Waitangi Tribunal judgement on maori language

Tu Tangata, Issue 30, 1 July 1986, Page 10

Waitangi Tribunal judgement on maori language

Introduction “The Maori people of New Zealand take pride in their race, in their history, in their culture and in their status as the tangata whenua of our country. For the last 150 years they have had to come to terms with the influence of the European culture that new settlers brought with them, and in some respects that adjustment is far from complete. Pakeha New Zealanders have outnumbered Maori New Zealanders since the middle of the last century and this predominance has had effect in many ways. As we show in our Finding this proportion has changed during the 20th century, and it may be that in the next 100 years the number of people of Maori descent living in New Zealand may grow to equal or even be greater than those of pakeha ancestry.

Because there have been so many english speaking people and so comparatively few maori speaking people the use of english has predominated to the detriment of the maori language.

The claimants have said to us that the Crown has failed to protect the maori language (te reo maori) and that this is a breach of the promise made in the Treaty of Waitangi.

Some New Zealanders may say that the loss of maori language is unimportant. The claimants in reply have reminded us that the Maori culture is a part of the heritage of New Zealand and that the maori language is at the heart of that culture. If the language dies the culture will die, and something quite unique will have been lost to the world.

Our task has been to decide whether the Treaty has been broken in this respect, and if it has, what should be done about it.

The evidence and argument has made it clear to us that by the Treaty the Crown did promise to recognise and protect the language and that that promise has not been kept. The ‘guarantee’ in the Treaty requires affirmative action to protect and sustain the language, not a passive obligation to tolerate its existence and certainly not a right to deny its use in any place. It is, after all, the first language of the country, the language of the original inhabitants and the language in which the first signed copy of the Treaty was written. But educational policy over many years and the effect of the media in using almost nothing but English has swamped the maori language and done it great harm.

We have recorded much of what we were told of the effect upon Maori children of our educational policy and it makes dismal reading. It seems that

many Maori children leave school uneducated by normal standards, and that disability bedevils their progress for the rest of their lives. We have recommended that te reo maori should be restored to its proper place by making it an official language of New Zealand with the right to use it on

any public occasion, in the Courts, in dealmgs with Government Departments with local authorities and with all public bodies. We say that it should be widely taught from an early stage m the educational process We think instruction in maori should be available as ot right to the children of parents who seek it. We do not recommend that it should be a compulsory subject in the schools, nor do we support the publication of all

official documents in both english and maori, at least at this stage in our development for we think it more profitable to promote the language than to impose it. For that reason we favour instead the appointment of a Maori Language Commission to foster it, watch over its progress and set standards for its use. This Finding is the result of our consideration of the matter. We commend the thoughts we express in these pages to all New Zealanders who have the welfare of their country at heart.” Background: the nature of the claim The Tribunal found the claim for official recognition of te reo maori the least complicated of their claims so far but the ramifications most difficult. “The Motunui case was largely a matter of importance for the people of Taranaki and although it has had its impact on fisheries, much of the New Zealand population was unaffected by it. (see TU TANGATA issue 13 Jun/July 1983)

“The Kaituna River case had its importance in a legal sense for in that case we pointed out why the Treaty of Waitangi can no longer be regarded as a ‘simple nullity’. Yet its consequences as a decision were still mainly local in character, (see TU TANGATA issue 24 June/July 1985)

„ The Manukau Harbour case was imrtant because it showed how the course of hist sha current atti . tudes> bu a ain it did not affect the again it did not affect the , 0 of New Zealand as a whole, (see TU TANGATA issue 26 Oct/Nov 1985) “This claim will affect everybody in the country and not only those now living, but future generations as well,

Te reo maori in the present , , , , , . . , , The Tribunal took in evidence ot the .. . T , -x kt r, i . -i Maori Unit ot the New Zealand Council r .. , „ , .... tor Educational Research which has ~.. ~ A x been studying the state ot the maori .T° , , . language tor the past twelve years, ~ ° r.. .. f. x t-, n- i. J through its acting director, Dr Richard ox ° ji xu -j to Benton; and also the evidence ot Prot D r,. c . . lessor Bruce Biggs, a former lecturer m A . . . . . xxuttMaori and Anthropology at the Umver.x r . ,1 , OJ Slty of Auckland '

It heard that the effect of the suppression of te reo maori in the public life of the country from the time of the Treaty had been the decline in native speakers, “Parental attitudes were reinforced by radio, television and the newspapers, All the media transmitted english in a kind of incessant barrage that blasted the Maori tongue almost into oblivion. As we shall point out ... the combined effects of the monolingual educational system, the radio, television, newspapers and the cinema on the use of Maori have been far-reaching.”

