Don Brash: Aid according to need, not race

Opinion

In the past few days a storm has broken out about the National Party's policy on things Maori, with Tariana Turia making it clear she intends to withdraw her acceptance of my invitation to dinner next month.

What is still unclear is whether this strong reaction is based on National's policies or on a misunderstanding of the selective comments reported by the Herald on Sunday after the paper asked for my opinion on a speech by Supreme Court judge Justice Baragwanath.

In terms of National's policy in this area, nothing has changed since the last election.

The important thing for the National Party, and for me personally, is that all New Zealanders, whatever the ethnicity of their ancestors and whenever they or their ancestors arrived in New Zealand, must be equal under the law. And all must receive help from the Government based on their need, and not on their race.

It was in this context that I reacted strongly to the address given by Justice Baragwanath to the Law Commission's 20th anniversary seminar in August.

Justice Baragwanath seemed to argue that, because Maori health and social statistics showed Maori to be in a worse position on most indicators than non-Maori, New Zealand law and institutions have failed to deliver on the promise of the Treaty.

He added that so long as Maori are under-represented in the Auckland Law School there is more work to be done.

I reacted strongly to this view when asked about it. I said that it may well have made sense in 1840 to think of the Treaty of Waitangi as being between two very distinct groups of people - the indigenous Maori people on one side of the Treaty-signing table and European settlers on the other.

But that view of the world simply no longer makes sense. Through six or seven generations of inter-marriage there are few if any people in New Zealand who have only Maori ancestors.

That is not to deny that many New Zealanders choose to identify strongly with the Maori part of their ancestry, and with Maori culture. That is absolutely their right.

Neither is it to deny that the Government of New Zealand, on behalf of all New Zealanders, Maori and non-Maori, has an obligation to specific groups of Maori to compensate them for the injustices done in the past.

It was a National Government which first settled many of these grievances, particularly those of Tainui and Ngai Tahu.

Any National Government led by me will accelerate that process, so that historical grievances can be dealt with fairly, fully and finally.

But it is quite wrong to argue that because Maori are over-represented in negative social statistics, the Crown, or the Government on behalf of all New Zealanders, has somehow failed to discharge its obligations under the Treaty.

If Maori New Zealanders die more frequently from lung cancer than non-Maori do, for example, it is almost certainly because Maori New Zealanders choose to smoke more heavily than other New Zealanders do, not a result of some failing by the Crown.

Similarly, if there are relatively few Maori at the Auckland Law School - and that despite preferential access arrangements for Maori - that is not a failing of the Government, but a result of decisions made by individual Maori.

I repeat what I noted at the outset: the important thing for the National Party, and for me personally, is that all New Zealanders, whatever the ethnicity of their ancestors and whenever they or their ancestors arrived in New Zealand, must be equal under the law. And all must receive help from the Government based on their need, and not on their race.

That is the only way forward for New Zealand in the 21st century.

I certainly hope that Tariana Turia will reconsider her decision to withdraw her acceptance of my dinner invitation, so that any remaining misunderstanding can be sorted out.