PO Box 6800, Wellington 6141Aotearoa New Zealand

nativehome.com04 802 4025

Waitangi TribunalWAI 262 Report: Conceptual Design

nativevisual communication design

Copyright © native 2010

Text page_02 Spine Text page_03

Te Reo Māori

T e R e o M āo R i

Embargoed till 12 noon Wednesday 20 October 2010

For media only

This embargoed pre-publication copy of the Te Reo Māori chapter of the Waitangi Tribunal’s Wai 262 report has been supplied to the media in order that they may

familiarise themselves with its findings prior to its public release. This document is not to be photocopied, scanned, or otherwise physically or electronically reproduced, nor is it to be publicly distributed or circulated outside the parties on whom it is served.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te R e o M ā o r i

W A I 2 6 2

W A I T A N G I    T R I B U N A L     R E P O R T     2 0 1 0

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Cover design by Turi Park

A Waitangi Tribunal reportISBN 978-0-908810-65-2 (electronic version only)www.waitangitribunal.govt.nzPublished 2010 by the Waitangi Tribunal, Wellington, New Zealand, in electronic format only14 13 12 11 10 1 2 3 4 5Typeset in Adobe Minion Pro and Cronos Pro Opticals by the Waitangi Tribunal, Wellington, New Zealand

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

v

Contents

Chapter 5 : Te Reo Māori . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

5.1.1 Theidentificationofissues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.1.2 Theargumentsoftheparties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

(1) Theclaimants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2(a) ngātiPorou. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2(b)ngātiKahungunu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4(c) tetaitokerau. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4(d)ngātiKoata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

(2) TheCrown’sresponse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45.1.3 ourextensionbeyondthestatementofissues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

5.2 Historicaldeclineandpost-1986revival. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65.2.1 towardsenglishmonolingualism,1900–75. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75.2.2 Thehealthoftereointhemid-1970s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75.2.3 Māoriinitiativestosavethelanguage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75.2.4 TheinquiryintothetereoMāoriclaim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95.2.5 TheMaoriLanguageAct1987. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105.2.6 Developmentsineducation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125.2.7 Developmentsinbroadcasting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135.2.8 Developmentsinpublicservicesanduse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165.2.9 Developmentsincommunitylanguagesupport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.2.10TheMLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

(1) Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17(2) WhattheMLSsays. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18(3) HowtheMLSisimplemented. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

(a) Māorilanguageeducation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19(b)Māorilanguagebroadcasting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19(c) Māorilanguagearts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19(d)Māorilanguageservices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19(e) Māorilanguagearchives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19(f) Māorilanguagecommunityplanning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19(g)Māorilanguagepolicy,coordination,andmonitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19(h)PublicservicesprovidedintheMāorilanguage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20(i) Māorilanguageinformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20(j) Whānaulanguagedevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

5.2.11 statefundingfortereoMāori. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205.2.12 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

5.3 thehealthoftereoin2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Contents

vi

5.3.1 earlychildhoodeducation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215.3.2 schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

(1) overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26(2) Kurakaupapa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28(3) Ashortfalloftereoteachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29(4)Accountingforthedeclineintereoeducationatschool. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5.3.3 tertiaryeducation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325.3.4 Censusesandsurveys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

(1) Pre-1996nationalspeakerestimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32(2) Māori-languageeducationdemandsurveys,1992,1995. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33(3) Censusresults,1996–2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36(4)Projectingthecensusresultsforward. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37(5) tePuniKōkiri’s2006survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39(6)Discrepanciesbetweenthe2006censusandsurvey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

5.3.5 Conclusions:howhealthyistereoin2010?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415.4 tribunalanalysisandconclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

5.4.1 Thetreatyinterest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48(1) tereoasataonga. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48(2) tribaldialectsastaonga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

5.4.2 othervalidinterests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .495.4.3 TheobligationoftheCrown. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

(1) Partnership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50(2) AMāori-speakinggovernment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51(3) Wisepolicy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51(4)Appropriateresources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

5.4.4 TheMāoriobligation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52(1) KōreroMāori . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53(2) Partnershipandcompromise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

5.4.5 Conclusion:thetreatyinterestintereoandtheobligationsoftheCrownandMāori. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

5.4.6 AssessingtheCrown’sMāorilanguageeffort. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54(1) Partnership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54(2) AMāori-speakinggovernment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

(a) tereointhecourts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56(b)tereoinGovernmentagencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56(c) tereoandstatebroadcasters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57(d)Movingawayfrommonolingualism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

(3) Wisepolicy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58(a) PastfailuresinGovernmentpolicy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58(b)TheMLSgoals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

(i) Goal1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Contents

vii

(ii) Goal2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60(iii) Goal3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61(iv) Goal4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61(v) Goal5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62(vi) TheMLSgoals:conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

(c) ImplementationoftheMLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63(d)Crownsupportfortribalreo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

(4)Appropriateresources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665.4.7 TheMāoriobligation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

(1) KōreroMāori . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67(2) Partnershipandcompromise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

5.4.8 Conclusion:theCrown’sperformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .685.5 Proposedremedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

5.5.1 sectoralleadershipbytetauraWhiri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715.5.2 tetauraWhiritofunctionasaCrown-Māoripartnership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725.5.3 tetauraWhiritohavegreaterpowers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

(1) Centralgovernment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74(2) Localgovernment,districthealthboards,andbranchesofcentral

governmentincertaindistricts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74(3) educationcurricula. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74(4)schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74(5) teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74(6)Broadcasting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

5.5.4 tetauraWhiritoofferdispute-resolutionservice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 745.5.5 Anenhancedroleforiwi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 755.5.6 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

5.6 thefuture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

viii

LIstofMAPs

numbersofspeakersoftereobylocalauthority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76Percentageofspeakersoftereobylocalauthority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

LIstoftABLes

5.1:tereo-orientedearlychildhoodeducation,1989–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .895.2:tereo-orientedearlychildhoodeducationbypercentage,1989–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . 905.3:studentsinMāori-mediumschooling,1992–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .925.4:studentpercentagesinMāori-mediumschooling,1992–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .975.5:Māorilanguageandenglishteachervacancies,1997–2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .985.6:surveyeddemandforMāorilanguageeducation,1992and1995. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1005.7:subjectstakenbysecondaryschoolstudents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015.8:Changeinpopulationsizeandtereospeakingincensus,1996–2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025.9:Māoriethnicgrouptereospeakernumbersbyagegroupincensus,1996–2006. . . . 1035.10:LikelihoodtobeatereospeakerbyagegroupintheMāoriethnicgroup,2006 . . . 104

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Waitangi TribunalTe Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o WaitangiKia puta ki te whai ao, ki te mārama

Level 2, 141 The Terrace, Wellington, New Zealand. Postal : DX Sx11237Caltex Tower, 141 The Terrace, Te Whanganui-ā-Tara, Aotearoa. Pouaka Poutāpeta : DX Sx11237Phone/Waea : 04 914 3000 Fax/Waea Whakaahua : 04 914 3001Email/E-mēra : information@waitangitribunal.govt.nz Web/Ipurangi : www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz

TheHonourableDrPitasharplesMinisterofMāoriAffairsParliamentBuildingsWellington

30september2010

eteMinitamongātakeMāori

e teMinita, ePita, enohomainā i teWhareParemata, ehāpaineihoki i tō iwiMāori,kanuiamātoumaiohakiakoe.ekorehokiemimitingā roimatamo tehungakuanunumikitua.nāreirarātoukiarātou,tātoungāurupākiatātou.

WearenowinthefinalstagesofconcludingourreportontheWai262claimcon-cerningindigenousfloraandfaunaandMāoriculturalintellectualproperty.on29July2010,youannouncedthattherewouldbeaministerialreviewoftheMāorilan-guagesectorandstrategy.Youappointedapanelofeminentexpertstoundertakethisimportanttask.tereoMāoriwasalsoanimportantissueinourowninquiryandishencealsoasubjectinourreport.Wehadnotintendedtoreleaseanypartofthereportinadvance,asitwillbebestreadasawhole.Uponreflection,however,itseemedlikelythatthepanelwouldwishtobeawareoftheresultsofourworkbeforetheyreachedtheirseparateconclusions.Weofcoursearenotexperts in thisfieldandhavenodesire topre-empt thepanel’sdeliberations.But it seemedunhelpfulfortwoinquiriesintothesamesubject-mattertoproceedinseparatesilos.Wearethereforereleasingnowthesectionsofourreportrelating to tereoMāoriso thattheycanbeconsideredbothbyyouandbythereviewpanel,ifitistheirwishtotakeourviewsintoaccountinthecourseoftheirowninquiry.

twodocumentsareenclosed.Thefirstisthefull-lengthchapterofthemainreportrelatingtotereoMāori.Thesecondisasummaryversionofthechapter.InthefinalWai262report,thissummarywillbepartofavolumewecallTe Taumata Tuatahi.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

x

BothwillformpartoftheentirereporttobereleasedinduecourseatwhichpointtheconnectionbetweentereoandthewiderWai262issueswillbemoreapparent. Crossreferencestootherpartsofthereportwillberesolvedinthatversion.

Beforewecommencedoursecondroundofhearingsin2006,thepartiesagreedtoconfine the te reoMāoriaspectofour inquiry toanarrowsetof issues.Theseessentiallyinvolvedthewell-beingoftribaldialectsandtheprotectionoftereogen-erallyfrominappropriateuse.Astheinquiryproceeded,itbecameincreasinglydif-ficult to separate tribaldialectpolicy inparticular from theoverallpictureof theGovernment’ssupportforandprotectionoftereoMāori.someclaimantsignoredthe narrow terms of the agreed issues and presented evidence and submissionscoveringthebroaderpicture.Crowncounseldulyandproperlyobjected,butthenCrownwitnessesalsoprovidedinformationonthefullgamutofCrownMāorilan-guagepolicy.Theysaidthatthiswasnecessarycontextforconsideringthenarrowissuesonthetable.

Bytheendofourinquiry,itbecamequiteclearthatthisnarrowambitwasbothartificialandunhelpful.Thatwhichwitnessesdescribedascontexthadbecomethecentralpointoftheinquiry.TheCrown,throughitsleadingwitness,cametoacceptthat any injury to te reo Māori was by definition also an injury to tribal dialectsbecausethetwoaresointimatelyconnected.

ourchapter thereforeaddresses theCrown’sentire tereoMāoriprogrammeofwork.Weunderstandthat,iftheinquiryhadbeenframedinthisway,moreandper-hapsdifferentevidencewouldhavebeenplacedinfrontofus.Weacceptthatfur-therresearchmayyieldbetter insights.ourfindingsandrecommendationsoughtproperly to be treated as provisional for that reason. But we are satisfied that wewouldberemiss,asacommissionofinquiry,nottocommentonmattersofconcernwherewefeelsufficientlyconversantwiththefactstodoso.

tereoMāoriisapproachingacrisispoint.Diminishingproportionsofyoungerspeakers mean that the older native speakers passing away are simply not beingreplaced. since 1993, the proportion of Māori children in early childhood educa-tion attending kōhanga reo has dropped from just under half to under a quarter.At school, theproportionofMāori childrenparticipating inMāori-mediumedu-cation has dropped from a high point of 18.6 per cent in 1999 to 15.2 per cent in2009.ThetotalnumberofschoolchildreninMāori-mediumlearninghasdroppedeachsuccessiveyearsince2004.Ifthepeakproportionsofthe1990shadbeenmain-tained,therewouldtodaybe9,600moreMāorichildrenattendingkōhangareoandanextra5,700Māorischoolchildrenlearningviathemediumoftereo.Atthe2006census,therewere8,000fewerMāoriconversationalspeakersoftereothantherewouldhavebeenhadthe2001proportionbeenmaintained.

Inconsideringthisworryingstateofaffairs,weidentifiedwhatwebelievetobethe fundamental components of a modern, treaty-compliant Crown Māori lan-guage regime. They are partnership with Māori; a Māori-speaking government;

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

xi

wise policy; and the provision of appropriate resources. In assessing the Crown’sperformanceoverthelast25years,wehavefoundanumberofshortcomingsinful-fillingtheserequirements:

Ȃ WehavenotseenevidenceoftruepartnershipbetweenMāoriandtheCrown.The2003Māorilanguagestrategy,webelieve,isawell-meaningbutessentiallystandardandpre-consultedCrownpolicythatdoesnothingtomotivateMāoriatthegrassroots.

Ȃ not enough has been done to implement the 1986 tribunal recommenda-tion that speakers be enabled to use te reo in any dealings with the courts,Governmentdepartments,andotherpublicbodies.eveninthecourts,theuseofthelanguageremainsheavilycircumscribed.

Ȃ Therehavebeenrepeatedfailuresofpolicy.Themostprofoundwasthefailureto trainenoughteachers tomeet thepredictabledemandforMāori-mediumeducationdemonstratedbythesurgeinkōhangareoenrolmentsinthe1980s.sostrongwasthisdemandthat,intheearly1990s,ithadnoapparentceiling.Butitsoonbecamechokedbythelackofteachersupply,andthelanguagesuf-ferstheconsequencestothisday.

Ȃ TheMāorilanguagestrategyisanotherfailureofpolicy.Itistooabstractandwasconstructedwithintheparametersofabureaucraticcomfortzone.Therehavealsobeengenuineproblemswithitsimplementationduetoalackoflead-ershipandcommitmentamongsttheresponsibleCrownagencies.

Ȃ Giventhefailuresofpolicy,somustitfollowthattheresourcesmadeavailableto te reo have been inadequate. The level of resources should follow directlyfromtheidentificationoftherightpolicies.

Māori, too, of course, have their own obligations to te reo. By and large, theyhave met them: indeed, the revitalisation of te reo since the 1970s has been pre-dominantlyduetoMāoricommunityeffort.WhileMāoritodaymustguardagainstcomplacency and whakamā, the reo ‘movement’ has been weakened more by thegovernmental failure to give it adequate oxygen and support than by any Māorirejectionoftheirlanguage.

Itiswiththissenseofurgencythatwemakeourrecommendationsforreforms.We make no apology for the fact that our proposals are far-reaching. simply, thegravityofthesituationcallsforproportionateaction.

ourviewsare,aswehavesaid,provisional,butinsumwebelievethatfourfunda-mentalchangesmustoccur:

Ȃ tetauraWhirishouldbecometheleadMāorilanguagesectoragency.Thiswilladdresstheproblemscausedbythelackofownershipandleadership.

Ȃ te taura Whiri should function as a Crown–Māori partnership through theequalappointmentofCrownandMāoriappointeestoitsboard.Thisreflectsour concern that te reo revival will not work if responsibility for setting thedirectionisnotsharedwithMāori.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

xii

Ȃ tetauraWhiriwill alsoneed increasedpowers.Thiswill ensure thatpublicbodiesarecompelledtocontributetotereo’srevivalandkeyagenciesareheldproperlyaccountableforthestrategiestheyadopt.forinstance,targetsforthetrainingof te reo teachersmustbemet, educationcurricula involving te reomustbeapproved,andpublicbodiesindistrictswithasufficientnumberand/orproportionoftereospeakersandschoolswithacertainproportionofMāoristudentsmustsubmitMāorilanguageplansforapproval.

Ȃ Theseregionalpublicbodiesandschoolsmustalsoconsultiwiintheprepara-tionoftheirplans.Inthisway,iwiwillcometohaveacentralroleintherevi-talisationoftereointheirownareas.Thisshouldencourageeffortstopromotethelanguageatthegrassroots.

Theseproposalsmaybe seenaschallenging.Theymayevenbe resisted incer-tain quarters. In reality, however, they would only bring new Zealand into linewithlanguagepoliciesappliedincomparablecountriesoverseas.Giventhesignifi-cantspendontereopoliciesnow,theywillnotnecessarilycomeatgreatextracost.Reprioritisationcouldwelladdressmostnewexpenditure.Thesemaybematterstobeaddressedbythereviewpanelinduecourse.Intheend,thequestioniswhetherweasanationwishtopreservetereoasalivinglanguageornot.Ifwedo,ourpro-posalsmerelyreflecttheurgencyofthesituationandthepressingneedforthoroughchange.

sinceourfindingsandrecommendationsareprovisional,thepartiesmaywishtofurtherventilatethesematterswiththereviewpanel,whichisduetoreportinearly2011.Ifanypartywishestoprovideanyresponsedirectlytous,theymaymakesub-missionsby25november2010,whichwewillconsiderbeforeissuingourfullandfinalWai262report.

Heoianō.

JusticeJVWilliams,Presidingofficer

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

xiii

ABBReVIAtIons

app appendixart articlec circaCA Court of Appealch chaptercomp compilerdoc documentECE early childhood educationed edition, editorERO Education Review Officefol folioFTTE full-time teaching equivalentltd limitedMLS Māori language strategyn noteNCEA National Certificate of Educa tional Achievementno numberNZLR New Zealand Law ReportsNZQA New Zealand Qualifications AuthorityOAG Office of the Auditor Generalp, pp page, pagespara paragraphPC Privy Councilpt partr, rr rule, rulesreg regulationROI record of inquirys, ss section, sections (of an Act of Parliament)sch schedulesec section (of this report, a book, land, etc)sess sessionSOC statement of claimSOI statement of issuesSOR statement of responsetbl tableTVNZ Television New Zealandv andvol volume

‘Wai’ is a prefix used with Waitangi Tribunal claim numbers.Unless otherwise stated, endnote references to claims, documents, papers, transcripts, and statements are to the Wai 262 record of inquiry, which is available on request from the Waitangi Tribunal.Incomplete cross-references to other chapters of the report (currently indicated by ‘[xx]’) will be resolved when the full report is published.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Ko te reo te mauri o te mana Māori

sirJamesHenare

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

1

5.1  IntroductionThisisnot thefirst timethetribunalhasconsideredclaimsabout theMāori languageandtheCrown’streatyobligations.In1986,thetribunal’slandmarkinquiryintothetereoMāoriclaim(Wai11)concludedthattereoMāoriwasataongaguaranteedunderthetreaty,andthattheCrownhadsignificantresponsibilitiesforitsprotection.1

5.1.1  The identification of issuesIntheWai262statementofclaimthesevenclaimantiwimadearangeofclaimsaboutCrownactionsandpolicyconcerningtereo.ThethreetetaitokerauiwifocusedontheCrown’sallegedfailuretoprotecttheirexistingsystemsofmātaurangaandthesystemsofknowledgeforthetransmissionofthatmātauranga,includingtereoMāori.2ngātiPoroufocusedontheCrown’sallegedfailuretoprotecttereoakeongātiPorou,atribaltaongaandtheessentialmeansoftransmissionofknowledgeofngātiPoroucultureandherit-age.3ngātiKahungunualleged that theCrownhad failed toprotectngātiKahungunuculturalknowledge,includingtereo.4AndngātiKoatastatedthattheCrownhadfailedtoprotectngātiKoataknowledgeanduseoftereo,andhadinfactfacilitatedthedeclineinitsusebyngātiKoata.5

TheCrown, in its statementof response,acknowledged itstreatyobligation topro-tecttereoMāori,asfoundbythetribunalinits1986reportonthetereoMāoriclaim.TheCrowncontendedthat,throughitscurrentlegislation,policies,andpractices,itwasmeetinganysuchobligation.Italsoargued,though,thatanyrecognitionorprotectionoftereooccursinacountrywherethemajorityofcitizensspeakenglishonly,freedomofexpressionisafundamentalhumanright,andwherealllanguageisthe‘commonherit-ageofmankind’.Inthosecircumstances,itsaid,theCrownhadnotreatyobligationtopreventthe‘misuse’oftereo.6

Inthelightoftheclaims,theCrown’sresponse,andthetribunal’spreviousconsidera-tionofthetereoMāoriclaimin1986,ourDecember2005draftstatementofissuespro-posedthefollowingissueswithrespecttotereoMāori:

Does the Crown owe any obligations in respect of te reo Māori other than those identified by this Tribunal in the Te Reo Māori (1986 WAI 11) report ?

Has the experience of Māori and the Crown in respect of language revival and maintenance since the Te Reo Māori report enabled the Crown’s obligations as found in that report to be defined with greater particularity today ? if so, how ?7

CHAPteR5

Te Reo MāoRiEmbargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.1.2

2

Thedraftstatementofissuesalsoproposedananalysisofwhatfindingsinthe1986reporthadbeenacceptedandacteduponbytheCrown,andwhethernewZealandleg-islativeandpolicyinstrumentsweresufficienttomeetanyfurther obligations identified. Accordingly, we proposedaskingwhatamendmentstonewZealandlawandpolicymightbeneededtobringthemintolinewiththeCrown’sabilitytomeetanyobligationssoidentified.8

Inrespondingtothedraftstatementofissues,inMarch2006,CrowncounselsubmittedthattheCrownopposedanyinquiryintothetereoissueswehadproposed.Wrotecounsel:

The claimants have not asserted a Crown failure to respond to the WAI 11 recommendations, yet the Tribunal proposes auditing Crown conduct since the 1986 report .

Further, the Tribunal asks whether there now exist obliga-tions other than those found by the Tribunal in Wai 11 . The Crown opposes inclusion of issues revisiting the Wai 11 claim so as to locate further Treaty obligations not previously iden-tified, particularly in the absence of claimant allegations that novel Treaty obligations have emerged .9

Discussionbetween theparties led toclaimantagree-mentwiththeCrownonthispoint.Thus,inajointmem-orandumof21June2006,Crowncounselconfirmedthatthepartieshadagreedthatthetereoissuesforinclusioninthestatementofissuesshouldbedividedintotwosec-tions,relatingtothedistinctivenessandtheuseoftereoMāori.10We thereforeadopted theparties’ agreedword-inginthestatementofissues.Withrespecttodistinctive-ness,thestatementofissuesthusasked:

Does the Crown have obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi to protect and promote Te Reo o Ngāti Porou, o Ngāti Kahungunu, o Ngāti Koata, o Ngāti Kuri, o Ngāti Wai, o Te Rarawa ?

Does the Crown have obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi to actively protect Te Reo o Ngāti Porou, o Ngāti Kahungunu, o Ngāti Koata, o Ngāti Kuri, o Ngāti Wai, o Te Rarawa as an essential means of cultural identity, cultural expression, and knowledge transmission to the particular iwi ?

The statement of issues went on to ask whether suchobligations had been met, and whether and how newZealand law and policy needed to be amended to bebroughtintolinewithanyCrownobligations.11

Withrespecttouse,thestatementofissuesasked:

Does the Crown have an obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi to protect Te Reo Māori from use in a manner inconsistent with tikanga Māori underpin-ning Te Reo ?

As with distinctiveness, the statement of issues askedwhetherthisobligationhadbeenmet,andwhethernewZealand law and policy needed to be brought into linewithanysuchobligation.12

Weaddresstheissueofprotectionoftereofrominap-propriateuseinchapter[xx].Asweexplainthere,whilethe issueofusecannotbeeasilyseveredfromanyothermatters pertaining to te reo, its discussion fits moreappropriately with our treatment of related issues con-cerningintellectualpropertyandregulatorysafeguardingfrommisuseandexploitation.Wethereforemakenofur-thercommentuponthisaspectofthereoissueshere.

5.1.2  The arguments of the parties(1) The claimants(a)ngātiPorouCounsel forngātiPorou focused inclosingsubmissionsonmattersrelatingtotribaldialect,ortereoakeongātiPorou,althoughsomewitnessesalsogaveevidenceaboutthehistoricalsuppressionoftereo.

The claimants argued that the Crown was singularlyfailingtomeetitsobligationstotribalreo.Counselsub-mitted that ‘Thesituationnowfacing te reoakeongatiPorouis,perhapsunsurprisingly,verysimilartothesitu-ationthatfacedtereoMaorigenerallywhenthereoclaimwas made in the early 1980s.’ Just as Māori generally intheearly1980swerestrugglingtokeeptheirreoalive,sotodaywerengātiPorou‘workingunderseveredisadvan-tages, financial and otherwise’.13 Counsel suggested thatthe horse had effectively bolted elsewhere and that theCrownshouldprioritiseareaswherenativespeakerswerestillleft.TheageingdemographicofthesespeakersmeantthatCrownactionwasmosturgent.14

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.1.2(1)(a)

3

WhilethereweresomengātiPorouinitiativesinplace,counselsaiditwasveryhardforthosewholiveoutsidetheroheto learntereoakeongātiPorou.furthermore,ontheeastCoastitself,thehealthoftereoakeongātiPorouhadregressed,despitethegainsmadebytherecentWhaia Te Iti Kahurangi initiative.Thiswasa jointprojectofteRūnanga o ngāti Porou and the Ministry of educationto address issues raised by the education Review office(ERO) in its highly critical 1997 report on the quality of

educationreceivedbyngātiPoroueastCoaststudents.In2004,thenewZealandCouncilforeducationalResearchnotedtheproject’ssuccess,butreferredtothe‘acute’needtodevelopmorengātiPorouteachersfluentinthetribalreo.15 Another ERO report in 2006 again referred to thepoorqualityoftereoteachinginsecondaryschoolsintetairāwhiti and thus represented ‘a significantbackwardsstep’.16

Counsel was also critical of te Puni Kōkiri’s regionalprofile on the health of te reo Māori in te tairāwhiti,which was based largely on 2001 census data and theresultsofthe2001surveyofthehealthoftheMāorilan-guage. This profile did not reach any conclusions abouttribal reo, and in fact concluded the health of te reo inthe region to be ‘in a relatively stable condition’.17 Theclaimantsobjectedtothis,giventheproblemstheprofileidentified with intergenerational transmission and likelydecliningproficiency.18The ‘relatively stable’ verdict alsocontrasted with the profile’s finding that ‘specific inter-ventions’wouldbeneededinordertomaintainthecur-rentqualityoftereointetairāwhitiincomingdecades.TheCrownhadbeenunabletopointtoany‘specificinter-ventions’beyondalanguagebanktopreservefeaturesoftribaldialects,saidcounsel(seebelow).19

overall,saidcounsel,theCrown’sapproachhadbeen,atbest,oneof‘benignneglect’:therewasnostrategyforprotecting tribal reo and no series of ‘specific interven-tions’. The Crown had spent only $253,000 on specificngātiPoroulanguageinitiatives,butnonesince2004,andmuch of what it did spend had come from the contest-able community-based language initiative funding pooladministeredbytheMinistryofeducation.eventhenewZealand Qualifications Authority’s efforts to develop itscapacitytoauditcoursesconductedintribaldialectwere‘notdeterminedbyanyoverallCrownstrategyinrelationtotereo,but. . .determinedbyNZQA’sownpriorities’.20

TheCrownhadappearedtosuggestthatitwasprima-rilyuptongātiPoroutopreserveitsownformoftereo.However, counsel argued, theCrownwasactively fund-ingandsupportinganewandstandardisedformthroughthe work of te taura Whiri i te Reo Māori (the MāoriLanguage Commission) and Māori television that wascausingthedestructionoftereoakeongātiPorou.TheCrownwasthusfailingtofulfilitsarticle2obligationsto

A Note on Definitions

DialectsThe terms ‘dialect’, ‘mita’, ‘tribal reo’, and ‘reo a iwi’ have many interpretations . Some commentators describe dozens of ‘dia-lects’ within the reo of one particular iwi, while others identify variations across distinct geographical divides . Ngāti Porou Rūnanga chair Dr Apirana Mahuika told us that he ‘bristled’ at the use of the phrase ‘tribal dialects’, and stated that ‘Te reo ake o Ngati Porou is not a tribal dialect . it is my language and there-fore all that i am .’

our own view is that dialectal differences are important, and at times pronounced in terms of idiom and accent . But the differences are not sufficient to impede verbal understand-ing between native speakers from different tribal areas . indeed, despite effectively describing te reo ake o Ngāti Porou as a sepa-rate language, Dr Mahuika also explained that ‘there are areas of commonality in all the different reo of the different iwi . So that if you sit down and listen to a native speaker speaking the reo irrespective of where that person may come from you under-stand it .’

Revival and revitalisationSome sociolinguists prefer to use the terms ‘revitalisation’ and ‘revival’ in different ways, with the former meaning languages that are still in common use but in a declining state of health and the latter meaning functionally dead or extinct . We use the two terms interchangeably, however, with a general prefer-ence for ‘revival’ . By this, we are certainly not implying that te reo Māori is dead . Rather, we use ‘revival’ in the general sense of ‘bringing back to strength’ .

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

4

5.1.2(1)(b)

iwi.Afterall,saidcounsel,‘althoughtherightsconferredbyArticle2areoftentalkedaboutintermsofMaorigen-erally,thetreatyisineffectacompactbetweentheCrownand. . .differenttribalgroupings’.21

Dr Mahuika portrayed himself as fighting a battleagainsttheworkoftetauraWhiri,metaphoricallysug-gesting he was constantly having to dig the te tauraWhiriweedsoutofhisgardeninordertoplanttheseedof te reo ake o ngāti Porou. He, like other claimants,described much of the ‘new language’ as ‘unintelligible’.AllhewantedwastohearalanguageontheMāorinewsthatanynativespeakerscouldunderstand,heexplained,ratherthanonefewcould.22

(b)ngātiKahungunuCounselforngātiKahungunudidnotfocusonthepres-ervationoftereospecificallyinclosingsubmissions.Butcounsel did submit that te reo was an essential compo-nentofmātaurangaMāori,whichhedidmakeextensivesubmissions about. The Crown needed to continue toimplementstrategiestostrengthentereoMāorisoastoensure ‘the overall protection of ngāti Kahungunu cul-tural knowledge’.23 several ngāti Kahungunu witnessesaddressedtheissueoftheprotectionoftereofromwhattheysawasinappropriateuse(suchascommercialexploi-tationofcertainplacenames).24

(c)tetaitokerauCounselforthetetaitokerauclaimantspredominantlyfocusedontheuseoftereoMāoriandreferredtosubmis-sionsontheprotectionofmātaurangaMāorigenerally.25However, counsel also called Wai 262 a valuable chancefora‘stocktake’oftheCrown’sresponsestothetribunal’s1986 te reo report.26 for their part, te tai tokerau wit-nesses – like those of ngāti Kahungunu – focused pre-dominantlyonissuesaroundinappropriateuseandplacenames.27

(d)ngātiKoatangāti Koata witnesses mainly gave evidence about thehistoricalsuppressionoftereo.28ngātiKoataalsocalledMāori language broadcaster Piripi Walker (of ngātiRaukawa ki te tonga) to discuss te reo issues on theirbehalf. Discussing the impact of te taura Whiri’s work

on tribal dialect, Mr Walker expressed sympathy for anagencyhedescribedasunder-fundedbutdoinganadmi-rablejobonmanyfronts(forexample,creating‘fivethou-sand new words’ for teaching physics and chemistry).However,heconsideredthattetauraWhirishouldcon-sultwithiwiaboutimportantdecisions–forexample,onwhethertransliterationswerepermissible.29

Mr Walker’s evidence also covered a wide range ofissues with respect to contemporary Crown support forandprotectionoftereo.Heconcludedthat:

The Crown has taken a number of steps to carry out the rec-ommendations made by the Waitangi Tribunal in the te reo Māori claim . However, these steps have not had the neces-sary amount of funding or support from the Government to truly make an impact . The Māori Language Act has provided token official recognition for Māori, lacking recognition in many areas such as the right to use spoken and written Māori in dealings with all central Departments and local authori-ties, signage and official publications . A further full commis-sion of inquiry into language rights has not been instituted . Funding for projects and organisations promoting Te Reo in comparison to other organisations both in New Zealand and overseas has been inadequate with a subsequent low impact . Te Reo Māori must be promoted not just to Māori, and not just in one week of the year . in order to truly protect and pro-mote Te Reo Māori in accordance with its Treaty obligations, the Government must promote the use of Te Reo Māori more widely than currently so that it can be used in every-day situations, as has been the case for the Welsh language in Wales .30

(2) The Crown’s responsete Puni Kōkiri policy director tipene Chrisp, the keyGovernment official with responsibility for Māori lan-guagepolicy,saidthatGovernmentlegislationandpolicynowincorporatedtheimportantprinciplesestablishedinprevious tribunal inquiries and in litigation concerningtereo.Theseincluded:

ȂȂ tereobeingataongaoftheMāoripeople;ȂȂ theGovernmenthavinganobligationtotake‘allrea-

sonablesteps’tosupporttherevitalisationoftereo;ȂȂ Māori and the Government having shared respon-

sibility,withseparatebutcomplementaryroles;and

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.1.3

5

ȂȂ the Government’s obligation to support the Māorilanguagenotbeingabsoluteorfiscallyunlimited.31

overall, said Mr Chrisp, the implementation of theGovernment’s 2003 Māori Language strategy was an‘ongoing process’ and the ‘Government is consistentlyseekingtoimproveourperformanceacrossthewholeofgovernment. In summary, we believe that we are doingtherightthings,andwearesteadilyimprovinghowwedothesethings.’32HisstancewasendorsedbyCrowncoun-sel,whoaddedthat‘theCrown. . .looksforwardtocon-tinuingtoworkwithiwitostrengthenthatperformance’.33

Crowncounselalsoexplainedthat theprior litigationand the Crown’s subsequent incorporation of the afore-mentioned principles into its legislation and policy wasthereasonithadsoughttolimitthefocusoftheinquiry.Inotherwords,therewasnoneedtorevisitsuchmatters.Crown counsel noted that claimant counsel had agreedtoanarrowsetofissues,andsubmittedthatthetribunalshouldlimititselfinitsfindingstothematterssetoutinthestatementofissues.34

Withrespecttodialect,theCrownemphasiseditsobli-gationistotereo:theextenttowhichithasanyobliga-tion to tribal reo depends upon whether those dialects‘havearelationshiptoteReo’.CounselalsodistinguishedbetweentheCrown’sobligationstosupporttereoanditsuseasavehicletotransmitmātaurangaMāori:‘theextentof the Crown’s obligation is to protect and revitalise teReo; it is for iwi to transmit the associated knowledgeaccordingtotheirlocalpreferences’.35

Despite emphasising iwi responsibility for dialects,the Crown certainly did not deny its own responsibil-ity. It described how it supports tribal reo by fundingiwi radio stations, assisting iwi to implement languageplans, and entering into iwi education partnerships.36for example, Mr Chrisp referred to funding that hadbeenmadeavailabletodevelopuniquengātiPoroucur-riculum guidelines37 and the Māori language archivingworkof thenationalLibrary thatcan ‘createa languagebankofvariousfeaturesoftereoakeongātiPorouandother reo a iwi’.38 secretary for education Karen sewellnotedherMinistry’siwieducationpartnershipwithngātiPorou that had yielded a variety of education resourcesbasedontemātaurangaongātiPorou,andthe$239,000of community-based language initiative funding made

availabletongātiPoroufortheplanningandprotectionoftereoakeongātiPorou.39ArawhetuPeretini,theact-ingchiefadviserMāoriatthenewZealandQualificationsAuthority,explained thatunit standards in te reoMāoriqualificationshadbeendevelopedthatrecognisedialectaldifferences.40

In questioning witnesses, however, Crown counselseemedconcernedtosuggesttherewerereallimitstohowfartheCrowncouldgo.forexample,incross-examininglegalhistorianDrDavidWilliamsin2002,counselnotedthatthereliefsoughtbyngātiPoroutomaketereoakeongātiPorouthe languageofdaily life for itsmembersincludedtheuseoftelevisionprogramming.HisquestiontoDrWilliams,abouttheneedtotreatall iwiequitably,impliedthatthiswasunworkablebecause itwouldneedtobeprovidedequallytoanyiwiwith‘similarviewsabouttheir particular reo’.41 similarly, he asked Mr Walker in2006whetherlocalsignstotheairportwouldneedtobeinenglish,Māori,andtribaldialect,orwhethertetauraWhiriwouldneedtoproduceversionsofMicrosoftofficein every tribal reo. It seemed that the purpose of suchquestioning was to make the whole notion of a Crownobligationtodialectappearcompletelyimpractical.42

With respect to the work of te taura Whiri, MrChrisp said that ‘socio-linguistic theory’ confirmed thata national body charged with defining new words andterms and administering the official lexicon was theappropriate governmental action. He said that the newtermsprovidedbytetauraWhiri–suchasthoseforthedaysoftheweek–wereputupasoptionsratherthanformandatoryuse.43HeaddedthattetauraWhiri’spolicytopreventanyfurthertransliterationsenteringtereoMāoriwasinfactderivedfromMāoripreferences.44

5.1.3  Our extension beyond the statement of issuesAs can be seen, the issues to be covered in the inquirywerekepttoanarrowfocus.However,astheinquirypro-ceeded,itbecameincreasinglyapparentthatitwouldbeboth impossibleandartificial todealwith these specificmatters (support for dialects and protection from inap-propriate use) without examining the Crown’s wider tereopolicy.Whilecounselhadagreedtoring-fencetheseissues,Māoriwitnessesclearlyrecognisedthatseparationwasnotviable.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.2

6

CrowncounseldescribedMrWalker’sevidence(whichranged much more broadly than the matters containedinthestatementof issues)as ‘somethingofanaudit .  .  .of how the Government has addressed te reo since thereportinWai11’.MrWalkerreadilyagreedthatthatwaswhat he had done. This approach was justified, he said,because the Crown’s obligations to protect and promotetribalreo‘allliefirmlyontheleveloftheCrown’sprotec-tion generally through its instruments that are availabletoit’.45Inotherwords,hefeltthatexaminingtheCrown’sprotection and promotion of te reo in general was fullyrelevanttoassessingitssupportforiwidialects(and,pre-sumably,protectionfrominappropriateuse).

The Crown itself took a similar approach when pre-senting evidence. for example, both tipene Chrisp andKarensewellwentwellbeyondthemattersdefinedinthestatementofissues,althoughtheydescribedthesepartsoftheirevidenceas‘background’or‘context’.forMssewell,thisincludedgeneral‘informationregardingtheMinistryof education and its role in providing Māori languageeducation’, while Mr Chrisp set out ‘the purpose, struc-tureandfocusoftheMāoriLanguagestrategy’.46

for us, any doubts about the proper boundaries ofourinquirywereresolvedinapivotalmomentofcross-examination. Counsel for ngāti Koata asked Mr Chrispwhether protecting or promoting te reo o ngāti Koatawould necessarily also include protecting or promotingte reo Māori generally within the ngāti Koata rohe. MrChrispreplied‘Ithinkthere’saclearrelationshipbetweenthetwo,yes.’Counselthenasked‘AndthereforeifteReoMāorisuffersalossthenteReoongātiKoatamustsufferalosstoo?’tothis,MrChrispreplied‘Giventheconnec-tion,yes.’47ThewitnesseffectivelyendorsedtheviewthatassessingtheCrown’sgeneralperformancewasaprereq-uisiteforconsideringtheissueoftribalreo(although,inourview,hecouldnotreasonablyhavedisagreedwiththeproposition).

WehavethereforedecidedtoexaminetheCrown’sgen-eraltereopoliciesandpracticesalongsideourconsidera-tionofthematteroftribaldialect.Wemakenoapologyfor going against the agreement of Crown and claimantcounsel. There is simply no logical basis for separatingthestateoftereoandthestateofparticulardialects.Thehealth of te reo as a whole and the health of individual

tribal dialects are mutually dependent: any threat toone isa threat totheother,andanyCrownactivity thatimpactsononenecessarilyimpactsontheother.

Werethisnotthecase,whywouldtheCrownhavecho-sen to submit so much evidence on the general revivaleffort?Asbecameincreasinglycleartousastheinquiryprogressed,theanswerwasthatsuchevidencewasnotsomuch‘context’forthestoryasthestoryitself.

Intakingthisapproach,weacknowledgethatmoreevi-dence,ordifferent evidence,mighthavebeenpresentedto us had the inquiry’s focus been broader. We acceptthatfurtherresearchmayyieldbetterinsights.ourfind-ingsandrecommendationsoughtproperly tobe treatedas provisional for that reason. But, as a commission ofinquiry, we would be remiss not to comment where wefeelsufficientlyconversantwiththefactstodoso–suchisthenatureofourinquisitorialfunction.Wetrustwedosoinaconstructivelycriticalmannerandwithoutcontra-veningtheprinciplesofnaturaljustice.