So much so that the Tribunal says: “It seems very clear to us that the survival of the language can no longer depend upon an edict that Maori fathers and Maori mothers should speak the language to their children. Other policies are now necessary if it is to survive and if it is to be more than like Church Latin, to be used on some ceremonial occasions and nothing more.” It then goes on to note the remarkable rise of Te Kohanga Reo, which it notes as being a Maori initiative that is succeeding in bringing back te reo to the young.

Te reo maori in the future The Tribunal heard the evidence of a Maori demographer, Mr Edward Douglas and studied figures supplied by the Government Statistician regarding projections of the Maori birthrate. Because of the rising Maori rate and declining pakeha rate and other migration factors the Tribunal notes:

“The typical New Zealander of the 21st century may prove to be of Maori descent, brown-eyed, dark haired and well aware of his whakapapa (genealogy) and cultural history in which some European forebear will be a more or less distant relative.” The Tribunal notes that from the time of the Land Wars an attitude of superiority on the part of the pakeha towards the Maori existed but that the exploits of the Maori Battalion in the Second World War had a profound effect on Maori and pakeha, which resulted in the Maori carrying themselves proudly, no longer a conquered people. It says many pakeha New Zealanders have never regarded their Maori compa-

triot as inferior, that’s been the domain of recent arrivals or those who because of geographical location, have never had anything to do with Maori. It then points out that the feeling of maori-ness, regardless of degree of Maori blood, will be likely to increase as time goes on, and perhaps as Mr Douglas projected, the Maori population may well exceed that of the pakeha section of the community. The end result of these population projections is that the demand for fluency in the maori language will increase rather than diminish. It points out that if difficulties are put in the way of those that want to attain that fluency, serious social tensions and a feeling of injustice is likely to arise. It notes that already in the adult generations denied this fluency, there is this sense of injustice which could be explosive if allowed to continue. The place of Maori culture in the heritage of New Zealand “As a nation we have always acknowledged Maori culture as part of our heritage. New Zealand’s coat of arms features a Maori warrior prominently as one of the two supporters. Our national airline sports a Maori symbol - the koru on the tail of every one of its aircraft as they fly across the world. Prominent guests of State are accorded a Maori welcome. Even our national rugby team does a haka before it begins to play a test match. There has always been recognition that Maoritanga is part of New Zealand.

“And so it should be. The Maori culture of New Zealand is unique in the world. Its carvings are rich in symbolism. Its music is harmonious and appealing. Its dancing has captivated many hearts and its oral tradition is abundant in song and story. There is a great body of ‘oral literature’ that has survived for many generations full of wisdom in its narrative and beauty in its poetry and at the heart of it all is the maori language.

“The retention of the language for the maintenance of an oral history is but one reason why the claimants seek to promote the language. It is also the means by which they explain themselves and their ways to the rest of New Zealand. The language is the embodiment of the particular spiritual and mental concepts of the Maori, more closely related to oriental tradition than to our western ways. It offers a particular world view which, while not challenging our social structure, highlights alternatives for development. Its emphasis on holistic thinking, group development, family relationships and the spiritual dimension of life is not inappropriate in a nuclear age. Without the language this new dimension of life from which New Zealand as a whole may profit would be lost to us. That is the burden of the claim made in this case.

“But the claimants and their supporters go further. They say that it is intolerable that a Maori should be treated like a mascot. They say that the dignity of the Maori race is in issue and the preservation of the maori tongue is at the heart of the matter. They say that the unique quality of Maori culture is a special reason for its preservation and that to preserve the body one must nourish the soul. They adopted what Dr Benton had to say when telling us of the right to speak maori (now denied in many public places such as the Courts) and of the right to hear maori spoken (now an all too rare experience because of the overwhelming predominance of English in the media). He said:

