LETTERS

Kaea, Issue 3, 1 June 1980, Page 2

LETTERS

The response to Te Kaea's first issue has been most encouraging. We even had a few copies stolen, which suggests that somebody thinks the magazine is worth something, if not money. But the most heartening response came from the letters we received from readers: thoughtful ones, argumentative ones, admiring ones and a couple of cheeky ones. Here’s a selection.

WELSH AND MAORI

As a recent immigrant from Wales to New Zealand, I found Paul Bensemann’s article comparing the status of Welsh and Maori very interesting. Unfortunately Mr Bensemann’s sources seem to have misled him on factual matters, resulting in an overestimation of the strength of the

Welsh position, although not of the relative strengths of Welsh and Maori. Cymdeithas yr laith Cymraeg (the Welsh Language Society), the activist group to which-he seems to refer, is not a splinter group or faction of anything, having an independent origin, although it could be seen as an activist wing of Plaid Cymru, the Welsh Nationalist Party. But the Plaid disowns the tactics of the Cymdeithas. By no means could the Cymdeithas be called a faction of Urdd Gobaith Cymru. Direct action (against property, but never violence against people) by the Cymdeithas has continued without break since 1968, and extends well beyond TV and radio transmitter disabling. For example, the bilingual road sign illustrated in the article (incidentally, only one mile from my home), was erected under new provisions

for local-option road signs, the direct result of the Cymdeithas’s campaign of painting out English words and place names on road signs, unless accompanied by the Welsh.

Welsh children were also beaten for speaking their native language at school, and made to wear humiliating wooden signs around their necks to that effect. The practice has now died out. While Welsh has official status in Wales, obstacles are regularly erected against its use. These include lack of interpreters in courts and council chambers and at public meetings, lack of Welsh-speaking officials behind the counters at post offices, social welfare offices, etc. (my own area of Ceredigion has only one Welsh-speaking socialworker and no Welsh-speaking speech therapist, although a significant number of children needing therapy are near-monoglot Welsh), lack of

information leaflets and official forms in Welsh, lack of Welsh school books for nominally bilingual or Welsh schools, etc. In addition, activist organisations such as Cymdeithas yr laith Cymraeg, Adfer (which seeks the establishment of a monoglot Welsh-speaking homeland), and the Welsh-speaking student unions, are regularly infiltrated by the police and security forces.

Welsh is alive, but closer examination of the census returns for 1971 shows a very unhealthy age structure, probably similar to that of Maori speakers, with the younger age groups being progressively anglicised. That the language continues at all is due to 1. the non-conformist denominations, who encourage Welsh as the only way to reach the great mass of Welshmen, 2. the remote hill farmers, who refused to ape their lowland cousins and take on foreign ways, and 3. the Urdd and the Cymdeithas, composed of the Wesh-speaking religious, political and educational elite, willing to sacrifice their time and often their freedom, that the Welsh language and culture might live. In no case can the government, even when controlled by Welshmen, be credited with any more than reluctantly giving in to considerable pressure, whether passive

resistance or active measures. We have won the right to use our language in principle; it remains for us to win that right in fact. For the Maori people to accept less would be to betray their ancestors, themselves, and their

descendants, Maori and Pakeha. Yours etc.,

Roger Ridley Fenton

Wellington

THOSE MAORI SEATS

I dispute Mr Garnier’s claim {Te Kaea, Dec. 1979) that “most” Maoris want the four Maori seats abolished. His

“evidence” is unsupported by a proper survey or Maori referendum.

The 1976 census was the most thorough enrolment of Maoris ever done. Those census officials who enrolled

“full-blooded” Maoris on the Maori roll were complying with the Electroal Act which states that they must enrol on it. Half-castes have a choice and the rest must go on the general roll. In practice of course degrees of “blood” as well as choice of roll are decided by the individual. I made my own decisions on the matter in 1976, not the census official.

The thoroughness of the census system of enrolling Maoris accounted for the sudden 40,000 increase in Maori rolls. Having enrolled however, many for the first time, they continued with their normal pre-1976 practice of not bothering to vote, which accounts for the all-time low of 42.65 per cent valid vote from the Maori roll in 1978. However, the total numbers of Maori who voted was an all-time high. Some 75.63 per cent of Maori eligible for the Maori roll enrolled on it. To suggest that most were enrolled on it against their wishes (i.e., the census officials did it for them) is pure speculation. Those who wanted to make a point of not enrolling on the Maori roll had ample oppportunity to do so between 1976 and 1978. This leaves 24.37 per cent of Maoris eligible who either didn’t enrol anywhere or else went on the general roll. Even if they all enrolled on the general roll as a protest against the four Maori seats, which is extremely doubtful, they certainly do not amount to “most” Maori.

Separate Maori representation, like all separate government Maori institutions (e.g. Maori Affairs) was a Pakeha idea initiated in 1867 for their own purposes and never intended as equal

representation for Maori, who were then one third of the population. If the aim was, as Mr Gamier states, “to enhance political voice and protection to the Maori people over their serious land question”, then they can only be regarded as a dismal failure. Huge areas of Maori land were lost immediately after 1867 and since. The choice of Maori candidates was manipulated by various Pakeha Native Affairs ministers for most of the century.

What has happened since is that the Maori seats have become an established

institution within the overall fabric of Maoritanga. To abolish them especially without Maori consent would be asking for trouble. It would be viewed as something else on a long list that has been taken from us. Their abolition could have the advantages in political power as described by Mr Gamier. We could have more than the four Maoris in Parliament as we have now, although frankly I am completely unimpressed by Messrs Rex Austin, Ben Couch, and Winston Peters in their ability to represent Maori

interests. Their degree of “Maoriness” is clearly illustrated by one of them who admits to being Maori only second. That is insufficient for me.

