Text of an address given by the Ombudsman, Sir Guy Powles, to the 20th Conference of the Maori Women's Welfare League at Auckland, July 1972.

Polynesians

Speaking about ‘Polynesians and the Law’ we have first of all to think of this term ‘Polynesians’. Who are the Polynesians? They are, of course, members of a not very large, but famous, historical race described by one of their own great members, Te Rangi Hiroa (Dr Peter Buck) as the ‘Vikings of the Sunrise’. He said that he might be criticized for applying the term ‘Vikings’ to his Polynesian ancestors, but he felt that in English the term had come to mean bold, intrepid mariners, brave seamen, and could be used just as well in the Pacific, as it was used many centuries ago to apply to the hardy Norsemen of the North Atlantic. To the Polynesian, the sunset in the west symbolised death and the spirit land to which they returned, but the sunrise in the east was a symbol of life, hope, and the new lands that awaited discovery. Peter Buck said that he hoped this term ‘Vikings of the Sunrise’ could include all his kinsmen in the seattered islands of Polynesia. He said: “We have new problems before us but we have a glorious heritage, for we come from a people that conquered the Pacific with stone-age vessels that sailed full towards the sunrise”. Of course, this happened ages ago sailing from the legendary Hawaiki; and, only very recently, in terms of human history, arriving in the ‘Polynesian Triangle’ again specified by Dr Buck. One of the more recent-off-shoots of this great migration comprised the Maori people, who on their last voyage came to Aotearoa. There they lived for hundreds and hundreds of years. There they became ‘Tangata whenua’. We can imagine what this beautiful land of ours—and I say ours, because that is what it is—what this beautiful land of ours looked like and felt like in those far-off old days when the hand of industrial man had not been felt. It is no wonder that the Maori people came to love this land. This inspired one of our famous national poets, Thomas Bracken, who was the author of ‘God Defend New Zealand’, to say this:

They loved the land
With all the love intense a Maori feels
For childhood's home! The hist'ry of their tribe
Was written there on every rock and hill

That sentinelled the scene; for these had known
Their deeds of prowess and their father's deeds of valour!
And the caverns held the bones of those from whom they'd sprung.

Then came the Pakeha—the stranger. First not very many. The Pakeha brought with him his law—the concept of allegiance to a single sovereign—a Queen who made laws. The Maori agreed to be subject to the Queen and to her laws. Of course, the Queen did not then, and does not now, make the laws herself. She and her Parliament do so. In the early days, it was the Queen and the Parliament in the United Kingdom—nowadays the Queen and the Parliament of New Zealand. These are the laws then—the Acts of Parliament—to which the Maori became subject due to the processes of history.

Population Changes

As I have said, the Pakeha were at first few in number. When he first began to arrive in New Zealand in the early part of the last century, reliable authorities estimate that there were about 200,000 of the Maori people. Then, sadly, because of European-introduced diseases and European-introduced firearms (which were used both in the land wars between the European and the Maori, as well as in the tribal wars between the Maori people themselves), low birth rates, high child mortality, and, as is said in New Zealand's Official Year Book, a feeling of race despair, engendered by loss of land, defeat in war and breakdown in health, led to a drastic drop in population in the second half of the last century. By 1896 the population had fallen to 40,000. less than 5 percent of the total population. Some writers and thinkers saw the Maori as a dying people, and even wept tears in anticipation of his departure from this world. However, and very fortunately, this was not to be—from the turn of the century the Maori population has increased continuously and in recent years quite dramatically. Thus since 1900 it has increased five-fold and in the past 20 years it has practically doubled. This increase has been not only absolute but also relative to the total population, thus the rate of increase of the Maori population in the past ten years has been about consistently double the national rate.

During this period there was a great inflow of Pakeha, perhaps more in the early stages, with later a fairly steady stream mainly coming from the British Isles, but also including Danes, Dalmatians, Greeks, Poles, Dutch, Indians and Chinese. In spite of all this, the Maori population has more than kept pace with the Pakeha growth, and now stands at between 8 to 10 percent of the total population.