‘. Rights which cannot be enforced are illusory, and protection which cannot sustain life is no protection. We would not think that the Wildlife Service is fulfilling its responsibilities if it announced that it was protecting the kakapo by supplying a few live speciments to selected zoos, a few stuffed ones to selected museums, and then declaring an open season on the grounds that ‘nature’ must be left to take its course. The maori language is just as much a part of our national heritage as the kakapo, and far more important in human terms than any of the birds or trees whose names it has given us, yet it is in no less danger from man-made environmental hazards than the endangered species in our flora and fauna.’ “The claimants say that they are not just part of an ethnic minority. They say

that they are not to be treated like migrant groups who have recently come to this country from other lands. They say that they belong here, that they and their culture have no other home, that they are the tangata whenua of New Zealand and that by the Treaty they made with the colonising English they and their culture were given promises in writing that they expect and demand to be kept.

“It is against all this background that we have to consider this claim.”

The Waitangi Tribunal takes its jurisdiction from the maori and english versions of the Treaty of Waitangi and issues raised by the differences between the two texts. At heart in this language claim was whether or not it was included in the guarantee given by the Crown to the Maori people regarding the use of ‘o ratou taonga katoa’, all their valued customs and possessions.

In the Tribunal’s Kaituna River finding, the accepted phrase was seen to mean ‘all things highly prized’ and the Motunui finding to the same effect. In the Manukau case taonga was seen as meaning more than objects of tangible value.

The Tribunal therefore found that it was “plain” that the language is an essential part of the culture and must be regarded as “valued possession” - and the word ‘guarantee’ was seen by the New Zealand section of the International Commission of Jurists as imposing “an obligation to take active steps within the power of the guarantor if it appears that the Maori people do not have or are losing the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of the Taonga.”

The claim that the Maori people have been prejudiced by non-compliance with the Treaty was highlighted by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Mihaka v Police (1980) where it said that the Treaty did not cover the right to use maori in the Courts.

The Tribunal disagrees with this and says that the law is in conflict with the Treaty, and inconsistent with the guarantee of recognition given by the Crown under the Treaty. Objections to the recognition of te reo maori as an official language of New Zealand The Tribunal summed up objections commonly expressed against official recognition. Under the objection that there’s no need because Maori people speak english it says: “the maori language is worth protecting and deserves protection quite apart from the Crown’s duty under the Treaty to provide such protection.”

Under the objection that maori language cannot meet the needs of modern society it says that just as english has taken on words from other languages, maori is just as capable.

Under the objection that english is international and more useful than maori: “usefulness depends on circumstances, the monolingual New Zealander learns that on a marae his limited education puts him at a disadvantage”.

The Tribunal sees official recognition as increasing the opportunity of using the skill of speaking maori. Calls of too much expense with official recognition have been seen as minor compared with ensuring the langauge doesn’t die out.

It says official recognition doesn’t force Maori standards or values onto anyone, as english speaking New Zealanders can continue their lives as before.

It sees recognition as going a long way to restoring the mana of the language.

On the objection that the Maori people are only an ethnic minority, the Tribunal says that’s not true as “the Maori alone is party to a solemn treaty made with the Crown”.

Divisiveness would not result from official recognition says the Tribunal, because it says divisiveness is not caused by differences but by lack of respect for other different groups or lack of understanding. Education The education system came in for a severe battering from the Tribunal as it heard speaker after speaker outline how their maori language had been suppressed at school. It also heard how the schools didn't take Maori needs seriously and what the cost had been to te reo maori. It noted that where Maori is taught “serious classes do not begin until the secondary level of education is reached” ... “the Department did not explain the matter in the course of its evidence”.

Also where children have gone to kohanga reo and have a good working knowledge of maori, “they find themselves in a mono-lingual primary school atmosphere where, we were told, many lose their fluency within a few months because they are swamped by english and hear no maori spoken at all.”

It found that the insistence by educationalists that teachers of maori language at primary school be fully trained in all aspects of teaching was unnecessary.

It found the kohanga reo model of kaiako as being perfectly suitable to build on. It noted the Department of Education’s response.

