Māori as a 'net national opportunity' (not a net national burden)

I started using the phrase 'Māori as a net national opportunity' during my time (2003-2005) at the then Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (and while writing Vision Mātauranga). I don't know if I was the first to use this phrase; however, I know that I began to use this phrase after reading the 2003 report by the New Zealand Institute for Economic Research entitled 'Māori Economic Development: Te Ōhanga Whanaketanga Māori'. On pages 11 to 13 of this report, the writers describe three broad conclusions that they had drawn from their analysis of the 'Māori economy. And it was while reading these three conclusions that the idea of 'Māori as a net national opportunity' came to my mind.

The first conclusion (on page 11) reads as follows:

The first is the striking conclusion that the Māori economy has a higher savings rate than the New Zealand economy...

The second conclusion, on page 12, reads:

The second, perhaps unexpected, result is that, in aggregate, the Māori economy appears to be more profitable than the New Zealand economy... 

However, it was the third conclusion, on page 13, that really prompted me:

The third conclusion challenges the view that Māori are a burden on New Zealand’s taxpayers...

I took these ideas and used them to 'power' my use of the expression 'Māori as a net national opportunity'. I made use of this expression in many presentations and discussions throughout the country and expanded it by adding things like:

If the totality of New Zealand public policy sees Māori as a net national burden, well indeed, that is what New Zealand will get. If, on the other hand, our public policy settings see Māori as a net national opportunity then that is what New Zealand will get. In saying this, in no way am I overlooking or trivialising the very significant issues and problems that Māori do face - for indeed, there are some real problems. However, if the totality of public policy concerning Māori is only about problem, burden and deficit and nothing else, what does this say about this nation's relationship with its first peoples, with its indigenous communities, with its tangata whenua - that it does not see this community as as source of pride, of creativity, of innovation, of possibility, of hope? And what is the impact of this view - held not just in the minds of individuals but also embedded and empowered in public policy and over long periods of time - what is the impact of such a view upon the soul and spirit of a people?

As I say, I am not sure if I was the first to use this phrase, however, these were the circumstances in which the phrase came into my mind and lead me to make use of it in my work.

Comments

  1. Interesting. My observations as someone with no formal qualifications but a massively varied lived experience through both my cultures is that Maori systems are strength based, European systems are deficit based.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Williams in his Dictionary of the Maori Language says there are a number of meanings for the word Maori, the common one being normal, usual, ordinary. In my view, if that's the meaning of the word then I don't expect it will power up much of anything it sounds quite lethargic. Williams also said the word Maori was not in use in 1815 but became fashionable by 1850. Kaumatua Ross Himona, says ’Maori’ itself is not the primary term we (the Maori) use to describe ourselves. Tupaea from Tahiti came to Aotearoa in 1769, on board the Endeavour has been also ascribed to have used the word. I am suggesting a return to rangatiratanga through te reo me nga tikanga, why not use "tangata whenua" in terms of tikanga or for real impact meaning, the expression power packed.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

'Te Tiriti o Waitangi' hui held at Tūrangawaewae Marae, Ngāruawāhia 20 January 2024

Comparing the articles of Te Tiriti-o-Waitangi with the ACT Party’s proposed principles, Feb 2024

Hineruhi: The Mythical Paragon of Feminine Dance