I will agree to the abolition of Maori seats when the following conditions are met:

1. No more alienation of Maori land 2. A much greater sharing of power in government and quasi-government bodies that are appointed and not elected, e.g., selection panels, boards of governors, tribunals, selections of JPs, ambassadors, the judiciary, etc. 3. A clear, unequivocal definition of New Zealand as a multi-cultural society and the translation of this into real and not just tokenist terms. 4. The election of more real Maoris into safe general seats (about ten) and at least four Maoris in cabinet where the real power is.

In general I want some clear indication that the Pakeha is willing to share his political and economic power with me and allow me some share in defining and determining social and economic goals before I give up four Maori certainties. Yours faithfully,

A.M. Johns Hamilton

I am not at all convinced by Tony Garnier’s arguments for the dissolution of the Maori seats in Parliament. In

particular, I think his claim that “most Maoris want the four Maori seats abolished immediately” is highly questionable and seems to rest on some very dubious assumptions about political behaviour. It is also incorrect to argue that the Maori MPs do not have the capacity to “make or break” a

government; they have, on occasions, been the deciding factor. He compares the New Zealand situation with that of the Black voters in the USA. While it is true that block voting by the Blacks has been an important factor in the election of various presidents, the political gain to the Blacks once these presidents have entered office is marginal to say the least. The Blacks have still lacked access to key political decision making. In the end, the decision to abandon separate representation in New Zealand must be made by those who have the most to lose (or to gain): the Maori electorate.

Paul Spoonley

Palmerston North

1*

CONGRATULATIONS

Congratulations on the first issue of Te Kaea I have just spent the morning reading EVERY word! There was the odd “dyslexic” word and mis-print, inevitable I suppose. However, I wonder if you should give a thought to distinguishing in some way the odd Maori words that occur in the English text? For example, in Eva Rickard’s article: “but the Raglan take...” I did a “double-take” here, wondering why the verb “to take” was tucked in there !! Printing the Maori word in italic is probably as good as any other way.

Arohanui

Miria Simpson

University of Waikato

(Point taken. But italicising words is a ploy used by printers and editors to denote foreign languages. Maori is not, obviously, a foreign language and should not be treated as such. If the occasional word of Maori causes readers to pause and think, good job! ed.)

Congratulations for your determination and drive to ensure that Maori publications once more reach New Zealanders in widening our perception and understanding of ourselves, as people of the land.

Kia ora, kia kaha, Naku noa, na,

Haare Williams

Te Reo O Aotearoa Manager

Congratulations on a fine start to Te Kaea. We have waited too long for the successor to Te Ao Hou. Not only am I happy to subscribe but I shall also encourage others to do likewise.

Naaku ano,

J. Te Rina Wellington

May I first congratulate you all on a fine magazine, and please find enclosed a money order for the next ten issues of Te Kaea. Your magazine is a long-awaited publication which I find most informative. However (there always must be a however) I would like to see more in the way of a basic Maori language write-up say a regular lesson for beginners or some such thing. But I have no other complaints regarding the publication and I wish you a continued success.

Yours faithfully

K Mair

H.M.N.Z.S. Tamaki, Auckland

(We certainly hope to increa'se the Maori language content of Te Kaea, and I think you will agree that it already looks healthier in this issue. As for language lessons, see our special Maori Language Week issue coming up at the end of July.

- ed.)

Your magazine makes fascinating, compelling reading. Its simple, direct and balanced presentation reflects a wide range and depth of thought and activity. It is the work of a caring editorial and design team dedicated to detail. The result is quality and I like it. Arohanui,

Gillian E.M. Shadbolt Journalism tutor,

Wellington Polytechnic

(Thanks ed.)

HISTORY AND HISTRIONICS

I was interested to read the first issue of Te Kaea, and was impressed enough to send you the enclosed subscription. But if I may I would like to make one or two criticisms.

The first concerns Te Kaea’s “maoriness”. 0.K., it’s about and for Maoris, and seems mainly to be by Maoris, but when I’d finished reading it I was left with very little feeling of any wairua Maori

permeating the magazine. The most obvious example would be the low proportion of stories in the Maori language. Please print more. But there are other things too. Don’t concentrate so much on news and topical matters that you ignore our history. Where are the legends, stories and traditions that enrich our culture and so distinguished Te A o Houl Even in the few years since Te A o Hou stopped, so many of our old people have passed on, taking their knowledge and wisdom with them, that I would suggest you have a positive responsibility to collect and publish such items before they are lost to us for ever.

The second criticism concerns your claims not to be a “propaganda tool”. So 1 should hope, but I also hope this means you won’t be ignoring Maori Affairs Department activities altogether since: 1. we are entitled to know how you are spending our money and 2. let’s face it, the Department does seem to be in the news a lot these days and in many (but not all!) areas seems to be trying to do a good job. On the other hand, I hope you won’t be giving all your articles on the Department the same treatment you have the Howard Morrison concert. There are two whakatauki Pakeha worth remembering here: “that’s show business”; and “moderation in all things”! Heoi ano, Na,

R. K. Wilson Papakura

(We do indeed intend to publish more Maori language and more traditional stories. But such material should not and cannot originate from behind an editor’s desk at the head office of Maori Affairs. We rely on the contributions of you, our

readers ed.)