Thus,thischaptercomprises:ȂȂ abriefaccountofthehistoricaldeclineoftereoand

thepost-1986revival;ȂȂ asummaryofthehealthoftereoin2010;ȂȂ our analysis of the treaty interest in te reo, and

the obligations this imposes on the Crown and onMāori;

ȂȂ ourassessmentoftheCrown’scurrenttereopolicy.We base this on four principles deriving from theCrown’s treaty obligation: partnership, a Māori-speaking government, wise policy, and appropriateresources;and

ȂȂ our recommendations for reform and structuralchange.

5.2  Historical Decline and Post-1986 Revivalour assessment of the Crown’s current te reo policiesandpracticesnecessarilybeginswithabriefoverviewofthe state of the Māori language throughout the twenti-ethcentury.We traverse thehistoricalperiod (pre-1975)only briefly, in accordance with the presiding officer’s2006rulingthattheremaininghearingswouldfocusonpost-1975eventsand thatno substantivefindingswouldbe made on historical claims.48 We draw heavily on the

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.2.3

7

accountprovidedbythetribunalinits1986reportonthetereoMāoriclaim,whichsharedourfocusonthepost-1975period.49

Inshort,manydevelopmentsovermorethantwodec-adeshavetodaycontributedtoafullarrayofcontempo-raryCrownmeasuresandpoliciesaimedatrevivingandpromotingtereoMāori.Thetwobiggestareasofinvest-menthavebeenMāorilanguageeducationandbroadcast-ing. Many of these initiatives were first undertaken anddrivenbyMāorithemselves.

5.2.1  Towards English monolingualism, 1900–75WhilemanyMāoriwerebilingualattheendofthenine-teenthcentury,mostspoketereoastheir‘ordinarymeansof communication’. Then came what the te reo Māoritribunalidentifiedasthefirstofthree25-yearperiodsinthe history of the Māori language in the twentieth cen-tury.Duringthefirst,from1900to1925,Māorichildrenwent to school as monolingual Māori speakers and alleffortwasfocusedonthemlearningenglish.Thechildrenhadtoleavetereoattheschoolgateandwerepunishediftheydidnot.50

Between1925and1950,thechildrenofthefirstperiodgrew toadulthoodand,while they spoke te reo to theirparentsandolderrelatives, theywouldnotspeakMāoritotheirchildren.Parentssimplydidnotwanttheirownchildrentobepunishedinthewaythattheyhadbeen.ofcoursesomechildrenweretaughttereo,oratleastcouldunderstanditwell,butbyandlargeenglishhadbecometheirfirstlanguage.51

The period from 1950 to 1975 was one of accelerat-ing monolingualism, as education policies were com-pounded by urbanisation and associated practices suchas ‘pepper-potting’.52 The new generation of parents wasconvincedthattheirchildrenhadtospeakenglishtogetahead,and thusawholegenerationgrewupwhoeitherknewnoMāoriorknewsolittlethattheywere‘unabletouse it effectivelyandwithdignity’.The totaldominationofenglish-languagemassmediaalsoactedasan ‘inces-sant barrage that blasted the Maori tongue almost intooblivion’.53

The main evidence provided to the Wai 262 inquiryabout the twentieth-century history of te reo Māoriwas Dr Williams’s report Crown Policy Affecting Maori

Knowledge Systems and Cultural Practices.LikethetereoMāoritribunal,WilliamsnotedtheresearchofProfessorBruceBiggs,whichshowedthattheabilitytospeaktereoamongstMāorichildrendeclinedfrom90percentin1913to80percentin1923to55percentin1950to26percentin1953–58andto5percentin1975.54

5.2.2  The health of te reo in the mid-1970sProfessor Biggs’s 1975 figure presumably derives fromtheresearchofDrRichardBentonfor thenewZealandCouncilforeducationalResearch.Between1973and1979,Benton surveyed 6,470 Māori families (comprising over33,000individuals)throughoutthenorthIsland.Hecon-cluded that, in the mid 1970s, there were 64,000 fluentspeakersofMāoriwithintheMāoricommunity(approxi-mately 18 per cent of all Māori) and another 30,000who could understand conversational Māori quite well.However, he identified only two domains where fluentspeakersfeltsecure:onthemaraeandatcertainreligiousobservances. Moreover, in only 170 of the 4,090 house-holds surveyed with resident children was the youngestchildratedasfluent.Writingin1991,Bentoncommented:

it was clear that Maori was, by the 1970s, playing only a very marginal role in the upbringing of Maori children, and that, if nature were left to take its course, Maori would be a language without native speakers with the passing of the present generation of Maori-speaking parents .55

Later, in 2001, Benton and fellow researcher nenaBentonreflectedthatthenumberofpre-schoolchildrenwhocouldspeakMāorifluentlyin1979was ‘almostcer-tainlylessthanahundred’.56

5.2.3  Māori initiatives to save the languageInresponsetothedawningrealisationthatthelanguagewas in serious peril, a series of Māori initiatives beganthat effectively brought te reo back from the brink. Inseptember1972, thengātamatoaCouncil(ledbyHanaJackson) presented a peitition to Parliament signed by30,000people,callingforMāoricultureandlanguagetobe taught in all new Zealand schools. Jackson’s accom-panying submission referred to speaking Māori as ‘theonlyrealsymbolofMaoriidentity. . .forustobeableto

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.2.3

8

speakMaoriisthetruestexpressionofourMaoritanga.ItisthesubstanceofourMaoritanga.Itisourlinkwiththepastandallitsgloriesandtragedies.Itisourlinkwithour tipuna.’57Thepresentationof thispetition led to theannualcelebrationofMāoriLanguageDay,whichin1975becameMāoriLanguageWeek.

After 1975, Māori protests and petitions continuedunabated. It is little wonder given the prevailing moodof the Government (for example, the Minister of MāoriAffairs Ben Couch said in 1979 that he saw no need totake further legislative steps to protect the language).58Thus, in 1978, another 30,000-signature petition waspresented to Parliament, this time by the te Reo Māorisociety of Wellington. It sought the establishment of aMāoritelevisionproductionunitwithinthenewZealandBroadcasting Corporation. Another petition in 1981,signed by 2,500 people, called for Māori to be made anofficiallanguageofnewZealand.59

The te reo revival was gathering pace. In 1979, teĀtaarangi – a community-based Māori language learn-ingprogramme–wasinitiatedtoteachspeakingandlis-teningskillstoadultMāori.teWānangaoRaukawawasestablishedin1981toteachMāoricultureandknowledge

at tertiary level because of the lack of such provision inthemainstreamsystem.ThefirsturbanMāoriradiosta-tion,teUpokooteIkainWellington,broadcastforoneweekduringMāoriLanguageWeek1983.

Mostsignificantly,perhaps,1982sawtheadventofthekōhangareo(orlanguagenest)movementforMāoripre-schoolers. Its philosophy centred around kaupapa andtikangaMāori, aswell aswhānau involvement– inpar-ticular through the teachingof tamarikiby theirgrand-parents.ThefirstkōhangareoopenedinWainuiomatainApril1982.WithsomesupportfromtheMāorieducationfoundationandtheDepartmentofMāoriAffairs,num-bersroserapidly,andby1985therewereover6,000chil-drenattending416kōhangareo.60Thiswasclearlyagrass-rootsmovementofincredibleenergyandmomentum.

frustrationatthelackofopportunitiesforchildrentokeeplearningintereoatprimaryschool ledtoaMāoriimmersion primary school (or kura kaupapa Māori)being established, by Māori, at Hoani Waititi Marae inWest Auckland in 1985. This was perhaps the most sig-nificantdevelopment inMāori language schooling sincethe country’s first bilingual school was designated atRūātokiin1977.Thebirthofkurakaupapawasfollowed,

Te Reo Māori Society patron, Hemi Potatau, with a petition he was about to present to Parliament in June 1978 calling for the setting up of a Māori television production unit. Along with land loss, the status of te reo was a great galvanising issue in Māori protests over Treaty rights in the 1970s and 1980s.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.2.4

9

in January 1988,by the ‘MatawaiaDeclaration’ inwhichbilingual school communities called for the creation ofan independent, statutory Māori education authority toestablish Māori control and the autonomy of kaupapaMāoripracticesintheeducationsystem.

Thesedevelopmentsdemonstratethat,alongsideland,thehealthoftereohasbeenoneofthetwogreatgalvanis-ingissuesinMāoriprotestsovertreatyrightsduringthelastthreeormoredecades.Propelledbyaprofounddepthof feeling and sense of purpose, efforts to safeguard theMāori languagegavegreat impetustotheMāori ‘renais-sance’overall.

5.2.4  The inquiry into the te reo Māori claimIn the mid-1980s, Māori concerns over te reo that hadbeenbuildingovertheprevious15yearsbecamefocusedon the Waitangi tribunal. The te reo Māori (Wai 11)claim was brought by Huirangi Waikerepuru and ngāKaiwhakapūmau i te Reo Māori (the Wellington MāoriLanguage Board) and primarily sought to have MāorimadeanofficiallanguageofnewZealand.Theclaimantsalsolaidanumberofcomplaintsabouttheeducationsys-temandthelackofbroadcastingsupportfortereo.

Inits1986report,thetribunalstatedthatitwas‘clearthat the Maori language in new Zealand is not in a

Pita Sharples speaking at the opening of New Zealand’s first kura kaupapa Māori at Hoani Waititi Marae in 1985. Invited dignitaries included the Prime Minister, David Lange, and the Governor-General, Sir Paul Reeves.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.2.5

10

healthy state at the present time and that urgent actionmust be taken if it is to survive’. The tribunal felt therewasadangerofMāoribecominglike‘ChurchLatin’,onlyever being used on ceremonial occasions. It did note,however,theadventofa‘remarkablething’–thekōhangareo movement – which it felt demonstrated the ‘valiantefforts’Māoriparentswerepreparedtomaketorepairthedamagetotereo.61

The tribunal reflected that Māori would become anincreasingly large part of the new Zealand populationintothefuture,particularlyamongsttheschool-agepop-ulation. It also anticipated that more and more peoplewouldbe inclined to identifywith theirMāoriancestry.new Zealand’s population appeared to be undergoinga profound change, which meant that ‘the demand forfluency in the Maori language will increase rather thandiminish.If therearedifficultiesput inthewayofthosewho want to attain that fluency then serious social ten-sionscoulddevelop’.62

Thetribunalwarnedthat thesenseofsocial injusticeassociatedwithMāoriconcernsfortheir languagecouldbecome‘explosive’.ItalsosaidthattereoMāoriwas‘theembodiment of the particular spiritual and mental con-ceptsoftheMaori’,whichinturnprovidedusefulalterna-tivestoWesternwaysofthinking.Thetribunalcautionedthat, without te reo, ‘this new dimension of life fromwhichnewZealandasawholemayprofitwouldbelosttous’.63

Thetribunalrecommendedthat:ȂȂ legislationbeintroducedenablinganyonetousethe

Māori language if they wished in all courts of lawandinanydealingswithGovernmentdepartments,localauthoritiesandotherpublicbodies;

ȂȂ a supervising body be established by statute tosuperviseandfostertheuseoftheMāorilanguage;

ȂȂ an inquiry examine the way Māori children wereeducatedtoensurethatallthosewhowantedtolearnMāoricoulddosofromanearlyage,withfinancialsupportfromthestate;

ȂȂ broadcastingpolicybeformulatedthathadregardtotheCrown’sobligationtorecogniseandprotect theMāorilanguage;and

ȂȂ bilingualisminMāoriandinenglishbecomeapre-requisiteforanyjobsdeemednecessarybythestateservicesCommission.64

ThetribunaldidnotrecommendthattereoMāoribeacompulsorysubjectinschools,northatallofficialdocu-ments be published in both english and Māori. At thattime,itsaid, ‘wethinkitmoreprofitabletopromotethelanguagethantoimposeit’.65

5.2.5  The Maori Language Act 1987Itiscommonlybelievedthatthetribunal’sreportonthetereoMāoriclaimledtotheintroductionoflegislationbytheCrown.tetauraWhiri,forexample,statesonitsweb-sitethat ‘[a]lthoughcallshadbeenmadeoveranumberofyearsforlegislationtorecognisethestatusoftheMāorilanguageinnewZealand,itwasthetribunal’sfindingthatfinally prompted the drafting of the Māori [L]anguageBill’.66InfacttheMāoriLanguageBillwasintroducedintotheHousebyMinisterofMāoriAffairsKoroWetereon29April1986,thesamedaythatthetribunalsignedandreleaseditsreport.Inotherwords,theBill’sdraftershad

The Waitangi Tribunal’s 1986 Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Te Reo Maori Claim. The Tribunal found that te reo was a taonga and that urgent action was needed to improve its health.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.2.5

11

nopriorconsiderationofthetribunal’sreport,althoughtheywereclearlypromptedbythetribunal’sinquiry.67

Thatsaid, thereportwasabletobeconsideredbeforethe legislationwasenacted in1987.TheMaoriLanguageAct gave te reo official language status, thus grantingspeakers the right to use it in the courts and other set-tings(albeitnotinanydealingswithGovernmentdepart-ments,asthetribunalhadrecommended).TheActalsoestablishedtheMāoriLanguageCommission,whichwasinitially called te Komihana mō te Reo Māori but later(in 1991) renamed te taura Whiri i te Reo Māori. Thecommissionwastohave(andstillhas)aboardofuptofive members, all appointed by the Minister of MāoriAffairs,whogivesregardnotonlytocandidates’‘personalattributesbutalso to theirknowledgeandexperience intheuseoftheMāorilanguage’.

The commission’s functions were defined under sec-tion 7oftheActasincluding:

ȂȂ initiatingordevelopingpoliciesandpracticestogiveeffect to Māori being an official language of newZealand;

ȂȂ generallypromotingtereoasalivinglanguage;andȂȂ advising theMinisterofMāoriAffairsas requested

onmattersrelatingtotheMāorilanguage.section8alsogavethecommissionpowersto:ȂȂ holdorattendanyinquiriestoenableittoascertain

thewishesoftheMāoricommunitywithrespecttotereo;

ȂȂ undertakeorcommissionresearchintotheuseoftereo;

ȂȂ consultwithGovernmentdepartmentsabouttheuseoftereointhecourseoftheirbusiness;

ȂȂ publishinformationrelatingtotheuseoftereo;andȂȂ report to the Minister on any matters regarding te

reothatitthinksshouldbedrawntotheMinister’sattention.

During their inquiry into the te reo Māori claim, members of the Tribunal visited a kōhanga reo at Waiwhetu in Lower Hutt in June 1985. The visit inspired the following comments in their published report : ‘The infants come to a place where nothing but Maori is spoken. They have their day filled with activity games, songs and other pastimes to be found in any kindergarten but all in Maori. Within a surprisingly short time they master Maori fluently in a childish way until they are five or six years of age when they go to an orthodox primary school. By that time they are able to carry on an animated conversation in Maori and we watched them doing so in a Kohanga reo that we visited.’ The members pictured are Chief Judge Edward Durie and Paul Temm QC.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.2.6

12

5.2.6  Developments in educationWith the passage of the education Act in 1989, theMinistryofeducationassumedcontrolforallaspectsofMāori-mediumeducationthathadpreviouslysatwithintheDepartmentofMāoriAffairs.At the same time, thethen Minister of Māori Affairs, Koro Wetere, envisagedkōhangareobecomingfullyadministeredbyiwiauthori-tieswithinfiveyears.However,achangeinGovernmentandtherepealoftheRunangaIwiAct1990in1991endedany such plans, with the new administration preferringlanguage and education initiatives to be implementedthrough mainstream departments rather than throughanydevolutiontoiwi.68

With increased funding under the Ministry ofeducation’s regime, the number of children at kōhanga

reocontinuedtorisesharply,peakingwith14,514studentsat809kōhangaservices in1993(upfrom8,724childrenat 470 services in 1989). By 2009, this had declined to9,288childrenattending464kōhangareo.Theproportionof Māori children in early childhood education attend-ingkōhangareowasjustunderhalfatthe1993peakandtodaystandsatjustunderaquarter.69

Itwasasimilarstoryforschooling,wheretheMinistryofeducation’sfundingalsoledtodramaticgrowthinthenumberofkurakaupapaduring theearly tomid-1990s.While there were just six kura kaupapa in 1990, therewere13in1992,34in1995,and59in1998.Therewassimi-largrowthintheoverallnumberofschoolsofferingsomelevel of Māori-medium learning.70 excluding kura kau-papa,thisreached396by1999.Amoratoriumwasplaced

Nan Bella teaching children Māori vowel sounds at Waiwhetu School in 1991. At this time, the demand for Māori-medium education was soaring.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.2.7

13

onnewkurakaupapabetween1998and2002,butbyJuly2009 there were 70 kura kaupapa and 3 aspiring kurakaupapa(kurateina).otherMāori-mediumschoolshaddroppedbackto321.

Thetotalnumberofstudentsinbilingualandimmer-sionlearningpeakedat30,793in1999,including18.6percentofallMāori school students (up from12.5percentin 1992).Thepeak inMāori studentnumbers inMāori-medium education came later, in 2004 (27,127), but theproportionofMāoristudentsinthisformoflearninghaddroppedto16.9percent.By2009,ithaddroppedfurtherto15.2percent.Thehighpoint innon-Māoriparticipa-tion in Māori-medium learning was in 1998 (4,432 stu-dents,or0.8percentofallnon-Māorischoolstudents).

Lookingspecificallyatsecondaryschools,thenumberofMāoristudentslearningviathemediumoftereoforatleast12percentofthetimemorethandoubledfrom1992to2009.AtprimaryleveltheriseinthenumberofMāoristudentsinsomeformofMāori-mediumeducationoverthesametimeperiodwasover50percent.

Between1989and2009,thenumberofstudentslearn-ing Māori as a subject at secondary schools rose 40.3percent,andthenumberofschoolsofferingthesubjectincreased by around two thirds. The 2008 figure was

the highest total during the entire period, although thenumberofschoolsofferingMāoriin2008wasnotashighasin2003.71

At the tertiary education level, there was also a mas-sive rise in overall Māori participation but it occurredsomewhat later than the growth of kōhanga reo andMāori-mediumschooling.Itpeakedat23.1percentoftheMāoripopulation in2004.The2009figurewas19.6percent, which remained much higher than the participa-tionrate for the totalpopulationof 12.4percent.Muchof this risecanbeattributed to thephenomenalgrowthofthewānanga,andparticularlyteWānangaoAotearoa,aftertheGovernmentincreasedfundingasaresultofthewānanga treaty settlement in 2001. At the very peak ofthisgrowth,in2004,teWānangaoAotearoahadnearly70,000 enrolments. This number had fallen to less than43,000in2009.

The rise of wānanga also led to a massive increase inthenumberofstudentsintereoMāoricoursesattertiarylevel,whichpeaked in2003at36,356 learners.However,thisnumberhaddroppedto16,934by2007.72

other developments of note in Māori language edu-cation include the 1999 incorporation of the kura kau-papaMāoriguidingphilosophy,‘teAhoMatua’,intotheeducationAct.Aftercomplaints fromtheHoaniWaititikurakaupapa,itwasalsoagreedin2001thatEROwouldapplytheprinciplesofteAhoMatuatoassessthedeliv-ery of education in kura kaupapa.73 More recently, theMinistry of education has launched its Māori educa-tionstrategyfor2008to2012,Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success, in April 2008, and its Māori-medium curricu-lum,Te Marautanga o Aotearoa, inseptember the sameyear. for a number of years now, the Ministry has alsoreportedannuallyonMāorieducation in itspublicationseriesentitledNgā Haeata Mātauranga.TherehavebeenarangeofmeasurestoattractandretainMāori-speakingteachers,thedevelopmentofmoreMāorilanguageteach-ingresources,partnershipsbetweentheMinistryandiwiorganisations,andsoon.

5.2.7  Developments in broadcastingThe first major development in Māori broadcasting inthe post-te reo Māori report era was radio station teUpokooteIkareceivingfundingin1987asapilotforthe

Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o ngā Mokopuna, Seatoun, Wellington. This kura was opened in 1994, one of dozens established around the country in the mid-1990s as the Government sought to make amends for the previous lack of Māori-medium schooling options for kōhanga children.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.2.7

14

Piripi Walker (right) and Tama Te Huki in the studio of the Wellington Maori language radio station, Te Upoko o te Ika, on the day that it started broadcasting in 1987. Mr Walker gave evidence to us in 2006 on behalf of Ngāti Koata.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.2.7

15

introductionofanetworkofMāoriradiostationsaroundthe country. other stations began operating with statefundingthefollowingyear.

In 1989, when the Crown amended the BroadcastingAct1976inordertocreatenewstate-ownedenterprises,the new Zealand Māori Council and ngā Kaiwhaka-pūmau i te Reo Māori filed proceedings in the HighCourttostopthetransferoftheassets.InMay1991,theHigh Court declined to grant relief in respect of radioassets but adjourned the claim over television assets toallowtheCrowntosubmitaschemedesignedtoprotecttereoMāoriiftheassetsweretransferred.74

In July 1991, Cabinet took its undertakings on MāoribroadcastingtotheHighCourt.Theseincluded,amongstother things, the development of special-purpose Māoritelevision.TheCrownacceptedthat ‘theMaorilanguageand culture were taonga, and hence entitled to the pro-tectionof theCrowninaccordancewitharticle2of thetreaty’.TheHighCourtaccepted theCrown’sundertak-ingsandallowedthetransferoftelevisionassets.75

ThenewZealandMāoriCouncilandngāKaiwhaka-pūmauiteReoMāoriappealedthatdecision–firsttotheCourt of Appeal and then to the Privy Council.76 each

courtdismissedtheappeal,butthePrivyCouncilempha-sisedthepreviousundertakingstheCrownhadgiventothecourts.ThePrivyCouncilalsostressedthat,giventhe‘vulnerablestate’oftereo,theCrownmightwellneedto‘takeespeciallyvigorousactionforitsprotection’.77

In response to this litigation, the Crown amendedtheBroadcastingAct in 1993andestablishedteMāngaiPāho to fund Māori language and culture broadcasting.Thiswasahugelysignificantstep,forthesizeofthefundsavailabletoteMāngaiPāhoandhowtheagencychoosesto allocate them have had a major impact upon theamountandqualityofMāorilanguagebroadcastcontent.

In1996,theCrownsetupajointCrown/Māoriwork-ingpartyonMāoribroadcasting.from1996to1997,theAotearoa Māori television network was piloted in theAucklandregion.In1998,theGovernmentagreedtotheestablishmentofaMāoritelevisiontrust(teAwhiorangi),which in 1999 presented its business case to Ministers.Thatyear’schangeofGovernment,however,ledtoadelaywhilethenewadministrationconsidereditsoptions.

In 2000, responsibility for Māori broadcasting wastransferred from the Ministry of Commerce to te PuniKōkiri, which invited a group of Māori broadcasters to

Ready to enter the Downing Street, London, offices of the Privy Council in 1993 are the lawyers acting for the New Zealand Māori Council in the Broadcasting Assets case. From left to right are Eugenie Laracy, Martin Dawson (who acted for Ngāti Koata in our inquiry), and Sian Elias (now the chief justice).

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.2.8

16

makerecommendationsonMāoribroadcasting.Thisledto Cabinet deciding in 2001 to establish a Māori televi-sionservice.TheMāoritelevisionserviceActcameintoforceinMay2003andMāoritelevisionfinallywenttoairon28March2004.Asecond,Māorilanguage-onlychan-nel, te Reo (available only on the digital network), waslaunchedinMarch2008.

teMāngaiPāhoprovidesoperational funding for theMāoritelevisionserviceandthenetworkof21iwiradiostationsaswellascontestablefundingfortelevisionpro-gramming and other funding for radio programmesandMāori languagemusic.Thetelevisionprogrammingfunded is mainly screened on Māori television but alsoincludes several television new Zealand (TVNZ) pro-grammes such as Te Karere, Waka Huia, and Marae, aswellastheoccasionalprogrammeairedonTV3.78

Thestatebroadcasters(TVNZandRadionewZealand)havecharteragreementswithMinistersthatrequirethemtopromoteMāorilanguageandculture–although,aswediscussinchapter[xx],theGovernmentwillsoonreplacethe TVNZ charter with other provisions.79 Iwi radio sta-tionshaveMāorilanguagecontentincentivebonuses.TheMāori television Act also sets out the requirements forthechannelintermsoftheschedulingofMāorilanguagecontent.onthewhole,however,theCrownhasgiventhestatebroadcasterstheleewaytochoosehowtointerpret

andfulfiltheircharterrequirements,onthebasisofpre-serving what te Puni Kōkiri described as the principleof ‘arm’s length’ state involvement in the broadcasters’operations.80

5.2.8  Developments in public services and useThe way the public sector uses and provides for te reoMāorihasdevelopedsince1986.However,movestowardsgreaterbilingualisminthepublicsectorremainthepre-rogativeofeachGovernmentagency.

examplesofdevelopmentsincludethefollowing:ȂȂ services provided by te taura Whiri under the

Maori Language Act (certification and registrationoftranslatorsandinterpreters).

ȂȂ The 1991 Maori Language Act amendment, whichslightly broadened settings where te reo Māori canbeused(forexample,inthetenancytribunal).

ȂȂ Proficiency standards for public servants (as meas-uredbythepublicsectorMāorilanguageproficiencyexamination).

ȂȂ The‘LanguageLine’translationservice.ȂȂ Bilingual forms for key citizenship documents, the

census,andsoon.ȂȂ some departmental Māori language planning and

use (often in the form of translation of key docu-mentsandMāoriversionsofagencytitles).further

Newsreader Scotty Morrison preparing to present the twenty-fifth birthday edition of Te Karere on a newly unveiled set at TVNZ’s central Auckland studios, February 2009.

Some Government services and information are now offered in te reo Māori, such as the pages of the online encyclopaedia, ‘Te Ara’.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.2.10(1)

17

uptake is promoted and encouraged by te tauraWhiri.

ȂȂ te reo Māori versions of important publicationssuch as Dictionary of New Zealand Biography vol-umesand‘teAra’,theonlineencyclopaedia.

ȂȂ someincreasesinMāorisignage.ȂȂ Māoriversionsofplacenamesbeingrecognisedfor

usebynewZealandPost.ȂȂ simultaneoustranslationsinrecentyearsatWaitangi

tribunalhearings(albeitnot,ironically,intheMāoriLandCourt).

ȂȂ The availability, since 1997, of an interpreter forspeechesgiveninMāoriinParliament.

5.2.9  Developments in community language supportThe Government has put in place a number of policiesandpracticesthatrecognisetheneedfor local-level lan-guageregeneration.

KeyamongthemistetauraWhiri’slanguageplanningservices, which have been developing since 1995. TheseareprimarilyforMāoricommunitiesbutarealsoaimedatGovernmentdepartments(seeabove)andtheprivatesec-tor.tetauraWhiriofferssupporttocommunities,marae,iwi, hapū, and whānau to build profiles of the amount

andqualityoftereobeingspokenwithinthecommunityandtoestablishtereoplansforfuturegrowth.Aspartoftheservice,tetauraWhiriofferslanguageplanningwebpages,workbooks,programmes,andsoon.

since2001,groupshavebeenable toapply forMāteReo funding to support their community reo objectives(suchasholdingwānangaandnohomarae).TheMāteReo fund was set up by te taura Whiri with a limitedlifespan, although the Crown told us that options werebeingexaminedtoallowittocontinuebeyonditssched-uled termination. However, its final funding round ranfromMarchtoMay2010.81Thefund’ssizewas$1.9mil-lionannually.82

Money isalsoavailable to theMinistryofeducation’siwi partners, on a four-year cycle, from the Ministry’scommunity-based language initiative fund, which wehave already mentioned, and which was set up in 1999.The size of the fund in 2006 was $5.1 million over fouryears.83tePuniKōkiritoldusthatthefundhasbeenusedtosupporttribaldialectsthroughsuchinitiativesastribaldictionaries, oral history projects recording kaumātuaspeakingintribaldialect,andsoon.84

Meanwhile, te Puni Kōkiri conducts surveys on thehealthoftereoandattitudestoit,andbuildsregionaltereoprofilesusingsurveyandcensusdata.Theseprofilescan thus provide an approximate picture of the healthof tribaldialectsbyshowingthenumberofoldernativespeakers within particular districts. This information-gatheringbytheMinistryprovidesvaluablehelptoMāorigroupsintheirplanning.

5.2.10  The MLS(1) DevelopmentThe key tool in the Crown’s process of setting a te reoMāori agenda is the Māori language strategy (MLS). Itwasfirstdeveloped in1997, inanattempttobringsomecoordination to a sector that had evolved in a relativelyunplannedwaysincethe1980s.Insummary,itsfiveover-archingMāorilanguagepolicyobjectiveswereinitially:

ȂȂ toincreasethenumberofthosewhoknowtheMāorilanguage;

ȂȂ toimproveproficiencylevelsinMāori;ȂȂ toincreasethenumberofsituationsinwhichMāori

canbeused;

New Zealand passports have used te reo Māori on the inside pages since 1994 and on the cover since 2009.Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.2.10(2)

18

ȂȂ toensuretheMāorilanguagecanbeusedforthefullrangeofmodernactivities;and

ȂȂ to fosterpositiveattitudes towards the language ‘sothat Māori-english bilingualism becomes a valuedpartofnewZealandsociety’.85

In 1999, the Government decided to revise the MLSafter first undertaking research into the status of te reoinnewZealand.86Amonitoringteamwasestablishedtolead this work within te Puni Kōkiri,87 which includedthe2001surveyonthehealthoftheMāorilanguage(seebelow).Thus,inMarch2003,tePuniKōkiriproducedadiscussion document about the Government’s proposedmajor revision of the MLS, entitled A Shared Vision for the Future of Te Reo Māori. The document explainedthat a Māori reference group had been established in2002to‘provideabasisforanongoingrelationshipwithMāori language stakeholders’. Membership of the refer-encegroupincludedrepresentativesofMāoribroadcast-ing organisations, Māori education organisations, gen-eralMāoriorganisations,andofficialsfromGovernment

departments.88 The reference group and te Puni Kōkirihadcollectivelydevelopedtheoutcomestatementsinthediscussionpaper,andinearly2003‘asmallfocusgroupofkaumātuaandlanguageexperts’mettofurtherrefinethediscussionpapertext.89

te Puni Kōkiri sought feedback from Māori on thediscussionpaperbymail,email,phone,orattendanceatoneof 14regionalconsultationhuiheldbetween14and28 March 2003. In his foreword to the published MLS,thethenMinisterofMāoriAffairswrotethat‘TheMāoriLanguage strategy draws strongly on Māori thinkingabout,andaspirationsfor,theMāorilanguage.Ithasbeenprepared with input from Māori language experts andthroughcommunityconsultation.’90

The final MLS document was produced jointly by tePuni Kōkiri and te taura Whiri. Cabinet approved itin october 2003, and directed lead agencies to produceimplementation plans by June 2004. The agencies weretosetfive-yeartargetsthatwouldfunctionasmilestonestowardstheoverallMLStargets(for2028).Aswewillseebelow, some of the outcomes set for language revival inthe final MLS differed from those that appeared in thediscussion document. Presumably officials made thesechanges in the course of obtaining Cabinet approval oftheMLSgoals.

While an internalCrownreviewof theMLSbegan in2008,thepublicationofanewversionmayinitiallyhavebeenpostponedbecauseoftheimpendingreleaseofourreport.Asittranspired,however,on29July2010Ministerof Māori Affairs Pita sharples announced that a reviewpanelofMāorilanguageexpertsheadedbytamatiReedywouldundertakeacompletereviewof theMLS inorder‘to ensure the programmes and expenditure across thewholeofgovernmentareresponsivetoIwi/Maoriaspira-tions’.91Wereturntothisreviewandthemotivationforitbelow.

(2) What the MLS saysVarious agencies have responsibilities under the MLS,including six lead agencies – te Puni Kōkiri, te tauraWhiri,theMinistryforCultureandHeritage,theMinistryofeducation,thenationalLibrary,andteMāngaiPāho.The 10 functions under the strategy (broadcasting, edu-cation,policydevelopment,provisionofpublicservices,

The cover of Te Puni Kōkiri’s 2003 Māori Language Strategy, a key document in our inquiry. Its vision is for te reo to be ‘widely spoken’ by Māori by 2028.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.2.10(3)(g)

19

andsoforth)arespreadacrossthesixagencies.92tePuniKōkiri is the overall lead agency, with responsibility forpolicydevelopment, sectorcoordination, and themoni-toring of both Māori language health and the effective-nessofagencyactivities.

TheMLShasa25-yeartimeframe,recognisingthatsig-nificantchangeintheuseandknowledgeoftereoMāoriwilltakeageneration.Itsoverallvisionisthat:

By 2028, the Māori language will be widely spoken by Māori . in particular, the Māori language will be in common use within Māori whānau, homes and communities . All New Zealanders will appreciate the value of the Māori language to New Zealand society .93

supportingthisvisionarefivegoals.Weexaminetheseinmoredetaillaterinthischapter,butinsummary,theyaimtostrengthen:

ȂȂ languageskills;ȂȂ languageuse;ȂȂ educationopportunitiesintheMāorilanguage;ȂȂ communityleadershipfortheMāorilanguage;andȂȂ recognitionoftheMāorilanguage.94

(3) How the MLS is implementedtwoof the10 ‘functionsofGovernment’undertheMLSaresharedbetweenagencies,buteachof theothereightisthesoleresponsibilityofoneleadagency.Thesefunc-tions, and the activies undertaken by the agencies, aredescribedbelow.95

(a)MāorilanguageeducationThe Māori language education function extends acrossthe early childhood sector, primary, and secondaryschools,thetertiarysectorandcommunityeducation.ItincludesbothMāori language immersioneducationand‘Māoriasa subject’ education.Theplanningand imple-mentationofworkinthisareaisallocatedtotheMinistryofeducation.

(b)MāorilanguagebroadcastingTheMāori languagebroadcastingfunctioninvolvessup-porting the growth of te reo Māori by funding radioand television broadcasting in the Māori language. The

responsibilityforMāorilanguagebroadcastingpolicyandplanningisallocatedtotePuniKōkiriandtheimplemen-tationof it toteMāngaiPāhoandtheMāoritelevisionservice.

(c)MāorilanguageartssupportforMāorilanguageartscoversactivitiessuchaskapahaka,speechcompetitionsandnewwritingintereo.Responsibility for this function lieswiththeMinistryofCultureandHeritage,withinputfromotherdepartmentsandfromMāoriorganisations.

(d)MāorilanguageservicesThe Māori language services function includes Govern-ment te reo services, lexical development, dictionarymaking,benchmarkingofproficiencylevelsintheMāorilanguage and certification of translators and interpret-ers. Responsibility for this function lies with te tauraWhiri,reflectingitslegislativemandatetoundertakesuchfunctions.

(e)MāorilanguagearchivesThe Māori language archives function involves the col-lection and maintenance of Māori language archives(whetherwritten, audio,or audio-visual).ResponsibilityforthisfunctionsitswiththenationalLibrary,withinputfromotherGovernmentagencies.

(f)MāorilanguagecommunityplanningThe Māori language community planning functioninvolves the provision of funding and advice aboutlanguage planning for whānau, hapū, iwi and Māori.Responsibility sits with te taura Whiri, because of thestrong linkstotheadministrationof theagency’sMāteReofund.

(g)Māorilanguagepolicy,coordination,andmonitoringAcoordination function isnecessary inorder to ensurea ‘whole-of-Government’ approach. This function alsoinvolves monitoring the health of te reo Māori and theeffectiveness and efficiency of the Government’s Māorilanguagefunctions,aswellasundertakingperiodicstock-takes of Government Māori language programmes andservices.96tePuniKōkiriisresponsible.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

20

5.2.10(3)(h)

(h)PublicservicesprovidedintheMāorilanguageThe public services function relates to the official lan-guage status of te reo, and aims to ensure that all newZealanderscanaccesspublicservicesthroughtheMāorilanguage.WhileeachGovernmentagencyisresponsiblefordeveloping itsown internalMāori languageplan,tePuniKōkiriandtetauraWhiriareresponsibleforplan-ningandimplementingthiswork.

(i)MāorilanguageinformationThe Māori language information function involves sup-porting the regeneration of the language through theprovisionofinformation.RecentexampleshaveincludedMāori language television and radio programmes, aninteractive website, an information kit for new parents,newphrasebooklets,andreoeventspromotingMatariki.tetauraWhiriisresponsibleforthisfunction.

(j)WhānaulanguagedevelopmentThe whānau language development function involves

trainedmentorsworkingonaone-to-onebasiswithpar-ticipating families to support intergenerational languagetransmission.ResponsibilitysitswithtetauraWhiri.

5.2.11  State funding for te reo MāoriThe state’s resourcing of te reo Māori was estimated at$177.9millionin1999.By2002,ithadgrownto$225mil-lion and, by 2006, to approximately $226.8 million.97 Ithasbeendefinedasresourcingbothfor‘servicesandpro-grammes that [contribute] more or less directly to sup-portingthehealthoftheMāorilanguage’andfor‘activi-ties thatarebeingundertakenby .  .  .governmentagen-ciestosupportthegrowthanddevelopmentoftheMāorilanguage’.98 The education sector accounts for the larg-est share of this resourcing, with $132.8 million in 1999,$137.6million in2002,andapproximately$142.3millionin2006.Thesecond-biggestareaofexpenditureisMāorilanguage broadcasting. Money for te Māngai Pāho, forexample, increased from $22.2 million in 1999 to $49.1millionin2002and$49.8millionin2006.99

‘Rights to schooling in Maori asserted’Dominion, 15 November 1989

‘More language schools’Dominion Sunday Times, 10 November 1991

‘Revitalisation of Te Reo Maori’Te Maori News, April 1994

‘Kura kaupapa opening realises dream’Te Maori News, June 1995

‘New life in the other mother tongue’Evening Post, 9 october 1995

Headlines from 1989 to 1995 showcasing the revival of te reo.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.3.1

21

5.2.12  ConclusionAfter decades of active suppression or, at best, ‘benignneglect’,tereoMāorihadreachedaperilousstatebythe1970s,withveryfewyoungerspeakers.

Against that background, Māori initiatives to protectand revive the language began in the 1970s and 1980s.They included petitions, a Māori radio station, the firstkurakaupapaMāori,and–mostimportantlyofall–thebirthofthekohangareomovementin1982anditssubse-quentspectaculargrowth.

Meanwhile, in its 1986 Report on the Te Reo Maori Claim,theWaitangitribunalrecommendedthattereobemadeanofficiallanguage,thataMāorilanguagecommis-sionbeestablished,thattheeducationsystemandbroad-castingpolicysupporttheMāorilanguage,andthatany-onewhowishedtodosobeenabledtospeakinMāoriinthecourtsorwhendealingwithanypublicbodies.

soonafter, theMaoriLanguageAct 1987made te reoMāori an official language and established the MāoriLanguage Commission (soon to be known as te tauraWhiri i te Reo Māori). te reo could be used beforethe courts but not, however, in any dealings with theGovernment.

InthetwodecadessincetheMaoriLanguageActwaspassed, there have been many developments that havecollectively formed the state’s modern Māori languagepolicy. They include the expansion of Māori-mediumeducation,thegrowthofthewānanga,theestablishmentand funding of a network of iwi radio stations and theMāoritelevisionservice,thebroadeningofpublicserv-ices in te reo Māori, the funding of community-basedlanguage initiatives, and the development in 1997 of thefirstMāorilanguageobjectivestocoordinateGovernmentMāorilanguageactivities.

5.3  The Health of Te Reo in 2010WehaveoutlinedhowtheCrown’spresenttereopoliciesandprogrammeshavedeveloped.todeterminewhethertheseareworking,wemustfirstassessthehealthoftereoMāoriin2010.

