Introduction: Overview and Argument

act more effectively in the interests of Maori? Second, had they done so would they have been acting in an improperly paternalistic manner by not leaving Maori to work out their own destinies?

1.35 In relation to the first question it will be argued, especially in relation to Maori health and education, that governments did in fact take some steps to deal with the situation, and thereby recognised that there was a problem. But those actions, especially in relation to health, were on a small scale and minimally financed. It would have been beyond the imagination as well as the capacity of 19th century governments to introduce a complete system of public health care, whether for Maori or Pakeha or both. However, the provision actually made for Maori could have been considerably more extensive with beneficial results and without excessive cost. The provision in fact made did have a beneficial effect for brief periods in specific localities; a moderate expansion would have had a greater effect in more places and for a longer time.

1.36 The matter of paternalism is more problematic. There were those at the time who argued that Maori should be allowed to sink or swim in the challenging new environment; some Maori believed this. But 'swimming' was difficult (if not worse) without resources and without at least that level of assistance which Pakeha had from the state. In many locations, including Hauraki, Maori lacked both the resources and the assistance which their Pakeha neighbours enjoyed. James Carroll, in his note to the report of the 1891 Royal Commission on Native Land Laws, identified two ways in which government inhibited Maori progress in agriculture. First, Crown monopoly led to low prices for land sold and so to a lack of money to reinvest in farming. Second, Maori were ineligible for government assistance in their efforts to become 'useful settlers' (AJHR 1891 GI). Apirana Ngata was to reiterate this plea for assistance (in the form of Advances to Settlers loans) sixteen years later (AJHR 1907 GI)

1.37 It would not have been unreasonably paternalistic to have ensured that Maori, in Hauraki and elsewhere, retained enough land, secured reasonable profits from the land they chose to sell, and received the same assistance that many struggling Pakeha settlers received. Had such policies obtained, at the least Maori would have been somewhat better off and could have made modest progress towards recovery from the unavoidable shocks of colonisation. But, within the context of state assisted land settlement, they were given only a negative role to play. They were the dispossessed upon whose former land the aspiring Pakeha were settled (Brooking, New Zealand Journal of History, 26:1, 1992).

1.38 In the main body of this report these arguments will be supported by detailed evidence and the matter of state responsibility will be revisited in the concluding section. A good deal of emphasis will be placed on the matter of Maori health, in terms of actual conditions and of government policy and administration. Education, a government activity closely connected in administrative practise with health, will also be examined. Again, because the major theme of this report is the interdependence of health and

13