Who gets the leftovers?

Mana (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 6, 15 September 1977, Page 8

Who gets the leftovers?

by

Rebecca Evans

In a country where one is bred to believe in, “New Zealand, the Welfare State,” it seems outrageous to ask who gets the leftovers, especially when it is presumed that everyone gets a fair deal. The Report of the Royal Commission on Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion, leaves the Maori Woman at the bottom of the heap once again, scrambling for the leftovers of ill-fitting legislation. The Report begins by giving an historical background of the Maori, gathered only from White sources . . . “Most writers are in agreement that sexual freedom was allowed to both men and women until marriage when strict fidelity was demanded.” This statement is of course based on the opinion of White Men, who, as the only recognised recorders of Maori History, may as such sit in judgement tell us what our sexual habits were and are. Overall, the Report echoes inferences of sexual freedom, promiscuity and the like, and serves to reinforce the racist stereotype of these savages being more prone to indulgences of the flesh and as such have little control over their emotions or

their bodies. It is mentioned that a majority of writers agree that Abortion and Infanticidewere practised traditionally and it is mentioned even more loudly that a minority of writers thought sucfi practise a sin. Ready acceptance of minority and Church views coupled with no recognisable analysis of the figures supplied from the Auckland Medical Aid Trust, is clear indication of the Commissions’ view in this respect. Traditional practises and Christianity are thus improperly invoked as reasons for not supporting a right to abortion. There is blatant disregard for the figures supplied which clearly exhibit a need for safe, legal abortion which is in direct proportion to our population percentage and is on the increase. is viewed by the Commission as a solution to an initially unwanted pregnancy, the fact that the pregnancy was either unwanted or unplanned, or both, to begin with is completely ignored. The Report seeks to deny any element of choice to a pregnant woman, black or white, by finding loopholes or safeguards in society in which to slip un-

wanted children. While no specific mention is made of Pacific Islanders’ sexual habits they too are grouped with Maoris, and in the Commissions’own words. .. “may follow the same trends in the passage of time Maoris”.. . such attitudes are per se self explanatory. The percentage decrease in ths Maori population between 1961 and 1971, is viewed amiably by the Commission and is seen as the result of urbanisation with consequent exposure to non-Maori influences, which resulted in a change in traditional attitudes and values. Debatable perhaps, but to attribute such to urbanisation is to ignore the reality — consequential hardship and inability to cope with a large family on a low income — that is the reality. More and more economics, with prior permission of the State, are dictating the number of children a woman may, or may not, have. Contraceptive advice, which is becoming more readily available through Family Planning Clinics, etc. is an area in which the Commission recommends as requiring more attention. One cannot dispute such a recommenda-

tion for if one looks at the past and present sexist structure of Maori society in which it is the Maori woman who bears the major responsibility for child rearing, as well as all major domestic activities. Bearing this in mind one cannot deny knowledge in this area must become more readily available.

If such a recommendation is to be implemented we must look at the administration of such activity. It is fine to recommend that Maori and Pacific Island community workers be encouraged to participate in family planning courses but what would render such activity useless would be for them to still have to seek the overseeing advice of a white male superior. The present decision making structure within the Maori Affairs Department in particular is white male-dominated. Furthermore, it is still highly debatable that even given an influx of specially trained people, whether there will be any effective change — it is policy plus people which need to be changed, radically. The section discussing Contraception typifies an antiMaori woman stance, in that it ignores the fact that a Maori woman should be the only controller of her body. The needs of the Maori male are seen as a priority, (that is, of course, assuming that most Maori males are married to Maori women).. . “the Maori male believing that he is threatened by social and economic change feels a need to prove his dominance by having a large family which he regards as wealth and a symbol of his authority in the home” ... an attempt to sweep the need for contraceptive care under the carpet of society under the guise of catering for the needs of the Maori male.

Upon reflection, the experience of Maori and Pacific Island women in regard to sterilisation is comparable to practices, overtly racist, of the United States Peace Corps in Puerto Rico and India, where sterilisation operations illexplained arid and ill-advised, come a dime a dozen and are encouraged as a means of population control. We must remember also that when the birth control pill was first being perfected it was tested on poor black Puerto Rican women and now the sterilisation operations are the commonest operations in Puerto Rico and are becoming so in predominantly black towns and areas in the United States.

The Report has succeeded in confusing the issue and has searched for areas in Maori society in which to deposit unwanted children and thus support an anti-Abortion, and anti-Maori woman stance. Furthermore, it has failed to cater for the most severely affected women in New Zealand by inserting one ineffectual recommendation hopes to assuage itself of apy allegations of racial bias.