Thereareanumberofgaugestomeasurethis,notablythe participation in Māori-medium education and thelearningofMāoriasasubject inthemainstreamschool

system,aswellastheresultsofvarioussurveysandcen-susesoverthelast15orsoyears.100TheCrownsubmittedevidence about all these matters, both during the hear-ingsandafter,asnewmaterialcame tohand.Thatsaid,we did not actively canvass a number of the issues weaddresshereduringour inquiry, anddidnothear fromkeyinterestedparties,suchastheKōhangaReonationaltrust. While our conclusions must remain provisional,therefore,weneverthelesssetoutthefollowingobserva-tionsbecause–asexplainedearlier–havingconsideredtheseissues,andbeingconvincedoftheirrelevancetothemattersathand,itwouldbewrongofusnottodoso.

5.3.1  Early childhood educationAswesaw in theprevioussection,Māorienrolments inkōhangareoreachedtheirpeakin1993,whenhalfofallMāoriinearlychildhoodeducationwereatkōhanga.Butthe percentage of Māori pre-schoolers at kōhanga andthe overall number of children attending kōhanga hassincefallenpracticallyeachsuccessiveyear.Thenumberof kōhanga themselves has likewise declined every yearwithout exception since 1994. Thus, in 2009 there were464 kōhanga reo and a further 27 puna kohungahunga(otherwise known as ‘puna reo’), which are essentiallyparent-led Māori playgroups in which te reo is used asmuchaspossible.LessthanaquarterofallMāoriatpre-schoolattendedoneoftheseservices,withatotalstudentnumberatthemof9,565(only277ofwhomwereatpunareo).101At the same time, thenumberofMāorichildrenattendinganyformofearlychildhoodeducationroseby27percent.Inotherwords,kōhangatodayhaveamuchsmallershareofamuchlargermarket(seetables1and2andfigure5.5).102

Ifthe1993rateofMāoriparticipationinkōhangahadbeenmaintained,thenumberoftamarikiatkōhangareowouldhaveincreasedto18,300by2008.Inreality,inthatyeartheenrolmentatkōhangawasonly9,200,including8,700Māorichildren–9,600fewerMāorichildrenthanthere would have been had the 1993 share been main-tained(seefigure5.3).103

Thedeclineinkōhangareoattendancemaybehavinganimpactonthenumberofpre-schoolerscompetentintereo.Afteradjustmentsforthosetooyoungtospeakorforwhomnoanswerwasprovided,censusresultsshowthat

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.3.1

22

35

40

45

50

Percentage of all Māori in Early Childhood Education at Kōhanga Reo, 1989‐2008

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Percen

tage

Year

10000

12000

14000

16000

nts

All Students at Kōhanga Reo, 1983‐2009

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Num

ber o

f Stude

Year

Figure 5.1

Figure 5.2

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.3.1

23

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

nts

Māori Participation in Kōhanga Reo, 1989‐2008: Actual and Projected

Total number of Māori students in kōhanga reo

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Num

ber o

f Stude

Year

Number of Māori students in kōhanga reo if 1993 peak rate of participation had been maintained

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

eake

rs

Māori Children in Kōhanga Reo and Māori Te Reo Speakers Aged 0‐4, 1992‐2009

Māori Children at Kōhanga Reo

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

Num

ber o

f Stude

nts/Sp

e

Year

Census Māori speakers in the Māori ethnic group aged 0‐4

Figure 5.3

Figure 5.4

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.3.1

24

25000

30000

35000

40000

Stud

ents

Māori Enrolment in Early Childhood Education by Type of Centre, 1989–2008

Kōhanga Reo and Licence-Exempt Kōhanga

Puna Reo

Kindergarten

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Num

ber

of M

āori

S

Year

Playcentre

Homebased

Education and Care

Playgroup

Total

15

20

Percentage of all Māori School Students in Māori‐Medium Education, 1992‐2009

0

5

10Percen

tage

Year

Figure 5.5

Figure 5.6

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.3.1

25

25000

30000

35000

nts

All School Students in Māori‐Medium Education, 1992‐2009

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Num

ber o

f Stude

n

Year

Māori Participation in Māori‐Medium Education, 1992‐2009: Actual and Projected

30000

35000

Total number of Māori t d t i Mā i

25000

ts

students in Māori‐medium education

b f

15000

20000

umbe

r of S

tude

nt Number of Māori students in Māori‐medium education if 1999 peak rate of participation had been maintained

10000

Nu maintained

0

5000

0

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year

Figure 5.7

Figure 5.8

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.3.2

26

theproportionof those in theMāori ethnicgroupagedzerotofourwhowerereportedasbeingabletospeaktereodroppedfrom21.9percentin1996to18.2percentin2006.Adrop-offcanalsobeobserved in thefigures forthefivetonineyearagegroup,whichdeclinedfrom22.1percentin1996to18.8percentin2006(seetable5.9).

of course, it remains possible that the kōhanga thathavefallenbythewaysidewerethosedidnothavecom-petenttereospeakersinchargeofthem,andwerethere-fore not making much impact on the census statistics.evenso,thedropinthenumberofkōhangaissuchthatthere must have been at least some where the childrenwerebeingwelltaught.Thecensusdeclinedoesappeartomatchthedeclineinkōhangaparticipation,inanyevent(seefigure5.4).

What we are seeing, therefore, is a quite spectacularrise and then steady fall of kōhanga reo. The Ministryof education’s publications show that it is clearly awareoftheproblem.forexample,its2007draftofKa Hikitiastatedthatthefallingnumberofkōhangawasa‘challenge’andanissuethat‘needsfurtherinvestigation’.104

It seems that Māori began leaving the kōhanga reomovementinthemid-1990sforanumberofreasons.onewasprobablythatmoreMāoriwereinpaidwork,mean-ing more parents opting for all-day care or care wheretheywerenotexpectedtoplaysuchasignificantrole(thenumbersofallchildreninkindergartensandplaycentreshasalsodeclinedsince1996,forprobablythesamesortsofreasons.Instead,therealgrowthhascomeinlicensed‘educationandcare’services).

Another factor has doubtless been the dwindlingnumberofolderMāorispeakersinruralcommunitiesandurbanneighbourhoods.observershavesaiditwasthesepeoplewhomadethespectaculargrowthofkōhangareopossible.105TherehavealsobeensomeconcernsexpressedbyindividualkōhangaaboutthecentralisedautonomyoftheKōhangaReonationaltrust, althoughweare innopositiontogaugethestrengthofthatfeeling.Inanyevent,weareawareofagooddealof loyaltytothetrust’scen-tralisedmodel.Wereturntothislaterinthechapter(seesection5.4.6(3)(d)).

Infairness,therehavealsobeensomeconcernsaboutthequalityofteaching.Aperennialproblemhasbeenthepaucity of good early childhood teachers who are also

skilledintereo,adilemmaacknowledgedbythenationaltrust leadership itself.EROreviews in the1990sshowedthatthequalityofteachingandeventheuseoftereoatmany kōhanga was distinctly lacking. similarly, con-cernsaboutchildsafetyandfinancialmismanagementatvariouskōhangahavecommandedagooddealofmediaattention.106

In 2007, kōhanga largely missed out on the Govern-ment’sintroductionofitspromised20freehoursofearlychildhood education at centres with registered teachers.The scheme did not necessarily exclude kōhanga, butrequired themtohavequalified teachers.107 In late2007,theMinistryofeducationextendedthepolicytokōhangawhere at least one teacher had the national trust’s‘Whakapakari’ teaching qualification, but still only aquarterofthecountry’skōhangareocouldtakeadvantageof this. More recently, the new Government announcedinMay2009itwouldextendthepolicytoallkōhangareofromJuly2010,regardlessofwhethertheywereteacher-orparent-led.108

finally, it is possible that momentum has been goingoutofthekōhangamovement.Thesenseofurgencythatpropelled such explosive growth may now have beenreplaced by complacency about te reo’s revival – ironi-cally,complacencyarisinginpartfromtheverysuccessofthemovementinthe1980sandearly1990s.

Thequestion iswhetherweareyet to see thebottomofthekōhangareodecline.InKa Hikitia,theMinistryofeducation’s targets for early childhood education are toincreaseoverallMāoriparticipationto95percentby2012and to improve rates of literacy and numeracy amongstMāori in the early years of primary school by specifiedamounts.Thus,whiletherearesomegeneralgoalsaimedatstrengtheningMāori languageearlychildhoodeduca-tion(chieflyaroundimprovingquality), there isnospe-cifictargetforincreasedparticipationinkōhangareo.109

5.3.2  Schools(1) OverviewWhiletherehavebeencleargainsinthenumberofstu-dents participating in Māori-medium education since1992,aswithkōhangareothenumbersrevealbothariseandfall.from12.5percentofallMāoristudentsin1992,apeakwasreachedin1999with18.6percentspreadacross

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.3.2(1)

27

455 schools (including kura kaupapa). since then, how-ever,therehasbeenadeclineintheproportionofMāoristudents in Māori-medium learning every year except2003.Theproportionin2009was15.2percent,thelow-estreturnsince1994,andthenumberofschoolsofferingbilingualorimmersionlearninghadfallento394.WhilethehighpointinthenumberofMāoristudentsinMāori-medium education came in 2004 (27,127), it still repre-sented a decline in proportion over the previous year.Moreover,thenumberofstudentshasdeclinedeveryyearsince2004.Thetotalfor2009was25,349,whichislowerthanin1998(seetable5.4).

It is a similar story with non-Māori participation inMāori-medium learning. This peaked in 1998 at 4,432students,or0.8percentofallnon-Māoriatschool.sincethenthetotalhasshrunkbackdownto2,882in2009,or0.5 per cent of all non-Māori school students. for bothMāori and non-Māori, the absolute numbers have beenrelativelystaticforthelastdecade.Instead,thebigchangehasbeen in theproportionofMāori involved inMāori-medium education given the 15.4 per cent rise in theMāorischoolpopulationbetween1999and2009,which

hasresultedinanextra22,260Māoristudents(seetable5.4andfigure5.6).

Currently, therefore, thereare2,600fewerstudents inMāori-mediumeducationatschoolthantherewereoveradecadeago.Asasubsetofthis,therewerein200948.4per cent more students in Māori-medium at secondaryschool,including211percentmorelearningatsecondaryschoolatlevel1ofimmersion(81percentormoreintereo–seeendnote70forthedefinitionoflevels1to4(a))than in 1999. However, this reflects the relative lack ofcapacityatsecondarylevelinthepast.Moreover,thetotalnumberofstudentslearningatlevel1inprimaryschoolin2009(9,837)wasthelowestsince1998andrepresenteda13.7percentdeclinefromthepeakof11,396in2004(seetable5.4andfigure5.9).

Thedrop-offinstudentschoosingMāori-mediumedu-cationastheyprogressfromprimarytosecondaryschoolisprofound.In2009,forexample,thenumberofstudentsreceivingMāori-mediumteachingatlevel1droppedfrom1,192atyear8(thelastyearofprimaryschool)to552inyear 9. By year 11 – usually the last year of compulsoryschooling–ithaddroppedaslowas271.

8000

10000

12000

nts

School Students in Level 1 of Māori-Medium Education, 1996–2009

0

2000

4000

6000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Num

ber

of S

tud

en

Year

Primary school

Secondary school

Figure 5.9

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.3.2(2)

28

25000

30000

35000

eake

rs

Māori Children in Māori‐Medium Schooling and Māori Te Reo Speakers Aged 5‐14, 1992‐2009

Number of Māori students in Māori‐medium

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Num

ber o

f Stude

nts/Sp

e

Year

in Māori medium education

Census Māori speakers in the Māori ethnic group aged 5‐14

whetherteachersandstudentscouldspeakgoodMāori.110In 1996, the Māori Affairs Committee focused on theteacher shortage and found that while the Governmenthad recently increased funding for Māori immersionteachertraining,thesituationwas‘stillcritical’.111

In a July 1997 newspaper report (which we naturallytreatwithsomecaution),MāoriLanguageCommissionertīmoti Kāretu was reported as saying that Governmentplans to open five new kura kaupapa a year were mis-guided.Hesaidstudentsatkurakaupapawereill-servedby the insufficient numbers of teachers fluent in te reo,andthattheGovernmentshouldinsteadfocusontrain-ingmoreteacherstoensurevacancieswerefilledbystaffcompetentbothinMāoriandinteaching.Headded:‘Aswerushheadlongintoopeningmoreandmorekurakau-papaMaori–fiveayear–andstaffingthemwithpeoplewhose language is not of an acceptable level of compe-tence,webegintodemeanourownlanguageandtoputthe educational futures of our children into consider-able jeopardy.’Hesaidthesystemwasstuck inthe ‘nearenoughisgoodenough’syndrome.112

In2001,RichardandnenaBentonwrote:

(2) Kura kaupapaIn 2009, almost exactly half of all students receivingMāori-medium education at level 1 were at kura kau-papa,aproportionthathasrisenovertimesincetheearly1990s.Asnoted,thesekurahavegrowninnumberfrom6in1990to70inJuly2009,albeitwithamuchreducedrateofexpansionafterthemoratoriumonnewkurakaupapafrom1998to2002.

The moratorium was brought about by some of thesamecapacityandqualityconcernsthataffectedkōhangareo.essentially,theMinistryofeducationwascaughtoutbythesuccessofkōhangareoand,intheearly1990s,hadlimited options for parents who wished their childrento move from kōhanga into further Māori-immersioneducation. opening more kura kaupapa as quickly pos-siblewasakeycomponentofthepolicyresponsetothisproblem. However, there was a lack of properly quali-fied teachers, especially principals, and of te reo teach-ing resources – major problems that a 1995 ERO reportonkurakaupapasaidwere impedingstudents’ learning.The report also found that there were no agreed stand-ardsonwhatfluencywas,sotherewasnowayofknowing

Figure 5.10

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.3.2(3)

29

Many kura kaupapa are small (under 50, sometimes less than 20 students), ill-equipped, lacking stable staffing, unable to recruit trained teachers, adversely affected by internal disputes, and sometimes without teachers who have suf-ficient knowledge of Māori to teach effectively through the language .113

earlier, the Bentons also cited the concerns of Māoriparents about the quality of care and education in theMāori-mediumsector.Theysummarisedtheviewsofonemantheyinterviewedasfollows:

Ramere is quite critical of the kōhanga reo where he was going to enroll his child . He didn’t think it was safe to leave the child there because of the bullying problem among some of the older children . He is very concerned that his sisters’ children are receiving ‘a second rate education’ from having to make do with ill-trained teachers in both the kōhanga reo and kura kaupapa Māori . They had decided that the lan-guage was more important than the education their children would get, but he does not accept that one should have to

choose between reacquiring the language, which he regards as a spiritual and cultural necessity, and benefitting fully from a sound education in a physically and psychologically safe environment .114

(3) A shortfall of te reo teachersTheMinistryofeducationhasrespondedovertheyearsto the problem of teacher shortages with numerousbudgetincreasesandscholarshipschemestoattractqual-ity teachers.But still theproblemspersist.TheMinistryofeducationsaidin2009that‘[c]hallengesfacingMāorilanguageeducationprovidersinimmersionandotherset-tingsincludetheshortageofqualifiedteachers,theneedforagreaterrangeofteachingandlearningresources,andensuringtheprovisionofqualityteachingpracticeacrossthe sector’.115 The same year, while under cross-exami-nation in the Whanganui district tribunal inquiry, Mssewellsaid:

We need more good teachers of te reo Maori . We do not have them and it is quite hard to get them . When you do

‘Teacher crisis jeopardises bilingual classes’Dominion Sunday Times, 30 September 1990

‘High personal cost for kura kaupapa principals’Kia Hiwa Ra, November 1996

‘Demand at all levels for bilingual Maori teachers’Evening Post, 30 January 1997

‘Bilingual teachers in hot demand’Sunday Star Times, 4 August 2002

‘Call for boost in Maori teacher tally’Press, 11 July 2007

Newspaper headlines have regularly touched on te reo teacher shortages.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.3.2(3)

30

have trained and qualified and fluent teachers, other people would get them too . They can earn more money doing other things . They are sought after by other groups in the commu-nity . They are really talented and skilled people and it is quite hard to keep them .116

notably,thespecifictargetforgrowingparticipationinMāorilanguageeducationinKa Hikitiaisnottoincreasetheproportionofstudentsby2012,butrathertomaintainthe participation rate at the 2006 level of 21 per cent.117This refers not just to those involved in Māori-mediumeducationinlevels1to4(a)(seetable5.3),butalsotolev-els4(b)and5(learningtereoasasubjectforatleastthreehoursaweekorup to threehoursaweek respectively).Thetotalof158,602students in levels1 to5 in2006hadfallenfrom167,105in2003.By2009,ithadfallenfurtherto151,314.Whileincludingmorethan100,000studentsinlevel5learningarguablypresentsquiteamisleadingpic-tureofthetruestateof‘Māorilanguageeducation’,itcanbeseenthattheMinistry’stargetisinanyeventeludingit,withtheproportiondroppingfrom21.9percentin2003to20.8percentin2006to19.9percentin2009.118

Perhaps maintaining the 2006 level was an ambitioustarget after all. The Ministry may well be acutely con-scious of the decline in participation in Māori languageeducationthathassetininrecentyearsandmindfulthatfurther expansion might not be sustainable given theshortageofteachersthatalreadyexists.

Clear evidence of the teacher shortage is providedby the Ministry of education’s annual survey of teachervacancies insecondaryschoolsat thestartof theschoolyear, which has been running since 1997 (see table 5.5).focusingonthe2010figuresoffersamisleadingpicture,as the overall number of teacher vacancies practicallyhalved from 2009 to 2010 because of the effects of therecession.119 But in 2009 the number of full-time teach-ingequivalent(FTTE)vacanciesinsecondaryschoolsthatwere te reoorMāori-medium teacherswas 18.2,not farbehindthe18.6in2008and20.5in2004.The2009totalrepresented the highest proportion (12.2 per cent) sincethestocktakebeganofteachervacanciesthatwereMāori-mediumorsubjectpositions.120

The survey has only asked primary schools if any oftheir vacancies were for Māori-medium or bilingual

teacherssince2009.Thatyear,therewere14.6FTTEsuchvacancies, which represented 8.1 per cent of all primaryschoolteachervacancies.Despitetheeffectsofthereces-sion, this had risen to 15.3 FTTE vacancies and 13.0 percentofallprimaryteachervacanciesin2010.121

table 5.5 puts the Māori language teacher shortage atsecondaryschoolintoperspective,bycomparingvacancynumberswiththoseforteachersofenglish.Whileabout90percentofsecondarystudentsattendenglishclasseseachyear,therateoffull-timeequivalentenglishteachervacancieshasrangedbetween5.8and20.7percentofthetotal. By contrast, the roughly 10 per cent of secondary

A 1986 teacher recruitment advertisement in the Department of Māori Affairs’s magazine. The following year, the Department of Education commissioned a report from bilingual education expert Bernard Spolsky, who concluded that there was an urgent need for bilingual teachers and that at least 1,000 more would be needed over the next decade.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.3.2(4)

31

studentsinMāori-mediumandtereoclasseshavefacedteachervacancyratesofbetween3.4and12.2percentofthetotal,andin1998therewereevenmoreMāoriteachervacanciesthanenglishones.

In2001,theMinistryofeducationsurveyed15,000sec-ondaryschoolteacherstoascertainthematchofteacherqualificationtosubjecttaught.TheresultsshowedthattereoandMāori-mediumteachershadrelativelylowlevelsofthird-yearuniversitystudyoruniversityqualifications.However,thissurveyisoflimiteduseonly,becauseboththese groups had extremely high rates of non-responseto the survey (57.4 per cent of Māori-medium teachers,forexample,comparedto8.3percentofteachersatsec-ondaryschoolsand17.2percentofsecondaryteachersatcompositeschools).122Whilenotdefinitive,therefore,thesurvey further emphasises the scope for improvement.We do not know whether the Ministry has attemptedto secure a better response rate from te reo and Māori-mediumteachers.

(4) Accounting for the decline in te reo education at schoolThe decline in Māori-medium schooling – or, at best,theflatteningoffofgrowth–hasitsrootsinsomeofthesameissueswehaveidentifiedascontributingtodeclin-ingparticipationinkōhangareo.Qualityofeducationiscentral.IntePuniKōkiri’s2006surveyonthehealthoftheMāorilanguage,themainreasonsMāoriparentsgavefornotplacing theirchildren inMāori-mediumschool-ingwerethatthechildrenweretooyoung(26percent)ortherewerenolocalservices(17percent).But8percentcited‘lowerqualityeducation’and5percentcited‘pooradministration/management’.Thus,whileMāori-mediumschoolsareapparentlyproducingcomparablyfavourablenationalCertificateofeducationalAchievementresults–as well as much lower levels of truancy, suspension andunjustifiedabsences than thoseofMāori inmainstreameducation – many parents are clearly aware of the scar-cityofhighlyqualifiedteachersandthe lackof teachingresourcesintheseschools.

Waningmomentumisagain likely tobea factor.The2006 survey found that 9 per cent of parents who werenot schooling their children in Māori-medium educa-tionsaidthatenglishwasthepriority,8percentsaidthattheirchild‘canchoosetolearnlater’,and6percentsaid

that their child ‘will attend at future date’.123 While notall dismissive of learning te reo, many of these parentsclearly thought it could wait for another day. Bilingualeducation expert Professor stephen May and colleaguesfromWaikatoUniversitycontendedin2004thatMāori-mediumeducationmustbeforaminimumofsixyearstobeeffectiveandnotcompromiseachild’seducation.Theyalsoarguedthatonlylevels1and2(50percentinstruc-tioninthemediumoftereoMāoriandabove)shouldbeconsideredactualbilingualprogrammes.Theirviewwasthat parents were insufficiently aware of these issues inchoosing when to move their children between Māori-mediumandmainstreamschooling.124

It remains to be seen, therefore, whether the propor-tionofMāoriparticipating inMāori-mediumeducationwill continue to decline, as it has done inexorably since1999,aswellaswhatimpactthiswillhaveontheoverallhealthof tereo.Already, thedeclinemaybeseeninthedeclining proportion of 10- to 14-year-olds able to con-verseintereo,whichfellfrom24.4percentinthe2001censusto21.4percentin2006census(seetable5.9).

The large majority of those learning Māori as a sub-ject in secondary schools (including those learning viathemediumoftereoitself)appeartobeMāori.In1995,1998 and 2009, for example, they represented aroundtwothirdsofthetotal.125overall,thenumberofstudentslearning Māori as a subject for at least three hours perweekatsecondaryschoolhasincreasedby40.3percentsince 1989 (alongwithan increaseofaround two thirdsin the number of schools offering it).126 The 2008 and2009figuresrepresentthehighestnumberofMāorisub-ject students since 1996, after a subsequent trough thatreacheditslowestpointin1999.Afterovertakingfrench(traditionally the most popular language taught at sec-ondary schools127) in 1995, Māori has remained behindfrench since 1998. Indeed, the popularity of Māori maybearsomerelationtothefortunesofotherlanguagessuchasfrench,Japanese,German,andspanish,whichhaveallebbedandflowedinnumbers,perhapsinrelationshiptoeachotherandaccordingtofashion.Whatisparticularlystrikingisthemeteoricriseofspanish,whichhasgrown5,000percentinstudentnumberssince1989andpossi-blytakenstudentsawayfromGermanandJapanese(and,forthatmatter,Māori).128seetable5.7.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.3.3

32

5.3.3  Tertiary educationMāori involvement in tertiary education needs to beassessed in terms of a vastly complicated picture thatincludes type of institution, level of course (from cer-tificate to doctorate – that is to say, levels 1 to 10 of thenational Qualifications framework), full- or part-timestudy,lengthofcourse,generalfieldofstudy,ageandgen-derofstudents,participationrate,completionrate,attri-tionandretentionrates,progressionratetofurtherstudy,and immediate past experience of students (as schoolleavers or as employed or unemployed with or withoutschoolqualifications).statisticalinformationonallthesemattersiscomprehensiveforthelastfewyearsbutchal-lengingtopenetrate.

Whatcanbesaidwithconfidenceisthattherehasbeena massive rise in Māori participation in tertiary educa-tionfromabout1998.Muchofthegrowth,however,hasbeeninlower-complexitycourses,suchaslevel1tolevel3 certificates. In 2009, 42,369 Māori were studying forsuchqualifications,whichrepresentedmorethanhalfofall Māori enrolled in tertiary education during the year(compared toa rateof slightlymore thana third forallstudents).In2003–atthepeakofthisgrowthforMāori–therewere26,755Māoriinlevel1tolevel3certificatesatwānangaalone.since2004, institutesof technologyandpolytechnicshavetakenoverfromwānangaastheleadingtertiaryinstitutionsintermsofMāoristudentnumbers.129

Wehaveseenthattheriseofthewānangaledtoamas-sive increase in thenumberofpeoplestudying tereoattertiarylevel.Inhis2007reportfortheMinistryofeduca-tion,He Tini Manu Reo – Learning Te Reo Māori through Tertiary Education, David earle confirms this post-2001trend but comments that the ‘majority of learners wereenrolled in non-formal education or level 4 certificatesandweretakingcoursesatlevels1and2,whichareequiv-alenttoseniorsecondaryschool’.overall,hesuggeststhattertiaryeducationcoursesarenotsufficientontheirownto build conversational proficiency in te reo Māori, andthecontributionoftertiarytereoeducationfrom2001to2005wasmainly‘toincreasesubstantiallythenumberofpeoplewithabasicunderstandingofthelanguage’.130

That said, earle acknowledges that tertiary coursesare‘alsoincreasingthenumberofpeoplewithconversa-tionalfluency’where theybuildonexistingskillsorare

reinforced by ongoing learning and support outside theclassroom. since many of the students will be mothers(the typical student isa 30- to50-year-oldwoman,whohas no school qualifications, was previously employed,and is taking a wānanga course), earle also commentsthat ‘tertiary courses may be having a positive role instrengtheningtereoMāoriwithinthewhānauandhomeenvironments’.

earleconcludesthat:

if engagement in te reo Māori courses at tertiary level is to result in a continued and sustainable improvement in language proficiency, there is also a need to consider what options are provided for students beyond the initial period of study and to move into higher levels of study . This is a mat-ter for communities, families and individuals to consider, as well as government and education providers .131

TheMinistryofeducationhasbeenmorebullishaboutthegrowingtereostudentnumbersattertiarylevel.Ithaslinked the rise directly to the ‘significant gains in profi-ciencyintereoamongMāorisince2001’revealedbytePuniKōkiri’s2006surveyonthehealthoftheMāorilan-guage.132ofcourse,suchaninterpretationreliesupontheaccuracyof the2006 survey,whichwediscussbelowatsection5.3.4(3).ourviewisthatthetertiarycourseshavegiven many Māori parents, along with a large numberof non-Māori, a solid introduction to the language. Thecourses have given students confidence to go further,wheretheyhavewantedto,ortheinclinationtoencour-agetheirchildrentogofurther.ontheirown,however,they are certainly not creating a generation of fluentspeakersorlanguageteachers.

5.3.4  Censuses and surveys(1) Pre-1996 national speaker estimatesWe have already noted the findings of Richard Benton’s1970ssurveyonthehealthoftereo,especiallythescarcityoffluentspeakersamongMāorichildren.ThereowhichBentonmeasuredas‘fluent’inthe1970swasprobablyatahigherlevelthanthatconsideredfluenttoday,giventhatthereweremanymoreoldernativespeakersoftereoalivethen. As Māori language academic Ian Christensen hasremarked, ‘A tendency towardsadiminishedperception

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.3.4(2)

33

offluencymaybeanaturalcharacteristicofalanguageindecline.’133

In a 1992 report commissioned by the Ministry ofeducationtoengenderdiscussiononanewZealandlan-guages policy, Dr Jeffrey Waite projected the results ofBenton’ssurveyforwardto1986withcorrectionsformor-talityandotherdemographicvariables.Thisshowedthat,at the time of the tribunal’s report on the te reo Māoriclaim, only 700 north Island Māori children under theageof10werefluentintereo,asopposedto19,400flu-entspeakersaged55andover.Thisdid,however,appeartorepresentanincreaseinthenumberofyoungerspeak-ersfromthatestimatedbyBentonin1979.overall,Waiteguessedtherewere81,000fluentandmarginalspeakersofMāoriinthenorthIslandin1986.134

In 1995, statistics new Zealand conducted a nationalMāorilanguagesurveyonbehalfoftePuniKōkiriandtetauraWhiri.ItconfirmedBenton’sconclusionthattereowasinaperilousstate,findingthat8.1percentofMāoriagedover16hadahighproficiencyinspokenMāori,51.3per cent had low to medium fluency, and 40.6 per centhadnoproficiency.Putanotherway,itshowedtherewerejust over 22,000 highly fluent adult Māori speakers – asignificantdecline fromthe64,000revealedby the 1975survey.nearlythree-quartersofthosehighlyfluentwereaged 45 and over.135 obviously, if children learning atkōhangaandkurakaupapahadbeenincluded,thefigureswouldhavebeensomewhatdifferent.

(2) Māori-language education demand surveys, 1992, 1995twosurveysconductedinthefirsthalfofthe1990sindi-catedthethenpotentialmarketforMāori-languageedu-cation.Thefirstsurvey,conductedin1992byAGBMcnairfortheMinistryofeducation,canvassedthecaregiversof500Māoriand500non-Māoripre-schoolandprimary-schoolchildrenandsuggestedthatsupplywasalongwayoffmeetingMāoridemandforMāori-languageeducation.

According to thesurvey, some77percentof thecar-egiversforMāorichildrenwantedtheirchargestoreceiveatleastsomeprimary-schoolteachingintereo(overandabove learningMāoriasa subject),butonly33percentof those with school-age children had their children insuchschools.And,thoughamere7percentofcaregiverswantedtheirchildrentohavelittleornoMāorilangauge

taught, 50 per cent of school-age Māori children werereceivingjustthiskindofeducation.136

Atthattime,therewere89,115regularclassroomMāoriprimary-schoolstudentsbutonly13,671MāoristudentsinMāori-mediumclassesatprimaryschool(15.3percent).This is a far cry from the more than 68,000 that wouldhavebeenseenifthepreferencesofthe77percentofcar-egivershadbeenmet.

seventy-seven per cent of Māori caregivers also pre-ferred that their children receive Māori-medium edu-cation at secondary-school level, though because thosechildren had not yet begun secondary school, we havenoplacementfigurestocomparewiththosepreferences.However,atthattime,therewere37,061regularclassroomMāori secondary-school students, and if a 77 per centdemandhadbeenmet,therewouldhavebeen28,537stu-dents in Māori-medium classes. Instead, there were just2,380(6.4percent).

non-Māorichildrentendedtobemuchmorelikelytoattendatypeofschoolthataccordedwiththeircaregiv-ers’preferences.notably,7percentofthecaregiverspre-ferred their children’s primary schooling to be in Māoriandenglish,with2percentpreferringtheir instructionto be mostly in Māori. While the survey indicated thatthis ambition was met for most of those who held suchpreferences and who had children already at school,137thepercentagesaremoreimportantthantheyfirstseem,because if accurate they would have translated nation-allytoarelativelysignificantnumberofchildren(thatis,29,546studentsoutofthe328,286regularclassroomnon-Māoriprimary-schoolstudents).Inactuality,thenumbertheninMāori-mediumclasseswas1,275(0.4percent).

Māori-medium education at secondary school levelwas also preferred by 9 per cent of non-Māori caregiv-ers,whichwouldhavetranslatedinto17,177ofthe190,851regularclassroomnon-MāoristudentsinMāori-mediumclasses.Therealfigurewasjust100(lessthanonetenthofapercent).

ThesecondsurveywascarriedoutfortheMinistryofeducationbyMRLResearchin1995andwasintendedtoascertainthelikelydemandforMāoriandPacificIslandlanguageeducationto2020.Accordingly,650Māoriand550PacificIslandcaregiversforchildrenaged10orunderwereinterviewedinAucklandandWellington.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.3.4(2)

34

40

50

60

Primary‐Schooling Preferences of Caregivers of Māori Children and Actual Participation Rates as Surveyed in 1992

Preference as

0

10

20

30

Teaching only in Māori Teaching mostly in Māori

Teaching in Māori and English

Māori only as subject Māori used for songs, greetings, words

Teaching only in English

Percen

tage

Preference as surveyed

Participation as surveyed

Surveyed Schooling Preferences of Caregivers of Māori School Children and Projected and Actual Māori Student Enrolment in Māori‐Medium 

Education, 1992

90,000

100,000

70,000

80,000Total number of Māori school students

50,000

60,000Participation of Māori students in Māori‐medium education if preferences borne out

30,000

40,000

Actual participation of Māori students in Māori‐medium education

10,000

20,000

0

10,000

Primary School Secondary School

Figure 5.11

Figure 5.12

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.3.4(2)

35

40

50

60

Primary‐Schooling Preferences of Caregivers of Māori Children and Actual Participation Rates as Surveyed in 1995

Preference as

0

10

20

30

Teaching only in Māori Teaching mostly in Māori

Teaching in Māori and English

Māori only as subject Māori used for songs, greetings, words

Teaching only in English

Percen

tage

Preference as surveyed

Participation as surveyed

80,000

100,000

120,000

Surveyed Schooling Preferences of Caregivers of Māori School Children and Projected and Actual Māori Student Enrolment in Māori‐Medium 

Education, 1995

Total number of Māori school students

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

Primary School Secondary School

Participation of Māori students in Māori‐medium education if preferences borne out

Actual participation of Māori students in Māori‐medium education

Figure 5.14

Figure 5.13

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.3.4(3)

36

The results were similar to those recorded in 1992, inthat a 68 per cent demand for Māori-mediumprimary-schooleducationwasbeingmetbya43percentsupply,while a 14 per cent preference for education weightedmost heavily towards english was contradicted by a 39percentplacementinsuchschools.

The trend continued at secondary-school level, withbilingual learning wanted by 57 per cent of caregivers,instruction mainly in Māori by 5 per cent, and Māoriimmersionby4percent.138

There were then 97,091 regular classroom Māori pri-mary-school students.Had68percentof thembeen insome form of Māori-medium education, there wouldhavebeen66,022 suchstudents,but thefigurewasonly19,044 (19.6 per cent). At secondary-school level, therewere 38,049 regular classroom Māori students, and hadthe preferences of the 66 per cent of caregivers beenrealised,therewouldhavebeen25,112inMāori-mediumlearning. Instead, there were 2,943 (7.7 per cent).139 Atboth levels, the clear gap between supply and demandagainseemsirrefutable.

TheseresultsallowustocommentonthedemandforMāori-language instruction in the 1990s and the extenttowhichthatdemandwasbeingmet.Whilemarginsoferrorexistandthereissomeevidenceofslightlyreduceddemandandsomewhatimprovedsupplyin1995,thereisastrikingconsistencyacrossthetwosurveys.

Itis,ofcourse,unknownwhetherplacesinsuchformsofeducationwerefullorwhetheralargenumberofMāoristudents had Māori-medium learning options availablelocallybutwerenotmakinguseofthem.Inotherwords,the rate of placement cannot be regarded simply as therateof supply.However,given that therewasa shortageofMāori-mediumteachersatthetime,itisunlikelythattheactuallevelofsupplywassignificantlyhigher.evenifweassumethat thesurveyed levelofdemandwasexag-gerated,140thiswouldnotbridgetheclearchasmbetweensupply and demand. for example, if the actual level ofdemandin1992wasradicallylower–sayonly35percentinsteadof77percent–thiswouldstillhavemeantthat17,500 Māori primary school children were not attend-ing their caregivers’ favoured form of Māori-mediumeducation.141

overall, one can thus see that the supply of Māori-mediumschoolingprobablyimprovedbetween1992and1995 but that Māori demand, while still high, may havefallenslightly.

Peak demand (in terms of the proportion of MāoristudentsinMāori-mediumlearning)camein1999.Inthedecadesince,demandhasclearlydeclined,irrespectiveofsupply,althoughofcoursewemustrememberthatongo-ing teacher shortages have shown an incessant supply-sideproblem.

(3) Census results, 1996–2006The 1996 census was the first to ask respondents whichlanguages they could hold a conversation in about a lotofeverydaythings.Itfoundthat25percentoftheMāoriethnic group could hold such a conversation in te reoMāori. nena and Richard Benton found this an ‘amaz-ing revelation’, having assumed, on the basis of the 1995national survey, that theresultwouldbe farworse.Halfthespeakerswereunder25,whereasthe1995surveyhadsuggested the median age of speakers aged 16 and overwouldbecloserto50.142

There have now been three censuses asking a lan-guage question, and further significant te Puni Kōkiri-commissionedsurveys into thehealthof theMāori lan-guagein2001and2006(seebelow).settingtheresultsofthe1996censusalongsidethe2001and2006results,wecandiscernmedium-termtrendsinthehealthofthelan-guage(seetable5.9):

ȂȂ Theproportionofthoseagedzerotoninewhocanspeak the language has declined significantly since1996.

ȂȂ Inall theagegroups from10 to39, theproportionof te reo speakers rose between 1996 and 2001; forthe 10- to 24- and 35- to 39-year-olds, this propor-tion declined again by 2006 (in the case of 10- to19-year-oldstolessthan1996levels);andforthe25-to34-year-oldsitcontinuedtoclimb,butatamuch-reducedrate.

ȂȂ for the 40- to 64-year-olds, there was an ongoingdecline which was dramatic at the older levels (forexample,from47.8percentofthoseaged55to59in1996to33.2percentofthoseaged55to59in2006).

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.3.4(4)

37

ȂȂ Amongst thoseaged65andover, therewasamar-ginaldecreasein2001andasteepdeclinein2006.

ȂȂ In2006,theagegroupswiththelowestproportionsof reo speakerswere those spanning theyears zeroto14.Asthesealsohappentobethemostpopulous,themorepositiveresponses–suchasthenearly50percentofthoseaged65andoverwhowerespeak-ers–representmuchsmallernumbersofpeople.

ȂȂ The key concern about this lower-speaking abilityamongsttheyoungisthatitwasnotthecasein1996,when those aged zero to nine had higher propor-tionsofspeakersthanthoseaged20to29,andthoseaged10to14out-ratedthoseaged20to34.

While the reasons for these changes are undoubtedlycomplex, some trends do seem readily explicable. Thedeclineinyoungerspeakerswouldclearlyseemtorelateto the drop-off in those attending kōhanga reo and thedeclining proportion of those attending Māori-mediumschooling.Conversely,therisesamongsomeagecohortswillrelatetofactorssuchastheincreasedparticipationinMāori-mediumschoolinginthelate1990sorthegrowthinthoseinlateragebracketstakingtertiarycoursesinte

reo (notwithstandingearle’s comment that suchcourseswouldnotenableonetoconverseproficientlyinMāoriontheirown).143Anexampleofthelattermaybethe30-to34-year-olds in 1996, who as 35- to 39-year-olds in 2001and40- to44-year-olds in2006 increased theirpropor-tionof reospeakers.Thedeclineof speakerproportionsintheolderagegroupsalsoclearlyrelatestothefactthat,as many older speakers pass away, they are increasinglyreplacedbythosewhohaveneverlearnttereo.

(4) Projecting the census results forwardLooking to the future,weknowroughlyhow theMāoripopulationpyramidwill lookin16years’ time.By2026,according to statistics new Zealand, the Māori popula-tionislikelyonmid-rangeprojectionstonumber811,000– up from 624,000 in 2006.144 It will be older, but stillhavea larger-than-averagenumberofyoungerpeople.145Ifcurrenttrendscontinue,andtheproportionofchildrenagedzerotofourabletospeakMāoricontinuestodeclineacross censuses, we estimate that around 16 per cent ofthe258,000Māori in thezero to 14agerangewillbe tereo speakers in 2026 (unadjusted for those too young

40

50

60e

Percentage of Māori Who Speak Te Reo by Census, 1996‐2006

0

10

20

30

0‐4 5‐9 10‐14 15‐19 20‐24 25‐29 30‐34 35‐39 40‐44 45‐49 50‐54 55‐59 60‐64 65+

Percen

tage

Age Group

1996 census

2001 census

2006 census

Figure 5.15

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.3.4(4)

38

to speak). Likewise (and using an approximate analy-sis based on the ageing of current age cohorts), around20 per cent of the 303,000 aged 15 to 39, 24 per cent ofthe181,000aged40to64,andaround26percentofthe69,000aged65andoverwillbespeakers.

