95 Much of the newly developed land passed to nonMāori Pākehā lessees on long term tenure where it came under the control of the Office of the Māori Trustee (Māori Trustee). The Māori Trustee, established under the Māori Trustee Act 1953, continues to be appointed by the Māori Land Court to administer Māori freehold land and other assets on behalf of the beneficial owners. The shift away from the Department of Māori Affairs did not improve the situation. For instance, officials within the Māori Trustee openly stated that they did not ‘trust’ Māori owners to farm their lands. Institutional racism had become entrenched, and owners had no means to exercise rangatiratanga over their lives and land. (Hill, R, 2009, p. 30). The Māori Trustee continues to operate in a way that disempowers the ability of Māori owners to exercise rangatiratanga. The Māori Trustee can approve lessees without consulting the owners. Owners do not have an automatic right to receive copies of lease agreements or know how much their land is leased for, and the length of the lease (correspondence from the Māori Trustee, 10 May 2021). While authoring this report, Maranga Mai! received submissions that the Māori Trustee Office is difficult to engage with, emails and phone calls go unanswered, and the Office does not make proactive attempts to contact owners or to provide full information when requested. Race relations The Race Relations Act (1971) and Race Relations Conciliator By the 1970s, racism and discrimination against Māori had become obvious, but the denial of racism’s impact continued. However, there was a growing recognition in the government of the need to formally incorporate international human rights treaties into domestic law (McGregor, Bell and Wilson, 2015, p. 12). The Race Relations Bill was introduced in 1971 to implement the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). New Zealand signed the CERD on 25 October 1966 and ratified it on 22 November 1972. In its preamble, CERD proclaims the rights of all people to freedom, equality and dignity without distinction of any kind Human Rights Commission and notes the United Nations’ condemnation of “colonialism and all practices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith, in whatever form and wherever they exist”. It requires States “to adopt all necessary measures for speedily eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms, and to prevent and combat racist doctrines and practices in order to promote understanding between races”. Racial discrimination is defined in CERD as: any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. (Article 1 (1)) The Race Relations Act (1971) prohibited discrimination on the grounds of colour, race, or ethnic or national origin (sections 3 to 6). The Act engendered much debate amongst Māori. Many were concerned that it might become an attempt to disestablish the Department of Māori Affairs, and other Māori agencies, to further the goal of assimilation (O’Malley, 2012). The concerns of Māori were exacerbated by comments from the first Race Relations Conciliator appointed under the Act denying what Māori thought were key aspects of the racism that existed: The expression ‘white racism’ and ‘white institutional racism’ have also been used with reference to the New Zealand scene. I think this is a mistake. I think there is no or little racist intent in New Zealand, either among the citizens or in the way of life (Salient, 1974, p. 13). In this climate, Māori continued to advocate for the Treaty of Waitangi to be officially recognised. The Māori Council’s 1971 manifesto, argued: The Race Relations Act could be a charter of human relations at least as inspiring as the first Race Relations Bill, the Treaty of Waitangi. The Māori people still seek legal recognition of that treaty, and a comparison of its intentions with those of the Bill under review would show that the parallels are in fact close (Pei Te Hurunui Jones in O’Malley, 2012).