The Education Department’s Response “Our first three hearings took place in the weeks beginning June 24, October 8 and November 19, 1985. (The last week began on November 26). During the third week Mr James Alexander Ross, Deputy Director-General of Education produced evidence for the Department. He was accompanied by two other senior officers, Mr Cyril Peter Bryce, Assistant Secretary for Schools and Development and Mr Wiremu Kaa, Director of Maori and Pacific Islands Education. The evidence for the claimants had been completed by October 12. “Mr Ross presented to us a carefully prepared document running into almost twenty pages of typescript which set out the Department’s policies and philosophy on maori language, taha Maori (culture), bilingual education, syllabus development, advisory services, Teachers’ College maori language lecture courses and related matters. The impression we gathered from all this was that at the topmost levels in the Education Department there is an acute awareness of the complaints that we had heard, and administratively at the least, a genuine desire to remedy them. We rather gathered that since an important education hui in 1984 there have been a number of significant changes in the Education Department’s attitudes.

“For example we were told that at Teachers’ Colleges there is a compulsory course for all primary teachers in maori . n „ .» . „ ■ u language and Maori culture occupying 100 hours oer annum and for sernndarv 100 hours P . CT annum, and tor secondary teachers a similar course of 50 hours per annum . (other tiona , courses available in addition t 0 these) . The lack of written resources was acknowledged and we were told of four books in maori that are now available in the scbools , u-i u • -n . . , while more are being written, illustrated ... , . f. f . .. A , or edited in preparation for printing. Mr u u , , /C ... Ross gave us a schedule of the written . . ui-uj ju jjjiUx texts now published and he added that the Education Depart ment is the biggest publisher of mao F ri language boo g in the country, although the total produc,ion seems , Q be dislressingly P all „ He a)so told us that since 1955 the Department has been aware that •• • an understanding of maori language and culture was necessary n °t °uly f° develop the full personal development of Maori children but a j so to ass i s t th e pakeha to fully appreciate the history, achievements and character of Maori society. “This statement accords so closely with the position of the claimants on this topic that it might almost have come out of the mouths of the claimants’ own witnesses. We revert to this curious feature later. “After summarising very briefly the history of Maori education for the first

half of this century (in which no mention was made of any departmental practice or policy prohibiting the use of maori in the school or its playground) Mr Ross went on to record: “ ... The change to english as the vernacular for the younger Maori generation has been accompanied by a strong and growing demand for maori to be taught more extensively in the schools. One of the resolutions of the 1955 committee read: ‘The Committee supports the teaching of the maori language and it recommends that everything possible be done to implement it.’

“He then went on to recount that in 1955 maori was taught as a subject to about 1000 pupils through the Correspondence School, Maori district high schools and denominational Maori colleges. In 1974 Advisers in Maori Education were appointed together with itinerant teachers of maori. By the same year 94 secondary schools were offering maori to 9,111 pupils of Maori descent and 3,535 pupils of non-Maori descent. By 1984 the number of schools offering a course in maori had increased to 179 with 14,950 maori pupils taking the subject and 5,399 non-Maori pupils studying it. (By comparison from 1982 to 1985 the number of Te Kohanga Reo centres expanded from 1 to 416, and the number of children from about 10 to start with to a latest total of over 6000).

“Mr Ross also explained that the Department encourages programmes in Maori culture (referred to as taha Maori) because respect for the Maori dimension has been officially acknowledged. He went on to add: “... It is recognised by the Department however that a key element in all taha Maori programmes is the maori language ” “Again, we observed, the Department’s view of the importance of the language coincided with that of the claimants, of the State Services Commission, of the Maori Affairs Department and other parties represented at the hearing.

“A number of other departmental policies were detailed designed to demonstrate that the Education Department was sensitive to Maori needs and actively responded to them to the best of its ability. Then Mr Ross produced an extract from the Department’s Annual Report to Parliament for the year ending March 31, 1984 in which we read and considered the following passage in the Maori Education section: “ ... Educational Attainment. The main policies for raising educational attainments were put in place during the 1960’s and early 1970’5. They sought to increase the participation of Maori students at all levels of the system, from pre-school to university; to improve the quality of the teaching of English to Maori children; and to provide additional staffing and other

resources in schools with large numbers of Maori students. They were, however, a first response to the educational inequalities which had been brought home to the New Zealand public by the Hunn Report (1960) and the Currie Report (1962). They tended to assume that the difficulties faced by Maori students were essentially the same as those faced by pakeha students and would be overcome in the same way. This, as later became apparent, was a mistaken view. Learning takes place in a cultural as well as a social setting, and, during the sixties it became clear that a greater prominence had to he given to maoritanga and maori language if their educational attainments were to improve. “The record to date is mixed. The statistics show that gains are being made, but differences between the achievements of Maori and non-Maori students are still considerable. On the positive side are the successes of a quarter of a century of effort, backed by assistance from the Maori Education Foundation and other sources of bursary and scholarship support. Thousands of Maori boys and girls have been encouraged to stay at school longer to improve their educational qualifications and, in increasing numbers, to go on to further study at a technical institute, teachers college, or university. Many are now themselves parents and are better able to guide their own children in the ways of the education system than any previous generation of Maori parents. Many are also taking an active part in the various community organisations that are pressing for more to be done to meet the needs of Maori children for whom the education system is still not doing well enough ”