To add to this picture we have to note recent changes in living patterns. In 1936 only 8,000 Maoris, who were then 10 percent of the total, lived in the cities and boroughs, whereas 25 years later, in 1971, about 125,000 (about 55 percent of the total) live in urban areas. In recent years the growth in the urban Maori population has exceeded the overall growth figure—this means that the rural Maori population is decreasing. What we have witnessed in our life-time is what has been described as the greatest Polynesian migration in history—because of the numbers involved—the movement from the country to the town. One consequence of this is that the great city of Auckland, in which we are, is proud to call itself the largest Polynesian city in the world. These increases are still going on. In the five years between the last two censuses, the Maori population of Auckland increased by 25 percent, that of Wellington by nearly 50 percent and that of Christchurch by about one-third.

While we are talking about Maori population we must not overlook the question of age distribution—a matter to which I shall refer again. More than 60 percent of those people in New Zealand now classified as Maori are under the age of 21, while the figure for the total population is only 43 percent. Thirty-four percent of Maoris are under 10, compared with 22 percent of the total population. It is accordingly not surprising that the average Maori breadwinner has a larger number of dependents than his non-Maori counterpart.

An additional and important feature of recent times is that, along with the migration

of the Maori from his country districts to the town, we have had a rapid increase in the flow into New Zealand of people from the Pacific Islands. The great majority of these are Polynesian people from those islands with which New Zealand has been particularly associated, such as Western Samoa, Cook Islands, Tokelau Islands and Niue, but the influence of the others is beginning to be felt. In round figures we must have quite 40,000 Pacific Islanders now in New Zealand, of whom probably half live in Auckland.

In this connection I refer again to this important question of age structure. Our friends who come from the Pacific Islands, are almost wholly concentrated in about the 20–30 age bracket. There are hardly any old people, as there are amongst the Maori and the Pakeha, and although there is a substantial and growing number of infants and children born here to Island parents, generally speaking the infants and children do not come here by way of immigration. Thus you have a situation where the Island population is heavily concentrated in the young adult group.

The Pakeha Law

With this very sketchy background I would like now to proceed to consider how our acts of Parliament—how our laws—do deal with this situation—this multi-racial society which we in fact have, despite some statements to the contrary.

The law as we call it—these acts of Parliament—makes, as we might expect, special mention of the Maori. The Maori was here before the law, before the Pakeha law, and the Pakeha law makes, of course, special mention of him.

The Pakeha law found, and still finds, it very hard to define just who was, or is, a Maori. Perhaps it was not quite so hard to define this when Captain Cook first sighted the shores of our island country, but it is certainly more difficult now. There have been a number of attempts at defining who is a Maori for various different purposes. For some purposes, as you know, the reference is to the expression ‘half-blood or more’. I cannot say that I like this method of definition, but there it is. Other definitions have reference to Maori ancestry. I think, however, we are moving away from rigid and technical definitions and coming to the straight question of the wishes and consent of the person concerned—as they do in a number of countries overseas. Thus we may eventually come to the situation where, if you feel and say you are a Maori, then you are one.

This difficulty of definition must be borne in mind when we consider the host of figures and comparisons which are constantly being made on a proportional basis or a percent age basis as between the Maori population, the Pakeha population and the total population, etc., etc. These figures may mean many things and have to be looked at with reserve. It used to be said you will remember that the Devil can quote Scripture for his own purposes, and now one sometimes feels that figures are quoted for their purposes by politicians, academics, statisticians, political scientists, and the host of people who now put pen to paper to issue opinions and findings on our racial situation in New Zealand.

In law the Maori is a British subject and a New Zealand citizen. This is in accordance with his wish expressed in the processes of history. He has all the rights and status which accrue in the eyes of the law to such a position. There are, in addition, some special legal provisions which apply to the Maori, and to the Maori alone.

The law makes no mention of Polynesia or Polynesians—thus our island friends who come and live here depend upon the general law for their legal status. If they are already New Zealand citizens when they arrive—such as the people from the Cook Islands, Niue and the Tokelau Islands—they retain this status. If they come from a territory which is a member of the British Commonwealth such as Samoa, Tonga, and Fiji, they then are not completely foreigners according to our law, but they have the status of Commonwealth citizens which does mean something. However, if these factors do not apply, the Polynesian coming here is just a plain foreigner. This would be the case for those coming, for example, from Tahiti or Hawaii. In any event if the Poly-

nesian is not a Maori there is nothing special in the law for him.

