie Ngarewa Packer doesn't really have a British or Irish passport as was suggested recently does she ?
Yes and all the uk passport holders in the Te partly maori party, such as john tamihere and debbie packer should veto their right to that colonist passport, given that most nzers they now call white settlers or white colonists, only have nz passports.
Tom, I agree with you on a lot of what you say, especially about getting rid of the racist Maori seats. However, Rob Paterson's comments about DNA testing are stupid and offensive, and he has ot done his homework regarding 50% Maori ancestry. He must know DNA testing will never happen, so why raise the issue? The current Maori Party are racist. Responding with racism just discourages harmony.
Packer does not have a uk pp .her mother was catholic irish ancestry. Nor do the other two. They would know darn well that would have been outed long ago. They detest the uk
A fact: in the 50 , 60s and even 70s, NZers could obtain a British passport if they had a grandparent born in Ireland before 1922 and whose birth certificate and passport carried the mention " British subject".
Ok, Mr Bird, can you provide indisputable proof of the existence of half blood Māori.
Bet ya cant.
Rob Patersons argument is absolutely valid, it most certainly is not racist.
Chuck, you keep using the word "offensive", what EXCTLY is offensive about DNA testing? These days everyone is offended about something, big deal. Just get over it mate.
Ask Winston Peters if he is 50% Maori ancestry.
---------------
Peters' mother was Scottish. His last name, Peters, indicates that his father was not 100% Maori, consequently Winston Peters is less than 50% Maori.
Which generation
1/16
1/32
1/64
1/128
1/256
1/512 ?
Where does does being counted as Maori stop ?
Seriously, when does it stop ?
It can not be allowed to go exponentially to infinity.
To anon 3.32 yes I aware of that (1922 year of independence) but the grandparent had to be male.
Things also changed after Ireland became a republic and left the Commonwealth in the late 40s. I have associates of Irish ancestry (republic) going through various machinations to obtain UK passports for descendants.
My parents were from the UK (1954) and I have relatives here going through the process of trying to get UK passports for kids and grandkids.
Things are tighter now . A friend (born in NZ ) tried to get his granddaughter a UK passport but could not. The girl's great grandad on her mother's side was born in Liverpool. She could not. Seems it was one generation too far back and because it was on the maternal side.
I know Mrs Packer. She does not have a UK passport to my knowledge . The claims about TPM leaders having UK passports need verification properly.
Chuck Bird-Never say never about DNA testing! I would back any way that might disprove legitimacy of Waitangi Tribunal claims and the ability to gain entry to Universities and other institutions based on ethnicity. I was one of those who believed in a fair process to wrong historical rights, but no more. I also resent how the process is ruining my once peaceful country.
I suggest the majority including all ethnicities should lobby hard to remove all ethnidcity from NZ legislation in total without exception. Yes it will be one divisive issue and some rancour and then move forward in unison as one country. IT HAS TO BE DONE .
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.