“To put the matter plainly, we think that passage does not fully or fairly face the problem uncovered at our hearing and is designed to put the best face on something that seems to have gone seriously wrong, namely the education of Maori children. When that passage is read against the fact that 76 out of every 100 Maori children left school in that year without passing even three subjects in School Certificate as compared with only 37 pakeha children out of every 100, it is a classic example of British understatement to say as the report does “The record to date is mixed.”

“We think the record to date is quite unmixed. It is a dismal failure and no amount of delicate phrasing can mask that fact.

“We asked ourselves the obvious question. How can it be that the Department’s philosophy and practice in educating children accords so closely with the aspirations and desires of the Maori people as described to us, and yet the results of its application be the object of such trenchant and bitter criticism?

Conclusions “We wish to make plain beyond any doubt that we have no criticism whatever to make of Mr Ross, Mr Bryce or Mr Kaa. All three gentlemen were open and candid in their evidence and we do not doubt their sincerity and their dedication to their task as educational administrators. Nor do we criticise in any way the dedication, even the devotion of many teachers at all levels of the education system. There was not the slightest evidence to justify attaching censure or blame to any one part of the educational system.

“Yet, something has gone wrong. Maori children are not being adequately educated. We think that the system is at fault and has been at fault for many years. We suspect that somewhere at some influential level in the Department, there remains an attitude - it may be in planning or in education boards, or at the level of principals or head teachers, we cannot say - a vestige of the attitude expressed by a former Director of Education who wrote in the middle of the first half of this century: “ ... The natural abandonment of the native tongue involves no loss on the Maori...” [See Maori and Education, ed, P M Jackson 1931 at p. 193] “We have no reason to think that such an opinion is held in the topmost levels of the administration in the Education Department today, but whether it does exist at other strategic points in the system is a matter of concern. We say that opinion is wrong and should be rejected.

“If the people of New Zealand want to avoid racial tension and racial violence in the future the place to begin is in the schools. The more pakeha New Zealanders grow up knowing Maori culture and history (for which they must be familiar with the language) the more will adult New Zealanders relate warmly to one another as pakeha and Maori come to show each other mutual respect. The days of looking down on Maori values as being inferior or even worthless must be put behind us if we want peace and harmony. It is possible. It is necessary. It is urgent. And with goodwill from the community and good leadership from the highest levels in the Government and its administration it can be done to the great benefit of us all now and in the years ahead.

“On the state of the evidence before us we do not feel able to make particular recommendations on many of the educational issues that were raised by the claimants. For example the claimants pressed for the rapid establishment of bilingual schools. The Department’s response was to endorse that idea and to explain its current procedures to allow such schools to be established. But “these procedures stress that the school staff, the parents and the community must support such a proposal before approaching the Education Board. In turn, the Board must be

satisfied about this support before recommending the proposal to the Department,” said Mr Ross.

“It seems to us that this is not leadership by the Department. Rather is the Department following along only where such support already exists. We urge that the Department take more positive steps and go beyond proposing policy to ensuring implementation. We have heard the criticism that Kohanga Reo were established not because of the Department, but in spite of it, and it did appear that that criticism had some foundation. We were referred as well to Maori endeavours to establish alternative (Maori) schools and consider that the Department needs to look at the funding of such schools or to establish special schools in particular areas that can cater more appropriately for Maori children.

“We are not able to recommend positively that bilingual schools should be established immediately up and down the country because important questions of finance, staffing and buildings arise at once, about which we are not informed.

“Similarly there seems force in the claimants’ argument that maori language teachers need not be fully qualified in the sense that they are trained to a standard where they can teach a variety of other subjects as well. The success of kaiako in kohanga reo centres could be expanded upwards into the early years of education in the school system. It seems almost self-evident that the system should build on the movement and exploit the new opportunities it presents. One thing that could be done quickly is to ease the financial burden on parents.