Special Maori Provisions

Let me turn now to consider what are the special provisions in our law for Maoris, as apart from non-Maoris. In the famous Hunn Report of 1960 an attempt was made to deal with the subject of legal differentiation between Maoris and non-Maoris, and there were lists and lists of differential provisions which were described under various headings, some conferring privileges, some creating disabilities, some being just protective, and some prescribing different procedures to be adopted in various cases. It is not at all useful to attempt to add up the number of these various provisions and to see whether it has increased or decreased because the subject is not one that you can sum up in this way. Under a particular Act of Parliament, for example, one person could see 60 instances of different treatment, whereas another person would see the subject as a whole and regard it just as one matter. It is, however, true to say that a very large number of the instances set out in the Hunn Report do not now exist.

The principal field where there is differentiation between Maori and non-Maori in law is, of course, in relation to Maori land. This is a complex subject, full of emotion, full of history, and full of misconceptions of history. It is a field which is too large and too complex for me to attempt to deal with this afternoon. I do, however, feel, as do many Pakeha, including the Governor-General himself, that land questions are productive of emotional dissatisfaction amongst many Maoris. If this is so, it would be my sincere and fervent hope that the whole subject can be brought further and further out into the open, and can be freely and frankly discussed. To my mind it is no answer to say this, because there have been Royal Commissions, Committees of the House, petitions and so on, for generation after generation and very much consideration has been given to the question. Yet I think that every generation has to learn about its own problems all over again, and it may well be that the Pakeha has forgotten all this, whereas the Maori remembers it better. It may well be that the time has come when a wholesale and high national analysis of this land problem, and all that it means, needs to be done, and done before too long.

In any case, so far as concerns the present and particular laws relating to Maori land, there is a strong tendency to remove all differences due to race or to the nature of the land, and to provide merely special provisions to deal with the problems of multiple ownership, whether it be Maori land or European land.

Apart from the land question, and a few quite odd and somewhat silly provisions to which I shall not refer, the main respects in which the Maori has a special legal position are:— Parliamentary Representation, which is known to us all: Housing Finance: Maori Education: and those matters covered by the Maori Welfare Act 1962. including the representative Maori organisations and the special position and status of Maori wardens. These special provisions were enacted and are still justified in the thought that they operate for the benefit and advancement of the Maori people. If they do not, then there would be no justification for retaining them.

Polynesians, the Police, the Courts
and the Prisons

I now turn to another part of my address in which I wish to speak about, not Polynesians and the law, but Polynesians in contact with the law, and I mean in contact with the police, the courts, and the prisons. In this part of my address I would like to speak of Polynesians as a whole, because any special privileges that the Maori has in our courts, as against anyone else, have practically disappeared.

However, I have to refer to the Maori situation, because facts relating to Polynesians as a whole are not readly available. You will recollect the statement made in an official Justice Department publication to the effect that the rate of Maori offending and imprisonment is between five and seven times higher than the overall rate.

The difficulty is that a comparison of this kind can, if not properly understood, tend

to give a wrong or exaggerated image, and if the image is given of a Maori as a great and persistent offender there is pressure upon him to move in this direction. If you go on telling someone that he is a so-and-so, then eventually he is inclined gradually to believe it.

First, we must understand, as I have already mentioned, that the Maori population is essentially a younger one than the Pakeha. If the comparison referred to were applied only to the 18–24 age group the Maori offending rate would come down to about three times the overall rate. Further the Justice Department, in publishing these figures, notes that persons who are less than half Maori have been willing to classify themselves as Maori in the courts, although they may not do so for census purposes. This may further reduce the comparable rate of offending.

What is really wanted is an adequate comparison relating to the young men—and I deliberately say young men, because they are the main offenders—in the same or similar social and economic groups. But such a comparison is not available. I have it on very reputable authority, that, if the comparison was available, it could well show that the criminal tendencies of a young urban Maori man do not differ so very much from those of his Pakeha equivalent.

Another instance in which an image can get so wrong—one of our prominent academicians published figures a little while ago showing that in a particular year the number of convictions per 1000 males, 15 years and over, was 76 for those born in Western Samoa, 65 for the New Zealand Maori, and only 15 for the New Zealand non-Maori. This obviously put the Samoan at the top of the violence group, but here again we must look more closely. In the particular year in which those figures were taken there is reason to believe that nearly all the Samoan men in New Zealand were between the ages of 15 and 30. There were few old men and there were very few babies. The Samoan population in New Zealand is younger than the Maori. Naturally, therefore, the figures would show a higher crime rate, because the young male 15–30 age group is the most crime-prone group in our society, whether they are Polynesian, or Pakeha, or what have you. Thus I think a false image has been given of our Samoan brothers.