In other words, it is unlikely that the official tally ofMāorispeakersoftereoMāoriin2026willbemorethan150,000.146Thatisariseof14percentduringaperiodinwhichtheMāoriethnicgrouppopulationisprojectedtorise by 30 per cent (on medium projections). The esti-matednumberofspeakersrepresentsalikely20percentproportionof theofficial2026census-night tally for theMāoriethnicgroup,comparedwith23.7percentin2006.

Itisalsolikelythat,by2026,therewillbeveryfewoldernative speakers of te reo left. today, those with higherdegreesoflanguageproficiencyarefoundintheolderagebrackets.Itisunlikelythattheoverallproficiencyofthose150,000speakersin2026willbeanybetter,ifbetteratall,thanthe131,610Māorispeakersoftereotoday.

Current trends, therefore, suggest that the ongo-ing gains being made with te reo are not offsetting theongoing losses occurring as older speakers pass away.Moreover, the theoretically ongoing gains are in fact

beginningtoturnintolossesamongstthecrucialyoungeragegroups,whorepresentthefuturehealthoftereo.

In its report on The Health of the Māori Language in 2001, te Puni Kōkiri stated, with respect to the censusresults,that:

The predominant feature between 1996 and 2001 is the stability of numbers of Māori speakers at all levels ; there is even some moderate growth in some areas . This suggests that the long-term decline in the number of Māori speak-ers that occurred over a number of decades may have been arrested .147

When the 2006 census results were released, officialssuggestedthatthesmallincreaseinthenumberofMāorispeakingMāorirepresentedastabilisationoftereoafteralongperiodofdecline,withalikelyriseinthenumberofyoungerspeakers.Infact,however,theagegrouprecord-ing the biggest growth in te reo speakers between 1996and2006 (inabsolutenumbers)was thoseaged60andover, as thepopulationaged.speakers in thisagegroupincreasedfrom13,647in1996to16,095in2006.148Bycon-trast, the numbers of speakers aged zero to 14 declined

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

rs

Census Māori Te Reo Speaker Numbers, 2006: Actual and Projected 

Number of additional Māori speakers of te reo in 2006 if 2001 peak rate of speaking had been maintainedNumber of additional Māori speakers of te reo in 2006 if 1996

Number of Māori speakers of te reo 2006

Number of additional Māori speakers of te reo in 2006 if 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

0‐4 5‐9 10‐14 15‐19 20‐24 25‐29 30‐34 35‐39 40‐44 45‐49 50‐54 55‐59 60‐64 65+ total

Num

ber o

f Spe

aker

Age Group

speakers of te reo in 2006 if 1996 peak rate of speaking had been maintainedNumber of Māori speakers of te reo 2006

Total number of additional Māori speakers of te reo in 2006 if 2001 total peak rate of speaking had been maintained

p1996  peak rate of speaking had been maintained

Number of additional Māori speakers of te reo in 2006 if 2001 peak rate of speaking had   been maintained

Total number of additional Māori speakers of te reo in 2006 if 2001 total peak rate of speaking had been maintained

Figure 5.16

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.3.4(6)

39

from38,595in1996to35,151in2006.The2006resultdoesnotappeartobeevidenceofafurtherstabilisationatall.seetable5.9.

(5) Te Puni Kōkiri’s 2006 surveyIn2006,tePuniKōkiriconductedasurveyonthehealthof the Māori language that seemed to contradict thecensus result. Announcing the results in July 2007, theMinisterofMāoriAffairs said that they showed ‘signifi-cantprogresstowardstheachievementofthegoalsoftheMāoriLanguagestrategy’.Hesaidhighlightsincluded:

ȂȂ a9percentagepointincreasesincetePuniKōkiri’s2001 survey in the number of Māori who couldspeak more than a few words and phrases (that is,from42percentin2001to51percentin2006);

ȂȂ a 7 percentage point increase in those who couldspeak te reo very well, well, or fairly well (that is,from20percentin2001to27percentin2006);

ȂȂ the numbers who could understand (by listen-ing), read, and write more than a few words andphrasesincreasingby8,10,and11percentagepointsrespectively;

ȂȂ thenumberof15-to24-years-oldswhocouldspeakte reo increasingby 13percentagepointsand those25to44by16percentagepoints;and

ȂȂ an increase in adults speaking te reo to their pre-schoolers at home by 17 percentage points, to pri-mary school children by 14 percentage points andto secondary school children by 20 percentagepoints.149

As noted, the Ministry of education also hailed thesurvey results, arguing that increased Māori proficiencyin te reo since 2001 had been helped by the substantialgrowth in enrolments for tertiary te reo Māori coursesduringthatperiod.150

(6) Discrepancies between the 2006 census and surveyThe 2006 census and the 2006 survey are thus at oddswith each other. While te Puni Kōkiri found majorimprovements in speaking proficiency amongst thoseaged15to44sinceitsprevioussurvey,thecensusshoweddeclining proficiency among those aged 15 to 24, a verymarginal improvement for those aged 25 to 34, and adeclineforthoseaged35to44.Theverysmallimprove-mentinspeakingproficiencyforthoseaged55andoverin the survey contrasts with a major decline amongstthoseinthisagegroupinthecensus.

tePuniKōkirihaspubliclystateditsviewthat:

The Māori Language Survey is a better measure of the Māori language [than the census] as it is a face-to-face interview and has a variety of questions that investigate language acquisition, skill and use . it asks a number of questions, each targeted at an aspect of language revitalisation that we need to know about .

Te Puni Kōkiri’s 2008 report on the results of its 2006 survey on the health of the Māori language. Te Puni Kōkiri claimed that there had been ‘significant growth in the numbers of Māori adults who can speak and understand the Māori language to varying degrees of proficiency’.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.3.4(6)

40

This survey provides a more robust way to look at the health of the Māori language than a single question which requires a large degree of interpretation .151

Despitethis, theMinistryofsocialDevelopment’s influ-entialSocial Reportfor2007wasequivocalaboutwhetherprogresswasbeingmadeornot.Itnotedthatthesurveyandcensusdatawere ‘notdirectlycomparable’andcon-cludedthat:

The 2006 Census shows a slight decrease in the proportion of Māori who speak Māori since 2001, while the 2006 Survey on the Health of the Māori Language shows an increase over the same period . it is not clear whether the proportion who speak Māori has declined slightly or increased .152

DrPeterKeeganfromtheschoolofMāorieducationat the University of Auckland has also commented onthe2006censusandsurveyresults,sayingthattheques-tionofwhethertereoMāori‘isgainingorlosinggroundtoday’was‘difficult’toanswer.153

Linguist Dr Winifred Bauer of Victoria Universityhas conducted a comprehensive comparison of the cen-susandsurveyresultsfor2001and2006,andislessthanimpressed with the reliability of the 2006 survey. sheargues,first,thatchangedsamplingmethodsandreport-age of data between the 2001 and 2006 surveys make

‘serioussurveycomparisonimpossible’.shethenpointstothe large margins of error in both the surveys (particu-larlywhenfocusingonsmallsubgroupswithintheover-all survey sample), which were even bigger in the 2006survey.shealsonotestheaddedpotentialforunreliabilityinthe2006surveyintroducedbytheparticularsamplingmethod.154

Mostimportantly,DrBauersaysthatthe2006surveyissimplynotcrediblebecauseitissoatoddswiththecen-susresultsinrespecttogeneralspeakingproficiency,thegapbetweenmenandwomen’sproficiency,andtheuseoftereobychildren.ManyofthegainsclaimedbytePuniKōkiri relate to very small numbers of survey respond-ents,arewellwithinthemarginoferror,andareachievedbycombiningthosestatingtheycanspeak‘verywell’and‘well’(sincetheformergroupistoosmallonitsownforanycredibleanalysis).Bycontrast, thecensushasaskedthesamequestionoftheentirepopulation,sotherearenosamplingerrorsandtheresultsaredirectlycomparable.155

overall,DrBauerconcludesthat:ȂȂ The surveys simply do not tell us what lies behind

the key trends discernible from the census, and infact‘havefailedtoprovideabetterpicturethanthecensuses in crucial areas’. Consequently, it is argu-ablewhetherthesefive-yearlynationalsurveys‘haveanyvalue’.156

ȂȂ Thesurveyresultscontradictreality:thatthehealth

‘Bilingual classes shut’Marlborough Express, 9 December 2009

‘Nothing to celebrate in Maori language statistics’Timaru Herald, 30 July 2009

‘Massive drop looms for Maori-medium education’NZ Education Review, 20 February 2009

The decline in the health of te reo is reflected in these 2009 news headlines.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.3.5

41

ofthelanguagecontinuestodecline.Certainly,therewasnoimprovementinthelanguageproficiencyofthe critical parenting generation cohorts, who arevital to intergenerational transmission, between2001and2006.157

ȂȂ There is real danger in casting the 2006 surveyresultsinsuchapositivelight.Doingsowillencour-agecomplacencyaboutthehealthofthelanguageatatimewhenasenseofurgencyisstillneeded.158

5.3.5  Conclusions  : how healthy is te reo in 2010  ?Therewasatruerevivaloftereointhe1980sandearly-to-mid-1990s.Itwasspurredonbytherealisationofhowfewspeakerswere left,andby therelativeabundanceofolderfluentspeakersinbothurbanneighbourhoodsandrural communities. The revival was a Māori movement,itwasachievedthrougheducation,anditwasincrediblysuccessfulatagrass-rootslevel.Themovementwasper-hapsatitsmostpowerfulduringitsearliestsurge,asdem-onstrated by Māori born from 1977 to 1981 being morelikelytospeaktereothanthoseborneitherfrom1967to1976orfrom1982onward(seetable5.10).

fromaround1994to1999,tereohasbeeninreneweddecline.Theproblemisnotjustoneofdecliningnumbersof Māori speakers but also, strikingly, declining propor-tions, for it has also coincided with a significant rise inthe number of younger Māori. Critically, the declineisnowoccurringatboth theyoungandoldendsof thespectrum. The figures clearly contradict the perceptionthat,amongMāoriunder40,itisyoungerpeoplewhoaremorelikelytospeakMāori.ThefiguresalsoshowthatthemostpopulousMāoriagegroupsarealsotheleastlikelytobeMāori-speaking(seetable5.9).

All this means that, if trends continue, over the next15 to 20 years the te reo speaking proportion of theMāoripopulationwilldecline further,evenas theabso-lutenumberof speakerscontinues to slowlyclimb.Anddespitethehighernumbersoftereospeakerslikelytobefound in, say,2026, theyare likely tobe lessfluent thanspeakersnow,giventherelativelyfewoldernativespeak-erswhowillstillbealive.

The 2006 te Puni Kōkiri-commissioned Māori lan-guage survey showed much more positive results thanthe2006census,but ithasbeen stronglycriticisedbya

leading scholar for its lackof reliability.Thesurveycer-tainly does have large margins of error. Moreover, itsinconsistencywithkeytrendsapparentinthecensusandbacked up by other data sources suggest it is unwise toproclaim, as did the Minister of Māori Affairs, that theresults showed ‘significant progress’ towards achievingtheMāorilanguagestrategygoals.

needless to say, thedecline in te reooverall–and inparticularthelossofoldernativespeakers–mustbehav-ing a major impact on the health of tribal dialects. Bydefinition, older native speakers are speakers of dialect.This by no means holds true for children today whosefirstlanguageisMāori.somethingofthefateoftribaldia-lectisindicatedbythefactthattherewere20,190Māoritereospeakersbornbefore1942 in the1996census,butonly11,031speakersofthesamecohortin2006.By2026,there will probably be not many more than a couple ofthousand. Incertainareasof thecountry,of course, theloss of older native speakers is more pronounced thanelsewhere,asshownbytePuniKōkiri’sregionalprofilesofthehealthoftheMāorilanguage.Inanylanguagewithfalteringhealth–or, inthiscase,afalteringrevival–itsownvariationsmustbeitsmostvulnerableelements.Thisis the inevitable state of tribal dialects today, with someelementsalreadyallbutgoneandothersclearlyinperil.Unless dialects begin to be spoken more by youngerMāori,theirprospectsbeyondthenext20yearsareobvi-ouslybleak.

ThecurrentdeclineintereoMāoriseemstohavesev-eralunderlyingcauses.Theyinclude:

ȂȂ theongoing lossofoldernative speakerswhohavespearheadedtherevivalmovement;

ȂȂ complacencybroughtaboutbytheveryexistenceoftheinstitutionswhichdrovetherevival;

ȂȂ concerns about quality, with the supply of goodteachers never matching demand (even while thatdemandhasbeenshrinking);

ȂȂ excessive regulation and centralised control, whichhas alienated some of those involved in the move-ment;and

ȂȂ anongoinglackofeducationalresourcesneededtoteachthefullcurriculumintereoMāori.

The issueof teacher supply strikesusas crucial– the1992 and 1995 surveys showed the potential market for

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

2

Te Reo Māori

3

Late 1970s : Estimated that fewer than 100 Māori children under five fluent in te reo

1980 19821970

1977 First bilingual school at Rūātoki

1980 Māori Language Week March

1972 Māori language petition

1979 Te Ātaarangi established

1979 1983

Two members of the Waitangi Tribunal, Chief Judge Edward Taihakurei Durie (left) and Paul Temm QC, seen during a visit to a kōhanga reo (language nursery) at Waiwhetu, Lower Hutt (1985).

19771972

1982 First kōhanga reo established

Figures in this timeline are either taken from the text (and referenced where cited) or from Davies and Nicholl, 1993, op cit

1982 : First kōhanga reo established

1983 : 4,132 children in 170 kōhanga ; 33 per cent of all Māori children in early childhood education at kōhanga

Timeline :   

The ReviTalisaTion 

and Renewed decline 

of Te Reo māoRi 

1970–2010

Te Reo Speakers : Growth and decline in speaking proficiency amongst Māori children

Kōhanga reo : Growth and decline in kōhanga reo enrolments

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

2

Te Reo Māori

3

Late 1970s : Estimated that fewer than 100 Māori children under five fluent in te reo

1980 19821970

1977 First bilingual school at Rūātoki

1980 Māori Language Week March

1972 Māori language petition

1979 Te Ātaarangi established

1979 1983

Two members of the Waitangi Tribunal, Chief Judge Edward Taihakurei Durie (left) and Paul Temm QC, seen during a visit to a kōhanga reo (language nursery) at Waiwhetu, Lower Hutt (1985).

19771972

1982 First kōhanga reo established

Figures in this timeline are either taken from the text (and referenced where cited) or from Davies and Nicholl, 1993, op cit

1982 : First kōhanga reo established

1983 : 4,132 children in 170 kōhanga ; 33 per cent of all Māori children in early childhood education at kōhanga

Timeline :   

The ReviTalisaTion 

and Renewed decline 

of Te Reo māoRi 

1970–2010

Te Reo Speakers : Growth and decline in speaking proficiency amongst Māori children

Kōhanga reo : Growth and decline in kōhanga reo enrolments

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

4

Te Reo Māori

5

1995  : 25,284 students in Māori-medium education ; 15.9 per cent of Māori students in Māori-medium education

1985 19891984 1986 1987 1992 19961991 1993 1995

Pita Sharples speaking at the opening of Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Hoani Waititi

1987  : Fifty primary schools offering Māori-medium education ; 3 per cent of all Māori primary school students in Māori-medium education

1992  : 17,426 students in Māori-medium education ; 12.5 per cent of Māori students in Māori-medium education

1991  : 261 primary and 54 secondary schools offering Māori-medium education

1985 Opening of Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Hoani Waititi

1987 Te Upoko o te Ika Māori Radio Station is launched 1989  : 8,724

children in 470 kōhanga ; 44 per cent of all Māori children in early childhood education at kōhanga

1993  : 14,514 children in 809 kōhanga ; 49.2 per cent of all Māori children in early childhood education at kōhanga

1995 Māori Language Year

1987 Maori Language Act passed

1986 release of the Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Te Reo Maori Claim

1986  : Estimated 700 Māori children under 10 speak te reo

Māori-medium education: Growth and decline in Māori-medium schooling enrolments

1996  : 10,500 Māori speakers of te reo aged 0–4 in census (21.9 per cent)

1996 Census form released in te reo

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

4

Te Reo Māori

5

1995  : 25,284 students in Māori-medium education ; 15.9 per cent of Māori students in Māori-medium education

1985 19891984 1986 1987 1992 19961991 1993 1995

Pita Sharples speaking at the opening of Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Hoani Waititi

1987  : Fifty primary schools offering Māori-medium education ; 3 per cent of all Māori primary school students in Māori-medium education

1992  : 17,426 students in Māori-medium education ; 12.5 per cent of Māori students in Māori-medium education

1991  : 261 primary and 54 secondary schools offering Māori-medium education

1985 Opening of Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Hoani Waititi

1987 Te Upoko o te Ika Māori Radio Station is launched 1989  : 8,724

children in 470 kōhanga ; 44 per cent of all Māori children in early childhood education at kōhanga

1993  : 14,514 children in 809 kōhanga ; 49.2 per cent of all Māori children in early childhood education at kōhanga

1995 Māori Language Year

1987 Maori Language Act passed

1986 release of the Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Te Reo Maori Claim

1986  : Estimated 700 Māori children under 10 speak te reo

Māori-medium education: Growth and decline in Māori-medium schooling enrolments

1996  : 10,500 Māori speakers of te reo aged 0–4 in census (21.9 per cent)

1996 Census form released in te reo

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

6

Te Reo Māori

7

20031998 20092004 2006 20081999 20022000

2009 Number of kōhanga drops to 464

1999 : 30, 793 students in Māori-medium education ; 455 schools offering Māori-medium education ; 18.6 per cent of Māori students in Māori-medium education

2002 : 10,389 children in 545 kōhanga ; 31.6 per cent of all Māori children in early childhood education at kōhanga

2006 : 8,910 Māori speakers of te reo aged 0–4 in census (18.2 per cent)

2009 : 28,231 students in Māori-medium education ; 394 schools offering Māori-medium education ; 15.2 per cent of Māori students in Māori-medium education

2003 Release of the Māori language strategy

2004 Launch of Māori Television

2008 : 9,165 children in 467 kōhanga ; 23.4 per cent of all Māori children in early childhood education at kōhanga

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

6

Te Reo Māori

7

20031998 20092004 2006 20081999 20022000

2009 Number of kōhanga drops to 464

1999 : 30, 793 students in Māori-medium education ; 455 schools offering Māori-medium education ; 18.6 per cent of Māori students in Māori-medium education

2002 : 10,389 children in 545 kōhanga ; 31.6 per cent of all Māori children in early childhood education at kōhanga

2006 : 8,910 Māori speakers of te reo aged 0–4 in census (18.2 per cent)

2009 : 28,231 students in Māori-medium education ; 394 schools offering Māori-medium education ; 15.2 per cent of Māori students in Māori-medium education

2003 Release of the Māori language strategy

2004 Launch of Māori Television

2008 : 9,165 children in 467 kōhanga ; 23.4 per cent of all Māori children in early childhood education at kōhanga

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.4

48

Māori language education, but the amount of Māori-medium education available has clearly never comeremotely close to those levels. We are unaware of anyattempt to follow up on these these demand surveys,which is of itself a concern. We suspect that demandwouldbelesstoday,highlightingthefailuretocapitaliseonpastmomentum.

successesinMāorilanguageeducationaretodaycon-fined to pockets. Undoubtedly, excellent speakers arecoming through kura kaupapa and wharekura, but thisdoesnotoffsettheoveralldeclineinMāoriparticipationin Māori-medium education. The Ministry of educa-tionwishestoincreaseMāoriparticipationratesinearlychildhood education, but would appear content forthis increase to be in centres that are typically english-medium.Attertiary level,morestudentsarestudyingtereothaninthe1990s,andthismaybecontributingtolan-guagerevivalatsomelevels.ButitwillnothelpproducetheteacherssosorelyneededwhilesomanytereoMāoritertiarystudentsareinlower-level(1to3)study.

5.4  Tribunal Analysis and ConclusionsHavingestablishedthatthehealthoftereoremainsfrag-ile at best, we turn now to consider the treaty interestsandissuesatplayin2010.

It has been well-established by earlier tribunals thattereoMāoriisataongaguaranteedtoMāoriunderarti-cle2of thetreaty.That there isatreaty interestatplayisthusundeniable.Moreover,asweexplainbelow,thereare no real countervailing interests that impact on theCrown’sdutytosupporttereo–apartfromcost.sowhatshouldtheCrownandMāoridotoensureitssurvivalandhealth?Inthissection,weidentifythekeycomponentsoftheirrespectiveobligations,anddiscusshowtheseshouldform the basis of a genuinely treaty-compliant modernMāorilanguageregime.

5.4.1  The Treaty interest(1) Te reo as a taongaWe begin by considering the nature of the treaty inter-est in te reo Māori in 2010. The tribunal has alreadyestablishedthat‘oratoutaongakatoa’guaranteedinarti-cle 2 can be translated as ‘all their valued customs and

possessions’or ‘allthingshighlyprized’,andcoversbothtangibleandintangiblethings.Morespecifically,thetereoMāoritribunalfoundthat‘Itisplainthatthelanguageisanessentialpartofthecultureandmustberegardedas“avaluedpossession”’.Itadded:

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 .159

That te reo is a taonga guaranteed recognition underthe treaty has been explicitly recognised by the Crown.Indeed, the preamble to the Maori Language Act 1987statesthat:

Whereas in the Treaty of Waitangi the Crown confirmed and guaranteed to the Maori people, among other things, all their taonga : And whereas the Maori language is one such taonga .

Butevendescribing te reoas a taongaunderstates itsimportance. The language is clearly a taonga of quitetranscendentimportancetoMāori,andfewothertaongacouldrivalitsstatus.Withoutit,Māoriidentitywouldbefundamentallyundermined,aswould theveryexistenceofMāoriasadistinguishablepeople.AsthetereoMāoritribunalput it, ‘If the languagediestheculturewilldie,and something quite unique will have been lost to theworld.’160 The extroadinary importance of the languagewasalsoemphasisedbythePrivyCouncilwhen,in1994,itendorsedtheearlierHighCourtfindingthatlanguagewasat the ‘core’ofMāoricultureand that theCrown isunderanongoingobligation to takewhat stepsare rea-sonabletoassistinitspreservation.161

Given the importance of this taonga to Māori, theCrown’s protection of it clearly needs to accord withMāoripreferences–and,indeed,bedeterminedinlargemeasurebyMāoriideas.Thiskindofpartnershiporco-ownership is inherent in the treaty. furthermore, theCrownmustseeMāoriandtereoasnotsomehowexter-naltoitself,butacorepartofthesocietyitrepresents–andthusakeyinfluenceoverhowitconductsitself.And

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.4.2

49

becausethetreatyofcoursealsograntstheMāoriinter-estagreaterstatusthansimplythatofaminoritygroupwithinsociety,theMāoriinterestthushasacorrespond-ingclaimtoresources,bothfiscalandotherwise.

We should add that the Crown endorsed the UnitednationsDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoplesin 2010. Article 13 of the declaration states that indig-enous peoples ‘have the right to revitalize, use, developand transmit to future generations their .  .  . languages’,andthatsignatorystates ‘shalltakeeffectivemeasurestoensurethatthisrightisprotected’.162

(2) Tribal dialects as taongaInourview,tribaldialectsmustbeconsiderediwitaongain the same way that te reo Māori is a taonga to Māorigenerally.In1840,therewasnotoneuniform‘reo’innewZealandbutmanyvariations, and thetreaty recognisedtribalindependence.Andsoitmustfollowthat,forindi-vidualiwi,dialectsaretaongaoftheutmostimportance:theyarethetraditionalmediafortransmittingtheuniqueknowledge and culture of those iwi and are bound upwiththeirveryidentity.ngātiPorou,forexample,arewellknownwithinteaoMāorifortheiruniqueidiom,with-outwhichtheiwiwouldloseacoreelementofitsdistinc-tiveness.Webelievethatthisappliestoothertribeswithuniqueexpressionsandvocabulary.

Counsel for the te tai tokerau claimants submittedthatthedistinctivereoofthethreenortherniwiwere‘thevehiclesbywhichthemythology,oralhistoryandculturalidentity is transmitted from generation to generation’.CounselthusarguedthattheCrownneededtorecogniseastaonga‘thespecificreothatistreasuredbythekaitiakithemselves, rather than a generalised amalgam “te reoMaori”’.163WeagreeabouttheCrown’sneedtoseedistinc-tive features of tribal reo as taonga to those iwi, but wedonotagree that thisnegates thestatusof te reoMāoriitself as a taonga. We prefer the explanation of counselfor ngāti Porou, that tribal dialects ‘together comprisetheMaori languageasawholeand .  .  . contribute to itsuniquecharacter’.164

5.4.2  Other valid interestsArguably,therearenocountervailingintereststhatimpactupon ongoing support for te reo. It seems to us that a

nationalconsensushasdeveloped inrecentyears that tereoMāoriisworthyofsaving–ithascertainlybeenthepolicyofsuccessiveelectedgovernments.Inotherwords,newZealandersseemtorecognisethattereohelpsshapeour collective identity at the same time as it sustainsMāori cultural identity. We can see this reflected in thewaythatuseoftereohasbecomemuchmoreprevalentwithinthenewZealandmainstream.

There will always be issues around affordability andcost. Potentially, though, it may be unaffordable not tocontinue supporting the growth in knowledge and useof te reo. Māori educational achievements remain poor,butmoreteachingoftereoandinthemediumoftereomayencourageMāori students toperformbetter,as theMinistryofeducationsuggested in itsannual reportonMāorieducationfor2006–07:

in 2006 Year 11 candidates (students) attending Māori lan-guage schools achieved higher National Certificate of educa-tional Achievement (NCEA) attainment rates than their peers attending english language schools .165

The report referred to this as pointing to ‘promisingpocketsofsuccess’inMāori-mediumeducation.166Thereis also evidence that Māori in immersion and bilingualschools (where te reo is used at least 12 per cent of thetime) are significantly less likely to be stood down, sus-pended, unjustifiably absent or truant than Māori indecile 1–4 mainstream schools.167 While Ms sewell toldusthat‘thenumbersarequitesmallanddrawingstatisti-calconclusionsfromthemmayberisky’,shedidaddthat‘some students who’ve come through kohanga and kurakaupapaMāori .  .  .havebeenextraordinarilysuccessful’.shewasaskedbycounselforthetetaitokerauclaimantswhetherresearchshowed‘thatkaupapaMāorieducationis likely to lead tobetter learningoutcomes’.sherepliedthat‘Insomeinstancesitdoes.’168

Weagreethatcautionisessentialininterpretingthesefigures. We are aware, for example, that Māori-mediumstudentshavehad lowachievement levels in the sciencelearning area, and that – as the Ministry of educationputsit–thelowstudentnumbersmakecomparisonwithmainstream students ‘difficult and sometimes mislead-ing’.169 furthermore, low truancy rates may show that

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.4.3

50

Māori-medium schools are performing their custodialfunctionswell,butdonotnecessarilymeanthatthequal-ity of learning is high. However, and despite these cau-tions,suchresultsgivesomecauseforoptimism.Thisisbecause, as the relatively youthful Māori ethnic groupbecomesa largershareof theoverallpopulation,170 suchimprovementsareclearlyinthenationalinterest.

Itisalsowellacceptedbyscholarsthatbeingbilingualisbeneficialforachild’scognitivedevelopmentandcom-municativeability.Thiseducationalgoal,therefore,canbemet equally well by Māori as by french or Japanese. AtthesametimeasinstillingagreatersenseofsharednewZealand identity (something we return to in conclusionbelow), therefore, learning Māori can also help deliverdevelopmentalbenefits.

With regard to dialect, the issue of countervailinginterestsiscomplicatedbythefactthatsomeMāorimightfeel that theCrownshouldprimarily focuson saving tereo Māori itself. some smaller iwi, for example, wouldcertainly struggle to maintain any kind of distinct dia-lect,suchis thepaucityofnativespeakersnowamongstthem.Thiswasreflectedintheproposalthat,inordertoprotecttereoongātiKoata,theCrownmustalsoprotectandpromotetereoMāoriinngātiKoata’srohe,giventhecloserelationshipbetweenthetwo.171Perhapsthisprefer-encestemsfromthefactthatngātiKoata’sspecificreoisalready all but lost. Counsel for ngāti Kahungunu alsoseemedtoimplythatgenerallanguagerevivalneededtocome ahead of addressing tribal dialect. He submittedthat the Crown must ‘continue to implement appropri-ate remedies to strengthen te Reo Maori generally, andultimatelytostrengthenteReoofngatiKahungunuandotherindividualreospecifically’.172

Bycontrast,ngātiPorouclearlyfeltthaturgentactionisneeded toprotect and save theiruniquedialectwhilethere is still a remnant of native speakers proficient init.PerhapsthelessoninallofthisisthattheCrownwillneedtotailoritsactivitiesaccordingtothevaryingpref-erencesofdifferentiwi.

5.4.3  The obligation of the CrownThesurvivaloftereoisclearlyofparamountimportanceto Māori, and this places a significant obligation on theCrown as treaty partner to protect it. This weight of

obligation,coupledwiththeCrown’sdutytoactinfavourof te reo as a simultaneous matter of national interest,must be met with commensurate action – the develop-ment of a modern, treaty-compliant regime to ensurethe survival of the Māori language. What would such aregimelooklike?Theanswer,webelieve, is tobefoundinfourkeyprinciplesthatstrikeusasself-evidentcompo-nentsoftheCrown’streatyobligation:

ȂȂ Partnership: The survival of te reo can only beachieved in a paradigm of genuine partnership be-tweenMāoriandtheCrown.

ȂȂ A Māori-speaking government: The Governmentmustaccepttheideathatitshouldnotbeanenglish-speakingmonolith.

ȂȂ Wisepolicy:Inlightoftheimportanceofthetaongaand the wide call on the resources of the state inotherareas,thereisaparticularneedforthehigheststandards of transparent, insightful, and cost-effec-tivepolicy.

ȂȂ Adequate resources: once policies of the requisitequalityhavebeendeveloped,theremustbeenoughresourcesmadeavailabletoimplementthemsothatthereisnogapbetweenrhetoricandreality.

Wenowexamineeachoftheseprinciplesinmoredetailandconsiderhowtheymightbeappliedtobenefittereo.

(1) PartnershipTheprincipleofpartnershipisofcoursewellarticulated.ItrequiresthattheCrownandMāoriactreasonablyandin theutmostgood faith towards eachother. It requirescooperationand,onthepartoftheCrown,awillingnesstoshareresponsibilityandcontrolwith itsMāoritreatypartnerwhereitisappropriatetodoso.

Itiscertainlyappropriatetodosointhecaseoftereo.The last 30yearshave shown that ensuring te reo’spro-tection is simply too big a task to be tackled either bythe Crown alone (which appears to be happening nowunder the MLS) or by Māori alone (as happened beforethe1980s).

for Māori, the principle of partnership means beingproperlysupportedtocontributetheinitiative,ideas,andenergetic leadership that will ensure the language’s sur-vival,justastheydidinthe1980s.Thestoryofkōhangareo, kura kaupapa and Māori broadcasting initiatives

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.4.3(3)

51

showsthatsuccessispossiblewhereMāoriaresupportedtoproperlyexpresstheirsenseofresponsibilityandlovefortereo.successismuchlesslikelywhereleadershipandinitiativesitswiththeCrown,andMāorihavethestatusofmeresupplicantsorconsultees.

In calling for greater Māori participation, we do notmeanmoreMāoripublicservantshelpingtodeveloplan-guagepolicy.TherevivaloftheMāorilanguagecanonlyhappen if the challenge is owned by Māori themselves,andthatsenseofownershipcanonlycomefromthepar-ticipationofMāoricommunities–betheyrepresentedbykaupapa-based organisations or kin groups. In essence,the Crown must transfer enough control to enable aMāorisenseofownershipofthevision,whileatthesametimeensuringthatitsownexpertiseandresourcesremaincentraltotheeffort.

This brings us to the Crown’s role in the partnership,whichistoprovidethenecessarylogisticalandfinancialsupport, as well as its considerable research expertiseand comprehensive data. As nena and Richard Bentoncommentedin1999,thestate’s jobis ‘toseethatneededresourcesarethere’.forexample,theysaidthestatewouldneedtofinanceatelevisionchannel(akeycomponentofMāori language revitalisation) because the ‘Māori com-munitycannotfinancesuchaninitiativeonitsown’.TheBentonsaddedthatitisimportantthatstatefinancedoesnotbecomestatecontrol,because‘statecontrolindevel-opmentactivitiesgenerallyhasretrogressiveoutcomes’.173

Thisview isbackedupbywell-regarded internationalresearch. stephen Cornell, writing for the influentialHarvardProjectonAmericanIndianeconomicDevelop-ment, has commented that ‘the likelihood of achievingsustainabledevelopmentrisesaspowerandauthorityaredevolvedtoIndigenousnationsorcommunities,movingnon-Indigenous entities, including central governments,from decision-making to resource roles and freeingIndigenouspeoplestodecidethesethingsforthemselvesand by their own criteria’. He adds that the traditional‘divorcebetweenthosewithauthority tomakedecisionsand those bearing the consequences of those decisionshas resulted in an extraordinary and continuing recordofcentralgovernmentpolicyfailure’intheUnitedstates,Canada,Australia,andnewZealand.174

GenuineCrown–Māoripartnershipiscrucialtotereo

notonlybecauseofthetreatybutalsobecauseoftheper-iloushealthofthisvitaltaonga.Itisonlythroughajointeffortbytwopartnersinaqualityrelationshipthattereostandsanychanceatall.

(2) A Māori-speaking governmentfundamentally, there is a need for a mindset shift awayfromthepervasiveassumptionthattheCrownisPākehā,english-speaking, and distinct from Māori rather thanrepresentative of them. Increasingly, in the twenty-firstcentury,theCrownisalsoMāori.Ifthenationistomoveforward,thisrealitymustbegrasped.

IftheCrownisseriousaboutpreservingandpromot-ing the language it must also endeavour to speak te reoitself.Thisnotonly leadsbyexamplebutprovides sym-bolicaswellastangiblesupporttokeepingthelanguagealive. Māori should be able to use their own language,givenitsofficialstatus,inasmanyoftheirdealingswiththenewZealandstateaspracticable–particularlysincethe public face of the Crown will often be a Māori one.The idea of the Crown speaking Māori is of course notnovel;bynecessity,thiswasthestatusquoforalargepro-portionofnewZealand’scolonialpast.

(3) Wise policyThekāwanatangaprinciplerequirestheexerciseofgoodand responsiblegovernmentby theCrown, in exchangefor Māori acknowledging the Crown’s right to govern.ThisrequirestheCrowntoformulategood,wiseandeffi-cientpolicy.

Inthecaseoftereo,itsimportanceasataongaandthesheer necessity for its protection to be secured throughgenuine partnership means the need for a genuinelyCrown/Māoripolicyisespeciallyurgent.TheCrownmustcommit toworkingwithMāori inways thatgobeyond,say,afewconsultationhuiandareferencegroup.onlyinthiswaycanitbeensuredthatthepolicyisnotonlywisebuttherightone.Thisisanessentialstep; itwouldbeatravestytopourresourcesintoapolicydoomedtofailurebyitsverylackofMāorisupportandownership.

onceastrategicandtransparentCrown–Māoripolicyis established, the Government’s Māori language sectormust be highly functioning and infused with commonvisionandpurpose.Preciousresourcesshouldbeapplied

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

52

5.4.3(4)

carefully. simply put, the state owes Māori policies andservices that are not undermined by structural issues,competingprioritiesandintermittentfocus.

We should add that, in education, the Government’sgoal should always be well-educated, inspired, and pro-ductive students. Quite aside from the taonga status ofte reo, therefore, if its greateruse in educationcanhelpachieve thoseoverarchinggoals, theGovernmentwouldbedoublynegligentnottopursueit.

(4) Appropriate resourcesThe terms of the treaty clearly set out that the Crown’sright to make laws carries a reciprocal obligation: toaccord theMāori interestanappropriatepriority. In thecontextoftereo,theCrownmustthereforerecognisethattheMāoriinterestinthelanguageisnotthesameastheinterestofanyminoritygroupinnewZealandsocietyinitsownlanguage.Accordingly,indecision-makingaboutresourceallocation,tereoMāoriisentitledtoa ‘reason-able degree of preference’175 and must receive a level offundingthataccordswiththisstatus.

ofcourse,thispriorityshouldbereflected,inthefirstinstance,intheformulationofwisepolicy.Intheory,the

requiredleveloffundingshouldsimplyflowfromthat–that is, the fundingallocated shouldbewhatever is suf-ficienttoimplementthepolicy.

since theMāori languagerevivalbeganmore than30years ago, good economic times have come and gone.fiscal restraint in the hard times is understandable andacceptable, but there is a reciprocal need to put moreresourcesintotheproblemwhentheCrown’scofferscansustain it.As thePrivyCouncil said in theBroadcasting Assets case, where a taonga is in a vulnerable state, theCrownmaywellberequired ‘to takeespeciallyvigorousactionforitsprotection’.176

finally,weareawareoftheargumentthattheCrown’sspending on te reo should be focused more directly oncommunities where te reo is a common means of com-munication.Weagree,butthismustnotmeantheCrownreducing its focus on more ‘mainstream’ te reo resourc-ing.Thereisnofutureinan‘either/or’approachtofund-ingifthelanguageistobeprotected.

5.4.4  The Māori obligationThePrivyCouncilfoundthattheobligationtoprotecttereoiscertainlynottheCrown’salone.Justaswedidfor

‘Kia Tupato !’ signs around the Wellington south coast warn drivers to watch out for penguins. This sign was not a Government initiative, but it shows the kind of signage that would be more common if the Crown committed to greater bilingualism.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.4.5

53

theCrown,wehave identified theprinciples thatdefinethe nature and extent of the Māori obligation to te reo.Theyare:kōreroMāori,partnership,andcompromise.

(1) Kōrero MāoriAs the Privy Council put it, ‘Maori are also required totakereasonableaction,inparticularactioninthehome,forthelanguage’spreservation’.177ThehomeisanexampleofadomainwhereitisclearlybeyondtheGovernment’spowertodirectly influencetheextenttowhichMāori isused. other such domains obviously include the maraeandhui.ProvidingtheGovernmenthasestablishedasup-portiveenvironmentaccordingtotheprincipleswehavedescribed, Māori must choose to use te reo as much aspossible inthesesettings.only inthisway, for instance,cantereobecomethe languageofsocialisationathomeforMāorichildren–theeducationsystemitself,evenatkōhangalevel,cannotprovidethis.

In meeting the obligation to speak Māori (includingdialect) as much as possible, Māori must overcome anyreticenceaboutusingtereoforfearoffailure.Whakamā(embarrassment)canbe theenemyof language revitali-sation.Māorimustalsoguardagainstbeingcomplacentbecauseoftheperceivedrecentsuccessesintereorevival.such perceptions are not necessarily correct. ongoingvigilanceisappropriate.

(2) Partnership and compromiseAs we have said, the poor health of te reo demands aresponsethatisatrueexpressionofCrown–Māoripart-nership – neither party can tackle the problem withoutthe other’s wholehearted involvement. Māori must bepreparedtoworkwiththeCrownonrevivingtereoandmusttakeadvantageofopportunitiesforlearningorlis-teningtotereo.Theyshouldparticipateinthelanguageasmuchaspossible–whetherbyenrollingtheirchildreninMāorilanguageeducation(wherealocaloptionexistsandisofsufficientquality),listeningtoorwatchingMāorilanguagebroadcasts,andengagingfullywiththeCrownovertheformulationofMāorilanguagepolicies.

Thiscooperationmayrequireoccasionalcompromise.Inparticular,Māorimusttobeopen-mindedaboutwhatrevival methods will work or should be made available.Dogmatic approaches that risk alienating even fellow

Māorimustbekeptincheck.Itseemslikelytousthataflexiblestancewillsometimesberequired,intheinterestsofthelanguage.

