Other formats

    TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Maori and the State: Crown-Māori relations in New Zealand/Aotearoa, 1950-2000

Assimilation and International Protocols

Assimilation and International Protocols

For all the welfarist and economic advantages for Maori that emerged from the Hunn report and consultation over its implementation, assimilation – under whatever name and in its varied and various forms – remained the official policy towards tangata whenua. DMA and other departmental schemes were all directed towards Maori making (in the words of Booth and Hunn) ‘the necessary adjustments to their changed and changing environment’. In 1962, for example, the Adoption Act was amended to remove the Maori Land Court’s jurisdiction in adoptions; now, in the name of removing discrimination, applicants were forced to go to the less congenial surroundings of the Magistrates’ Court. In this arena, as in many others, Maori resisted in whatever way they could; in this case, ‘customary adoptions’ rose again.

In summary, Maori knew that in the final analysis ‘equality’ meant mainstreaming and assimilation. In 1970, Booth, a key bureaucrat in developing the Crown’s integration policies, acknowledged that there had been a strong assimilationist trend in their implementation. His argument that this need not have been the case revolved around the distinctions embodied in the Hunnreport. But the fact remained that the great majority of the liberal minded politicians and officials who had carried out the implementing were in essence assimilators, as were many of their counterparts elsewhere: assimilationist goals focussing on socio-economic equality reflected ‘progressive’ thinking in other post-colonial settler countries. Such views were shared by many ‘enlightened’ and well-meaning individuals and organisations worldwide. The first United Nations body to attempt a written definition of indigenous people’s rights, for example, was the International Labour Organisation (ILO), whose 1957 Convention on International Indigenous and Tribal Populations (ILO Convention 107) is widely seen today as having promoted policies of assimilation. It was declared to apply to populations which were ‘less advanced’ (Article 1), and it aimed to ensure their ‘progressive integration’ into mainstream societies (Article 2).

The fact remains that at the time Convention 107 was seen among progressive forces as an advanced and enlightened document. Indeed, it was initially greeted with suspicion in conservative sectors of the New Zealand state for allegedly taking indigenous rights too far, even though it generally accorded with Crown policy on ‘integration’. It was related content in the convention, particularly its call for governmental anti-discrimination measures, which made some politicians and their advisers uneasy. One official wrote in late 1959page 106 that the convention could cause difficulty for the country ‘on the grounds that there is racial discrimination in New Zealand and the Government is not actively taking steps to improve matters’. He recommended that ‘[a]ny possible danger of publicity must be avoided’ and suggested the need for a ‘thoroughly confidential’ report to help find a way forward. Another official advised similarly: since the ILO’s protocols implied doing ‘everything possible’ to prevent discrimination, ‘the Government could be embarrassed if it ratified the Convention’.26

Following the Hunn report and the beginnings of its implementation, however, official reservations over the issue of discrimination had begun to fade. But Maori were increasingly concerned about the ramifications for rangatiratanga of the international conventions being heavily assimilative, giving the Crown potential ammunition in its discouraging of separate customs in modern society. Indigenous representations on the issue were partly met by the United Nations’ International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 1965. This allowed for ‘special and concrete measures’ to achieve the ‘adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups’ where these were deemed to be warranted. In 1966 the Assistant Secretary for Maori Affairs received advice that, while ‘international scrutiny’ of New Zealand’s racial situation could still result in ‘embarrassment’, any delay in signing the convention could cause even greater difficulty by attracting domestic and international criticism. Eventually the Race Relations Act of 1971 removed difficulties in international perception that New Zealand was remiss over its lack of legal sanctions against discrimination.

There was another potential line of international criticism, however, which related to assimilationist assumptions in the convention: some Acts, institutions and measures pertaining to Maori could be interpreted as falling foul of these, even though Maori supported (and had negotiated for) them. There were worries, for example, that ‘legislation governing Maori Wardens was a clear breach of the convention’. Delays occurred, but despite continuing concerns about existing legal differentiations between Maori and pakeha, New Zealand eventually ratified the convention in 1972. Maori felt encouraged in their struggle for rangatiratanga by this development, which highlighted their sharing of indigenous aspirations with peoples elsewhere in the world. Such voices were increasingly being heard, and their demands sometimes incorporated into the pronouncements of international bodies and the texts of an emergent international law. With processes of decolonisation now in full swing, the general Maori rejection of total assimilation to ‘the west’ could be clearly seen as part of a worldwide indigenous phenomenon – however much international organisations had initially attempted to assist indigenes by promoting their assimilation. By the early 1970s, evolving internationalpage 107 human rights conventions were giving campaigners on indigenous issues in New Zealand considerable domestic leverage.27

26 Booth and Hunn, Integration, p 8 (for ‘changing environment’ quote); Anderson, ‘Welfare Requirements’, pp 99–100; Nightingale, ‘Maori at Work’, p 226; McHugh, The Maori Magna Carta, p 203; Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, New Zealand Handbook on International Human Rights, 2nd ed, Wellington, 2003, p 120; International Labour Organisation, Convention concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries, C107, Geneva, 1957; Secretary of External Affairs to the Prime Minister, 24 Dec 1959, and attached draft, ‘Discrimination against Maoris’ (for ‘on the grounds’ quote in letter and ‘[a]ny possible danger’ quote in draft); B E Souter, Assistant Secretary, Instructions to District Officers, re ‘Discrimination against Maoris: The Indigenous Population Convention, 1957’, 23 May 1960, AAMK, 869, Box 1063c, 36/1/21A, Race Relations–Interdepartmental Report, 1964–72 (for ‘everything possible’ quote)

27 United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination’, 1965; Bennett, R to Mr Souter, 12 Oct 1966, MA 1, Box 656, Part 9, 36/1/21, Race Relations–Integration–Segregation, 1964–68 (for ‘international scrutiny’ quote); McEwen (Secretary for Maori Affairs) to Secretary External Affairs, re ‘International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination’, 7 Aug 1967, MA 1, Box 656, Part 9, 36/1/21, Race Relations–Integration–Segregation, 1964–68; McEwen (Secretary for Maori Affairs) to Minister Maori Affairs, report re ‘Maori Wardens’, 11 May 1970, MA 1, Box 657, Part 10, 36/1/21, Race Relations–Overseas Countries–Policy and Correspondence, 1964–71 (for ‘legislation governing’ quote); de Bres, Joris, ‘Current Issues in Race Relations’, Speech by Race Relations Commissioner, 16 March 2004, pp 4–5, available online: http://www.hrc.co.nz/home/hrc/newsandissues/currentissuesinracerelations2004.php [accessed June 2008]; Magallenes, Catherine J Iorns, ‘International Human Rights and their Impact on Domestic Law on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand’, in Havemann, Paul (ed), Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, Auckland, 1999.