I have no wish to minimise this problem. There are, as we all know, too many Polynesian offenders and too many in prison. This is, however, a matter of grave social concern for us all—Maori, Pakeha and Palagi—and is not really a legal discussion. But in a legal discussion it is necessary to bear some of the social problems in mind. It is partly the same ancient old problem of rebellious youth. A very famous philosopher said this:

‘What has happened to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the laws. They riot in the streets, inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?’

All that was written by the great Greek, Plato, at least 360 years before the birth of Christ. We Pakeha do not have to go very far back in our own history to remember the expression, ‘Oh, he is just sowing his wild oats’, referring to an erring young man. It is true also that in Polynesian society as well as in Pakeha society, the young male is essentially of an aggressive disposition and has to let off steam somehow. In present times it is the fashion for him to be anti-establishment, and if he is a young Maori he can quite easily be anti-Pakeha-establishment adding to his natural rebellious youth an induced factor of racial antagonism.

It is partly the problem of culture shock. Take the case of young Polynesian parents. All young parents find it difficult to cope with today's stresses; and this I think is particularly true for young Polynesian parents. We are aware that schools find it difficult to get Polynesians parents to join in school activities. There seems to be some fear of embarrassment which keeps them away. Schools I am glad to say are taking a much more outgoing and welcoming view in this respect, and many go out of their way to bring Polynesian parents into the parent-teacher-student structure. The first generation Islander living in New Zealand presents

little problem to the law. It is the second generation. Here again it is the young man, and then the young man and woman; the young Maori parents living in the city for the first time. In a number of these cases it is the first time that these young people have had the responsibility of bringing up children by themselves—without the association, support, love and affection which derives from living within and among the extended family and under the guidance of parents and older people, in the bosom, as it were, of the hapu or the aiga. It is possible that culturally the young Polynesian parent does not see his role in the same way as the Pakeha does, but there are very many Pakeha parents who are just as much at a loss.

I have talked a good deal about Polynesian youth and its offences against the law, but I should mention here that the Polynesian seems to leave crime earlier than does his Pakeha brother.

It is rare for a Polynesian over the age of 30 or so to be an offender.

Here I think is a relieving feature.

Now I come to the question of the treatment of Polynesian offenders. Are they at a disadvantage? I shall have again to speak specifically of the Maori but there is no reason to suppose the treatment of other Polynesians is any different. The imprisonment rate for Maoris is higher than the conviction rate. This means that more Maoris are sent to prison and more Pakehas are fined. It also seems that the Maori imprisonment rate, compared with his arrest rate, is higher than that of the Pakeha. This means that after being arrested more Maoris than Pakehas are in fact convicted after appearing in the Court. It also appears that proportionately fewer Maoris are discharged without conviction, as can be done under the Criminal Justice Act in the case of minor offences, and proportionately fewer Maoris ever exercise their rights of appeal.

These seem to be the facts. However, they may be explained.^*

There is substantial ground for believing that one of the important problems is that of language. This is coupled with a natural reticence, shyness, and a deference in an official situation, and a reluctance to speak out. The youth pleads guilty, and is asked if he has anything to say. He is usually silent, or says ‘no’ or just shakes his head. In one case that actually happened in court in Wellington a youth was asked by the magistrate whether he had any representations to make. He looked very puzzled, and then scratched his head, and said ‘Well, I did represent Otaki at school football.’

Then there is the difficulty of the negative question. The official would say: ‘You did this, didn't you’, and the youth would answer ‘yes’—meaning, of course ‘yes, I didn't do it’. This may seem to be a very simple issue, but in my own experience whole minutes, and sometimes even hours, of conversation have gone off completely in the wrong direction because of the simple misunderstanding of this negative question.

Allied with the language question is the facility with which young immigrant Polynesians, whether Maori or from the Islands, working in urban factories, pick up the Pakeha swear words. In many cases they are actively assisted in doing this by their Pakeha workmates, who think it is a bit of a joke.