In the running of kōhanga and kura, Māori mustalso strive to get along with each other. Whānau-based,kāinga-based, and community-based movements have astrengththatderivesfromtheirgrassrootscharacter,butthey have their risks. People do what they can in theirspare time, for koha and often with little acknowledge-ment. Important tasks are often left for the committedfew.ordinarypeople, sometimeswith limitedskillsandlesstimearerequiredtostepuptoadministerorganisa-tions with staff, budgets, accountabilities, compliancerequirements,andsoon.Thiswillalwayscreatestresses.Infighting can break out. Relationships can be strainedsometimestobreakingpoint.tamarikiandthecommu-nity inevitably suffer. Another obligation on the Māoriside is therefore tofindways to reduce the incidenceofcommunityinfightingatkōhangaandkura,andtobuildskillsthatresolveconflictwhereitdoesoccur.

5.4.5  Conclusion  : the Treaty interest in te reo and the obligations of the Crown and MāoritereoMāorianditsvariationsaretaongaof transcend-entimportancetoMāori,andtheCrownhasasignificantobligation to protect them vigorously and actively. Thisobligation has four components: partnership; a Māori-speaking government; wise policy; and appropriateresources.

Māori also have a significant obligation to te reo anditsvariations.Theymustspeak the languageasmuchaspossible, especially within the home and other Māori‘domains’.Whakamāandcomplacencymustbesetaside.MāorimustalsobewillingtocooperatewiththeCrownin the process of language revival and remain open-minded about what methods of language transmissionhold validity. furthermore, they must guard against theharmfulimpactsofinternaldisagreements.

Protecting te reo is important not just because of thetreaty;itisinthenationalinterestforatleastthreeotherreasons:

ȂȂ betterknowledgeoftereomaypossiblyleadtobet-terMāorieducationaloutcomes;

ȂȂ anyformofsecond-languagelearningorbilingualism

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.4.6

54

isknowntoassistchildren’scognitivedevelopment;and

ȂȂ te reoMāori canalsoplayakey role in fosteringasharedsenseofnationalidentity.

5.4.6  Assessing the Crown’s Māori language effortHaving set out the place of te reo under the treaty andthetreatypartners’consequentobligations,wenowturntotheCrown’sactualperformanceinprotectingthelan-guage.HowadequateisthecurrentMLS,forexample,andtowhatextentdoesitexpresstheaspirationsandvisionofMāorifortheirlanguage?

WeassesstheCrown’sperformanceagainsttheprinci-pleswehaveidentifiedastheessentialcornerstonesofamodern,treaty-compliantMāorilanguageregime–part-nership,aMāori-speakinggovernment,wisepolicy, andappropriate resources. We also comment on how Māorithemselvesarefulfillingtheirownobligationstotereo.

(1) Partnershipsignificant progress has been made since 1956 when– with the Government’s assimilative policies perhapsat their zenith – the Minister of Māori Affairs, ernestCorbett,saidthatthepreservationoftereo‘wasuptoeachmemberoftherace’andifthechildrenofMāorileaderscouldnotspeaktereoitwasnottheGovernment’sfault.secretaryofMāoriAffairsJackHunnsaidmuchthesameinhishighlyinfluential1960reportintoGovernmentlawandpolicyconcerningMāori.178

Thanks largely to the Māori protest efforts describedearlierinthechapter,thestate’svitalandsignificantroleinlanguagemaintenanceandrevivaliswellaccepted.sotoo is the importance of Māori ownership of the chal-lenge. As the Privy Council has noted, Māori must beto the fore in decision-making about language revivalbecauseitisultimatelyMāoriactionandchoicesthatwilldecidetereo’sfate–providing,ofcourse,thattheCrownhas put in place all necessary support. In other words,Māorimustplayaleadingroleinsettingandowningtheagenda, and share in the decision-making about Māorilanguagegoalsandpolicies.

our assessment of the extent to which this has hap-pened, and is happening today, has unfortunately beenhampered by gaps in the information placed before us.

What remains clear, however, is that, while some Māoriareinvariablyconsultedorappointedtoreferencegroups,officialscontroltheoveralldirectionoftheagenda.

Inthis,officialsmayhavelostsightofthefactthat,forsome iwi, the battle has moved beyond a basic fight tosavetereoandintoastruggletoretaintheirspecifictribalreo. We sense that the Crown does consider that tribalreo is primarily the responsibility of Māori themselvestopreserve.Arguably,thisviewisadirectdescendantoftheideasofCorbettandHunn.JustasitwasdifficultforMinistersandofficialstounderstandthattheremightbeavitalrole(andindeedanobligation)forthestatetohelpMāoripreservetereoMāori50yearsago,soitmaynowbeachallengefortheCrowntocomprehendthatithasacrucialroleinsupportingiwitosafeguardtribaldialects.

Consultation on the MLS may serve as a representa-tive case study on the Crown’s approach to partnership.In March 2003, te Puni Kōkiri produced a discussiondocumentabouttheproposednewMLS,and14regionalconsultationhuitookplaceovera fortnightthatmonth.ThesametePuniKōkiristaffcannothaveattendedallthehui,becausesometimes twowereheldon thesameday,in locations as distant as Auckland and Invercargill. Wedidnotseek,andnorwereweprovidedwith,informationaboutthelevelofengagementwithMāoriatthesehuiorgenerallyinresponsetothediscussiondocument.

one of the 14 hui was held was at tuatini Marae attokomaruBayontheeastCoaston25March2003.Weknowa littleabout thekōreroat thishuibecause itwasthe subject of an exchange between counsel for ngātiPorou and the witness for te Puni Kōkiri. CounselremindedhimthatngātiPorou’smessagehadbeenclear:itsoverwhelmingprioritywas te reoakeongātiPorou.Thewitnessagreedwiththisrecollection,andemphasisedthatastrengthoftheCrown’scommunitylanguageplan-ningwasthatitallowedtheCrown‘tohearfrom[an]iwiwhattheirprioritiesareandthentotryandprovidesup-portaroundthosepriorities’.179

However, the MLS as published did not particularlyreflect the extent of ngāti Porou’s concerns about theretentionoftheirtribalreo,statingonlythatiwidialectswouldbe‘supported’by2028(seediscussiononthisandothergoalsbelow).Counselsubmitted,accuratelyinourview,that:

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.4.6(2)

55

it is not specified in the Māori Language Strategy how the Crown proposes to achieve this goal [around local-level lan-guage revitalisation and iwi dialects] to ensure the ongoing retention of tribal dialects in the period leading up to 2028, by which time the large majority of the native speakers of those dialects are likely to have passed away .180

Another goal of the MLS involves the use of te reoMāoriintargeteddomainssuchas‘whānau’,‘Māoricom-munities’,‘maraeandhuiatothervenues’,‘kapahaka’and‘karakia’.181 We have no evidence of the extent of Māoriinvolvement in the wording of this goal. even were thisparticulargoalinherentlysound,Māorishouldhavehadthe key role in devising its wording themselves, ratherthanhaveofficialsdefineitforthem.

The Minister of Māori Affairs’s foreword to the MLSsays that thedocument ‘drawsstronglyonMāori think-ingabout,andaspirationsfor,theMāorilanguage’andhasbeen prepared ‘with input from Māori language expertsand through community consultation’.182 But goals that‘draw strongly’ on ‘input’ from Māori communities arenotnecessarilydefinedorendorsedbythem.

Again,theproblemisanabsenceofMāoriownership,which is crucial to success since Māori themselves arethekeyactorsintherevivalprocess.Aswehaveshown,it is principally through Māori initiative and effort thatthe reo revival effort has moved forward at all over thelast 30 years. That effort was not honoured in the proc-essbywhichtheMLSwasformulated–aquickroundofconsultation hui, then the development of goals whosewordingappearstoreflectCrownratherthanMāoripref-erences.ThelessonsoftheHarvardProject,theearlysuc-cessofkōhangareo,andthemorerecentsuccessofMāoritelevisionallemphasisetheneedfortheCrowntoensureMāoriownershipofkeydecisionsabouttereo.

Moreover, the consultation hui on the MLS were des-tined fromtheoutset tobeof limited influence.Wesaythisfortworeasons.first,theCabinetPolicyCommitteeagreedon26february2003 thattePuniKōkiriunder-takeconsultationwithMāoriby17April2003‘toconfirmkeycomponentsoftherevisedMaoriLanguagestrategy’(emphasisadded).183Clearly, the intentionwasnot tobeguided by Māori ideas but to quickly run Crown ideaspastMāoriduringasix-weekwindow.secondly,whenthe

MinisterofMāoriAffairs reportedback to the commit-teewiththeresultsofthisconsultation,on23July2003,it was with the aim of being able to release the revisedMLSduringMāoriLanguageWeek–duetobegininjustfive days.184 We suspect that the opportunity for public-ity thiseventwouldgeneratemayhavedriventhetime-frameofficialswereworkingto,includingthetimeframeforconsultation.

The point about the MLS is that only the most com-mitted reo advocates would have any idea of what itis and what it says. It was a standard piece of pre-con-sulted Crown policy for the good of Māori, admittedlypromulgated by officials committed to the survival andgrowthoftereo,butsittinginsharpcontrasttothegrass-roots momentum of the kōhanga reo movement in theearly 1980s. At that time, all Māori committed to te reounderstood the kōhanga reo strategy and all supportedit. What is needed again is a groundswell idea with theGovernment providing policy support, not a policy try-ingtosubstituteforthelackofagroundswell.Itistimetogobacktothepeopleandrebuildthepowerofthetereopartnershipthatexistedinthe1980sandearly1990s.

finally, we note that at the Hui taumata Reo inWellingtoninDecember1995(whichmarkedtheendofMāori Language Year), participants called for ‘a whole-heartedcommitment’bytheGovernment‘bywordsanddeedstoworkinpartnershipwithMāorifortheprotec-tion and promotion of Māori language’, and ‘an end toinaction and unilateral decision-making’.185 fifteen yearslater,thatcriticismwillresonatewithmanyMāoriargu-ingforagreaterroleinsettingthepolicyagendafortheirlanguage.

(2) A Māori-speaking governmentLikeMāori, theCrowntoomustownthechallenge fac-ingtereo–and,aswithMāori,thebestwayofmeetingthat challenge is to use the language. The te reo Māoritribunal thought in 1986 that the cost of publishing allpublicdocuments inMāoricouldnotbe justified,giventhat there were then more pressing matters to spendmoneyon(suchasbasicrevival).However,itsaidtereoshould definitely be able to be used in the courts, add-ing that ‘Theremustalsobe theright touse itwithanydepartmentoranylocalbodyifofficialrecognitionisto

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.4.6(2)(a)

56

berealrecognition,andnotmeretokenism’(emphasisinoriginal).186Thetribunalalsorecommendedthatfluencyintereobecomearequirementforholdingcertainposi-tionsinthepublicservice.

(a)tereointhecourtsThepassageof theMaoriLanguageAct in 1987allowedparticipants in court proceedings to speak in Māori,regardless of whether they could also communicate inenglish. But there are genuine constraints on the exer-cise of this right: for example, the High Court requiresat least 10 working days’ advance notice of any inten-tion to speak Māori.187 Under the Maori Language Act,courtparticipantsdonothavetheright tobeaddressedin Māori and there is no requirement for the proceed-ingstoberecordedinMāori.188evenintheMāoriLandCourt,applicantsmustinformtheregistraroftheirinten-tion to speak Māori in court so that an interpreter canbearranged.189Thus,itisnoeasiertouseMāoriincourtthananyotherlanguagebesidesenglish.Infact,foreignnationalsarecateredforbymeansofinterpreterssotheycan actually communicate and understand proceedings,whereas the ability of Māori court participants to com-municate in english is effectively excused by the provi-sionsoftheMaoriLanguageAct.Itseemstousthatthisfallsshortoftheintentbehindthetribunal’srecommen-dationin1986.

(b)tereoinGovernmentagenciesThe Crown has clearly not yet adequately responded tothetribunal’srecommendationabouttheuseoftereobyGovernment departments and public bodies. We heardabout the Government’s te reo proficiency standardsforpublic servants (which,whenmet, can lead to smallincreasesinannualremunerationatparticipatingdepart-ments),aswellastheestablishmentofthe‘LanguageLine’service to provide translation on demand for clients ofvarious Government agencies.190 But Language Line hasapparentlybeenlittleusedbyMāori,andtePuniKōkiriconceded that it involved ‘abitofmuckingaroundwiththetelephone’.191

Mosttellingly, in2001only18outofaround100Crownagencies claimed to have completed Māori languageplans.ofthese,onlyfourwereprovidedtotePuniKōkiri

and only two were of a sufficient standard.192 AlthoughweweretoldthattePuniKōkiri intendedtopublishanupdate,193 its 2006 inventory of Māori language services(releasedinApril2008)wassilentonthematter.tePuniKōkiri has since confirmed it is unable to provide anyupdateofthe2001situation.194

tePuniKōkiriandtetauraWhirimonitortheuptakeof Māori language initiatives by state sector agencies,andadvise themabout these initiativeswhenrequested.There isno formal legislativerequirement forentities toreportontheirprogress inthisarea–althoughin2003,CabinetdidasktePuniKōkiritopreparetermsofrefer-enceforareviewoftheMaoriLanguageActwithapossi-bleviewtoreassessingthislackofcompulsion.195In2004,theMinisterofMāoriAffairs informed theChairof theCabinetPolicyCommitteethat ‘IdonotconsiderthatitisappropriatetoestablishareviewoftheMāoriLanguageActatthistime’.196tePuniKōkiriconcededtherewasnoconsistentguidelineorcoordinatedframeworkacrossthestatesectorforagenciestouseinassessingtheircommit-mentstotheuseoftereo.197

Aswewillsee,thedraftoftheMLSsentoutforconsul-tationinearly2003setagoal todoubleMāori languageuse in ‘national and local government (including hospi-tals)’ by 2028. However, this wording was absent fromthe version of the MLS endorsed by Cabinet in July ofthatyearand thefinaldocumentdoesnot setadefinitetarget for increased reo use in Government agencies.198Indeed, officials have questioned the appropriateness ofploughing resources into the public service’s reo capac-itywhenMāoriwhānauandcommunitiesarecryingoutfor resources. We have some sympathy with this viewbut ultimately, if the te reo movement is successful, theCrownwillhavetodeliveronthegoalanyway–itisreallyjustaquestionofwhen.ThemoreMāorispeakers thereareinthecountry,themoretheCrownwillhavetospeakMāoritoo.

Piripi Walker remarked that the Crown does commitmoney to services in te reo, but it is often in the formof translating strategic and accountability documentsintoMāori.Hecalledthisaformof‘over-excitement’bythe Crown. Mr Walker praised the Welsh model, underwhichallWelshpublicagenciesarerequiredtoallowthepublictouseWelshforanywrittenorspokentransaction,

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.4.6(2)(d)

57

andtheirstafftouseWelshatwork.HesaidthatsimilarprovisionexistsforfrenchinCanada,andfortheBasqueandCatalanlanguagesinspain.199

tetauraWhiriandtePuniKōkirihavejointrespon-sibilityundertheMLSfortheprovisionofpublicservicesin Māori. In november 2007, the office of the AuditorGeneral (OAG) noted in its report on Implementing the Māori Language Strategy(whichwereturntobelow)thatbothagencieshaddeprioritisedthisactivity:

Insomecases,agencieshavechosentoprioritiseactiv-ity insomeoftheirareasofresponsibilityaboveactivityinotherareas.forexample,tetauraWhirihasdonefewoftheplannedactivitiesrelatedtoprovidingpublicserv-icesintereoMāori.staffattetauraWhiriandtePuniKōkiri (which are jointly responsible for this area) con-siderthisalowerprioritythantheirotherresponsibilities,because it makes a lesser contribution to language revi-talisationthanotheractivities.200

(c)tereoandstatebroadcasterste Puni Kōkiri told us that the Crown’s role in broad-castingwastosetonlythebroaddirection,whichitdidthrough Radio new Zealand’s and TVNZ’s charters thatrequirethemtosupporttheMāorilanguage.Thechartersarereviewedeveryfiveyears.Beyondthat,weweretolditwasuptotherespectivestatebroadcasterstoimplementthecharterastheysawfit(givenwhatwehavedescribedin section 5.2.7 as the convention of arm’s-lengthGovernment involvement). te Puni Kōkiri said that themosthelpfulthingTVNZcoulddowastocreateapositiveenvironmentfortereo,whileleavingthebroadcastingofMāorilanguagecontenttoMāoritelevision.201ofcourse,theTVNZcharterissoontobescrapped,butweassumethisphilosophywouldremainnonetheless.

tous,however,itseemsthattheCrowncouldbemuchmorespecificabout itsexpectation thatstatebroadcast-ersshouldpromoteMāorilanguageandculture.Ifthereis an inherent contradiction between TVNZ doing thisand securing sufficient advertising revenue, then per-hapsshareholdingMinisterscouldaccepta lowerfinan-cial return (the Privy Council suggested it was fullywithin their discretion to do so).202 not only has TVNZhadtomakeaprofit,butithasalsohadtoexhibit‘socialresponsibility by having regard to the interests of the

community’, although we note that this provision in itslegislationisamongstthosebeingrepealed.203Theadventof Māori television was certainly no justification forTVNZ marginalising Māori-language programmes, suchas occurred with Te Karere in 2007. Besides, in its 2007‘MāoriContentstrategy’,TVNZhasadoptedtheloftygoalofdelivering‘ContentthatensuresthehealthoftheMāorilanguageandtikanga’.Itevenaddsthatthisstrategywillallowitto‘RevitalisetheMāorilanguage’,noless.204

(d)MovingawayfrommonolingualismThereseemstoustobeclearscopefortheCrowntocom-mit more effort to achieving greater bilingualism in thepublic service. one way is by building into the MaoriLanguage Act an obligation on Crown agencies to useandplanfortereo.AnotherisincorporatingintotheMLSsomerealtargetsfordepartmentstoaimfor.Weacknowl-edgethatabalancemustbestruckbetweeninvesting inpublicservices intereoMāoriandothervitalactivities,such as training Māori-medium teachers, and we knowtheCrowncannotdoeverything.Butwedobelieve theCrowncanandshoulddomoreabouttheuseoftereobyits own agencies. As it stands there are very few Crownagencies that routinelyengagewith thepublic inMāori.TheWaitangitribunalandtheMāoriLandCourtaretwoexamples. But the tribunal has only relatively recentlyacquired the facility of simultaneous translations in itsformal hearings and judicial conferences, and no suchinfrastructureyetexistsintheMāoriLandCourt.Ifsuchdeterrents to the use of Māori are found in the MāoriLand Court, the impediments to its free use elsewherecanonlybeimagined.

ThepointofallthisisthatthereisnoreasonwhytheCrown must be monolingual in english. In referringto the relationship between ‘the Crown and Māori’, it isimportant not to overlook the fact that the Crown rep-resents Māori too – it is not a Pākehā institution, evenif that has been its character for much of the past. TheGovernment must shift its mindset so it comes to seeMāorinotasexternaltoitselfbutaspartofitsveryownmake-up.

to ensure the survival of the language, the Govern-ment’sgoalmustbeforasignificantproportionofMāoripeopletobeabletospeakMāoriinfuture.Thatgoalmust

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.4.6(3)

58

besupportedbyaplanforhowthesepeoplewillbeabletoengagewiththestateintereo,whichtheywillsurelywant to do. Any progress in the speaking of Māori byMāori, therefore,mustbematchedby thestate–other-wise, the familiar pattern of supply falling well short ofdemandwillberepeated.

(3) Wise policyIn this section,we lookat several issues–pastGovern-mentfailuresofplanningandvision;theadequacyofthecurrentMLSgoals;thecohesionandfunctionalityoftheGovernmentMāorilanguagesector;andtheadequacyofsupportfortribalreo.

(a)PastfailuresinGovernmentpolicyLooking back, the bureaucracy’s efforts to put in placemeasurestodealwithandencouragetheMāorilanguagerenaissanceweredecidedlyleaden-footed.Theexplosioninthenumbersattendingkōhangareointheearly1980sshouldhaveinstantlysignalledthatgreateropportunitieswereneeded inprimaryschools for tereotobe learnedor for Māori-medium learning (or both). However, thereaction was pedestrian, perhaps because officials sawkōhangareoasapassingfadorperhapsbecausetheysim-plycouldnotmakethementalleapthatfollow-throughatschoolwouldbeneeded.Various schoolsbegan tooffersome formofMāori-mediumeducationbut,aswehaveseen,thisdidnotmeettheever-risingdemand.Moreover,the first Māori immersion primary school – at HoaniWaititiMaraeinwestAuckland–wasaMāoriinitiative,

in 1985. By 1990, the number of kura kaupapa stood atonlysix.

In 1987, bilingual education expert Bernard spolskywas commissioned by the Department of education toreport on Māori–english bilingual education. Given the‘493 kohanga reo programmes’ then in operation, heestimatedthatat least3,000childrenayearwouldenterthe school system expecting ‘a significant use of Maoriin their curriculum’. from these ‘rough projections’ heconcluded that ‘we are facing a need for at least 1000qualified Maori bilingual teachers over the next decade’.Hesuggestedthatitwasa‘matterofhighpriorityforthedepartmenttoprepareandmaintainmorepreciseprojec-tionstomakepossiblethenecessarylong-termplanning.one critical need is a survey of the present situation ofqualifiedornearlyqualifiedMaoribilingualteachers.’205

spolsky’s projections were conservative; within thenextfewyears,thenumberofkōhangahadinfactrisenby several hundred over and above the 1987 total. Thenumber of schools offering bilingual or immersionclasses,orfullimmersionorbilingualprogrammes,rosemarkedlyoverthefollowingdecadeaswell.Butthe1992and 1995 surveys of demand for Māori language educa-tionshowedclearlythatsupplyremainedwellshortofthemark.

ItwasthefailureofGovernmentsupplythataccountedfortheeventualdeclineinstudentnumbersandnotthefailureofthelanguagemovement.Indeed,buoyedbythatmovement, Māori demand swelled to meet the Māori-medium education supply and soon outstripped it. In

‘What happens after kohanga reo ?’Evening Post, 11 May 1989

‘Thousands lose skills : Maori language lost after kohanga reo’Dominion Sunday Times, 26 July 1992

The limited options for Māori-medium education at school were a great frustration to kōhanga parents in the 1980s and at the start of the 1990s.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.4.6(3)(b)

59

short,thereclearlyexistedanenormousandenthusiasticmarketwithnoapparentceilinginthe1990s;thebureau-cratic failure to capitalise on that represents a majoropportunitysquandered.

The Government’s decision to open new kura kau-papaasquicklyasitcould–thenumberofsuchschoolsincreased nearly 900 per cent from 1990 to 1998 – wasproblematic.sucharapidincreasewasclearlyunsustain-able, since there was no adequate provision for teachersupply.Theresultwasthatthequalityofeducationavail-able tokurakaupapastudentswasoftensub-par.Wedonot know whether spolsky’s recommendation for moreteachers was ever taken up; if there was any follow-up,either the Government’s demand projections fell wellshort or the required numbers of teachers were simplynotproduced.Moreover,theapparentemphasisonkurakaupapa may have met with the approval of the advo-catesofimmersion,whoopposedbilingualeducationonprinciple,butitincreasedtheproblemsofteachersupplybecauseitinvolvedfindingteacherswhocouldteachtheentirecurriculuminMāori.Atthesametime,ofcourse,theGovernmentwasvigorouslydefendingMāoribroad-castinglitigationandtherewerelongdelaysinestablish-ingaMāoritelevisionservice,whichcouldhaveusefullybackedupthegainsbeingmadeintheclassroom.

The first MLS, in 1997, undoubtedly came a numberof years too late. This meant that long-term targets fortherevivaloftereo–letaloneanydevelopmentofsucha vision in partnership with Māori – were completelyabsentfromplanningforalongtimeaftertheintroduc-tionoftheMaoriLanguageActin1987.evenonceitwasformulated, the 1997 strategy did not set out concretetargetsorinterimmilestones.Afterspolsky’sroughpro-posals, therefore, the first major attempt at plotting aspecificcourseforthefutureseemstohavebeenthesub-stantial1998reportforthetreasurybyCanadianecono-mists francois Grin and francois Vaillancourt, entitledLanguage Revitalisation Policy : An Analytical Survey.206

Grin and Vaillancourt described ‘modest’ enrolmentin Māori-medium education, which they suggested wasexplained by two factors: supply and demand. on thesupplyside,theynotedthatteachertraining–oneofthe‘important building blocks of a proper Maori-intensiveeducation system’ – was still inadequate. Among other

things, they proposed that it first be established whatproportionofMāorichildrenshouldbetaughtbyMāori-speaking teachers by 2005 (for example, 50, 80, or 100per cent). The number of teachers required could thenbe calculated. A series of monetary incentives could beput inplace toattract therightcandidates (eitherfluentspeakers who were not teachers or non-Māori-speakingteachers);anadequatesupplyofteachingmaterialscouldbe produced; and the necessary intensive teacher- andlanguage-trainingprogrammesestablished.207

In our view, the real significance of Grin andVaillancourt’s proposals is not the specific formula ortimeframe they arrived at, nor even their realisationthat the supply of Māori-speaking teachers was crucial,but the fact that they proposed a vision and a plan. Webelieve that the faltering revival of te reo that we havedescribedresultsinlargedegreefromtheveryfailureofthebureaucracytodevelop–withMāori–avisionandplan.officialssimplydidnotunderstandthestrengthofthelanguagemovementinitsearlyyears,normovetoputinplacemeasuresthatwouldcaterforitthroughouttheschoolsystem–includinginitiativestoproducethenec-essaryteachersandresources.

The2003MLSwasaretrospectiveattempttoestablishavisionandasetofgoalstoassistinrealisingthatvision.Thiswasbetterthannothing,butitshouldhaveoccurredearliertopreventthe‘supplybottleneck’andallitsconse-quences(and,ofcourse,itshouldhavebeendevelopedbythe Crown and Māori in partnership). nor did the newMLSofferthe‘wisepolicy’neededtoovercomethegrid-lock. The shortcomings in its core goals are outlined inthenextsection.

(b)TheMLSgoalstosupportitsoverallvision,theMLSsetsoutfivegoalsfor2028.Theyareaimedat increasinglanguageproficiency,languageuse,educationalopportunities in tereoMāori,communityleadershipfortheMāorilanguage,andpublicsupportandrecognitionforthelanguage.

We have already identified a major structural stum-blingblockwiththeMLS–thatitisnotaMāorilanguagestrategy but a Crown Māori language strategy. Despitethisfundamentalfailing,wenonethelessthinkitisworthlookingcloselyateachofitsgoals.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.4.6(3)(b)(i)

60

(i)Goal1Goal1statesthat:

The majority of Māori will be able to speak Māori to some extent by 2028. There will be increases in proficiency levels of people in speaking Māori, listening to Māori, reading Māori and writing in Māori. 208

When this goal was discussed during the hearing,Crownwitnessesimpliedthatitwouldbeatallorder.MrChrispsaid(inthecontextofthe2006censusresults)thatgoal1was‘astretch’butgoodtoaimfor.Mssewellsaidsimply,‘Idon’tknowwhetherwewillmeetthat[target]’.209

Butwhenitisunravelled,perhapsgoal1isnotsoambi-tiousafterall. since thoseCrownwitnessesput forwardtheir views, it has become apparent to us that the 2028targetwillnotbemeasuredintermsofthecensusresult(although te Puni Kōkiri’s witness indicated in cross-examinationthatitwould,andthusamassiveincreaseinspeakernumberswouldberequired210).

Thecensusasksasimplequestion:‘Inwhichlanguage(s)can you hold a conversation about a lot of everydaythings?’Inthelastthreecensuses,aboutaquarterofallthose in the Māori ethnic group have answered ‘Māori’.Butgoal1oftheMLSisclearlynotintendedtoraisethisproportion to ‘the majority’ by 2028. Goal 1’s referencestoincreased‘proficiencylevels’andabilitytospeakMāori‘tosomeextent’showthatthebasisformeasuringsuccesswillbenotthecensusbuttePuniKōkiri’squinquennialsurvey. As we have seen, that survey defines those withsomelevelofproficiencyatspeaking,reading,listeningtoandwritingtereoasanyoneansweringanyof‘verywell,’‘well’,‘fairlywell’,and‘notverywell’.Bythismeasure,theproportion of Māori adults who could speak Māori ‘tosomeextent’was42percentintePuniKōkiri’s2001sur-veyand51percentin2006.211

Atthetimethe2028goalwasset,therefore,thetargetrequiredwasnotmuchofanadvanceonwhathadalreadybeenachieved.Infactitwasthenreachedbythetimeofthenextsurvey.Itclearlylackedambition.onewonderswhetherMāorithemselveswouldhavesetsuchatarget–wethinknot.Weacceptthatthedeclineintheproportionofyoungerspeakersrevealedbythecensusmeansthatthe2028targetmaynotevenbeachievedusingthetePuni

Kōkirimeasure,butwedoubtthisconsiderationenteredtheequationin2003.

It therefore seemsappropriate for somemore specificproficiencytargetstobeworkedintogoal1.Asitstands,itcouldbemetevenifthemajoritywereabletospeakMāori‘not very well’ in 2028. The MLS also needs to includeinterimmilestonestoachievegoal1,sothatagenciesareclearabouttheongoingneedforactionandresults.And,of course, it is critically important that te Puni Kōkiriuses a survey methodology that yields accurate results,particularlygiventhesignificantexpenseinvolved.

toourmind,goal1onlybecomesambitiousifinfactitdoesrefertothecensusresults–whenitactuallybecomeshopelessly unrealistic. In that regard there is a need tomovebeyondcelebratingthe ‘stabilisation’ intheoverallnumber of Māori te reo speakers across the 1996–2006censuses.Instead,thereisanurgentneedtofocusondra-matically lifting the numbers of younger speakers of tereo.

(ii)Goal2Goal2statesthat:

By 2028 Māori language use will be increased at marae, within Māori households, and other targeted domains. In these domains the Māori language will be in common use.

Achieving this goal depends heavily on the effortsof Māori themselves. Thus, as noted above, the ‘keydomains’ listed include ‘whānau’, ‘Māori communities’,‘maraeandhuiatothervenues’,‘kapahaka’,and‘karakia’.Butitisalsonotedthattereowasspokentheleastin2001‘in the workplace, at sports and while socialising’. Thus,additional ‘key domains’ include ‘sports and recreation’and‘Governmentagencies’.212

We consider that it is important for the strategyto include a goal about Māori language use in Māoridomains.ItisalsoimportantforMāorito‘own’thetereochallenge,andsoMāorishouldarguablyhavehadrespon-sibilityforwordingthisparticulargoalthemselves213(andindeed the whole strategy, as we have already noted).specifically, we consider that the term ‘common use’ ingoal 2 may need further elaboration. It would be worthhavingsomestatisticaltargetstoaimforintermsofusing

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.4.6(3)(b)(iv)

61

Māori in the home, at marae, and in other specificallyMāorisettings.ThetePuniKōkirisurveyonthehealthof the Māori language should be able to track progresstowardssuchtargets,ifitpresentsareliablepicture.

(iii)Goal3Goal3statesthat:

By 2028 all Māori and other New Zealanders will have enhanced access to high-quality Māori language education.214

Hereagain, the lackofdefinitionof ‘enhancedaccess’meansitisnotclearwhatthisgoalreallyentails.Itneedsfurther definition, including specific targets for partici-pationbybothMāoriandnon-Māori inMāori-mediumpre-schoolandschooling,andintertiaryandcommunityMāorilanguagelearning.Thereshouldalsobesometar-getsforretainingstudentsintheMāori-mediumlearningenvironment in the transition from pre-school to pri-mary, and from primary to secondary. This would helpcounterthesignificantdrop-offthatoccursatthesecondof these transitions. specific targets for increasing theteachingofMāori toall children inmainstreamschoolsarerequiredtoo.

Thereisalsoneedforsomeclearaimsaroundthequal-ity of the Māori-medium education available, perhapsas measured through ERO reports. Māori parents willnot accept an inferior education for their tamariki justbecause it happens to be in the medium of te reo. ThequalityofeducationonofferhasclearlybeenanissueineastCoastschoolsinrecentyears,tojudgebysuccessiveERO reports, and it has doubtless been a factor behindthedeclineinMāoripre-schoolersattendingkōhangareonationwidefromthe1994peak.

The te reo Māori tribunal called for the Crown to‘ensurethatallchildrenwhowishtolearnMaoribeableto do so from an early age and with financial supportfromthestate’.215Withthisinmind,weaskedMssewellifeverychildwhowishedtohadaccesstoaMāori-mediumeducation(whichwenoteisslightlydifferenttowhatthete reo Māori tribunal was referring to). Although shewasnotcertainabouttheprimarylevel,shesaidshehadhad not received any letters from parents complainingthatMāori-mediumeducationwasnotavailable totheir

children.Withrespecttothesecondarylevel,shewasrea-sonably confident that, ‘for the most part, those parentswhowanttheirsecondaryagechildrentobeengagedinlearningintereoMāori[haveit]availabletotheminnewZealand’.BearinginmindthetereoMāoritribunal’scon-cern,weaskedherwhether ‘supplynowmeetsdemand’.shesaidthattherewasalwaystheprospectofmorekurabecoming registered, but that the significant growth of‘sixorsevenyearsago’ (shewasspeaking inearly2007)‘seemstohavelevelledout’.216

ofcourse,thegrowthhas‘levelledout’,becauseinfra-structure never kept ahead of demand. In other words,the failure to meet demand wounded momentum. Butthis isno justification to rest easy today: instead, it cre-atesaheightenedresponsibilitytofosternewdemand–iffornootherreasonthantheMLSgoalsdependonit.WemustseenewMāori-mediumschoolsopenedorMāori-medium classes established within existing schools (orboth). Goals must be set for the supply of te reo teach-ers (both teachers of te reo and teachers in te reo). TheCrown must anticipate demand for teachers and class-room places generated by two factors – first, the risingnumberofMāoriofschoolageand,secondly,theincreaseinMāori-mediumstudentsnecessarytomeetMLStargetsandwhichshouldintheoryflowfromtheoveralleffectofthestrategy.

(iv)Goal4Goal4statesthat:

By 2028, iwi, hapū and local communities will be the leading parties in ensuring local-level language revitalisation. Iwi dia-lects of the Māori language will be supported. 217

ItisappropriatethatkingroupsandlocalMāoricom-munitiesleadlocal-levellanguagerevitalisation.Butgoal4shouldclarifythatthatthiswilloccur‘withthesupportoftheCrown’.otherwise,thegoaloftribalreobeing‘sup-ported’by2028seemswhollyvagueandinadequate,andacauseforconcernforiwifearingthelossoftheirdialectswithouturgentinterventionandsupport.

one possible solution is for iwi authorities to havea role in administering or controlling local immersionschoolsandkōhanga,asenvisagedtwodecadesagoatthe

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.4.6(3)(b)(v)

62

timeoftheRunangaIwiAct1990.today,manyofthoseorganisationshavemuchgreatercapacitythaninthelate1980s.Wereturntothismatterinconclusion.

(v)Goal5Goal5statesthat:

By 2028 the Māori language will be valued by all New Zealanders and there will be a common awareness of the need to protect the language. 218

Presumably,thisgoalwillbemeasuredintermsoftheresults of the te Puni Kōkiri survey of attitudes to theMāori language, which is conducted every three years.Again, however, the goal’s ambiguous wording createsuncertaintyaboutthesizeofthetask.Whenthisgoalwassetalready90percentofnon-Māoriapparentlybelievedit tobeagoodthing forMāori tospeakMāoriathomeandonthemarae.Thus,whileonly40percentsupportedthe use of Māori in public places,219 there was arguablyalready evidence of ‘common awareness’ of the need toprotect te reo.The latestattitudes survey, in2009,morethanconfirmsthis,givingcorrespondingresultsof97and77 per cent respectively.220 Indeed, as we have said, weperceive that a national consensus has existed for someyearsthattereoisworthsaving.Therefore,thisgoaltooneedsmuchgreaterdefinitionand theadditionof somecleartargetsbasedaroundcertainaspectsoftheattitudessurvey.

(vi)TheMLSgoals:conclusionoverall,ourviewisthattheMLSisintentionallyhighlevelandabstract,andhasbeenconstructedwithintheparam-etersofabureaucraticcomfortzone.Itis,aswehavesaid,lessaMāori language strategy thanaCrownMāori lan-guagestrategy.

We consider that a set of much more specific targetsandinterimmilestonesneedstobeaddedtothestrategy.WeunderstandthattePuniKōkiriinitiallyattemptedtoidentify appropriate interim targets, but abandoned thiswork because it felt there was not enough informationaboutthestateoftheMāorilanguage,orthelikelyimpactof Government activities, for realistic targets to be set.The department instead planned to undertake research

toenablenewtargetstobesetforthe2008–13period.221nonetheless,webelievethatmoredetailedtargetsshouldhavebeenincludedfromtheoutsetandthatthereseemslittle justification for the imprecision in the wording ofthe goals. Ms sewell acknowledged to us that ‘I thinkthe time is right for the Ministry [of education] to usethewealthofdatathatitnowhas,bothitsowndataanddata from statistics new Zealand, to look more specifi-callyatwhatwouldbetheindicatorsforusthatwewereontrack’.222Hopefully,ouranalysisoftheMinistry’spub-lishedstatisticssetout intheappendedtableswillassistinthisregard.

It is particularly disappointing to note that te PuniKōkiri’s March 2003 discussion document on the pro-posed MLS did contain more specific and adventuroustargets,whichweredropped.forexample,oneoutcomewasthat‘Māorilanguageusewillbedoubledintargeteddomainsby2028’,withthesedomainsdefinedasinclud-ing ‘public signage (including public announcements),andnationalandlocalgovernment(includinghospitals)’.Anotheroutcomewas that ‘By2028 theMāori languagewillbeincommonuseinthemajorityofMāorihomes’.223Ascanbeseen,thewordingoftheeventualMLSgoalswaswatereddownfromtheseearlierproposals.

Piripi Walker pointed out that the MLS sets no goalsfor the speaking of te reo in the wider community224–only thatallnewZealanderswillvalue tereoorhave‘enhanced access’ to Māori language learning oppor-tunities.225 It seems to us essential that the strategy alsoinclude goals around non-Māori use of te reo, if it is tohaveasufficientlybroadvision.Althoughthenumberofnon-MāorispeakersisnotsurveyedbytePuniKōkiri,itisrecordedinthecensus: the latestrevealsa15percentdrop in thenumberofnon-Māori speakers.AstePuniKōkiri suggested, this may of course relate to increasedawareness of what conversational Māori entails throughexposure to Māori television.226 However, it may alsoindicate that many non-Māori are abandoning the reorevivalmovement,inthewaythatthoseatthemarginsofinterestandwithlessatstakearethefirsttoleavemove-ments that begin to falter. In this case, the decline innon-Māori speakers may be a warning sign of impend-ing disaster, like those provided by canaries in the coalmine.Adropofsuchmagnitudeis,inanycase,dramatic

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.4.6(3)(c)

63

andshouldbeacauseforconcernor–attheveryleast–investigation.227Yetagain,itissymptomaticofpolicythatisneithergood,wise,norefficient.

