The Blood Quantum Debate continues. The issue of the Blood Quantum just won't go away, it seems that commentators feel compelled to compartmentalise, segment and deconstruct what it means to be indigenous, what it means to be Maori so that we continue to be confronted with headlines such as "Average Maori at least 43pc Pakeha".

As the Blood Quantum debate proceeds to make the rounds in opinion pieces, web forums, cafes and offices throughout the country it seemed only fair to continue the discussion. In Issue 15, we briefly outlined the impact that Blood Quantum laws had on Native Americans in terms of who could consider themselves an official tribal member. It's important to point out however, that the concept that Maori identity is related to the quantity of Maori blood you have is similarly reflected and recorded in the analogues of New Zealand history.

History of the Blood Quantum in Aotearoa. Not so long ago, in 1953, legislation (Maori Affairs Act 1953) was used to classify Maori identity based on the blood quantum. "A Maori was a person who was a half-blood or more, i.e., at least one of his parents was a full-blooded Maori, or both were three-quarter Maori or some similar combination" (Moeke-Pickering, 1996). This notion clearly "relies on the false assumption that cultural behaviours and identities are biologically determined" (Jones & Hunter, 2003). In the archives of RadioNZ an interesting recording (33mins) details Paraone (Brownie) Puriri, Pei Te Hurinui Jones, Eddie Durie and John Booth discussing the 1967 Maori Affairs Amendment Bill. Brownie Puriri goes on to talk about the definition of a Maori in the Maori Affairs Act 1953 and how this affects Maori land interests, click here to have a listen.

"The infamous 1960 Hunn Report classified three kinds of Maori: half-castes, who were more European-like, lived in cities, spoke no Maori and were advanced; those who were still Maori but lived in the cities and were making progress; and those who spoke Maori, lived in rural areas, and remained "backward and retarded" (Taonui, 2006). Click here to listen to another facinating RadioNZ recording (19mins) of Professor Bruce Biggs, who developed, the first university programme in the study of Maori language and literature in Auckand, give his critical assessment of the Hunn report .

By 1974 the Maori Affairs Act was broadened (thankfully), and redeveloped its definition of Maori identity to one based on descent (i.e. whakapapa) meaning that anyone who had a Maori ancestor could consider themselves Maori. Moeke-Pickering (1996) points out however, that even as late as 1986 the New Zealand Census used blood fractions to decide whether a person was Maori.

Although references to Blood Quantum no longer feature prominently in the landscape of Maori identity other methods to exclude and limit Maori from engaging fully in their affairs still exist. For example the iwi register, which requires you to choose one tribal affiliation over another and the growing Maori-share quantum. This type of exclusion refers to the control those who have shares in Maori-owned land have over those who have no shares, a reality for many urban Maori.

Political Correctness gone Awry? As it so often happens with discussions such as these, we often observe opponents referring to Political Correctness in an effort to undermine an argument before it is even begins. Recently, a fine example of misinformed opinion masquerading as rational thought was published in the Dominion Post by Michael Bassett, former MP and Waitangi Tribunal Member, concluding that "given the extent to which we have intermingled our blood lines, the day is not far off when most New Zealanders will qualify to call themselves Maori".

Interestingly enough this is refuted by the "Average Maori at least 43pc Pakeha" article referred to earlier that suggests the "average" Maori is 57% "Maori", which Environment Science and Research Ltd senior scientist Dr Rod Lea points out means that Maori have remained "genetically unique". Keeping in mind that it was also Dr Lea's research which sparked the Warrior Gene controversy! Bassett's article ends by saying "I presumed Dr Brash was looking to the future and saying that one set of rules for everyone is a surer guarantee of harmonious relations than any race-based form of separation or advantage. He's right, isn't he?"

Sure the day that Maori are treated fairly and with equal respect by the justice system, health system and the legislative system, the day that Maori receive the same salaries for the same jobs, the day that Maori live as long as non-Maori and are jailed in proportion to their population, the day that Maori are not shadowed around retail stores and stopped in their cars without cause, the day that people don't cross the street when a young Maori male is walking towards them... will be a day that all New Zealanders including Maori can rejoice in. One set of rules for everyone is great in theory but in reality we know that we had no input into the very rules of the game which we are expected to abide by... Reminds me of George Orwell's Animal Farm where the pigs who control the government proclaim that, "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

Responses. A well-articulated response to the question of the Blood Quantum and Brash's One Law For All anthem, was published by Dr Rawiri Taonui, Head of the School of Maori and Indigenous Studies at Canterbury University. The article maintains that "race versus need is a rhetorical smoke screen. Maori have the greatest need and that is to be treated without prejudice. Brash's cry of one law for all ignores the cumulative impact of a history of racist legislation, court decisions, government policy and continuing institutional barriers".

Dr Taonui goes on to state that "Brash says poor Maori choices cause poor Maori health and a failure of Maori to study law, despite having places reserved for them... Affirmative action and equity initiatives in education fail because they assume deficits on the part of Maori rather than institutions". Kia ora to that!

What are your thoughts on the Blood Quantum and One Law For All? Are iwi registers and the Maori-share Quantum instruments of control or necessary in an exceedingly complex world? Korero mai and have a say by contributing to our forum. We appreciate the time and effort you take in expressing your opinions and insights.

---

Aroha mai e hoa ma, due to large amounts of SPAM on TangataWhenua.com's Online Forum we have changed your ability to post as a Guest, which you are no longer able to do.

Now all those wanting to post are required to first register with the forum (and have their accounts activated by one of our moderators). We would love to allow guests and anonymous users to share their thoughts with us (as this is the quickest and easiest way to post) but we simply can't because of increasing SPAM abuse which as Wherikoriko reminds us undermines the legitimacy of our forum.

---

We'd also like to share an opinion piece by Manu Caddie which also responds to Dr Brash's comments.

Mr Caddie is director of the Pacific Centre for Participatory Democracy, a community organiser with KaPai Kaiti and a board member on the Council for International Development.