I Stuart

D Dawson’s letter Not a Perfect System (Beacon, December) 11, claims I said David Seymour was racist. I did not.  

I used that word once in the piece I wrote, saying Mr Seymour claimed to not be racist.  

What I did say was that Mr Seymour should be judged on his actions. If Mr Dawson read what I wrote and concluded Mr Seymour was acting in a racist manner, then that is his opinion, and who am I to disagree.

Arthur Smethurst’s letter (All to be Equal of the same date) repeats Mr Seymour’s claim of being Māori. I have known Māori who were very racist, even about their own ethnicity. Being Māori provides no evidence for or against anyone being racist.

Mr Smethurst also says that the opposite page to my piece gives a summary of court appearances, two of which had European names.

The implication is that the other six were Māori or Pasifika people.  

Given that my piece cited a police report that said they were more likely to arrest, charge and prosecute Māori more frequently than non-Māori, it is not surprising that Māori are over-represented in the justice system, but a quick scan of the court reports on one page hardly counts as enough evidence to support that.  

I fail to see what other point Mr Smethurst is trying to make.

Back to Mr Dawson, he states that some of my examples were 17 years old.  

Yes, this has being occurring for a very long time. Rather than quote screeds of reports, for the health area I chose a compendium report, which would be easy for others to access and read. (Clearly, Mr Dawson did access the report, and I thank him for that consideration.)

There are examples from more than 17 years, dating back to the last century. The hard data, which clearly details discrimination against Māori over a long period of time.

Mr Dawson also states that “these would have affected non-Māori as well”.  These reports are not one-off events, but rather statistical analyses (some of the longitudinal studies covering many years) which clearly demonstrate discrimination against Māori.  

Of course, non-Māori have been affected in similar ways, but the long-term trends clearly show a disparity of treatment between ethnic groups, which have no medical explanations.  

The death of Jane Brunt in Gisborne hospital is an individual case, but I referred to it because the Te Whatu Ora admitted it was due to “unconscious bias”.  

Is Mr Dawson seriously going to challenge or ignore Te Whatu Ora findings?

Of course, Māori want the same thing as everyone else.  They want systems and institutions that do not discriminate against them.

I can say Māori because I don’t think you can find any who, if asked if they want a system that would treat them as equals, would say no.

Given discriminatory systems, there are two possible solutions:

A) Work to change the systems so they are not discriminatory;

B) Build a parallel system that is not discriminatory.  

Clearly, Option A has not provided equitably systems. So Option B comes into play.  

Starting in 1984 a meeting in Auckland set up a Māori Health Planning Authority and marae-based health schemes and other Māori health providers, offering medical care “by Māori, for Māori”.

At the time, the Government of the day publicly committed itself to ending the disparities between Māori and non-Māori health. I’m sad to say, that never happened.  

However, the Māori health system has been developing for 40 years, and today includes our local organisations Te Puna Ora o Mataatua and Te Tohu O Te Ora O Ngāti Awa.

Clearly, the establishment of the Māori health organisations pre-date Te Paati Māori by 20 years.  

On one clear example of the benefits of a culturally-based approach, the education system has acknowledged the results of the research, and has made changes in the education system to overcome these issues.  

The increasing success rate of Māori education organisations attests to the benefits of this approach.

And finally, yes, the age of the research is important.  

The Justice Department report I cited, Over-representation of Māori in the criminal justice system, was published in 2007.

The report acknowledges the complexity of this issue, rather more complex than can be discussed within the limitations of a letter to the editor.  

The police report I referred to was published in 2014.  I quote: “Being Māori increased the likelihood of prosecution by 11 percent compared to NZ Europeans when all other variables remain constant, which was the same finding from research conducted by NZ Police in 2020 and lower than a 2018 study”. (At least there has been a slight improvement since 2018).

What has changed? Seriously, in 40 years, on the ground, what has changed?  

Te Paati Māori is not asking for a separate health system, the party is trying to protect what already exists and which Mr Seymour seems determined to dismantle.

Given the decades that these disparities have been known, with limited action from any government of either persuasion to address these inequities, and Mr Seymour’s actions, can Mr Dawson understand the depth of frustration and anger that has led to a haka in Parliament against a bill that will do nothing to address these issues, indeed, will present an impediment to any change, by responding to any discussion of ethnicity and treatment in our institutions with “no special treatment for Māori”.    

I agree with Mr Dawson that we are not responsible for the generations before us.

We are responsible for the present and the future of our country.  

Mr Dawson should, instead of blundering around trying to negate this hard data, take a deep breath and think about what the data shows, the context of this debate, and then work to remove the discrimination from our institutions and systems, otherwise Mr Smethurst’s grandchildren will be the ones receiving the same kind of treatment in the future.