“Mrs Mead also complained at the lack of status of Maori language teachers in the Correspondence School and elsewhere in the system, but we do not have a clear picture of whether this is so and if it is, what should be done about it.

“Our primary task is to interpret the Treaty of Waitangi and identify circumstances where the law or government policy is in conflict with it. We are not sufficiently well informed or experienced in the intricacies of the education system to make specific recommendations on many of the important matters that were raised before us. The extent of importance attached to these issues by the claimants was apparent from the fact that more witnesses gave evidence on this subject of education than in all the other matters health, broadcasting, justice etc. - put together.

“We have therefore decided to recommend to the Minister of Education that there should be an urgent inquiry conducted almost at once into the way Maori language and culture is taught in the schools, (and all matters related to them) so that detailed advice can be offered to him by persons best qualified to give it, and so that the serious com-

plaints of practice, procedure and attitudes on which the claimants have produced such a body of evidence can be fully and thoroughly investigated. But we add such a report should be in the hands of the Minister well before this year is out. There is no time for further procrastination or delay.

“The education system in New Zealand is operating unsuccessfully because too many Maori children are not reaching an acceptable standard of education. For some reason they do not or cannot take full advantage of it. Their language is not adquately protected and their scholastic achievements fall far short of what they should be. The promises in the Treaty of Waitangi of equality in education as in all other human rights are undeniable. Judged by the system’s own standards Maori children are not being successfully taught, and for this reason alone, quite apart from a duty to protect the Maori language, the education system is being operated in breach of the Treaty.

“When such a system produces children who are not adequately educated they are put at a disadvantage when they try to find work. If they cannot get work that satisfies them they become unemployed and live on the dole. When they live on the dole they become disillusioned, discontented and angry. We saw such angry people giving evidence before us. They are no more than representatives of many others in our community. When one significant section of the community burns with a sense of injustice, the rest of the community cannot safely pretend that there is no reason for their discontent. That is a recipe for social unrest and all that goes with it. Recent events in other places illustrate this fact with tragic vividness.” * * * * Broadcasting The claim relating to the Broadcasting Corporation was that it had not provided adequately for Maori radio listeners and television viewers. The Tribunal first had to decide if the Broadcasting Corporation was an arm of the Crown and legally obliged under the Treaty having to protect te reo maori. This it found as being true and that the Minister of Broadcasting had omitted to meet this provision.

“We are quite clear in our view that Article 2 of the Treaty guarantees protection to the maori language ... and that the predominance of english in the media has had an adverse effect upon it”.

However because the Royal Commission into Broadcasting and the Broadcasting Tribunal have yet to release their findings on related broadcasting matters, the Waitangi Tribunal has decided to “wait until after these bodies have made their decisions and if after giving those findings the careful consideration

that they deserve, our Tribunal decides to make additional recommendations we can convene again for the purpose and deliver a supplementary finding on the matter if that becomes necessary or desirable.” The Royal Commission is to deliver its report later this year.

Overall the Tribunal had this to say about past broadcasting policies.

“We are prepared to say that, on the face of it, like the education system, there may be some breakdown between the topmost levels of policy making and the ultimate administration at the middle and lower levels of the broadcasting system. This leads us to suggest by way of assistance to the Corporation that an enquiry into the complaints raised before us would not be out of place. We leave the Corporation to govern its own affairs.” The advantage of official recognition of maori language The Tribunal looked at the present Maori Affairs Act 1953 that recognises the maori language as the ancestral tongue of the Maori. It saw it as an empty provision. It pointed out the evidence of the Secretary of Maori Affairs, Dr Tamati Reedy, who spoke of past policies of suppressing the use of maori language in favour of emphasising the value of english not bringing unity, if anything divisiveness; maori language had become a rallying point for Maori New Zealanders and if the language was given proper status and recognition it would help to restore self-respect of maoridom, while pakeha people would see the unique nature of New Zealand.