(c)ImplementationoftheMLSInexamininghowwelltheagencieschargedwithimple-menting the MLS are working together, we were able toconsult the OAG’s november 2007 report on the imple-mentationoftheMLSoveritsfirstfouryears.TheOAG’sperformanceauditwasintended‘toseewhethertheleadagenciesresponsible for implementingthestrategywerecarryingouttheirroleseffectively’and‘toprovideassur-ance toParliamentonwhether theGovernment’sMāorilanguagerevitalisationeffortswerewellcoordinatedandtargeted through lead agencies’ implementation of thestrategy’.228

Itseemsclear that thefirstfiveyearsof theMLSweresomething of a false start. These were crucial times inthe revival of te reo Māori, but the OAG report paints apictureoflostopportunitiesduetopoorcommunicationandcoordination,unrealisticexpectations,anddepriori-tisingwithinagencies.Aswehadalreadyseenfromdocu-mentsprovidedbytheCrownduringourowninquiry,by2007manyagencieshadnotyetdrawnuptheirfive-year

implementationplansorhaddonesoinadequately.otherplans had morphed into general agency statements ofintentorotherstrategicdocuments.tePuniKōkiriitselfhadonlyproducedadraftplanbytheCabinet’sJune2004deadline.Moreover, theagencies’overall focushadbeenon ongoing planning and coordination, rather than set-tinganysortofstatisticaltargetstoserveasinterimmile-stonesforthe2028goalsintheMLS.229

There are many reasons why agencies failed to ade-quatelyundertakethebasicworkneededtogettheMLSmoving,allofwhicharetraversedintheOAGreport.tePuniKōkiri’sleadershipofthesectorwasvariableupuntilearly2005,withstaffingchangescausingsomedisengage-ment.further,tePuniKōkirihasnopowertocompelitsfellowleadagenciestoact.230

tePuniKōkirialsofailedtorealisethechallengesfac-ingagenciesinwhichtheMāorilanguageisofrelativelymarginalimportance;fortheseagenciesinparticular,theJune2004deadlineforimplementationplansagreedtobyCabinetwasunrealistic.someoftheseagenciesexplainedthat they had inadequate resources to do the workrequired; some said that other pressing work quicklyassumed priority. As the OAG noted, however, the June2004deadlinewasdirectedbyCabinetandshouldhavebeen met. If it could not be met, Ministers should havebeen told, which they were not. The OAG also observedthat theagenciesoperated in such significantlydifferentenvironmentsthatthetaskofgainingstakeholdercooper-ationwasvastlyuneven.ThenationalLibrarycanhardlycompelthevariouslibraries,archives,andotherrepositor-iestocomplywiththeMLSoverMāorilanguagearchives,forexample.Bycontrast,teMāngaiPāhohasmuchmoreleverageoverMāori languagebroadcastingwith those itfundstoproduceordelivertereoprogramming.231

Asa result,tePuniKōkirihadhad tobecomemuchmoreflexibleaboutwhatsortsofengagementandplan-ning it would accept from the other lead agencies. Themajority of the intended target-setting for the strategy’sfirst five years had been long abandoned, and the OAGsaidtheagencywaslookingtosetnewinterimtargetsforthe2008to2013period.232ItisworthrecallingtheMLS’soptimistic statement in 2003 that lead agencies would‘develop detailed implementation plans that will guidetheirdevelopmentanddeliveryof[theirrespectivetereo]

The 2007 report by the Office of the Auditor General, Implementing the Māori Language Strategy. The report paints a picture of lost opportunities due to poor communication and coordination, unrealistic expectations, and deprioritising within agencies.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.4.6(3)(d)

64

functionsforthenextfiveyears.Theseplanswillidentifyspecifictargetswithineachfunctionandtheresourcestoensurethatthefunctionsaredelivered.’233

There is one other matter worth noting. The MLSrequires te Puni Kōkiri to evaluate the effectiveness ofwhattheleadagencieshavedonetoimplementit.Bylate2007, however, te Puni Kōkiri had still not undertakenthisevaluationaccordingtothetermssetoutinitsowndraftimplementationplan.TheOAGnotedthat thiswasin part because agencies had simply not made enoughprogressfortheiractivitiestobeevaluated.tePuniKōkiriclaimedthatitcouldstillundertaketheplannedevalua-tion in2008on thebasisof some targetedpolicywork,its surveys,andresearch into focusareas forMāori lan-guage revitalisation. However, the OAG felt that this did‘notconstitutesystematicevaluationsoftheeffectivenessof Māori language activities carried out by the govern-mentagencies’.Additionally,changesinthewaytePuniKōkirihadcarriedoutitsmonitoringfunctionsince2003createduncertaintyastohowexactlyitintendedtocarryout its evaluationrole.TheOAGrecommended that thisbeclarified.234

In sum, by late 2007 (at the time of the OAG report),te Puni Kōkiri’s crucial five-year targets for the MLSremainedunchanged.Thesewere:

Ȃ by 2008, all government Māori language policies and ini-tiatives would have a clear rationale centred on the Strategy ; and

Ȃ by 2008, all Māori language policy would be appropriately co-ordinated to ensure a whole-of-government approach to Māori language revitalisation .235

ItwasbythistimenearlyfiveyearssincetheMLSwasapprovedand10yearssinceCabinetagreedtothefirstsetof Māori language policy objectives (and, for that mat-ter,fully21yearssincethetribunal’sreportonthetereoMāoriclaim).But itwasbynomeanscertain that thesebasic goals would be achieved. The OAG observed that‘fully achieving TPK’s [te Puni Kōkiri’s] two 2008 out-comes will need sustained commitment to the strategyandtimelyactionbyall leadagencies, includingTPK, inthenextfewmonthsleadinguptothedeadline’.236Weareunawareofwhetherthesetwotargetshavenowbeenmet.

ona structural level, therefore, it seems that the sec-torishandicappedbyalackofpoweronthepartofthelead agency, and by a lack of motivation on the part ofagencieswhoseoverallfocusiswellremovedfromtereo(and who accordingly have failed to put the necessaryresourcesintoimplementationplanning).Havingastrat-egyandvisionisundoubtedlyworthwhile,buthavingoneinasector that isunable topull togetherwithsufficientenergyandurgencyisaseriousproblem.

evenwithintePuniKōkiri,therearedistractionsthatworkagainstconcertedeffort.MrChrispexplainedthat,inadditiontoMāori languageandbroadcasting,healsohadoversightoftheMinistry’sworkinMāorieducation,Māori health, Māori housing issues, and criminal jus-tice.237tePuniKōkirihasasmallteamdedicatedtoMāorilanguagework,andtetauraWhirihasasimilarlysmallstaff component for the policy dimensions of its work.Increasing these agencies’ human resources is one obvi-ousstep.Butasidefromspendingmore,theCrownmustalsospendmoneybetter,throughbettercoordinationandgreater motivation within the Government Māori lan-guagesector.TheOAGreportmakesthisclear.

In2009,theOAGissuedashortfollow-upreportontheactionstakeninresponsetoits2007review.Itnotedthateightof its 11 recommendationswerebeing takenupbytePuniKōkiriinitsinternalreviewoftheMLS,andtheotherthreewerethesubjectofongoingwork.overall,itfound that ‘all agencies are showing increased commit-ment to thestrategy’.238While that is a step in the rightdirection,itdoesnotnegateourconcernsaboutthestrat-egyitself,northepolicythatgaverisetoit.

(d)CrownsupportfortribalreoWe consider that the Crown could have done more tohelpngātiPorouachieveitsgoalsforitsdialect.Itseemstous thatngātiPorouhasrelatively little influenceovertheexpenditureof te reo resourceswithin itsownrohe.ItisnotsimplyacasethatngātiPoroupreferencesneedtobemoreadequatelyregardedinGovernmentdecision-making,butthatthedecision-makingneedstobeshared.Wehavealreadycriticisedgoal4oftheMLSonthebasisthatitsambitionfor2028–that‘IwidialectsoftheMāorilanguagewillbesupported’–isweak.Thiswordingdem-onstrates what little meaningful input iwi such as ngāti

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.4.6(3)(d)

65

PorouhavehadintotheMLSonmattersofgreatimpor-tancetothem.

since local-level action is crucial in the movement torevivetereoMāori, itfollowsthattheCrownmustsup-portlocalpreferences.JustastheCrownmustmakedeci-sionsinconcertwithMāoriaboutitsoverallreostrategy,sotoomustitworkinpartnershipwithiwiaboutissuesofimportancetothem,suchasdialect.CounselforngātiPorouwascorrecttosuggestthatthetimeforactionontereoakeongātiPorouisnow,forolderspeakersarestead-ilydiminishing innumber. It seems that theCrownhasnottuneditsearsufficientlytotheseconcerns.

ngātiPorouwitnessesarguedthatbureaucratisationinMāorilanguageeducationhadstifledlocalinitiativeandthus adversely affected their reo a iwi. for example, DrMahuikasaidthatkōhangareohadoperatedcompetentlyand within their own resources when they were simplythe initiative of Māori and received some support fromthe Department of Māori Affairs. Giving evidence in1999,hesaidthatmanylocalwhānau,whorankōhangain terms of local tikanga, had ceased to do so becausetheylackedtheformalqualificationsrequiredbythenewZealandQualificationsAuthoritytoreceivefunding.Theresultof theMinistryofeducation’sassumptionofcon-trolin1989wasthatkōhangaproliferated,becauseoftheextrafundingavailable,butthatthequalityofreospokenbygraduates therebydeclined, thus impactingon te reoakeongātiPorou.239AsDrMahuikaputit:

iwi Maori initiatives have been successful utilising their own tikanga systems and values, but these are not sustainable because of funding constraints . Whenever success is seen, the government of the day will find a way of taking over, and once this occurs, failure once again emerges .240

Initsearlydays,thestrengthofkōhangareowasthatitwasanationalmovement.Thismeanteconomiesofscalecouldbeachievedwithrespecttostaffingandresources,and it meant national strategies could be developed forteaching and certification. In recent times, there hasbeen a build-up of resentment at local community levelaboutlackofcontrolofkōhanga.Thetraditionallyfierceindependence of Māori communities has made thesesortsoftensionsacommonissuewithMāoripolicyand

programmesofanykind. Justwhere thebalance shouldfall in thiscase isamatterwellbeyondthescopeof theevidenceweheard.Weareverysure,however,thatifthereomovementistoberevitalised,thismustoccurattheflaxroots.MitalikethemitaofngātiPorouwillsurviveandflourishonlyiflanguageregionshavesufficientcon-trol to make this happen. Those responsible for policysettings in this area must find ways of delivering localcontrolwhilekeepingtheadvantagesofnationalcoordi-nation.This isadifficultproblembuthardlyanewone.Werevisittheseissuesinourconclusion.

WithrespecttotetauraWhiri’sworkonstandardisingtereo,wecertainlyaccepttheneedforsuchabodyserv-ingasthe‘keeper’oftheofficiallexicon.Wealsoacknowl-edgethatnolanguageordialectisstatic,andthatinthisglobalised world, evolution and change occurs probablyquicker thaneverbefore.However,weareunclearas towhether te taura Whiri has been acting in accordancewith Māori wishes or contrary to them. Piripi Walker,forexample,toldusthatitwaswrongfortetauraWhiritohavemadetheunilateraldecisionthattherewouldbenomoretransliterations,becausemanycherishedwordsinMāoriaretransliterations.Indeed,manyofthemdatefrom early contact and the english word transliteratedhasitselfsometimesfallenoutofcommonuse.241ontheotherhand,tePuniKōkiri’switnesstoldusthattetauraWhiri’s decision to prevent any further transliterationsentering te reo Māori was in fact derived from Māoripreferences.242

WecanconcludeonlythatsomeMāoriareconcernedabouttetauraWhiri’sdirectionandthatthecommissionneedstomakeitplainthatitisactinginaccordancewithMāoriratherthanbureaucraticpreferences.

other than that, the most we can say about the new,standardisedreopromotedbytetauraWhiriisthatweareawareofthelivelydebateamongstMāorilinguistsandspeakersaboutitsimpactontereogenerallyandonthehealthofdialectsandoldernativespeakersinparticular.It isadiscussion inwhichwehavenospecificexpertiseand in which we sympathise with the positions of bothsides. If anything, we merely make the point that theremustbe roomfordebateon the rightway forward,andawillingnessonbothsidestoseemattersfromtheotherperspective.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.4.6(4)

66

Wenote,inanyevent,thefollowingcommentofthetetauraWhiricommissioners intheagency’sStatement of Intent, 2008–09:‘tetauraWhiriiteReoMāoriisawareof theneedtocapture,preserveandfurtherdevelop iwidialectsthatremain.Thisispivotaltotheongoingdevel-opmentofthelanguageofthepaepae.’243

During Māori Language Week 2009, erima Henare,the Māori Language Commissioner, also stated that tetaura Whiri considered that the MLS ‘would be betteraligned to supporting language initiativeswhich revital-isehapuandiwidialectsandothersuccessfulcommunitybasedprojects’.244

(4) Appropriate resourcesLookingthroughtherecordofthelast20years,itisdif-ficult tofindmanyaffirmations that theMāori languagerevivaleffortiswellfunded–unlessofcoursetheycomefromtheGovernment itself.ProfessorstephenMayandothers,forexample,referredin2004tothe‘long-standingandongoingunder-resourcingofMāori-mediumeduca-tion’.245MāoriLanguageCommissionerDrPatuHohepawentsofarastomakethefollowingcommentsabouttetaura Whiri’s funding in the commission’s 2002 annualreport:

As Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori, our existence, our activi-ties concerning the Māori language and our optimism are fraught with frustrations . The enduring one is inadequate funding . one wonders if there are other Commissions still surviving whose base funding level has remained almost static for 14 years . either the endurance of former Māori lan-guage commissioners needs commending, or the remarkable immovable consistency of different governments needs not-ing, given that my esteemed predecessors have often raised this same concern .246

even Crown witnesses also made frequent referenceto the limitedresourcesavailable to them.MrChrispofte Puni Kōkiri, for example, explained that ‘one of thedilemmasthatwefaceisthereisafinitepoolofresources’.Helatercommentedthat‘weareabletoundertakeworkto support the Māori language to the extent that fund-ingisavailableto[do]thatsothereisaclearrelationship

betweenwhatwecandoand the funding that isavaila-ble’.HealsonotedthatMāoritelevision‘broadcasttothelimitofthebudgetthatisavailabletothem’.247MssewellsaidthattheamountofsupporttheMinistryofeducationcouldprovideforMāorilanguageinitiativeswasimpactedby factors including ‘theallocationoffinite resources’.248she explained that the Ministry supported iwi dialects‘butit’salwayswithinthecontextofitbeingagovernmentdepartment with expectations, demands and resourcesthatarelimited’.249Likewise,AlexanderturnbullLibrarychief librarian Margaret Calder explained, with respecttoMāorilanguagematerialsheldbythenationalLibrary,‘Thedecisionsaboutwhereresourcesgoofcourseismadeatalibrary-widelevel,giventhatthereneverareenoughresources.’250

In response to tribunal questions about te Puni Kō-kiri’s lackofoperationalcapacity,MrChrispsaid that ithadbeensuccessfulininfluencingotheragencies,includ-ing, for example, theMinistryofeducation.251However,he admitted that ‘if we had more operational capacityavailable we would do more work’.252 There is no ring-fencingofmoneyfortePuniKōkiri’stereopolicywork,with the amount dedicated being essentially comprisedof staff salaries (which Mr Chrisp estimated at around$150,000to$200,000annually).Healsoguessedthattheamountspenton te reopolicyattetauraWhiriwouldbe about $100,000.253 We were told that no further bidsforextraresourcesweremadein2006,andwewerenotadvisedafter thecloseofourhearingsof anybids (suc-cessfulorotherwise)in2007.254

We have noted the approximate Government spend-ing on activities that support te reo in the first part ofthischapter.Whileitisnotpossibleforustostateexactlywhat level of funding would be sufficient to ensure tereo’sprotection,theCrown’sownwitnessesdidnotseemto be convinced that the funds they had to work withwereenough–evenforwhatstrikesusasaninadequateagenda.Aswehavesuggested,theCrownmustfirstestab-lish the components of a ‘wise and efficient’ policy andthendetermine thenecessary resourcesaccordingly.Wesuspectneitherofthesetaskshasyetbeenfulfilled.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.4.7(2)

67

5.4.7  The Māori obligation(1) Kōrero MāoriAswehavestressed,Māoritoohaveobligationstoensurethe survival of te reo. The MLS defines the principalresponsibilitiesofMāorias(amongotherthings)whānaulanguage transmission, Māori language use in Māoridomains, leadership of local language revitalisation, themaintenanceoftribaldialects,andmaintainingandsup-portingpaepaefunctions.TheMLSstatesthatthesewererolesthatMāoriidentifiedforthemselvesduringthe2003consultation hui.255 Certainly, the importance of homeandneighbourhoodlanguageuseinlanguagerevivalhasbeen emphasised by many scholars, and the principlesthatthekōhangareomovementwerefoundeduponshowthatMāorihavetakenthisaspectseriously.

But there is someevidence thatMāoriarenot speak-ingtereoinMāoridomainstotheextenttheycould.forexample,tePuniKōkiri’s2001surveyfoundthatonly56percentofMāoriadultswhocouldspeakMāori‘well’or‘verywell’usedMāoriforhalformoreofthetimewhenspeakingwithpre-schoolchildren(andonly41percentdid the same with primary school children). It seemsthat akeybarrier tousing te reo formanyMāori is thefear of criticism or failure, and respondents in the 2001surveytypicallyreportedthatfew‘safedomains’existed.Kōhanga reo was seen as a relatively ‘safe’ environment,because respondents ‘knew that the infants would notjudge their ability to speak Māori’. otherwise respond-entstendedtosaythattheywouldonlyspeakMāoriwiththoseofasimilarlevelofability.256

some of this whakamā may be being overcome. The2006surveyof thehealthof theMāori language(to theextentwecanrelyonit)showedthattherehadbeengoodincreasesintheproportionsofMāorispeakingMāoriathui,onthemarae,atwork,andwithinthehome–partic-ularlytopre-schoolers.257However,tePuniKōkiriaddedthat,‘DespitepositiveshiftsintheamountofMāoribeingspoken, there are still a number of people who have adegree of speaking proficiency but do not use it.’258 Theonus on Māori, therefore, is to speak te reo as much aspossible,andparticularlywithinthehome.Itisalsonec-essarytotaketereooutsidethehomeinordertomakeitasmuchofalivinglanguageaspossible.

Māori must also guard against complacency. We sus-pect that many may reflect upon the incredible changethathastakenplacesincethe1980s–theadventofMāoritelevisionandtheiwiradionetwork,thenumberofkurakaupapaandthefundingavailabletowānanga,thebilin-gual census forms, the national Radio presenters whointroduce themselves in Māori, and so on – and thinkthat the battle is won. But despite such developments,especially the advances in Māori broadcasting, the dis-tractions and penetration of the global mass media andthe culture it represents are much greater today thanin the 1980s and 1990s. ongoing vigilance is thereforeimperative.

(2) Partnership and compromiseIflanguageretentiondependsonlanguagetransmission,Māorishouldalsocooperatewithandtakeadvantageofwhateveropportunitiesforlanguagetransmissionareputinplacebythestate–eveniftheyresentwhattheyper-ceiveasthestate’sexcessive‘capture’oftheprocess.state‘capture’issimplythecorollaryofstatefunding.

Māori languagerevivalistsmustalsobeopen-mindedabout what kind of Māori language education is appro-priate. However, we have seen some adopting a rela-tively purist position, and contending that immersionistheonlyremedy.Writingin1988,forexample,formerMāori Language Commissioner tīmoti Kāretu and hiscolleague Jeffrey Waite argued that the establishment of‘exclusivelyMāori-mediumschools’was‘theonlyway’forthelanguagetoberetained.‘fortheretobesuccess’,theywrote,‘theteacherswillhavetobeappropriatelytrained,andmustbanishenglish inall teachingsituations, fromkōhanga reo to university and beyond.’259 The influenceof thispro-immersion lobbycanbeseen in theparticu-larstatusgivenkurakaupapaMāoriwithintheeducationAct 1989 (which was not accorded to bilingual schools)andthestatutoryrecognition,adecadelater,ofthekurakaupapaguidingphilosophy,teAhoMatua.

others, however, are not so sure that this is the rightapproach.The1992and1995surveyscommissionedbytheMinistryofeducation found that themajorityofMāoriparentswantedtheirchildrentaughtinbothenglishandMāori.Citingthe1995figures,nenaandRichardBenton

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.4.8

68

argued in 1999 that ‘A successful revitalization policywould need to take cognizance of this solid support fora“middleway”.’260stephenMayandhiscolleaguescom-mentedin2004thatpartialimmersionschoolscanbeaseffectiveasthoseofferingfullimmersioninteachingchil-drentereo,aslongasatleast50percentoftheinstruc-tionisinMāori.261

We have no particular scholarly expertise to bring tothe debate about immersion or bilingual learning, andwould not presume to pronounce upon the validity oftherespectivearguments.Wedonotforamomentwishto advocate any lessening of the commitment (by theCrownaswellasMāori) to immersion learning.ButwedourgeMāorilanguagerevivaliststoseevalueinallthreeapproaches:immersion,bilingualand‘as-a-subject’Māorilanguage learning.Allmakeacontributiontomaintain-ingthehealthoftereo.Theconsiderabledemandforthelatter two formsof learning, combinedwith the stateoftereo,meanstheyshouldbeexploredmorefullybythejointCrown–Māoripartnership.

All this raises the issueofwhatkindof revivalMāoriseek. Do they want their children to be taught algebrainMāori,ordotheysimplywantthemtobeabletousete reo in everyday conversation – at home, in shops, insports clubs – and take full part on the marae? In ourview, there is an obligation on Māori to debate the endgoalandcommunicatethattotheCrownsothatrevivalpoliciescanmatchMāoripreferences.

finally,thosewhosimplycomplainthattheCrownhasrobbedMāorioftheirreoneedtobearinmindthenatureof the Māori obligation too. As Robert McGowan sayswithrespecttorongoā,itexistsallaroundforthosewhowishtograspit.262

5.4.8  Conclusion  : the Crown’s performanceWhenthetribunalrecommendedin1986that:

ȂȂ MāoribemadeanofficiallanguageofnewZealand;ȂȂ asupervisorybodybeestablishedbystatutetofoster

theuseofthelanguage;ȂȂ allchildrenwhowishtolearnMāoribeabletodoso

fromanearlyage;andȂȂ thetreatyobligationstoprotecttereoMāoribemet

inbroadcastingpolicy,and the Maori Language Act was passed the following

year,tereoadvocatesmayhavefeltthatasufficientregimewouldbeputinplacetorevivetereoandensureitssur-vivalasalivinglanguage.

However,in2010theremustbeadeep-seatedfearforthesurvivaloftereo.Thenumberofspeakersisdowninthekeyyoungeragegroups,andolderspeakerswiththehighest fluency – whose language comprises the uniquetribal variations of te reo – are naturally declining innumber.foralltherhetoricaboutforwardprogress,eventhe Crown’s key witness conceded that there was still aneedfor‘lifesupport’.263

notonlymusttherebeagreatconcernaboutthelan-guage’s health, therefore, and in particular the health oftribaldialects,buttheremustalsobeadeepuneaseabouttheCrown’sresponses to thesituation. In the late 1970s,afterdecadesofgovernmentalneglectorworse,tereohadreacheda timeofcrisis.ButMāoriactionbreathednewlifeintothelanguage.Infact,sopowerfulwastheMāoricommitmenttorevitalisationthat,inthe1980sandearly1990s, it practically knew no bounds. How else can oneexplain thegrowth, in justadecade,of thekōhangareomovement from nothing to the scale of its operation in1993?HowelseshouldoneviewthesurveysatthattimethatshowedenormousMāoridemandforMāori-mediumeducation? We suspect that, but for bureaucratic andpolitical failure to capitalise adequately on this momen-tum,tereoMāoriwouldnotbeinsuchaworryingstatetoday.

The remarkable thing is that Māori do not know thisstory. The received wisdom is that the revival of te reooverthelast25yearsisnothingshortofamiracle.Thereisanelementoftruthinthat.Butthenotionisthattereoismakingsteadyforwardprogress,particularlyamongstthe young, is manifestly false. The Government bearssignificant responsibility for this misconception. In itsreport on The Health of the Māori Language in 2006,whichitreleasedinJuly2008,tePuniKōkiriconcludedthat‘itisapparentthatthehealthoftheMāorilanguageinrelationtoallthreelanguagevariablesanalysed(status;knowledgeandacquisition;anduse)hasimprovedmark-edly since 2001’. While this claim was accompanied bytheusualrejoinderabouttheneedtomaintainvigilanceand effort, the key message was that the Government’seffortshadbeenasuccess.Infact,theverynextsentence

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.4.8

69

suggestedthatcreditwasduetoGovernmentinitiativestosupportlanguagerevitalisationsince2001.264

even te taura Whiri – whose chair was scathing ofGovernment efforts to revitalise te reo during the 2009Māorilanguageweek265–hasbeensusceptibletothiskindofembellishment.InitsbrieftotheincomingMinisterin2008itwroteofreaching‘aturningpointinthisjourney,andthecornerisoneofanticipationasthe150,000Māoriand30,000non-MāoriwhonowusetheMāorilanguagein some way, continue moving forward’.266 A change in

governmentinitiallybroughtnobreakintheofficialline:in July 2009 the Minister of Māori Affairs announcedthatitwas‘greattobeabletosaythattereoMaoriisinahealthierstatethanitwasfiveyearsearlier’.267

A year later, however, the mood had changed. Inannouncing the tamati Reedy-led review of the MLS,Minister sharples said on 29 July 2010 that a ‘more co-ordinated approach’ was needed that ensured ‘the pro-grammesandexpenditureacrossthewholeofgovernmentareresponsivetoIwi/Maoriaspirations’.268expandingon

Te Reo Is AliveMaoriLanguageCommissionpressrelease,5December2001

Former head of Maori Language Commission says latest stats are great newsRadionewZealandnewswire,22March2007

From ka mate to ka ora – Say kia ora to a thriving languagenewZealandGovernmentpressrelease,28June2007

Survey shows more Maori are speaking te reonewZealandGovernmentpressrelease,24July2007

Te reo has come back from te brinkWaikato Times,25July2008

Credit to TV for te reo advanceNorthern Advocate,3August2009

He oranga nui kei te reo MaoriNew Zealand Herald,3August2010

Positive news headlines and media releases about the health of te reo have reinforced a sense of complacency.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.4.8

70

hismotivationforthereviewinaspeechthesameday,heremarked that ‘WehaveaMāoriLanguagestrategy thatisnotup-to-dateandhaslargelynotbeenimplemented.Thishas tochange.’269Weareglad that theMinisterhasidentifiedwhathadbecomequiteapparenttous,andwetrust this report will be of benefit to his review – as wehave explained, our decision to release this chapter waspromptedbyadesiretoavoidourreportandtheministe-rialreviewproceedinginseparatesilos.

The issue of teacher supply and education has clearlyplayedabigpartinstallingtherevival’smomentum.Weare aware of the pitfalls of focusing exclusively on edu-cation. We understand the experts’ view that focusingoverlyonformaleducationrisksneglectingthehomeandcommunityenvironment,where the language spoken ineveryday life isa living tongue ineverysense.However,westillbelievethatMāori languageeducationiscrucial.Theeducationsystemiswherechildren’sfocusiscapturedandtheirintereststimulated.WhereschoolingisbackedupbyMāorilanguagebroadcastingandsupportforthosewho wish to speak te reo in the home, it is a sphere inwhich the Crown can make an enormous impact. Therealityis,though,thatthenumbersparticipatinginMāorilanguagelearningintheeducationsystem,apartfromattertiarylevel,havedeclinedsincethe1990s.In2010,itisvitalthatthisberectified.

We have already outlined improvements we thinkshould be made to the MLS goals, and noted the kindof vision and forward planning proposed by Grin andVaillancourt in 1998. once the end goal is identifiedandagreeduponby theCrownandMāori,officialswillknow how many teachers will be needed by when. Thiswillinturnshowhowmanyareneededintrainingnow,andhowmanypotential traineesmustemerge fromtheschoolsysteminthenearfuture.

In our opinion, this is the kind of forward-lookingthinkingthatisneeded,andwearenotconvincedthatitiswidespreadtoday.Instead,wefindinKa Hikitiaawill-ingness to simply hold the status quo in the number ofstudents in ‘Māori language education’ and no specificplan to increase the number of children in Māori lan-guagepre-school.WehavealsoseenapparentministerialsatisfactionwithaMaoriLanguageActthatisclearlyfail-ingtostimulatetheGovernment’sowneffortstospeakte

reo;endlessteachingscholarshipplansthatmaybelinkedtoperceiveddemandissuesbutarenotnecessarilylinkedtolong-termgoalsaboutlanguagehealthandvitality;andasurveythatmaynotbegivingthemostaccurateinfor-mation but has nevertheless provided opportunities forpositivemediastatements.

Bearing in mind that the aim is for the majority ofMāoritobespeakingtereo(albeit‘tosomeextent’)in20years’time,wedoubthoweffectivelytheCrown’scurrentactionsmatchitsprofessedlong-termgoals.

Ms sewell suggested that supply had essentially metdemand in terms of the availability of Māori-mediumeducation.But that isquitepossibly incorrect,given theongoing teacher shortages. In fact teacher supply stillstrugglestomeetademandthathasclearlydiminishedinthefaceofperennialsupplyproblems.evenifMssewelliscorrect,thisdoesnotmeanthatsupplyissufficienttoachievewidergoalsaboutsavingandenhancingataongaofimmenseimportance.

Aswehavesaid,supplyultimatelyneedstogetaheadofdemandif theMLSgoalsaretobemet. Ifweuseourimaginations today we might even foresee a time whentherewillbeaMāoriflightfromthemainstreamsystemto Māori immersion and bilingual learning, given theearlyindications(tentativeatthisstage)ofbettereduca-tionaloutcomesforMāorichildreninthatenvironment.Willthebureaucracybepreparedforthat?

Insum,andwithreferenceto the fourprinciples thatmust underpin the Crown’s Māori language regime, wemakethefollowing(provisional)findings:

ȂȂ Therehasbeenafailureofpartnership,withMāorilacking control over the key decisions being madeabout their own language. This is despite lessonsfromnewZealandandoverseasshowingthatactualMāoridecision-makingwillbecrucialtothesuccessof theeffort torevive tereo, forMāorichoicesandactions (presupposing the existence of Crown sup-port)willultimatelydecidetereo’sfate.

ȂȂ The Government itself has failed to become moreMāori-speakingandthusreflecttheaspirationsofagrowingnumberofthecitizensitrepresents.

ȂȂ There has been a profound failure (or, at best, abelatedmove)todeveloppolicythatwillassistintherevivaloftereoandthesafeguardingofdialect.The

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.5.1

71

gainsmadesince1980owemoretothesheerpowerof the Māori language movement than to Govern-ment action. That movement now has itself beenweakenedbythegovernmentalfailuretogiveitade-quatesupportandoxygen.

ȂȂ Giventhepolicyfailure,thepriorityaccordedtereoinresourcinghasalsobeeninadequate.

Bycontrast,Māorihave largelymettheirownobliga-tionstotereo.Certainly,thereisaneedtoguardagainstwhakamā,complacency,internaldisputesatkōhangaandkura,andnarrowthinkingaboutthebestformofMāorilanguage learning. Māori must also decide exactly whatfuturetheyseefortereosothatrevivalpoliciescanmatchthese preferences and aspirations. But, as we have seen,at the time it really mattered, Māori were up for it. Themomentum they generated was crucial, for Māori havea tendency to live up to the expectations they create ofthemselves–andinthe1980sandearly1990s,thatexpec-tationclearlywastobeMāori-speaking.

5.5  Proposed RemediesYoungspeakersandlearnersoftereoMāoriaresteadilydeclining innumberandproportion.There isanurgentneedtoreinvigoratetheMāori languagesector:moreofthesameisnotanoptionifthelanguageistoprosper.Itiswiththissenseofurgencythatwemakeourprovisionalrecommendations for reforms.Wemakenoapology forthe fact that our proposals are far-reaching. simply, thegravity of the situation calls for proportionate action.TheReedyreviewmayitselfcometosimilarconclusions.Whilewearenotexpertsinthisfieldandhavenodesiretopre-emptthatpanel’sdeliberations,itisopentothemto take account of our position as they formulate theirownreport.

Insum,webelievethatfourfundamentalchangesmustoccur:

ȂȂ tetauraWhirishouldbecomethe leadMāori lan-guagesectoragency.Thiswilladdresstheproblemscausedbythelackofownershipandleadershipiden-tifiedbytheOAG.

ȂȂ tetauraWhirishouldfunctionasaCrown–Māoripartnership through the equal appointment ofCrown and Māori appointees to its board. This

reflectsourconcernthattereorevivalwillnotworkifresponsibilityforsettingthedirectionisnotsharedwithMāori.

ȂȂ te taura Whiri will also need increased powers.Thiswillensurethatpublicbodiesarecompelledtocontribute to te reo’s revival and that key agenciesareheldproperlyaccountableforthestrategiestheyadopt.forinstance,targetsforthetrainingoftereoteachersmustbemet,educationcurriculainvolvingte reo must be approved, and public bodies in dis-trictswithasufficientnumberand/orproportionofte reo speakers and schools with a certain propor-tionofMāoristudentsmustsubmitMāorilanguageplansforapproval.

ȂȂ Theseregionalpublicbodiesandschoolsmustalsoconsultiwiinthepreparationoftheirplans.Inthisway,iwiwillcometohaveacentralroleintherevi-talisation of te reo in their own areas. This shouldencourage efforts to promote the language at thegrassroots.Weexplainthesechangesasfollows.

5.5.1  Sectoral leadership by Te Taura WhiriIt is clear that in 1986 the tribunal saw the MāoriLanguage Commission as central to reviving te reo. Itdescribedtheproposedcommissionasabodythatwouldfosterthelanguage,watchoveritsprogressandsetstand-ards for its use. But, aside from the nature of the com-mission’s function, the tribunal declined to be overlyprescriptive:

We do not see a need to be too detailed in our recommen-dation on this particular point – the number of persons appointed to such a body, the precise extent of its powers, the kind of support staff it should have, are all matters on which opinions might differ widely . We simply say that the Maori language should be officially recognised so that it can be used on any public occasion and in dealing with any pub-lic 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 .270

As it stands, te taura Whiri undertakes many of thefunctions envisaged for it by the tribunal, but it is nottheleaderwithinwhatisnowtheMāorilanguagesector.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.5.2

72

Instead,therearesix‘leadagencies’,withoneofthem–tePuniKōkiri–theoverallsectoralleader.tetauraWhirihas largely been relegated to the role of a stable of lan-guage technicians, while all the important decisions aremadeelsewhere.onsomelevels,thisseemsincongruous;itistetauraWhiri,andnottePuniKōkiri,thathasbothanexclusivefocusontereoandtherealexpertiseonthematter.neitherarethetwoagencies’rolesseparatedalongthelinesofpolicyandoperations,fortetauraWhirialsohasapolicycomponenttoitswork.Butthisderivesfromthestatuteunderwhichitwasoriginallycreated;bycon-trast,theMLSsetsoutnopolicyrolefortetauraWhiri.

In fact, the Maori Language Act itself intended thatte taura Whiri be the lead agency and key adviser tothe Government on matters pertaining to te reo Māori.section 7 states that its functions include initiating ordevelopingpoliciesandpractices togiveeffect toMāoribeing an official language of new Zealand; generallypromoting te reo as a living language; and advising theMinister of Māori Affairs as requested on matters relat-ing to the Māori language. Under section 8, its powersincludeundertakingresearchintotereoMāori,reportingonanymattersofrelevancetotheMinister,andconsult-ingwithGovernmentdepartments about theiruseof tereoinconductingtheirbusiness.TheActmakesnomen-tion of te Puni Kōkiri, nor of its predecessors. Clearly,though, since te Puni Kōkiri was established in 1992, ithascometoassumemanyoftherolessetoutfortetauraWhiriunderthe1987Act.

WedidnotseekanyexplanationastowhytheMāorilanguagesectorhasevolvedinthisway.271However,wedoconsideritillogicalthatthebodycreatedunderstatutetoadvise theGovernmenton te reoMāori issueshasbeenrelegateddownthehierarchy.Itnowsitsbelowanagencywhichhasnosuchstatutoryrole,otherthanthegeneralmonitoring function provided for by its own establish-mentAct.tetauraWhiri,ofcourse,ismoreindependentinitsstructurethantePuniKōkiri,giventhatitsexecu-tive is mainly answerable to a five-person board (albeitcomprised of individuals appointed by the Minister ofMāori Affairs) – although this may be unrelated to itsrelative marginalisation. In any event, we consider thatcentralising core responsibility for the Māori languagewithin the agency that has exclusive focus would make

more organisational sense and, if done properly, wouldhavemorepunch.

We recommend, therefore, that a revamped te tauraWhiri should serve as the leader within the Māori lan-guagesectorasitwasoriginallyintendedtobe.noneoftheotheragencieshavethesameconcentrationof focusonandexpertiseintereo.

5.5.2  Te Taura Whiri to function as a Crown-Māori partnershipGivenouremphasison theneed forpartnership in lan-guage revival, te taura Whiri would need to be run ina different way. Rather than being governed by a five-person Crown-appointed board, it should instead begovernedbyequalnumbersofappointeesofbothMāoriand the Crown. The Māori appointees could be chosenbyanelectoralcollegeofMāoriconstituencyMembersofParliamentandrepresentativesofvariousMāoriorgani-sationswithaclearinterestintereo(includingiwiorgan-isations,whoseinterestwillbeintribalreo).TheCrownappointees could be chosen by the Minister of MāoriAffairs. We note that such an approach seems to workquitesuccessfullywith theMāoritelevisionserviceanditsownMāorielectoralcollegesystem.

A truly equal Crown–Māori collaboration should seepositive results for te reo Māori. We concur with theHarvardProjectonAmericanIndianeconomicDevelop-mentthattheexerciseofdefactocontrolbyGovernmentdecision-makersoverkey indigenousdevelopmentdeci-sionsinvariablyleadstofailure.ButtheCrownmuststillprovidethenecessaryfinancialsupport.Whatwearecall-ingforisabodytogovernthetereosectorthatallowsanauthoritativeandindependentMāorivoiceattheCrown-fundedtable.suchabodywouldneedtoharnessMāoripassion for te reo as well as the structure, method andprofessionalismofthepublicsector.

5.5.3  Te Taura Whiri to have greater powersTheforegoingchangeswouldmakesomedifference,buton their own we doubt they would be enough to turnaroundthefortunesoftereo.WeconsiderthattetauraWhiri would need to be given powers to require otheragencies to contribute to Māori language revival efforts.Without a Government-wide commitment to te reo,

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.5.3

73

particularlyinareaswherelargenumbersoftereospeak-ersareconcentrated,thelanguagewillinevitablycontinueits decline. We believe that cooperation and encourage-ment work better than coercion, but sharp teeth willcomeinhandyinemergencies.

There are elements of compulsion in the languageregimes of other countries. In Wales, for example, theWelsh Language Board has had statutory powers torequirepublicbodiestopreparelanguageschemesthatsetouthowtheywilltreattheWelshandenglishlanguagesequally when providing services to the public.272 TheCanadian Commissioner of official Languages also hasaroleinpolicingcompliancewiththeofficialLanguagesAct,whichallowsanymemberofthepublictocommuni-catewithandrequestoraccessservicesfromfederalgov-ernmentdepartmentsineitherfrenchorenglish.273

WebelievetherearesixkeyareasofthebroaderpublicserviceinwhichtetauraWhirishouldhavethepowertorequiretheproductionofandcompliancewithMāorilan-guageplans,approvekeydocuments,orsetplanningtar-gets.Wherelanguageplansarerequired,tetauraWhirishould provide model plans and assist public bodies tobothproduceand implement theirplans. Inanycaseofnon-compliancewithtargetsorplans(bothinproducingthemorcomplyingwiththemonceapproved),tetauraWhiri would be able to refer the matter to the Ministerof Māori Affairs, who would be empowered to sanctionthe relevant agency or authority until it complied. suchsanctions might include budgetary penalties, probation-ary controls over language matters or simply ‘namingandshaming’.Wesetout thesixareasofgovernmentasfollows.

Welsh road markings near Cardiff Airport. Bilingualism in Government services is taken much more seriously in Wales.Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.5.4(1)

74

(1) Central governmentAll central government agencies in Wellington shouldbe required to produce plans that set out how they willcontributetotherevitalisationoftereoMāori.Thiswillinclude education sector agencies, although for obviousreasonswedealwithsomeaspectsof theeducationsys-temspecificallybelow.

