Lizzie Marvelly: Race remarks make the blood boil

Paula Bennett and Simon Bridges' "Maoriness" is not an equation, it is part of a tapestry. Photo / Getty Images

Questioning of National leaders’ ‘Maoriness’ shows how far we have to go as a nation.

I've lost count of the number of times I've been asked "how Māori" I am. As a "white Māori", I am constantly required to defend my whakapapa, to account for it as if I were some kind of walking pie graph rather than a human being. I try to be gentle when I am asked to reduce my Māoritanga to a fraction, knowing that it is often ignorance rather than malice that motivates such rudeness. But it is rude, and racist. Have you ever heard anyone asked how Pākehā they are?

I've never been asked how Czech I am, though my grandfather was born in Prague. Nor how British, though my other grandfather was born in Plymouth. It's only the Māori blood running through my veins that must be measured. Why? To ascertain whether I'm a "real" Māori. To make it easier for people to paint me — consciously or subconsciously — into one stereotype or another, passing judgment on the deepest, most personal part of me: my identity.

My identity is not an equation but a tapestry; interwoven and colourful. So too are Simon Bridges' and Paula Bennetts'. Yes, having a Māori leader and Māori deputy leader of the National Party is a remarkable first, but the decision of some commentators to comment on how Māori or otherwise they are shows just how far we as a society have to go.

When I read a column discussing the "solidness" of Bridges' "claims to his Māori heritage" written by a Pākehā man, a series of small explosions occurred inside my head. Whether Bridges is "three sixteenths Māori", as the commentator described him, or so-called full-blooded is not only irrelevant, it's farcical. How do you measure a culture, a life force, a history, a responsibility, a spirit, a way of being?

It's time we moved beyond surface discussions of "Māoriness". Being Māori cannot be reduced to a mere number, nor a kind of one-size-fits-all caricature. Indigenous experiences are diverse, depending on a number of factors. Some Māori, like myself and maybe Bridges and Bennett too (although I don't know enough about their backgrounds to say for certain), have spent more time in Te Ao Pākehā than Te Ao Māori. Some of us are finding our way back to our whakapapa. That doesn't make us any more or less Māori. It is just one of the many experiences of being indigenous.

"Being Māori" is not one specific thing, and indeed, before colonisation, we didn't refer to ourselves as Māori, but instead by our iwi affiliations. Bridges himself, however, fell into the trap of lumping all Māori together, telling a press conference at Parliament, "I hope that Māori are proud of me".

It stuck in my mind, that statement. It immediately made me wonder what Bridges had done to make Māori proud of him. To my mind, while being elected leader is undoubtedly an achievement, it is an individual one. While Bridges being in that role will mean that young Māori will know that it is possible for them to grow up and become the leader of the National Party, visibility alone is not enough. Pride and respect are earned, and Bridges will soon find out whether or not he has done enough to deserve the support of his people.

If Simon Bridges wants Māori to be proud of him, he should focus on the mahi — the work — that he needs to do. His mana will be judged not by the position he holds, but by the changes that he makes for his people. His willingness — or otherwise — to spend time kanohi ki te kanohi (face to face) with his people; to listen, understand, and represent them steadfastly will determine how Māori view him. His ascension to become the rangatira of te Rōpū Nāhinara (the National Party) is only the beginning.

Luckily, there are a number of things Bridges could do in order to get Māori to "give [National] a second look". He could call for an end to the racist legislation around Māori representation that allows for a small minority of the population to override the decisions of democratically elected councils by demanding a referendum be held that could lead to the abolishment of Māori wards, while the same legislation makes no such allowance for the abolishment of other wards. A discriminative loophole that is ironically being utilised by former National Party leader Don Brash.

Bridges could advocate for Māori water rights, recognising that Māori have a special relationship with the water and the waterways of Aotearoa. He could push for Māori to have our role as kaitiaki (guardians) of the environment respected, working to undo some of the damage National inflicted upon its relationship with Māori through a lack of consultation over the Kermadec Sanctuary.

He could make a commitment to actually contesting Māori seats, giving Māori the option of selecting a National Party candidate at the polls. In the lead up to the last election I watched numerous Māori electorate debates and couldn't locate a single National Party hopeful anywhere. What message did that send to Māori? That one of the major parties of Aotearoa wouldn't bother to stand a candidate in their electorates?

He could craft policy focusing on lifting Māori out of poverty. His acknowledgment this week of the housing crisis that his party continually denied for nearly a decade is a heartening first step, but there is much more work to be done. As Bill English said on Waitangi Day in 2017, "what is good for Māori is good for New Zealand". Bridges has yet to embody that kaupapa.

Time will tell whether Bridges will make Māori proud. As a Māori wahine, I congratulate him on his appointment and am proud that we've reached a point where a Māori tāne can lead the National Party.

I will be watching his mahi with interest.