“After all we have heard, Dr Reedy’s opinion is the very conclusion to which we have come. The act of official recognition need not be the empty thing now found in s 77A of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. It should be an act that publicly demonstrates that preservation of the maori language is important to all of us, Maori and pakeha alike. It should be an act that restores proper status to the maori language as something valuable that we acknowledge to be valuable. It should be an act that puts the language, and therefore the culture, on to a pedestal so that our children will see ‘being Maori’ as something to be proud of, not something to be treated as worthless. And it should be an act that will enable us to adapt ourselves so that we become truly unique in the world - a people whose history combines the centuries of Polynesian culture with all its admirable qualities in literature, sculpture, navigation and heroism that are also to be found in our European traditions. At that time we will be quite distinct from our Canadian, Australian and English cousins - a unique people in the world New Zealanders in whose veins run all that is good in our Maori and pakeha heritage. The ideal towards which we can properly strive is not to have the pakeha assimilate the Maori, nor to have

the Maori assimilate the pakeha, but a rich blending of the two races to produce the unique result to which we have referred. To begin with we must give the maori language its rightful place in our community.” The extent of recognition On the cost of official recognition as regards use in all public documents, the Tribunal noted that it would be high (the figure of sl9 million dollars annually was mentioned for the translation and printing of all public documents). It disagreed for the need at this stage to go this far and said the money would be better spent financing a maori language board to foster the use of the language. But it did say that in the Courts, legislation should be introduced to enable any person to write or speak in maori. Following on from this it says: “there must also be the right to use it with any department or any local body if official recognition is to be real recognition and not mere tokenism.” It is here that the Tribunal draws the threads together. “Official recognition is one thing but popular recognition will depend upon successful establishment of a body to promote the language for both Maori people and New Zealanders as a whole, to watch over progress and suggest strategies that overcome the difficulties that are bound to arise.” The Tribunal suggests a statutory body being formed to declare the standards of language usage, properly funded by the Government and with adequate staff and resources to discharge its function on behalf of the whole community. “The maori language should be officially recognised so that it can be used on any public occasion and in dealing with any public body, and that there should be a supervisory body to set proper standards for its use and to take appropriate action to foster its proper development.” Bi-lingualism One of the claims before the Tribunal was to do with bi-lingualism in the public service and the overall responsibility the State Services Commission has for conditions of appointment. The Tribunal said it had been asked to ensure that permanent heads of departments promote te reo maori, but it had resisted specific recommendations. Instead it felt that the Minister in charge of State Services should take steps to “re-assess all conditions for appointment to the public service, and that fluency in maori should be a requirement in some positions and a qualification to be encouraged in others.”

It did not see that these linguistic skills would be acquired overnight but that “it may not be impractical to require that level of education over a period of five or ten years from now.”

The Tribunal says that when maori has been made an official language, it will be appropriate to require bi-lingual qualifications in many positions in the public service. Conclusions “The recommendations we make are based on our statutory authority because the Crown has failed to protect the maori language as required by Article II of the Treaty. And yet there are practical reasons that lead us to recommend as we do, quite apart from the provisions of the Treaty. We have explained how the face of New Zealand society is changing and how in the next few decades it will change even more. If those changes proceed at the pace that is now predicted there will be a much bigger percentage of New Zealanders who are of Maori descent than there is today. Whether Maori New Zealanders will one day exceed their pakeha fellow countrymen in absolute numbers remains to be seen. That may yet prove to be the case but as matters stand we cannot say for certain. But we think it is safe to say that Maori New Zealanders will soon become such a significant proportion of our community that their aspirations and their desires, quite apart from their rights under the Treaty of Waitangi, must be recognised and fulfilled by all New Zealanders who have at heart the welfare and the best interests of our country. “We are indebted to Mr Downey, Counsel for the Broadcasting Corporation, for drawing to our attention an article written by the late Professor R.Q. Quentin-Baxter in which he said: “ ... If New Zealand has a destiny as a separate nation, rather than as a detached part of Australia, it will be principally because these islands were a meeting-place of two great races, and

because even in the worst times their dealings with each other never lacked a certain grandeur. It is of course a flawed record; but the world has no better record and can ill afford to lose this one. In return, the theory and practice of the modern international law of human rights can reinforce our resolution to do whatever may be needed to reduce, and finally to eliminate margins of disadvantage suffered by the Maori ... people in health, in education and in professional and other attainments. In richness of culture they will have the advantage; but it will be a shared advantage for Maori cultural tradition has never been exclusive ... When the first European settlers came to New Zealand, they brought with them everything except the stratified class society of England and Europe. The characteristic New Zealand demand, now taken up by the Maori was always for fairness and equality of opportunity - an affirmation of the intrinsic worth of every human being, found also in the universal Declaration of Human Rights.” [1984] NZLJ 207 “The Professor’s observations are worthy of reflection. What the claimants seek in this case is fairness and equality of opportunity. We think that no fairminded New Zealand would deny them what they ask for.” Recommendations We recommend to THE MINISTER OF MAORI AFFAIRS in each case and: 1. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE PRIME MINISTER that legislation be introduced enabling any person who wishes to do so to use the maori language in all Courts of law and in any dealings with Government Departments, local authorities and other public bodies.