Many Magistrates' Courts in New Zealand go out of their way to be fair, or even more than fair, to a young ignorant offender whether he is a Polynesian or not. It is, however, asking too much for this responsibility to be placed on the magistrates themselves and indeed, the performance is uneven in this respect. We need more assistance for the defendants in our criminal courts. One full-time Maori welfare officer for all the Magistrates' Courts in Auckland City is not adequately coping with the problem. The legal system it seems to me needs to be shaken up and to move in this respect.

We need something in the nature of a ‘Duty Solicitor’ whose task it would be to ensure that all the accused on a particular

day had adequate legal advice and were defended, if they wanted to be defended. The duty solicitor would not necessarily have to do this himself, but merely to ensure that it was done.

We are quite behind the times in these things. The institution for example, of ‘Public Defender’ is well-known in other parts of the world. Furthermore, one of the most prestigious courts in the world—the Supreme Court of the United States—has just declared that it is unconstitutional to send a person to prison unless he has been adequately represented by counsel—in other words, no lawyer, no gaol. This may be too advanced for our backwoods conception in New Zealand, but nevertheless I am sure that it points the way.

In the question of the treatment of offenders, there is the special institution of Maori wardens, I must mention this because of its obvious importance and rather unusual nature in our legal structure, but I am not well enough informed on its operations to make any useful comment. I feel that many of you yourselves would be in a much better position to do this than I am.

On the question of Polynesians in prison we are aware of the fact that there are too many of them. The real problem is why are they there and in these numbers? Once they get there, I am satisfied that very substantial efforts are made by the prison authorities to ensure that elements of racial discrimination do not creep into the particular prison concerned, or if they do that they are properly dealt with.

Of course, here you have another example of what is really a social problem—and that is that if there are certain elements in our community who are inclined to take racist attitudes, and I believe there are, then these elements are likely to be represented in all our institutions, not excluding the police and the prison officers. Consequently cases may well occur where what one might describe as loose thinking or thoughtless action gives offence to a Polynesian. Unfortunately in our society, and at the level of which I am speaking, it is quite easy to call a man a ‘fool’—it is just as easy to call him a ‘Maori fool’ or, and perhaps even worse a ‘black fool’. Of course, you understand very well that the word ‘fool’ is almost always replaced by something much more objectionable. The levels of society which do not use this frank conversation, contain elements which have similar thoughts.

Race Relations Act, 1971

Thus we have to turn our attention to the attitudes and behaviour of our whole society with reference to the question of race, and in the Race Relations Act 1971, Parliament has set up machinery to prevent actual acts of racial discrimination occurring in certain important fields.

From the foregoing discussion you will see that our law has a loose hold, if at all, on the aims and objects of a multi-racial society, such as ours is. A full-living, happy, multiracial society is one in which all the different racial or ethnio groups do these five things:—

An observer looking from the outside at New Zealand would see us as falling fairly far short of these various goals. He would see us as a country whose society consists of a number of horizontal levels with, broadly speaking, the Pakeha at the top and the non-Pakeha at the bottom. He would feel that to be truly multi-racial the Pakeha and the non-Pakeha should be evenly spread and mixed throughout these levels from top to bottom. We have a long way to go but I think we are genuinely trying: and I think we'll get there.

Anyway, this line of thinking leads directly to a crucial question—how much racial discrimination is there in New Zealand? Some think that there is not very much, and nothing to worry about, and others say that there is a great deal, much of which is under cover, not brought out to light and yet just as socially harmful and causing just as much personal distress, and that more publicity should be given to it.

However, we shall soon know more about

this situation. The Race Relations Act 1971 has been deliberately passed by Parliament with the object of uncovering discrimination if it exists, and of making a strong attack on it, if it does exist, so that the law has indeed now been brought into play to help us in the attainment of the ideals of a multi-racial society.

I will not discuss or attempt to answer the various criticisms of the Act which were made while it was going through Parliament, and since it has been passed. It is now the law of the land: it must be observed: and it is my duty as Race Relations Conciliator to administer it. It is, of course, experimental, and if in the course of my administration I can see places where it could be usefully amended I will not hesitate to recommend to Government accordingly.

The Act in Practice

The principle of this Act is that it is unlawful to discriminate against any person by reason of his colour, race, or ethnic or national origins. That means to say that nobody must make a decision for these particular reasons which operates to the disadvantage of anyone else. The Act applies to four specific areas. The first is access by the public to places, vehicles, and facilities.