(2) Local government, district health boards, and branches of central government in certain districtsIn certain parts of the country, where there are signifi-cant numbers of te reo speakers or a sufficient propor-tionoftereospeakers inthetotalpopulation,allpublicagencies and authorities should be required to producesimilar plans. The relevant districts could be calculatedon the basis of the census returns for local governmentareas.Affectedpublicagenciesandauthoritieswouldbetheterritorialauthoritiesmeetingthatparticularspeakerthresholdaswellasanydistricthealthboardsorregionalbranchesofcentralgovernmentlocatedpartlyorwhollywithinthoselocalgovernmentboundaries.

In each case, the public agency or authority shouldconsult with the local iwi before submitting its plansfor approval. This is not merely token consultation. Thereformswehave inmindwouldvestcertainsubstantivepowersiniwi.Wereturntotheroleofiwibelow.

The speaker threshold could be a simple calculation,suchas5,000peopleor5percentofthetotalpopulation.Weareawarethatthiswouldcreateanomalies,soitcouldinstead be based on a more sophisticated formula, suchasthenumberofthousandsofspeakersmultipliedbythespeaker percentage. This would give a fairer and moreequitableresult.ourpointissimplythatthelargenum-bersofspeakersinthebiggestcitiesmustbecateredforaswellasthehighproportionsofspeakersinregionalareas.

It should be remembered that Māori have a recipro-calroleinthisreformaswell,becauseitisonlytriggeredwhenthenumberoftereospeakersreachestherequiredthreshold. some districts, for example, will reach thethreshold in years to come with renewed Māori effort.otherscouldconceivablydropoutifMāoridonotmain-taintheirownobligationtokōreroMāori.

(3) Education curriculaAll early childhood, primary, and secondary curriculainvolving te reo should be submitted to te taura Whiriforapproval.so, too,shouldtetauraWhiriapprovealllevel1to3certificatetereocoursesattertiarylevel.

(4) SchoolsAllstate-fundedschools(exceptkurakaupapaandothertereoimmersionschools)withrollsofatleast75students,ofwhomatleast25percentareMāori,shouldberequiredtoproduceplansthatsetouthowtheywillcontributetothe revitalisation of te reo Māori. As with local govern-mentandpublicagencies,ineachcasetheschoolshouldconsult with the local iwi before submitting its plan forapproval.Thiswillundoubtedlyinvolveadditionaliwitothose in the localgovernmentareas identifiedusing thecalculationinsection5.5.3(2).

(5) TeachersAfter consultation with the secretary for education, tetauraWhirishouldset targets for the trainingofMāorilanguageandMāori-mediumteachersonafive-yearroll-ingbasis.ThisaspectoftetauraWhiri’snewpowers isvitallyimportant,ofcourse,becausethetereomovementchokedinthe1990sduetothefailuretotrainasufficientnumberofteachers.teachertraininginstitutionsshouldsubmitplansfortetauraWhiri’sapprovalshowinghowtheyplantomeetthetereoteachertargets.

(6) BroadcastingBoth the state broadcasters – TVNZ, Māori television,and Radio new Zealand – and the state broadcastingfunders – new Zealand on Air and te Māngai Pāho– should be required to produce te reo plans. In addi-tion,anybroadcasterdrawingonteMāngaiPāhofunds(whichwouldinclude,forexample,theiwiradionetworkand,presumablyonoccasion,otherbroadcasterssuchasTV3)shouldalsoberequiredtosubmitplanstotetauraWhiriforapproval.

5.5.4  Te Taura Whiri to offer dispute-resolution serviceWehavementionedthatinterpersonaldisputesoccasion-allybreakoutintherunningofkōhangareoandkuradue

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.6

75

to the pressures on the committed few of responsibilityand time. We think it highly appropriate that te tauraWhirioffera conflict resolution service tokōhangaandkurawhānau,sothattherebeaslittledisruptiontochil-dren’slearningaspossible.

5.5.5  An enhanced role for iwiWeareawarethattetauraWhirihasforsometimepro-videdpracticaladvicetoiwiandhapūintheformulationoflong-termlanguageplans.274Webelieveitisnowtimeforthestatenotjusttofacilitateinternaliwiplanningbuttoactuallybeaffectedbythoseplans.Aswehaveseen,ourproposalisthatcertainagencies,authorities,andschoolsmust consult with iwi in the formulation of their lan-guageplansforapprovalbytetauraWhiri.Planswouldnot be approved where consultation has not occurred.We believe that, in this way, iwi language planning willeffectivelybecome implemented in the instrumentalitiesof the state. We also consider it likely that iwi will playanimportantroleinalertingtetauraWhiritoanyissuesof non-compliance with approved agency, authority, orschoolplansintheirrespectiverohe.

Wealsomakethefollowingsuggestion.Inrecognitionofthestrongdesireincertaincommunitiesforlocalcon-trol,wewonderwhetherthekōhangareowithineachiwi’srohecouldcollectivelyopt(with,say,a75percentmajor-ity)tosecedefromthenationaltrustandcomeunderthecontrolofthelocaliwiauthority.ThisisofcourseamatterforMāoriratherthantheCrown,butweraiseitnonethe-lessasapotentialsolutiontosomeiwiconcerns.

5.5.6  ConclusionThese provisional proposals may be seen as challeng-ing. They may even be resisted in certain quarters. Inreality, however, they would only bring new Zealandinto line with regimes applied in comparable countriesoverseas. Given the significant spend on te reo policiesnow, they will not necessarily come at great extra cost.Reprioritisation could well address most new expendi-ture.Thesemaybematterstobeaddressedbythereviewpanel induecourse.Intheend,thequestioniswhetherwe as a nation wish to preserve te reo as a living lan-guage or not. If we do, our proposals merely reflect the

urgencyof thesituationand thepressingneed for thor-oughchange.

tetauraWhiriwillneedtomonitorthehealthofthelanguage carefully. As a final recommendation, there-fore,weproposethatitreportbacktothecommunityonprogresseverytwoyears.

since our findings and recommendations are provi-sional,thepartiesmaywishtofurtherventilatethesemat-terswiththereviewpanel,whichisduetoreportinearly2011.Ifanypartywishestoprovideanyresponsedirectlytous,theymaymakesubmissionsby25november2010,which we will consider before issuing our full and finalWai262report.

5.6  The Futuretwenty-five years since the Waitangi tribunal first con-sideredthepositionoftereo,wehavehadanotheroppor-tunity to take stock of this singularly important issue.And, just as the tribunal’s report in 1986 ushered in aperiodofchangeandprogress,sowehopethatourownreportcanhelprejuvenateamovementthathaslostsomeoftheenergythatpropelleditintheearlydays.

naturally,wehopethatwhenthe2028goalsarebeingassessedinanother18years’time,theywillhaveallbeenmet. We also hope that each interim review of the MLSsets out new and visionary goals so that that sense ofurgency isnever lost.Aswehavesaid, thosegoalsmustbe owned and formulated by Māori and the Crown inpartnership.

oneothermatterbearsmention: intothefuturenewZealand will look increasingly different from today. Thepopulation is set to become increasingly diverse, withmid-range projections that those of Asian origin willnumber 791,000 by 2026, only slightly behind the pro-jected Māori population of 811,000. Pacific peoples willrise to 481,000, with Pākehā (and ‘other’) numbers ris-ingslightlyto3.5millionbutdecliningsteeplyintermsofproportion,from77to70percent.275

As we become an increasingly diverse society, howwilloursharedvaluesandnationhoodbeexpressedandcelebrated? We cannot know for certain, but it is quitepossiblethatourgreaterheterogeneitywillmeanwerely

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.6

76

Number of speakers of te reo by local authority

–

NorthIsland

SouthIsland

ChathamIslands

Stewart Island

District and cityboundary

––

–

thousands

,

,

,

,,

,,

,,

,

,

HamiltonCity

,

,

NapierCity

,

,

,

,

P.N.City

,

,

,,

,

,

ManukauCity

,,

,

,

PapakuraDistrict

WaitakereCity

AucklandCity

NorthShoreCity

WellingtonCity Lower Hutt

City

PoriruaCity

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori 5.6

77

Percentage of speakers of te reoby local authority

+ (actual figure stated)

–

–

–

–

–

–

.

.

.

NorthIsland

SouthIsland

ChathamIslands

Stewart Island

.

District and cityboundary

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori5.6

78

moreandmoreuponMāoriculturetomarkouruniqueplaceintheworldandgiveusacommonbondofidentity.Intheyearstocome,wehopethattereowill indeedbehealthyenoughtoproperlyservethiscause.

Notes1. Waitangi Tribunal, Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Te Reo

Maori Claim, 4th ed (Wellington : GP Publications, 1996), pp 20, 49–50

2. Claim 1.1(g) (Haana Murray and others, second amended state-ment of claim on behalf of Ngāti Kurī, Te Rarawa, and Ngāti Wai, 20 October 2001), pp 10–11

3. Claim 1.1(e) (Tama Te Kapua Poata and others, second amended statement of claim for Ngāti Porou, 19 October 2001), pp 6–7

4. Claim 1.1(d) (Apera Clark and others, fourth amended statement of claim on behalf of Ngāti Kahungunu, 21 September 2001), pp 11–17

5. Claim 1.1(f) (John Hippolite and others, second amended state-ment of claim on behalf of Ngāti Koata, 24 October 2001), pp 9–10

6. Paper 2.256 (Crown counsel, statement of response, 28 June 2002), pp 34–35

7. Paper 2.261 (Waitangi Tribunal, draft statement of issues, 20 December 2005), p 42

8. Ibid

9. Paper 2.266 (Crown counsel, submission responding to memo-randum of directions dated 16 February 2006, 15 March 2006), p 4

10. Paper 2.308 (Crown counsel, submission concerning joint mem-orandum of parties in relation to te reo issues in the draft state-ment of issues (paper 2.261), 22 June 2006). See also paper 2.309 (counsel for Ngāti Porou, submission concerning memorandum on behalf of Ngāti Porou claimants in relation to the te reo sec-tion in the draft statement of issues (paper 2.261), 22 June 2006), in which counsel for Ngāti Porou confirmed her agreement.

11. Paper 2.314 (Waitangi Tribunal, statement of issues, 6 July 2006), p 53

12. Paper 2.314, p 54

13. Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Te Reo Maori Claim, p 10 (quoted in doc S6 (counsel for Ngāti Porou, closing submissions, 23 April 2007), pp 76–77)

14. Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, under cross-examination by counsel for Ngāti Porou, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, pp 298–299). Tipene Chrisp has been identified as Steven in

transcripts and testimony. We therefore refer to both names in footnotes, but to Tipene in the main text.

15. Cathy Wylie and Vyletta Arago-Kemp, Whaia Te Iti Kahurangi : NZCER Evaluation 2004, report commissioned by Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Porou and the Ministry of Education (Wellington : New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 2004), p 103

16. Document S6, p 82

17. Te Puni Kōkiri, Te Ora o te Reo Māori i Te Tairāwhiti : The Health of the Māori Language in Te Tairāwhiti (Wellington : Te Puni Kōkiri, undated), p 2, in document R33(b) (Te Puni Kōkiri, a collection of regional language profiles), received 8 January 2007, [p 94]

18. Counsel for Ngāti Porou, cross-examination of Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, pp 300–302)

19. Document S6, pp 78–79

20. Document S6, pp 79–80, 84, 85 ; Paper 2.457 (Crown Counsel, submission concerning requests of Te Puni Kōkiri and Ministry of Education witness for further information, 30 March 2007), attached letter from Ministry of Education dated 14 March 2007

21. Document S6, pp 72–78

22. Apirana Mahuika, under questioning by Crown counsel and the presiding officer, 16th hearing, 30 August 2006 (transcript 4.1.16, day 4, pp 64–65, 74–75)

23. Document S1 (counsel for Ngāti Kahungunu, closing submis-sions, vol 1, executive summary, 16 April 2007), pp 49–50

24. Document I18 (Piri Sciascia, brief of evidence, 2000), [pp 4–5] ; document I13 (Rerekohu Ahiahi Robertson, brief of evidence, 2000), pp 2–5

25. Document S3 (counsel for Ngāti Kurī, Ngāti Wai, and Te Rarawa, closing submissions, 16 April 2007), p 184

26. Ibid, p 55

27. Document B9 (Wiremu McMath, brief of evidence, 1998), pp 3–8 ; document C2 (Houpeke Piripi, brief of evidence, undated), pp 25–29

28. Document H9 (Terewai Grace, brief of evidence, 6–10 November 1999), p 3 ; document H8 (Alfred Madsen Elkington, brief of evi-dence, 6–10 November 1999), p 2 ; document H12 (Priscilla Paul, brief of evidence, 6–10 November 1999), p 3

29. Piripi Walker, under cross-examination by Crown counsel, 17th hearing, 8 September 2006 (transcript 4.1.17, day 5, pp 43–44)

30. Document P35 (Piripi Walker, brief of evidence, 18 August 2006), p 11

31. Document R33 (Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, brief of evidence on behalf of Te Puni Kōkiri, 8 January 2007), pp 3–4.

32. Ibid, p 10

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

79

n69

33. Document T2 (Crown counsel, closing submissions, 21 May 2007,) app 1, p 44

34. Ibid, pp 41–42

35. Ibid, p 42

36. Document R33, pp 11–18

37. Ibid, p 17

38. Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, under cross-examination by coun-sel for Ngāti Porou, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, p 314). There was no discussion on this in the evidence of Margaret Calder for the National Library, nor did counsel take it up with her. He did, however, suggest to Mr Chrisp that he won-dered if this meant that the only specific initiative the Crown was taking for te reo ake o Ngāti Porou was to preserve a record of it for when it is ‘ultimately lost’.

39. Document R29 (Karen Sewell, brief of evidence on behalf of the Ministry of Education, 8 January 2007), pp 12–15. The sum spent on specific support for te reo ake o Ngāti Porou was later con-firmed as being $253,000, as noted by counsel for Ngāti Porou in closing submissions (see above). See also paper 2.457, app (Rawiri (senior manager Maori education, Ministry of Education) to Hardy and Shaw (Crown counsel), 14 March 2007).

40. Document R30 (Arawhetu Peretini, brief of evidence on behalf of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, 8 January 2007), pp 12–13

41. Crown counsel, cross-examination of David Williams, 13th hear-ing, 23 May 2002 (transcript 4.1.13, tape 14, p 260)

42. Crown counsel, cross-examination of Piripi Walker, 17th hearing, 8 September 2006 (transcript 4.1.17, day 5, pp 39–41, 44)

43. Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, under cross-examination by counsel for Ngāti Porou, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, pp 309–310)

44. Document R33, pp 18–19

45. Piripi Walker, under cross-examination by Crown counsel, 17th hearing, 8 September 2006 (transcript 4.1.17, day 5, p 32)

46. Document R29, p 1 ; doc R33, p 3

47. Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, under cross-examination by counsel for Ngāti Koata, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, p 343)

48. Paper 2.279 (Waitangi Tribunal, memorandum concerning his-torical claims, 2 May 2006), pp 4, 7

49. The te reo Māori claim was heard over four weeks in mid- and late 1985, before the 1985 legislative amendment came into effect that extended the Tribunal’s jurisdiction back to 1840.

50. Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Te Reo Maori Claim, pp 8–9

51. Ibid, pp 9–10

52. ‘Pepper-potting’ was a policy pursued by the Department of Māori Affairs in urban centres during the 1950s and early 1960s whereby state housing for Māori was scattered within predomi-nantly non-Māori communities in order to encourage ‘integra-tion’. The term was used, for example, by the Secretary of Māori Affairs Jack Hunn in his 1960 report into Government law and policy concerning Māori : J K Hunn, Report on Department of Maori Affairs, 24 August 1960 (Wellington : R E Owen, 1961), p 41

53. Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Te Reo Maori Claim, p 10

54. Document K3 (David Williams, Crown Policy Affecting Māori Knowledge Systems and Cultural Practices (Wellington : Waitangi Tribunal, 2001)), p 137 ; Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Te Reo Maori Claim, p 11

55. Richard Benton, The Maori Language – Dying or Reviving ? A Working Paper Prepared for the East-West Center Alumni-in-Residence Working Paper Series (1991 ; reprinted Wellington : New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 1997), pp 5, 12, 29

56. Richard Benton and Nena Benton, ‘RLS in Aotearoa/New Zealand 1989–1999’, in Can Threatened Languages Be Saved ? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited : A 21st Century Perspective, edited by Joshua A Fishman (Clevedon : Multilingual Matters, 2001), p 425

57. Document K3, pp 164–165

58. Ibid, p 104

59. Ibid, pp 165–166, 167

60. Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Te Reo Maori Claim, p 35

61. Ibid, pp 10, 12

62. Ibid, p 16

63. Ibid, pp 16, 17

64. Ibid, p 51

65. Ibid, p 1

66. Te Taura Whiri, ‘Language Issues – Te Reo Māori’, Te Taura Whiri, http ://www.tetaurawhiri.govt.nz/english/issues_e/reo/reo.shtml (accessed 21 April 2008)

67. Piripi Walker alleged that the Government introduced its Bill without waiting for the Tribunal’s report because it feared ‘the weight of the Tribunal recommendation on official recognition of the Māori language’. The Government thus ‘thwarted from the outset any expectation that Māori speakers would enjoy real lan-guage rights to use the language in public bodies’ : doc P35, p 4.

68. Document K3, pp 172–173

69. Comprehensive statistics on early childhood and school-age Māori-medium education are provided in the tables appended to this chapter. These figures and other references to early child-hood education, schooling and tertiary education statistics in this chapter are drawn for the main part from the Ministry of

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

80

n70

Education’s ‘Education Counts’ website (www.educationcounts.govt.nz) and are not separately referenced in each instance.

70. These are defined by the Ministry of Education as schools or classes within schools where students learn via the medium of te reo for between 12 and 100 per cent of the time. Four levels operate (with more funding for higher percentages of time spent learning via the medium of te reo) : level 1 (80 per cent and above via the medium of te reo), level 2 (50 to 80 per cent), level 3 (30 to 50 per cent), and level 4(a) (12 to 30 per cent) : Ministry of Education, Funding, Staffing and Allowances Handbook (Wellington : Ministry of Education, 2008), ch 1, pp 14, 30.

71. The number of schools that a subject was taught at was unavail-able for 2009.

72. Ministry of Education, Ngā Haeata Mātauranga – Annual Report on Māori Education 2007/08 (Wellington : Ministry of Education, 2009), p 115. Students may be counted more than once in these numbers. We have not seen any updated figures.

73. Education Review Office, Evaluation Indicators for Education Reviews in Te Aho Matua Kura Kaupapa Māori (Wellington : Education Review Office, 2008), p ii

74. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General unreported, 3 May 1991, McGechan J, High Court, Wellington, CP942/88

75. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General (No 2) unre-ported, 29 July 1991, McGechan J, High Court, Wellington, CP942/88. The quotation is from the Court of Appeal’s summary of the 1991 case : New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1992] 2 NZLR 576 (CA) at 589.

76. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1992] 2 NZLR 576 (CA) ; New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1994] 1 NZLR 513 (PC)

77. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1994] 1 NZLR 513 (PC) at 517

78. Te Māngai Pāho, Annual Report for the Year Ended 30 June 2009 (Wellington : Te Māngai Pāho, 2009), pp 4, 8–9, 10–11

79. See Television New Zealand Amendment Bill 2009 (89–1), cl 6

80. Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, under questioning by the presid-ing officer, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, pp 361–362)

81. Document R33, p 15. The acting chief executive of Te Taura Whiri seemed to suggest that iwi would pick up the role of investing in language regeneration initiatives to some extent : ‘2010 Final Ma Te Reo Funding Round opens’, Te Taura Whiri press release, 13 April 2010

82. Te Puni Kōkiri, Rārangi Mahi o ngā Ratonga Reo Māori 2006 – Inventory of Māori Language Services 2006 (Wellington, Te Puni Kōkiri, 2008), app 1 [p 1] : Te Taura Whiri records a figure of 1.8 million per year in its annual reports from 2004 to 2009, as does Tipene Chrisp : doc R33, p 15.

83. Te Puni Kōkiri, Rārangi Mahi o ngā Ratonga Reo Māori 2006, app 1, [pp 1, 2]. Tipene Chrisp described the size of the fund as $1.6 million annually : doc R33, p 15.

84. Document R33, p 15

85. Te Puni Kōkiri, Te Tūāoma –The Māori Language : The Steps That Have Been Taken (Wellington : Te Puni Kōkiri, 1999), p 11

86. Te Puni Kōkiri, A Shared Vision for the Future of Te Reo Māori (Wellington : Te Puni Kōkiri, March 2003), p 4

87. Document R33(a) (Te Puni Kōkiri, The Health of the Māori Language in 2001 (Wellington : Te Puni Kōkiri, 2002)), p 7

88. Those Māori organisations consulted included Kawea Te Rongo, Te Pūtahi Pāho and Te Whakaruruhau (broadcasting) ; Kura Kaupapa Māori, Te Ātaarangi, Te Kōhanga Reo, wānanga and universities (education) ; and the Māori Women’s Welfare League and iwi involved in language planning (general). Government agencies represented were the Ministry of Education, Te Māngai Pāho, Te Puni Kōkiri and Te Taura Whiri.

89. Te Puni Kōkiri, A Shared Vision for the Future of Te Reo Māori, pp 1, 5

90. Document R33(j) (Te Puni Kōkiri and Te Taura Whiri, Te Rautaki Reo Māori : The Māori Language Strategy (Wellington : Te Puni Kōkiri, 2003)), p 3

91. Pita Sharples, ‘Review of Maori Language Strategy and Sector’, New Zealand Government media release, 29 July 2010

92. The published MLS document listed eight ‘functions of Government’ (doc R33(j), pp 31–35) but, in October 2003, Cabinet agreed to include activities in two additional areas – a Māori language information programme and assistance with whānau language development : doc R33(yyyy) (Controller and Auditor-General, Implementing the Māori Language Strategy (Wellington : Office of the Auditor-General, 2007)), p 12.

93. Document R33(j), p 5

94. Ibid, p 7

95. Ibid, pp 31–35 ; doc R33(yyyy), p 12

96. Document R33, p 7

97. For the 1999 and 2002 figures, see document R33(a), p 15, and for the 2006 figure, see Te Puni Kōkiri, Rārangi Mahi o ngā Ratonga Reo Māori 2006, app 1 [pp 1–2]. In communicating the 2006 stocktake result, Te Puni Kōkiri advised that the information may be incomplete and that, with reference to the similar inventory undertaken in 2000 (which presumably gives the 1999 figure), ‘it is not possible to directly compare the information because dif-ferent methodological approaches were used in 2000 and 2006’ : Te Puni Kōkiri, Rārangi Mahi o ngā Ratonga Reo Māori 2006, [p 2] fn 3.

98. Te Puni Kōkiri, Rārangi Mahi o ngā Ratonga Reo Māori 2006, [p 11] ; doc R33(a), p 15

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

81

n120

99. For the 1999 and 2002 figures, see document R33(a), p 15, and for the 2006 figures, see Te Puni Kōkiri, Rārangi Mahi o ngā Ratonga Reo Māori 2006, app 1 [pp 1–2]. The principal component of the 2006 education sector figure is the $65 million allocated for stu-dent component funding of Māori language courses in tertiary institutions.

100. Not all the most up-to-date education statistics were available to us at the time of writing.

101. In 2009, there were 11 licensed early childhood education te reo Māori immersion services other than kōhanga reo. In other words, some former kōhanga may not so much have ceased to exist as become a different kind of childcare centre. There were also 634 licensed services where children received between 12 and 80 per cent of their communications from teachers in Māori, although the range is so broad that we cannot do much more than note this statistic : see Ministry of Education, Education Report : Annual Census of Early Childhood Services, July 2009 (Wellington : Ministry of Education, 2009), p 6.

102. We are aware that there was an even higher proportion (52.4 per cent) of Māori in early childhood education at kōhanga in 1986. At that time, however, the overall number of Māori attending early childhood education was significantly lower (fewer than 16,000, as opposed to 28,500 in 1993) : Lisa Davies and Kirsten Nicholl, Te Maori i Roto i nga Mahi Whakaakoranga : Maori in Education : A Statistical Profile of Maori Across the New Zealand Education System (Wellington : Ministry of Education, 1993), p 105, tbl A1.

103. We use 2008 here because we do not know the number of Māori children in licence-exempt early childhood services in 2009.

104. Document R29(j) (Ministry of Education, Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success : The Draft Māori Education Strategy, 2008–2012 (Wellington : Ministry of Education, 2007), p 11. In 2005, the Ministry suggested that kōhanga reo enrolments had decreased ‘because the number of TKR [Te Kōhanga Reo] services has declined. This is a result of a consolidation process undertaken by the TKR Trust since 1995’ : Ministry of Education (Data Management and Analysis), Hui Taumata, 2005 : Māori in Early Childhood Education and Schools (Wellington : Ministry of Education, 2005), p 2. We do not believe that the answer is this straightforward, and nor does the Ministry believe so today (see endnote 106).

105. Benton and Benton, ‘RLS in Aotearoa/New Zealand, 1989–1999’, p 426

106. Ms Sewell is clearly aware of all these issues. In her evidence to the Whanganui district Tribunal inquiry in April 2009, she wrote that the reasons for the decline were ‘unclear’ but added that likely factors included increased Māori employment and the ‘increasing responsiveness of other services, such as the day education and care services, to working families including those seeking education with an emphasis on Māoritanga’ : Karen Sewell, brief of evidence on behalf of the Ministry of Education,

27 April 2009 (Wai 903 ROI, doc O5), pp 8–9. Under questioning in May 2009, she added that some kōhanga have sought inde-pendence from the national trust. She also remarked that quality of language and standards of care have at times been lacking, but such matters were the responsibility of the trust, over which she had no control : Karen Sewell, under questioning by Ranginui Walker, 15th hearing, 27 May 2009 (Wai 903 ROI, transcript 4.1.15, pp 188–189).

107. ‘Celebrate the Start of 20 Hours Free ECE’, New Zealand Government press release, 2 July 2007

108. Ministry of Education, ‘Budget 2009 : Questions and Answers for Early Childhood Education Services (Wellington : Ministry of Education, 2009)

109. Ministry of Education, Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success : The Māori Education Strategy, 2008–2012 (Wellington : Ministry of Education, 2009), p 31. This is an update of the 2008 publication.

110. The 1995 ERO report also said that all kura were too small to qualify for a non-teaching principal and that this caused the principals great difficulty with workload : Education Review Office, Kura Kaupapa Māori, vol 10 (winter 1995), pp 4–12.

111. Māori Affairs Committee, Te Uiuitanga Mātauranga Māori – Inquiry into Māori Education, Report to the House of Representatives, sess 1, 44th parliament, I.9H, 1996, p 6

112. ‘Greater Need for Teachers Fluent in Maori, Says Karetu’, Evening Post, 9 July 1997

113. Benton and Benton, ‘RLS in Aotearoa/New Zealand 1989–1999’, p 436

114. Richard Benton and Nena Benton, Revitalizing the Māori Language : Consultants’ Report to the Māori Development Education Commission (Ngāruawāhia : Alta Vista Pacifica Tāpui, 1999), p 33

115. Ministry of Education, Ka Hikitia (2009), p 25

116. Karen Sewell, under questioning by Warehuia Milroy, 15th hear-ing, 27 May 2009 (Wai 903 ROI, transcript 4.1.15, pp 193–194)

117. Ministry of Education, Ka Hikitia (2009), p 35

118. Ministry of Education (Education Information and Analysis), ‘Māori Language in Education’, Ngā Haeata Mātauranga – Annual Report on Māori Education, 2008/09 (Wellington : Ministry of Education, 2010), p 20. We note that the 2009 total and percentage represented small increases over 2008.

119. Megan Lee, Monitoring Teacher Supply : Survey of Staffing in New Zealand Schools at the Beginning of the 2010 School Year (Wellington : Ministry of Education, 2010), p 1

120. Significantly, each annual report on Monitoring Teacher Supply carries a stock remark along the lines of ‘vacancies and readver-tised vacancies were greatest in schools in rural areas (population <1,000), in schools with a higher proportion of Māori students on their roll (relative to other schools) and in low-decile schools

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

82

n121

(deciles 1–3)’ : Lee, Monitoring Teacher Supply : Survey of Staffing in New Zealand Schools at the Beginning of the 2010 School Year, p 1.

121. Lisa Ng and Megan Lee, Monitoring Teacher Supply : Survey of Staffing in New Zealand Schools at the Beginning of the 2009 School Year (Wellington : Ministry of Education, 2009), p 11 ; Lee, Monitoring Teacher Supply : Survey of Staffing in New Zealand Schools at the Beginning of the 2010 School Year, p 12

122. Ministry of Education, ‘Match of Teacher Qualification to Subject Taught : Secondary Schooling’, Ministry of Education, http ://www.educationcounts.govt.nz (accessed 15 June 2008)

123. Research New Zealand, 2006 Survey on the Health of the Māori Language : Final Report, prepared for Te Puni Kōkiri (Wellington : Research New Zealand, 3 July 2007), p 190

124. Stephen May, Richard Hill, and Sarah Tiakiwai, Bilingual/Immersion Education – Indicators of Good Practice : Final Report to the Ministry of Education ([Wellington] : Ministry of Education, 2004), pp 122–124, 127–129

125. Figures do not seem to have been published yearly on this matter. For 1995, see Ministry of Education, Education Statistics of New Zealand for 1995 (Wellington : Ministry of Education, 1996), tbl 30, p 52 ; for 1998, Ministry of Education, Education Statistics of New Zealand for 1998 (Wellington : Ministry of Education, 1999), tbl 36, p 61. For 2009, see Ministry of Education (Education Information and Analysis), ‘Māori Language in Education’, in Ngā Haeata Mātauranga, 2008/09, p 21. Note that the 2009 figure excludes secondary students being taught in Māori-medium settings.

126. For further comparison, secondary school Māori language enrolments were 1,437 in 1970, 11,110 in 1975, 14,682 in 1980, and 16,981 in 1985 : Jeffrey Waite, Aoteareo : Speaking for Ourselves – A Discussion on the Development of a New Zealand Languages Policy, 2 vols (Wellington : Learning Media, 1992), vol 2, p 37.

127. Indeed, no fewer than 48,762 secondary school students (30.8 per cent of the total number) were learning French in 1970 : Waite, Aoteareo, vol 2, p 70.

128. Of course it should be acknowledged that some children now even learn Spanish through the medium of Māori – the Ministry of Education noted in a 2005 press release that Spanish was being taught at Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Te Koutu in Rotorua. ‘Great Things Are Happening In New Zealand Schools’, Ministry of Education press release, 23 December 2005

129. Ministry of Education, ‘Provider-Based Enrolments’, Excel spreadsheet, 20 August 2010, tbls ENR.7, ENR.11

130. David Earle, He Tini Manu Reo : Learning Te Reo Māori Through Tertiary Education (Wellington : Ministry of Education, 2007), p 11

131. Ibid, pp 11, 63

132. Ministry of Education, Percentage of Māori Population Proficient in Te Reo Māori (Wellington : Ministry of Education, 2008), p 3

133. Ian Christensen, ‘Proficiency, Use and Transmission : Māori Language Revitalisation’, New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, vol 9 (1), 2003, p 45

134. Waite, Aoteareo, vol 2, p 31 ; Benton and Benton, ‘RLS in Aotearoa/New Zealand 1989–1999’, p 425

135. Te Puni Kōkiri, The National Māori Language Survey : Te Mahi Rangahau Reo Māori (Wellington : Te Puni Kōkiri, 1998), pp 33–35. Dr Winifred Bauer notes that Tipene Chrisp has said, in a personal communication to her, that the results of the 1995 survey are considered unreliable. We are unsure as to the exact reason : Winifred Bauer, ‘Is The Health Of Te Reo Māori Improving ?’, Te Reo : The Journal of the Linguistic Society of New Zealand, vol 51, 2008, p 34.

136. The survey also sought to contrast preferred schooling types by perceptions of availability of those types of schools ‘locally’. However, these cross-tabulations were, according to the AGB McNair report, ‘aggregate figures across the whole sample and do not tell us, for example, how many of the people who want bilin-gual education have that option available to them in their local area’. In other words, the survey was unable to verify the exact match of supply to demand except to the extent that children were in their caregivers’ preferred type of schooling (as set out in the text above) : see AGB McNair, Survey of Demand for Bilingual and Immersion Education in Māori (Wellington : Ministry of Education, 1992), pp 81, 82.

137. Ibid, pp 70, 82

138. MRL Research Group, Maori and Pacific Island Language Demand for Educational Services : Overview, report to the Ministry of Education, Wellington, November 1995, pp 24, 28–29, 42–43. Eighteen per cent of Māori caregivers preferred primary schooling where te reo was available as a subject (rising to 24 per cent at secondary level). In fact, 17 per cent of Māori children attended such a primary school. Note that the information on page 29 of the report has been incorrectly presented. We were able to ascertain the correct percentages from the figure titled ‘Primary School Usage and Preference’ on the facing page, as well as from the way information in other tables was presented.

139. Ministry of Education, Education Statistics of New Zealand for 1995, p 42

140. We say this because the surveyed rate of participation in Māori-medium education was considerably higher than we know to have been the case in these two years. It is of course possible some caregivers told the survey-takers what seemed the ‘right’ answer about their preferred schooling for their children.

141. Ministry of Education, Education Statistics of New Zealand for 1992 (Wellington : Ministry of Education, 1993), pp 38, 54

142. Benton and Benton, ‘RLS in Aotearoa/New Zealand 1989–1999’, p 423

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

83

n178

143. An example may be the 30–34 year olds in 1996, who as 35–39 year olds in 2001 and 40–44 year olds in 2006, increased their proportion of reo speakers.

144. The figure of 624,000 is the official Māori ethnic group figure of 565,329 once it has been adjusted for those estimated to have been missed by the census, been temporarily overseas, to have not responded to the ethnicity question, and so on.

145. Statistics New Zealand, National Ethnic Population Projections : 2006 (Base) – 2026 Update, Statistics New Zealand, http ://www.stats.govt.nz (accessed 24 August 2010), p 12, tbls 1m, 3m.

146. This figure, of course, excludes those who do not answer the census, are temporarily overseas, or fail to answer either or both of the ethnicity and language questions.

147. Document R33(a), p 19

148. The other growth areas were those aged 15 to 19 and 35 to 54, with the only other substantial gain in absolute numbers being made by those aged 40 to 49. There were declines amongst those aged 20 to 34 and 55 to 59. The growth in those over 60 may of course relate to more than just the ageing population, as some may well be being thrust into kaumātua roles and suddenly having to take learning te reo very seriously.

149. ‘Survey Shows More Māori are Speaking Te Reo’, New Zealand Government press release, 24 July 2007 ; doc R33(vvvv) (Te Puni Kōkiri, Te Tirohanga ki te Reo Māori, The Māori Language Survey, Wellington : Te Puni Kōkiri, July 2007), [pp 5, 7]

150. Ministry of Education, ‘Percentage of Māori Population Proficient in Te Reo Māori’, p 3

151. ‘Survey Shows More Māori Are Speaking Te Reo’, New Zealand Government press release, 24 July 2007

152. Ministry of Social Development, The Social Report, 2007 (Wellington : Ministry of Social Development, October 2007), p 127. In its 2008 report the Ministry wrote that ‘Between 2001 and 2006, the proportion of Māori who can speak Māori declined slightly while the total number of Māori who can do so increased over this period’ : Ministry of Social Development, The Social Report, 2008 (Wellington : Ministry of Social Development, 2008), p 129

153. Peter Keegan, ‘FAQ about the Maori Language’, He Korero mo te Reo Maori : Maori Language Information, 22 October 2007, http ://www.maorilanguage.info/mao_lang_faq.html (accessed 25 May 2008)

154. Bauer, pp 35–38, 50–51

155. Ibid, pp 33–73

156. Ibid, p 62

157. Ibid, pp 34, 70

158. Ibid, p 67

159. Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Te Reo Maori Claim, pp 20, 21

160. Ibid, p 1

161. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1994] 1 NZLR 513 (PC) at 517, 518

162. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295, adopted 13 September 2007), art 13

163. Document S3, p 183

164. Document S6, p 70

165. Document R29(k) (Ministry of Education, Ngā Haeata Mātauranga – Annual Report on Māori Education, 2006/07 (Wellington : Ministry of Education, 2007)), p 38

166. Ibid

167. Ibid, pp 66–67

168. Karen Sewell, under cross-examination by counsel for Te Tai Tokerau, 21st hearing, 26 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, pp 391, 409)

169. Siobhan Murray, Achievement at Māori Immersion and Bilingual Schools : Update for 2004 Results (Wellington : Demographic and Statistical Analysis Unit, Ministry of Education, 2005), pp 3, 4

170. While Māori currently comprise 15 per cent of the New Zealand population, they represent 24 per cent of those aged under 15, which Statistics New Zealand predicts will rise to 28 per cent of those under 15 by 2026 : Statistics New Zealand, National Ethnic Population Projections : 2006 (Base) – 2026 Update, p 7.

171. Counsel for Ngāti Koata, cross-examination of Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, p 343)

172. Document S1, p 50

173. Benton and Benton, Revitalizing the Māori Language, p 12

174. Stephen Cornell, Indigenous Peoples, Poverty, and Self-Determination in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States, Joint Occasional Papers on Native Affairs 2006–02 (Tuscon and Cambridge MA : Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy and the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, 2006), pp 16, 17

175. This phrase is taken from the Court of Appeal’s decision in what is known as the Whales case, where Ngāi Tahu were entitled to have a ‘reasonable degree of preference’ over other ventures seeking a licence for whale-watching operations at Kaikoura : Ngai Tahu Maori Trust Board v Director-General of Conservation [1995] 3 NZLR 553 (CA) at 554.

176. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1994] 1 NZLR 513 (PC) at 517

177. Ibid, p 518

178. Hunn wrote that language, arts, crafts, and the institutions of the marae were the ‘chief relics’ of Māori culture still in existence and that ‘Only the Maoris themselves can decide whether these features of their ancient life are, in fact, to be kept alive ; and, in

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

84

n179

the final analysis, it is entirely a matter of individual choice’ : doc K3, pp 80, 141.

179. Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, under cross-examination by counsel for Ngāti Porou, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, pp 299, 303)

180. Document S6, p 78

181. Document R33(j), p 21

182. Ibid, p 3

183. Document R33(cc) (Cabinet Policy Committee, ‘Revised Māori Language Strategy’, minute of decision, POL Min (03) 17/13), 23 July 2003), p 1

184. Document R33(dd) (Cabinet Policy Committee, ‘Revised Māori Language Strategy’, minute of decision, POL Min (03) 200, 21 July 2003), p 1

185. Te Taura Whiri, Te Hui Taumata Reo Māori : Proceedings of Te Hui Taumata Reo Māori Held in Wellington, 11–13 December 1995 (Wellington : Te Taura Whiri, 1996), p 43

186. Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Te Reo Maori Claim, p 47

187. High Court Rules, r 1.11

188. Maori Language Act 1987, s 4(2)(a)–(b)

189. Maori Land Court Rules 1994, r 15

190. Document R33, pp 9, 19

191. Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, under cross-examination by counsel for Ngāti Koata, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, p 346)

192. Document R33(a), p 31

193. Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, under cross-examination by counsel for Te Tai Tokerau, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, p 328)

194. When we queried the omission Te Puni Kōkiri explained that it had ‘not undertaken any assessment of the state of language planning across government during the last five years’, essentially because such work had been given a low priority : paper 2.488 (Crown Law Office, memorandum responding to 3 July 2008 memorandum of presiding officer, 9 July 2008), p 1.