2. TO THE HONOURABLE THE MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS that a supervising body be established by statute to supervise and foster the use of the maori language. 3. TO THE HONOURABLE THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION that an enquiry be instituted forthwith into the way Maori children are educated including particular reference to the changes in current departmental policies which may be necessary to ensure that all children who wish to learn maori should be able to do so from an early stage in the educational process in circumstances most beneficial to them and with financial support from the State. 4. TO THE HONOURABLE THE MINISTER OF BROADCASTING that in the formulation of broadcasting policy regard be had to this Finding that the Treaty of Waitangi obliges the Crown to recognise and protect the maori language, and that the Broadcasting Act 1976 (s 20) enables this to be done so far as broadcasting is concerned. 5. TO THE HONOURABLE THE MINISTER IN CHARGE OF STATE SERVICES that amendments be made to the State Services Act 1962 and the State Services Conditions of Employment Act 1977 to make provision for bi-lingualism in maori and in english to be a prerequisite for appointment to such positions as the State Services Commission deems necessary or desirable. DATED at WELLINGTON this 29th day of April 1986. E.T. Durie Chief Judge Chairman Sir Graham Latimer Member P.B. Temm QC Member

THE Waitangi Tribunal has told the Crown of New Zealand that it has not kept to the letter or spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi. In a finding released this year in May, the Waitangi Tribunal found that the Crown, and therefore successive NZ governments, have consistently failed to recognise and actively promote te reo rangatira, the maori language. The Tribunal says this has been to the detriment not only of the Maori people but also all New Zealanders “who have at heart the welfare and the best interests of our country.” The finding followed a claim brought by Nga Kaiwhakapumau I Te Reo, and its chairman, Huirangi Waikerepuru that under the Treaty of Waitangi, te reo maori should be recognised as an official language throughout New Zealand and for all purposes. (see full coverage of hearings in TU TANGATA issues 25 Aug/Sep 1985, issue 27 Dec/

Jan 86, issue 28 Feb/Mar 861 In agreeing with the claim, the Tribunal has said, “we question whether the principles and broad objectives of the Treaty can ever be achieved if there is not a recognised place for the language of one of the partners to the Treaty.” In the Maori perspective, the place of the language in the life of the nation is indicative of the place of the people.” In the following feature pages, TU TANGATA sets out extracts from the finding for the benefit of readers who have followed this claim from the exclusive release in issue 23 Apr/May 1985 of TU TANGATA. [see Letters to Editor this issue, from BCNZ chairman, Hugh Rennie] We recommend that readers obtain the full finding report by enclosing $5 and writing to Waitangi Tribunal, Private Bag, Postal Centre, Wellington. -ft -ft -ft -if-

EDITORIAL

The recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal are a welcome breath of fresh air.

TU TANGATA wishes to acknowledge its debt to Nga Kaiwhakapumau I Te Reo, its chairman Huirangi Waikerepuru, Joe Williams, Piripi Walker, Sid Mead, Maaka Jones, Rawiri Rangitauira, Anaru Robb, and the many supporters both in Wellington and around the country who got behind this take at a time when it was not popular to do so. It needed someone to find out if the Treaty of Waitangi was still the agreement our tupuna made with the pakeha settlers.

Ki a tatou katoa te iwi Maori, tihei mauri ora.

TU TANGATA especially welcomes the establishment of a Maori Language body to supervise and foster the use of te reo maori.

As the means by which many Maori readers and pakeha readers have followed the laying of this maori language claim to the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal, TU TANGATA continues to offer its services in a ‘watchdog role’ for the supervision and fostering of te reo rangatira.

Toi te kupu, toi te mana, toi te whenua.

Cherish your language and uphold your dignity. Thus you will have a place to stand.