No one can, on the ground of any person's race or colour, refuse to allow that person to use any place or vehicle which members of the public are allowed to use. Similarly, no one may, on this ground, refuse to supply goods, facilities, or services to any person: no one may. on this ground, refuse to employ any person: no one, on this ground, may dismiss him. Finally, in the area of the land, housing and other accommodation, no one may, on this ground, refuse to lease or let any land, house or shop, or to do so on less favourable conditions than he would be prepared to offer to people of another race.

Then there are two extra provisions: the first makes it unlawful to advertise or to say that you are going to do any of these forbidden things: the second makes an agent just as liable for the actions of his principal as if he were doing them on his own behalf.

Finally, there is the over-riding provision that nothing in the Act prevents anything being done if it is for the assistance or the advantage of particular racial groups. This, you will realise, is a particularly important provision, because it protects that wide range of the law to which I have already referred, making special provision for the preservation and advancement of various Maori institutions.

The Act covers a wide range of human activity and, as you will see, is purely negative in form. It merely says ‘Thou shalt not do these sorts of things’. It cannot, however, be administered without a positive attitude. This is recognised in England, where the corresponding Race Relations Act has been in force now for several years, and where the Act makes special provisions for the establishment and encouragement of harmonious community relations. I can assure you that in the administration of our own Act in New Zealand I shall try to have appropriate regard to these positive aspects.

However, going back to practical matter, let us take the question of housing. Is there any racial discrimination in housing matters in New Zealand? I think you will agree with me that there probably is. In some areas in New Zealand the housing market is characterised by serious and persistent shortages in residential accommodation. For the victim of racial discrimination this is the equivalent of high unemployment in the labour market. Housing shortage creates powerful financial incentive for property owners to practise racial discrimination. Are, in fact, landlords in New Zealand refusing to let flats to Polynesians without further enquiries as to the qualifications, suitability, and reputation of the tenants? Yes, they are. I know of several cases, not only in Auckland but also in Wellington, and a few days ago I heard of a case in Invercargill.

Now we must be very clear and definite about this. The law says you must not do this thing. The law also says to the agent that you must not be involved in this thing on behalf of the principal. If you do, you are equally liable. Take the case where a Polynesian comes to a land agent and asks for a suitable furnished flat. The agent sends him to two flats which he finds have already been let to other people but the agent fails

to give him the addresses of two other flats because their owners have specifically stated ‘No Polynesians’. The agent also fails to give him the address of a third flat because he assumes that the owner would not want a non-Pakeha tenant. This agent is committing an unlawful act within the meaning of the Race Relations Act and he is liable accordingly.

I said he is liable accordingly—well a great and perhaps new legal concept in the Act is that it provides for conciliation, and that is why the administrator of the Act is called a Conciliator. Now conciliation tries to do two things. It has to remove the public wrong of discrimination, which is an offence against the well-being of the community, and it has to remedy the private wrong done to the victim of discrimination. Conciliation, in spite of the nice soft flavour of the word, is not in the long run necessarily soft—it is itself a method of law-enforcement. The first object is to proceed quietly and gently to settle the trouble—in other words to bring about the situation which would have occurred if there had been no unlawful discrimination—for example to get the Polynesian tenant into the flat, willingly accepted by the landlord who now realises his legal duty: in the employment field, to get the job for the qualified complainant.

Then there are other desirable things. One is to obtain an apology from the offending party and a statement promising his future compliance with the law. Another could be perhaps the payment of some moderate compensation or expenses if that seemed appropriate. If this conciliation approach is not successful, then the Conciliator will report to the Attorney-General who, in an appropriate case, will take proceedings in the court against the offending party. In these proceedings the court may make all necessary orders and also award damages where suitable. Here is the iron fist, which the velvet glove has been concealing.

May I say, here in Auckland, that these provisions are serious and they are meant seriously. And I would like to bring them particularly to the serious attention of landlords and land agents, because I can assure these people that these provisions will be firmly enforced. If anyone feels that he is the victim of racial discrimination in any of the areas I have mentioned, he should communicate either with my Auckland office or my Wellington office with an explanation of the details.

Conclusion

So you see the law has at last come actually into the race relations field, but Maoris are not mentioned, Polynesians are not mentioned. Indeed, no racial group is mentioned by name at all, which is as it should be, and yet this particular law, the Race Relations Act, may well be one of the most important laws affecting the rights and well-being of Polynesians in our community.