195. Cabinet issued this instruction in July 2003, at the same time it approved the MLS.

196. Document R33(ee) (Parekura Horomia to chair, Cabinet Policy Committee, 5 May 2004)

197. Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, under cross-examination by counsel for Te Tai Tokerau, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, p 327)

198. Te Puni Kōkiri, A Shared Vision for the Future of Te Reo Māori, p 6 ; doc R33(j), p 21

199. Document P35, p 6

200.Document R33(yyyy), p 29

201. Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, under questioning by the presid-ing officer, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, pp 360–361)

202. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1994] 1 NZLR 513 (PC) at 519–520

203. Television New Zealand Act 2003, s 12(3)(c)

204.Document R31(b) (Television New Zealand, ‘Māori Content Strategy : Māori Content and Programming that Inspires New Zealanders on Every Screen’ ([Auckland : Television New Zealand, 2007]), pp 3, 24

205. Bernard Spolsky, ‘Report on Māori – English Bilingual Education’ (Wellington : Department of Education, 1987), p 21

206.Francois Grin and Francois Vaillancourt, Language Revitalisation Policy : An Analytical Survey. Theoretical Framework, Policy Experience and Application to Te Reo Māori, Treasury Working Paper 98/6 (Wellington : The Treasury, 1998)

207. Grin and Vaillancourt, pp 199, 232, 233

208.Document R33(j), p 19

209.Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, under questioning by the presiding officer, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, p 362) ; Karen Sewell, under questioning by the presiding officer, 22nd hearing, 30 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21(a), p 34)

210. Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, under questioning by the presiding officer, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, p 363) :

PO : Well if you look at your goal 1 which is really by far your most significant goal, the majority of Māori being able to speak Māori to some extent by 2028, that’s a doubling of the numbers of Māori speakers [in the census] ?SC : Yes.PO : Well actually no a doubling of the proportion, it will be a far larger doubling, sorry it will be a far larger increase in actual numbers won’t it ?SC : Yes.

211. For the 2001 result, see document R33(a), p 20, and for the 2006 result, see Te Puni Kōkiri, Te Oranga o te Reo Māori 2006 – The Health of the Māori Language in 2006 (Wellington : Te Puni Kōkiri, 2008), pp iv, 22. We note that, while Te Puni Kōkiri records a figure of 24 per cent who could speak ‘not very well’ and a total of 51 per cent who could speak to some extent in its 2008 publication, the Research New Zealand report on the 2006 survey states that 26 per cent could speak te reo ‘not very well’ and 53 per cent could speak to some extent : Research New Zealand, 2006 Survey on the Health of the Māori Language, p 28.

212. Document R33(j), p 21

213. We acknowledge that the MLS states that the ‘key domains’ were ‘identified by Māori’ : doc R33(j), p 21.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

85

n254

214. Ibid, p 23

215. Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Te Reo Maori Claim, p 51

216. Karen Sewell, under questioning by the presiding officer, 22nd hearing, 30 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21(a), pp 33–34)

217. Document R33(j), p 25

218. Ibid, p 27

219. Document R33(a), pp 35–36

220. Te Puni Kōkiri, Ngā Waiaro Atu Ki Te Reo Māori : Attitudes Toward the Māori Language, summary sheet 002–2010 (Wellington : Te Puni Kōkiri, 2010), [p 8]

221. Document R33(yyyy), pp 27–28

222. Karen Sewell, under questioning by the presiding officer, 22nd hearing, 30 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21(a), p 35)

223. Te Puni Kōkiri, A Shared Vision for the Future of Te Reo Māori, pp 6, 8

224. Document P35, p 10

225. Document R33(j), p 23

226. Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, under questioning by the presiding officer, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, p 362)

227. This abandonment may also be happening because of a degree of non-acceptance by some Māori of non-Māori learning te reo. The extent of this is, of course, difficult to know.

228. Document R33(yyyy), p 5

229. Ibid, pp 19–20, 22, 27–28

230. Ibid, pp 18–20, 26

231. Ibid, pp 24, 29

232. Ibid, pp 19, 24, 27–28

233. Document R33(j), p 35

234. Document R33(yyyy), p 32

235. Ibid, pp 17–18

236. Ibid, p 20

237. Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, under cross-examination by counsel for Ngāti Porou, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, p 296)

238. Office of the Auditor-General, Performance Audits from 2007 : Follow-up Report (Wellington : Office of the Auditor-General, 2009), p 29

239. Document G4 (Apirana Tuahae Mahuika, statement of evidence, 12 April 1999), pp 55–57

240.Document G4, p 55

241. Two examples Mr Walker gave were tōkena for socks (from ‘stockings’) and neketai for tie (from ‘necktie’) : Piripi Walker, under cross-examination by Crown counsel, 17th hearing, 8 September 2006 (transcript 4.1.17, day 5, p 43). Similarly, Apirana Mahuika described transliterations such as the Māori days of the week as ‘Taonga Tuku Iho . . . made by our tīpunas.’ He strongly objected to the new names for the days of the week, a lot of which, he said, were in fact taken from Scandinavian mythology. See Apirana Mahuika, under questioning by Crown counsel and the presiding officer, 16th hearing, 30 August 2006 (transcript 4.1.16, day 4, p 66).

242. Document R33, pp 18–19

243. Te Taura Whiri, Statement of Intent, 2008–09 (Wellington : Te Taura Whiri, 30 June 2008), p 6

244.Te Taura Whiri, ‘State of Māori Language Still Perilous’, press release, 23 July 2009

245. May, Hill, and Tiakiwai, Bilingual/Immersion Education, p 2

246.Te Taura Whiri, Annual Report of the Māori Language Commission for the Year Ended 30 June 2002 (Wellington : Te Taura Whiri, 2002), p 6

247. Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, under cross-examination by counsel for Ngāti Porou and Te Tai Tokerau, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, pp 299, 312, 319)

248.Document R29, p 15

249.Karen Sewell, under questioning by the presiding officer, 22nd hearing, 30 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21(a), p 27)

250. Margaret Calder, under cross-examination by counsel for Ngāti Koata, 22nd hearing, 30 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21(a), p 55)

251. The OAG report tends to suggest that there have been limits to the impact of that influence. It notes that Te Puni Kōkiri has few ‘mechanisms to encourage the other lead agencies [aside from the agencies it monitors] to complete their Strategy planning’ : doc R33 (yyyy), p 26.

252. Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, under questioning by the presiding officer, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, p 358)

253. Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, under cross-examination by counsel for Ngāti Porou, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, p 297)

254. Given the frequent references to limited resources, this seems an unfortunate omission. It could not have been due to tight eco-nomic conditions : Mr Chrisp agreed with counsel for the Te Tai Tokerau claimants in January 2007 that the country’s economic indicators were ‘very good’ : Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, under cross-examination by counsel for Te Tai Tokerau, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, p 319). The OAG confirmed in 2007 that there was a ‘lack of designated resources for planning and implementation, and conflicting priorities within agencies’ :

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

86

n255

doc R33(yyyy), p 7. It is reasonably clear that Te Puni Kōkiri needed more resources.

255. Document R33(j), p 29

256. Document R33(a), pp 27, 28–29

257. Te Puni Kōkiri, Te Oranga o te Reo Māori 2006, pp 28, 31

258. Document R33(vvvv), [p 7]

259. Tīmoti Kāretu and Jeffrey Waite, ‘Te Reo Māori’, New Zealand Official Yearbook, 1988–1989 (Wellington : Department of Statistics, 1988), p 226

260.Benton and Benton, Revitalizing the Māori Language, p 94

261. May, Hill, and Tiakiwai, Bilingual/Immersion Education, p 129

262. In his master of social science thesis, Father Robert McGowan remarks that academics and tino rangatiratanga campaigners often portray rongoā as ‘one of the taonga taken from them by the Pakeha, but do not know enough to be aware that rongoa Maori is very much alive and available to them if only they were ready to make themselves available to the world in which it belongs’ : doc K11 (Robert McGowan, ‘The Contemporary Use of Rongoa Maori, Traditional Maori Medicine’ (masters thesis, University of Waikato, 2000)), p 117.

263. Steven (Tipene) Chrisp, under questioning by the presiding officer, 21st hearing, 25 January 2007 (transcript 4.1.21, p 362)

264.Te Puni Kōkiri, Te Oranga o te Reo Māori 2006, p 35

265. Te Taura Whiri, ‘State of Māori Language Still Perilous’, press release, 23 July 2009

266.Te Taura Whiri, Briefing for the Minister of Māori Affairs (Wellington : Te Taura Whiri, 2008), p 2

267. New Zealand Government, ‘Set of Maori Language Research Reports Now Complete’, press release, 31 July 2009

268.Pita Sharples, ‘Review of Maori Language Strategy and Sector’, press release, 29 July 2010

269.Pita Sharples, ‘Speech to Iwi and Community Stakeholders’ (speech announcing ministerial review of Māori language strat-egy and sector, Waikato, 29 July 2010)

270. Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Te Reo Maori Claim, p 48

271. We are aware, however, that Māori Language Commissioner Patu Hohepa made the following remarks on page 1 of Te Taura Whiri, Annual Report of the Māori Language Commission for the Year Ended 30 June 2000 (Wellington : Te Taura Whiri, 2000) :

Burning issues continue to bedevil our work. Such an issue is the taking of some Māori language services and products from the Commission into your Ministry. They were better left to the Commission. Even though this Commission was created as the guardian and the activist for language promo-tion and maintenance, how could these be done if control over important aspects such as research and audit as well

as possible funding have been moved to your Ministry ? . . . That the Commission has continued to be at the mercy of non-Māori speaking analysts, linguists and decision-makers in your Ministry continues to cause repercussions in the Commission.

272. The board has also had the power to request local education authorities to prepare Welsh Language Education Schemes, showing how Welsh-medium education will be provided in their areas. The board approves or rejects such schemes. See Welsh Language Board, ‘History of the Board’, Welsh Language Board, http ://www.byig-wlb.org.uk/English/about/Pages/HistoryoftheBoard.aspx (accessed 18 September 2010).

273. Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, ‘About Us’, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, http ://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/html/roles_e.php (accessed 18 September 2010)

274. Document R33(d) (Te Taura Whiri, A Guide for Iwi and Hapū to the Preparation of Long-Term Māori Language Development Plans (Wellington : Te Taura Whiri, 2000)

275. Statistics New Zealand, National Ethnic Population Projections : 2006 (base) – 2026 update, tbls 1A, 1M, 1E, 1P

WhakatauakiPage xv : In 1985, Sir James Henare stated this phrase during the Waitangi Tribunal’s inquiry into te reo Māori: ‘The language is the core of our Maori culture and mana. Ko te reo te mauri o te mana Maori (The language is the life force of the mana Maori). If the language dies, as some predict, what do we have left to us? Then, I ask our own people who are we?’ (Waitangi Tribunal, Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Te Reo Maori Claim 4th ed (Wellington : GP Publications, 1996), p 34.)

SidebarPage 3 : ‘A Note on Definitions’. Source : doc P29(a) (Apirana Mahuika, second corrected statement of evidence, 17 August 2006), p 8 ; Apirana Mahuika, under questioning by Crown counsel and the presiding officer, 16th hearing, 30 August 2006 (transcript 4.1.16, day 4, p 64)

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Datedat this dayof 20

JVWilliams,presidingofficer

RCAMaaka,member

PeRingwood,member

KWWalker,member

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

89

Table5.1:Tereo-orientedearlychildhoodeducation,1989–2009–studentandcentrenumbers

Year Number of kōhanga

Number of licence-

exempt kōhanga

Number of puna reo

Students at kōhanga

Students at licence-

exempt kōhanga

Students at puna reo

Total kōhanga

Total te reo-

oriented ECE centres

Total kōhanga students

Total te reo-oriented ECE centre students

1989 470 – – 8,724 – – 470 470 8,724 8,724

1990 616 – – 10,108 – – 616 616 10,108 10,108

1991 630 – – 10,451 – – 630 630 10,451 10,451

1992 719 – – 12,617 – – 719 719 12,617 12,617

1993 809 – – 14,514 – – 809 809 14,514 14,514

1994 773 46 – 12,508 1,035 – 819 819 13,543 13,543

1995 738 36 – 14,015 248 – 774 774 14,263 14,263

1996 704 63 – 13,279 1,023 – 767 767 14,302 14,302

1997 675 30 – 13,104 401 – 705 705 13,505 13,505

1998 613 33 – 11,689 361 – 646 646 12,050 12,050

1999 600 50 – 11,859 524 – 650 650 12,383 12,383

2000 583 29 – 11,138 381 – 612 612 11,519 11,519

2001 562 24 20 9,594 214 – 586 606 9,808 10,017

2002 545 14 24 10,389 138 351 559 583 10,527 10,878

2003 526 12 32 10,319 130 408 538 570 10,449 10,857

2004 513 13 43 10,418 191 580 526 569 10,609 11,189

2005 501 11 49 10,070 146 519 512 561 10,216 10,735

2006 486 8 41 9,493 89 289 494 535 9,582 9,871

2007 470 7 30 9,236 69 343 477 507 9,305 9,648

2008 467 3 32 9,165 43 454 470 502 9,208 9,662

2009 464 0 27 9,288 0 277 464 491 9,288 9,565

Note that there are other early childhood education centres where te reo is used as a language of instruction besides kōhanga reo and puna reo. For example, in 2009 11

licensed ‘Māori immersion services’ other than kōhanga reo used te reo more than 80 per cent of the time, and a further 634 used te reo 12 to 80 per cent of the time.

However, these centres are not readily identifiable within the statistics, and their numbers are not consistently available over time. We thus restrict ‘te reo-oriented ECE

centres’ to kōhanga reo (both licensed and licence-exempt) and puna reo. Data sourced from : Ministry of Education, ‘Education Counts’, Ministry of Education, http ://www.

educationcounts.govt.nz.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

90

Tabl

e5.

2:T

ere

o-or

ient

ede

arly

chi

ldho

ode

duca

tion

by

perc

enta

ge,1

989–

2009

Year

Tota

l Māo

ri

stud

ents

in

ECE

Māo

ri a

s pe

rcen

tage

of

stu

dent

s at

kōh

anga

Māo

ri a

s pe

rcen

tage

of

stu

dent

s at

lic

ence

-exe

mpt

kō

hang

a

Māo

ri a

s pe

rcen

tage

of

stu

dent

s at

pun

a re

o

Māo

ri a

s pe

rcen

tage

of

stu

dent

s at

all

te r

eo-

orie

nted

ECE

Perc

enta

ge

of a

ll M

āori

in

ECE

at

kōha

nga

Perc

enta

ge

of a

ll M

āori

in

ECE

at

licen

ce-e

xem

pt

kōha

nga

Perc

enta

ge

of a

ll M

āori

in

ECE

at

puna

reo

Perc

enta

ge

of a

ll M

āori

in

ECE

at

te r

eo-o

rien

ted

cent

res

1989

19,5

5798

.6

(8,6

03/8

,724

)

––

98.6

44.0

––

44.0

1990

22,4

1999

.0

(10,

007/

10,1

08)

––

99.0

44.6

––

44.6

1991

21,7

0592

.0

(961

5/10

,451

)

––

92.0

44.3

––

44.3

1992

24,3

4290

.4

(11,

401/

12,6

17)

––

90.4

46.8

––

46.8

1993

28,5

0396

.6

(14,

027/

14,5

14)

––

96.6

49.2

––

49.2

1994

28,9

5299

.3

(12,

415/

12,5

08)

99.5

(103

0/10

35)

–99

.342

.93.

6–

46.4

1995

29,8

5697

.0

(13,

600/

14,0

15)

96.4

(239

/248

)

–97

.045

.60.

8–

46.4

1996

30,3

2398

.1

(13,

028/

13,2

79)

98.1

(100

4/10

23)

–98

.143

.03.

3–

46.3

1997

30,7

0398

.9

(12,

955/

13,1

04)

99.3

(398

/401

)

–98

.942

.21.

3–

43.5

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

91

1998

29,6

9899

.4

(11,

619/

11,6

89)

100

(361

/361

)

–99

.439

.11.

2–

40.3

1999

32,0

3797

.4

(11,

545/

11,8

59)

96.9

(508

/524

)

–97

.336

.01.

6–

37.6

2000

32,2

5598

.9

(11,

021/

11,1

38)

98.9

(376

/381

)

–98

.934

.21.

2–

35.3

2001

31,0

2699

.4

(9,5

32/9

,594

)

98.6

(211

/214

)

79.9

(167

/209

)

98.9

30.7

0.7

0.5

31.9

2002

32,7

7999

.8

(10,

365/

10,3

89)

100

(138

/138

)

88.3

(310

/351

)

99.4

31.6

0.4

0.9

33.0

2003

33,8

9299

.9

(10,

309/

10,3

19)

100

(130

/130

)

86.8

(354

/408

)

99.4

30.4

0.4

1.0

31.8

2004

35,2

3299

.9

(10,

409/

10,4

18)

100

(191

/191

)

78.4

(455

/580

)

98.8

29.5

0.5

1.3

31.4

2005

35,7

5699

.9

(10,

062/

10,0

70)

100

(146

/146

)

86.3

(448

/519

)

99.3

28.1

0.4

1.3

29.8

2006

35,0

0099

.9

(9,4

80/9

,493

)

98.9

(88/

89)

84.1

(243

/289

)

99.4

27.1

0.3

0.7

28.0

2007

35,6

1894

.0

(8,6

79/9

,236

)

92.8

(64/

69)

76.7

(263

/343

)

93.3

24.4

0.2

0.7

25.3

2008

37,1

2294

.7

(8,6

83/9

,165

)

90.1

(39/

43)

74.7

(339

/454

)

93.8

23.4

0.1

0.9

24.4

2009

n/a

95.1

(8,8

29/9

,288

)

(0/0

)(N

/A/2

77)

N/A

N/A

0.0

N/A

N/A

Aga

in, w

e re

stric

t ‘te

reo-

orie

nted

ECE

cen

tres

’ to

kōha

nga

reo

(bot

h lic

ense

d an

d lic

ence

-exe

mpt

) and

pun

a re

o. N

ote

that

200

9 da

ta w

ere

not a

vaila

ble

for l

icen

ce-

exem

pt s

ervi

ces,

alth

ough

we

do k

now

ther

e w

ere

in 2

009

no li

cenc

e-ex

empt

kōh

anga

and

ther

e w

ere

277

child

ren

at p

una

reo.

Dat

a so

urce

d fr

om : M

inist

ry o

f Edu

catio

n,

‘Edu

catio

n C

ount

s’, M

inist

ry o

f Edu

catio

n, h

ttp

://w

ww

.edu

catio

ncou

nts.g

ovt.n

z.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

92

Tabl

e5.

3:S

tude

nts

inM

āori

-med

ium

sch

oolin

g,19

92–2

009

–st

uden

tnum

bers

by

leve

lofi

mm

ersi

on

Year

Prim

ary 

– ye

ars 1

–8Se

cond

ary 

– ye

ars 9

–13+

Māo

riN

on-M

āori

Tota

lM

āori

Non

-Māo

riTo

tal

2009 Le

vel 1

9,72

711

09,

837

1,78

413

1,79

711

,634

Leve

l 23,

894

236

4,13

01,

017

141,

031

5,16

1

Leve

l 33,

244

418

3,66

294

839

987

4,64

9

Leve

l 4(a

)3,

409

1,73

751

,46

1,32

625

51,

581

6,72

7

Tota

l20

,274

2,50

122

,775

5,07

532

15,

396

28,1

71

2008 Le

vel 1

9,90

890

9,99

81,

756

201,

776

11,7

74

Leve

l 23,

910

250

4,16

098

017

997

5,15

7

Leve

l 33,

273

419

3,69

21,

065

381,

103

4,79

5

Leve

l 4(a

)3,

753

2,07

05,

823

1,08

110

31,

184

7,00

7

Tota

l20

,844

2,82

923

,673

4,88

217

85,

060

28,7

33

2007 Le

vel 1

10,1

5710

310

,260

1,72

110

1,73

111

,991

Leve

l 23,

986

225

4,21

11,

180

331,

213

5,42

4

Leve

l 33,

653

518

4,17

194

736

983

5,15

4

Leve

l 4(a

)3,

236

1,46

74,

703

1,10

611

71,

223

5,92

6

Tota

l21

,032

2,31

323

,345

4,95

419

65,

150

28,4

95

2006 Le

vel 1

10,4

6610

010

,566

1,65

910

1,66

912

,235

Leve

l 23,

899

149

4,04

81,

119

201,

139

5,18

7

Leve

l 33,

906

592

4,49

891

438

952

5,45

0

Leve

l 4(a

)3,

406

1,79

75,

203

971

295

1,26

66,

649

Tota

l21

,677

2,63

824

,315

4,66

336

35,

026

29,3

41Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

93

2005 Le

vel 1

11,0

5211

711

,169

1,57

412

1,58

612

,755

Leve

l 23,

826

114

3,94

01,

168

111,

179

5,11

9

Leve

l 33,

971

529

4,50

01,

216

451,

261

5,76

1

Leve

l 4(a

)3,

128

1,43

74,

565

645

6971

45,

279

Tota

l21

,977

2,19

724

,174

4,60

313

74,

740

28,9

14

2004 Le

vel 1

11,2

9110

511

,396

1,17

86

1,18

412

,580

Leve

l 24,

019

175

4,19

41,

145

211,

166

5,36

0

Leve

l 34,

023

318

4,34

198

321

1,00

45,

345

Leve

l 4(a

)3,

492

1,62

25,

114

996

184

1,18

06,

294

Tota

l22

,825

2,22

025

,045

4,30

223

24,

534

29,5

79

2003 Le

vel 1

11,1

0074

11,1

741,

032

31,

035

12,2

09

Leve

l 23,

498

149

3,64

799

714

1,01

14,

658

Leve

l 34,

623

453

5,07

692

325

948

6,02

4

Leve

l 4(a

)3,

776

1,63

65,

412

727

5277

96,

191

Tota

l22

,997

2,31

225

,309

3,67

994

3,77

329

,082

2002 Le

vel 1

10,6

7910

810

,787

847

685

311

,640

Leve

l 23,

926

182

4,10

81,

005

111,

016

5,12

4

Leve

l 34,

343

432

4,77

572

036

756

5,53

1

Leve

l 4(a

)3,

615

1,40

75,

022

519

3054

955

71

Tota

l22

,563

2,12

924

,692

3,09

183

3,17

427

,866Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

94

Year

Prim

ary 

– ye

ars 1

–8Se

cond

ary 

– ye

ars 9

–13+

Māo

riN

on-M

āori

Tota

lM

āori

Non

-Māo

riTo

tal

2001 Le

vel 1

10,1

8181

10,2

6288

310

893

11,1

55

Leve

l 24,

196

191

4,38

787

741

918

5,30

5

Leve

l 34,

525

465

4,99

082

620

846

5,83

6

Leve

l 4(a

)3,

447

1,37

14,

818

645

106

751

5,56

9

Tota

l22

,349

2,10

824

,457

3,23

117

73,

408

27,8

65

2000 Le

vel 1

10,2

6810

310

,371

772

1378

511

,156

Leve

l 24,

302

217

4,51

981

534

849

5,36

8

Leve

l 34,

394

508

4,90

21,

086

321,

118

6,02

0

Leve

l 4(a

)3,

762

2,02

65,

788

958

811,

039

6,82

7

Tota

l22

,726

2,85

425

,580

3,63

116

03,

791

29,3

71

1999 Le

vel 1

10,1

7312

810

,301

574

357

710

,878

Leve

l 24,

230

162

4,39

283

316

849

5,24

1

Leve

l 34,

503

522

5,02

51,

031

471,

078

6,10

3

Leve

l 4(a

)4,

500

2,93

87,

438

1,00

812

51,

133

8,57

1

Tota

l23

,406

3,75

027

,156

3,44

619

13,

637

30,7

93

1998 Le

vel 1

9,69

610

79,

803

465

647

110

,274

Leve

l 24,

391

231

4,62

285

119

870

5,49

2

Leve

l 34,

653

797

5,45

098

148

1,02

96,

479

Leve

l 4(a

)7,

829

Tota

l30

,074Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

95

1997 Le

vel 1

9,11

010

19,

211

438

544

39,

654

Leve

l 24,

506

211

4,71

786

145

906

5,62

3

Leve

l 34,

633

558

5,19

11,

099

951,

194

6,38

5

Leve

l 4(a

)7,

107

Tota

l28

,769

1996 Le

vel 1

8,25

013

78,

387

315

231

78,

704

Leve

l 24,

506

231

4,73

792

631

957

5,69

4

Leve

l 35,

954

Leve

l 4(a

)6,

353

Tota

l26

,705

1995 Le

vel 1

8,32

6

Leve

l 25,

788

Leve

l 35,

558

Leve

l 4(a

)5,

612

Tota

l19

,044

2,80

621

,850

2,94

346

63,

409

25,2

84

1994 Le

vel 1

7,14

0

Leve

l 25,

873

Leve

l 34,

833

Leve

l 4(a

)4,

115

Tota

l17

,011

1,64

418

,655

3,12

418

23,

306

21,9

61Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

96

Year

Prim

ary 

– ye

ars 1

–8Se

cond

ary 

– ye

ars 9

–13+

Māo

riN

on-M

āori

Tota

lM

āori

Non

-Māo

riTo

tal

1993 Le

vel 1

6,21

4

Leve

l 24,

325

Leve

l 35,

172

Leve

l 4(a

)3,

618

Tota

l15

,433

1,17

416

,607

2,56

315

92,

722

19,3

29

1992 Le

vel 1

4,61

8

Leve

l 24,

244

Leve

l 35,

554

Leve

l 4(a

)3,

010

Tota

l13

,671

1,27

514

,946

2,38

010

02,

480

17,4

26

The

data

for 1

996,

1997

, and

1998

diff

er fr

om th

ose

publ

ished

in th

e se

ries

Educ

atio

n St

atist

ics

of N

ew Z

eala

nd fo

r tho

se y

ears

. That

is b

ecau

se th

e M

inist

ry o

f Edu

catio

n la

ter p

ublis

hed

adju

sted

figur

es fo

r the

tota

l num

ber o

f stu

dent

s in

leve

l 4(a

) in

each

of t

hese

yea

rs, a

s w

ell a

s le

vel 3

for 1

996,

on

the

basis

that

the

earli

er d

ata

had

been

infla

ted.

See

Min

istry

of E

duca

tion,

Enr

olm

ents

in

Mao

ri M

ediu

m P

rogr

amm

es b

y Le

vel o

f Im

mer

sion,

1992

to 2

004,

‘Edu

catio

n C

ount

s’, M

inist

ry o

f Edu

catio

n, h

ttp

://w

ww

.edu

catio

ncou

nts.g

ovt.n

z (a

cces

sed

23 S

epte

mbe

r 201

0). Th

e ad

just

ed fi

gure

s

do n

ot a

llow

us

to p

rovi

de th

e co

mpl

ete

brea

kdow

n by

Māo

ri an

d no

n-M

āori

and

prim

ary

and

seco

ndar

y sc

hool

s. Li

mite

d da

ta o

nly

wer

e av

aila

ble

for 1

992

to 19

95. Th

e 19

95 to

tal i

nclu

des

25

Māo

ri sp

ecia

l sch

ool s

tude

nts.

Dat

a so

urce

d fr

om : M

inist

ry o

f Edu

catio

n, ‘E

duca

tion

Cou

nts’,

Min

istry

of E

duca

tion,

htt

p ://

ww

w.e

duca

tionc

ount

s.gov

t.nz.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

97

Table5.4:StudentpercentagesinMāori-mediumschooling,1992–2009

Year Māori students in Māori-medium

education

Māori school students

Percentage of Māori school students

in Māori-medium education

Non-Māori students in Māori-medium

education

Non-Māori school students

Percentage of non-Māori school students

in Māori-medium education

1992 16,051 127,906 12.5 1,375 536,502 0.3

1993 17,996 131,712 13.7 1,333 534,848 0.2

1994 20,135 136,367 14.8 1,826 536,204 0.3

1995 21,987 138,095 15.9 3,272 546,801 0.6

1996 23,222 138,016 16.8 3,483 559,309 0.6

1997 24,432 140,873 17.3 4,337 571,403 0.8

1998 25,642 144,403 17.8 4,432 580,176 0.8

1999 26,852 144,738 18.6 3,941 582,658 0.7

2000 26,357 146,913 17.9 3,014 582,776 0.5

2001 25,580 149,590 17.1 2,285 584,334 0.4

2002 25,654 152,556 16.8 2,212 595,528 0.4

2003 26,676 157,270 17.0 2,448 604,485 0.4

2004 27,127 160,732 16.9 2,452 603,922 0.4

2005 26,580 162,534 16.4 2,344 600,256 0.4

2006 26,340 162,385 16.2 3,001 598,376 0.5

2007 25,986 164,020 15.8 2,506 595,886 0.4

2008 25,726 165,425 15.6 3,007 592,669 0.5

2009 25,349 166,998 15.2 2,882 593,861 0.5

Note that the 1992 and 1993 Māori school student totals are regular class and special education student tallies combined (that is, adults not included). The 1992 and 1993

non-Māori school student totals are calculated by subtracting the identified Māori tallies the total school population (including special education, adult, foreign fee-paying

and MERT scholarship students). For the years 1994 to 2009, the non-Māori total is the total school population minus the total Māori school population. As with table 3, the

data for 1996, 1997, and 1998 differ from those published in the series Education Statistics of New Zealand for those years because the Ministry of Education later published

adjusted figures. Data sourced from : Ministry of Education, ‘Education Counts’, Ministry of Education http ://www.educationcounts.govt.nz.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

98

Tabl

e5.

5:M

āori

lang

uage

and

Eng

lish

teac

her

vaca

ncie

s,19

97–2

009

Year

Seco

ndar

y sc

hool

sub

ject

Num

ber

of

FTTE

vac

anci

esPe

rcen

tage

of

FTTE

vac

anci

es

2010

Māo

ri (t

otal

)5.

88.

1

Māo

ri (t

e re

o)2.

83.

9

Māo

ri m

ediu

m/b

iling

ual

3.0

4.2

Engl

ish14

.820

.7

2009

Māo

ri (t

otal

)18

.212

.2

Māo

ri (t

e re

o)12

.28.

2

Māo

ri m

ediu

m/b

iling

ual

6.0

4.0

Engl

ish26

.117

.5

2008

Māo

ri (t

otal

)18

.69.

3

Māo

ri (t

e re

o)10

.75.

3

Māo

ri m

ediu

m/b

iling

ual

7.9

3.9

Engl

ish23

.911

.9

2007

Māo

ri (t

otal

)9.

95.

2

Māo

ri (t

e re

o)8.

14.

3

Māo

ri m

ediu

m/b

iling

ual

1.8

0.9

Engl

ish17

.69.

3

2006

Māo

ri (t

otal

)9.

05.

0

Māo

ri (t

e re

o)4.

02.

2

Māo

ri m

ediu

m/b

iling

ual

5.0

2.8

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

99

Engl

ish14

.88.

2

2005

Māo

ri14

.18.

1

Engl

ish16

.09.

2

2004

Māo

ri20

.59.

0

Engl

ish40

.117

.6

2003

Māo

ri9.

13.

4

Engl

ish42

.115

.8

2002

Māo

ri9.

13.

8

Engl

ish30

.913

.0

2001

Māo

ri10

.05.

9

Engl

ish15

.28.

9

2000

Māo

ri11

.08.

8

Engl

ish14

.311

.5

Māo

ri7.

55.

7

Engl

ish15

.211

.5

Māo

ri9.

57.

2

Engl

ish7.

75.

8

Māo

ri11

.46.

7

Engl

ish16

.19.

4

‘FTT

E’ st

ands

for ‘

full-

time

teac

her e

quiv

alen

t’. D

ata

sour

ced

from

: Min

istry

of E

duca

tion

publ

icat

ion

serie

s, M

onito

ring

Teac

her

Supp

ly, a

vaila

ble

from

Min

istry

of E

duca

tion

web

site,

htt

p ://

ww

w.e

duca

tionc

ount

s.gov

t.nz

(acc

esse

d 1 F

ebru

ary

2010

).

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

100

Table5.6:SurveyeddemandforMāorilanguageeducation,1992and1995

Level of Māori

language use

1992 AGB McNair survey 1995 MRL Research survey

Māori preferred

primary

(%)

Māori primary

attended

(%)

Māori preferred

secondary

(%)

Māori preferred

primary

(%)

Māori primary

attended

(%)

Māori preferred

secondary

(%)

Māori only 7 1 5 7 4 4

Mainly Māori 13 1 11 5 3 5

Māori and English 57 31 61 56 36 57

Māori as a subject 15 14 19 18 17 24

Only greetings etc

in Māori

6 39 2 8 27 4

English only 1 11 2 6 12 4

Data sourced from : AGB McNair, Survey of Demand for Bilingual and Immersion Education in Maori (Wellington : Ministry of Education, March 1992), pp 70, 82, and

MRL Research, Maori and Pacific Island Language Demand for Educational Services : Overview (Wellington : Ministry of Education, November 1995), pp 24, 29, 43.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

101

Table5.7:Subjectstakenbysecondaryschoolstudents:tereoMāoriandselectedotherlanguages

Year Māori (including

te reo rangatira)

Schools taught at

French Schools taught at

Japanese Schools taught at

German Schools taught at

Spanish Schools taught at

1989 18,909 222 31,275 292 10,039 109 8,500 139 218 15

1990 19,470 233 28,964 296 12,442 145 9008 135 268 9

1991 19,818 244 27,720 282 15,921 173 9,009 135 256 11

1992 22,303 268 26,409 284 19,738 204 9,395 131 856 23

1993 22,657 281 26,057 283 21,991 214 9,196 127 980 23

1994 23,874 293 26,117 276 26,301 236 8,951 127 1,264 34

1995 25,134 303 24,511 277 26,486 252 9,365 126 1,343 37

1996 25,278 309 22,815 265 27,039 264 9,102 117 2,370 46

1997 22,325 315 21,166 257 25,399 275 8,550 139 2,158 55

1998 21,462 314 21,676 255 22,376 278 7,912 132 2,580 58

1999 20,189 299 23,705 262 22,155 264 7,762 114 3,318 68

2000 20,720 319 24,272 252 21,529 263 8,240 117 3,858 76

2001 20,555 329 23,816 254 19,981 258 7,496 106 4,407 86

2002 21,015 329 24,056 254 19,400 247 7,073 108 4,823 86

2003 23,852 373 24,253 306 21,449 290 7,603 199 [sic] 5,820 186 [sic]

2004 24,817 366 25,689 270 20,928 257 6,809 137 6,505 132

2005 24,158 365 26,128 270 19,689 247 6,893 120 7,543 140

2006 23,903 370 27,614 267 18,489 230 6,686 111 8,100 141

2007 24,864 359 27,284 263 18,440 236 6,623 109 9,531 155

2008 27,620 358 28,245 261 18,157 228 6,251 105 10,900 156

2009 26,525 N/A 27,197 N/A 17,304 N/A 6,085 N/A 11,167 –

The Māori language student totals provided were reached by adding the individual totals for te reo Māori and te reo rangatira. We realise that some students are enrolled

in both subjects, so there will be some double-counting. We understand that the totals also include those students participating in Māori-medium education, although we

are unsure if this leads to further duplication. With respect to the total number of schools, we make the assumption that schools that teach te reo rangatira also teach te reo

Māori. The number of schools subjects were taught at was unavailable for 2009. Data sourced from : Ministry of Education, ‘Education Counts’, Ministry of Education,

http ://www.educationcounts.govt.nz.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

102

Table5.8:ChangeinpopulationsizeandtereospeakingincensusagecohortsintheMāoriethnicgroup,1996–2006

Born 1996 census 2001 census 2006 census

Size of

cohort

Number of

speakers

Change in size

of cohort

Change in number

of speakers

Change in size

of cohort

Change in number

of speakers

1997–2001 – – – – – – -789 -1.2% +2,478 +25.4%

1992–96 71,664 10,500 −5,550 −7.7% +3,282 +31.3% +612 +0.9% +216 +1.6%

1987–91 67,422 14,718 −4,617 −6.8% +408 +2.8% −4,272 −6.8% −1,905 −12.6%

1982–86 57,318 13,377 −7,791 −13.6% −1,128 −8.4% −6,753 −13.6% −2,481 −20.3%

1977–81 51,714 12,420 −9,621 −18.6% −2,505 −20.2% −3,987 −9.5% −1,044 −10.5%

1972–76 47,346 10,095 −7,182 −15.2% −777 −7.7% −708 −1.8% −213 −2.3%

1967–71 43,149 8,913 −3,897 −9.0% +75 +0.8% −654 −1.7% −99 −1.1%

1962–66 41,994 9,255 −3,669 −8.7% −30 −0.3% −1,053 −2.7% +3 0.0%

1957–61 36,405 8,658 −3,546 −9.7% −288 −3.3% −951 −2.9% −120 −1.4%

1952–56 28,041 7,503 −2,949 −10.5% −498 −6.6% −903 −3.6% −51 −0.7%

1947–51 22,344 7,080 −2,871 −12.8% −681 −9.6% −843 −4.3% −315 −4.9%

1942–46 16,098 6,366 −2,271 −14.1% −825 −13.0% −1,014 −7.3% −477 −8.6%

1937–41 13,857 6,543 −2,307 −16.6% −1,104 −16.9% −1,392 −12.1% −828 −15.2%

1932–36 10,185 5,235 −2,244 −22.0% −1,170 −22.3% −1,431 −18.0% −915 −22.5%

Pre-1932 15,834 8,412 −6,138 −38.8% −3,111 −37.0% −3,234 −33.3% −2,031 −38.3%

Data sourced from : Statistics New Zealand, Maori (Census 96) 1996 – Reference Report (Wellington : Statistics New Zealand, 1997), tbls 4, 17 ; Statistics New Zealand, ‘2001

Census of Population and Dwellings : Māori Tables’, undated, http ://www.stats.govt.nz (accessed 2 February 2010), tbls 3(a), 13(a) ; Statistics New Zealand, ‘2006 Census Data :

Quickstats about Māori – Tables’, undated, http ://www.stats.govt.nz (accessed 2 February 2010), tbl 9.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

103

Tabl

e5.

9:M

āori

eth

nic

grou

pte

reo

spea

ker

num

bers

by

age

grou

pin

cen

sus,

1996

–200

6

Age

gro

up19

96 c

ensu

s20

01 c

ensu

s20

06 c

ensu

s

Māo

ri

spea

kers

of

te r

eo

Tota

l Māo

riTo

tal M

āori

w

ho a

nsw

er

lang

uage

qu

esti

on

Māo

ri w

ho

spea

k te

reo

(%)

Māo

ri

spea

kers

of

te r

eo

Tota

l Māo

riTo

tal M

āori

who

ans

wer

la

ngua

ge

ques

tion

Māo

ri w

ho

spea

k te

reo

(%)

Māo

ri

spea

kers

of

te r

eo

Tota

l Māo

riTo

tal M

āori

who

ans

wer

la

ngua

ge

ques

tion

Māo

ri w

ho

spea

k te

reo

(%)

0–4

10,5

0071

,664

47,9

4521

.99,

765

67,5

6049

,070

19.9

8,91

066

,426

48,9

5618

.2

5–9

14,7

1867

,422

66,5

9722

.113

,782

66,1

1465

,009

21.2

12,2

4366

,771

65,1

2218

.8

10–1

413

,377

57,3

1856

,682

23.6

15,1

2662

,805

61,9

9224

.413

,998

66,7

2665

,411

21.4

15–1

912

,420

51,7

1451

,111

24.3

12,2

4949

,527

48,9

9625

.013

,221

58,5

3357

,734

22.9

20–2

410

,095

47,3

4646

,736

21.6

9,91

542

,093

41,6

6023

.89,

768

42,7

7442

,103

23.2

25–2

98,

913

43,1

4942

,646

20.9

9,31

840

,164

39,6

5123

.58,

871

38,1

0637

,589

23.6

30–3

49,

255

41,9

9441

,502

22.3

8,98

839

,252

38,7

4123

.29,

105

39,4

5638

,910

23.4

35–3

98,

658

36,4

0535

,925

24.1

9,22

538

,325

37,9

6324

.38,

889

38,5

9837

,987

23.4

40–4

47,

503

28,0

4127

,686

27.1

8,37

032

,859

32,4

4225

.89,

228

37,2

7236

,619

25.2

45–4

97,

080

22,3

4422

,125

32.0

7,00

525

,092

24,8

4028

.28,

250

31,9

0831

,369

26.3

50–5

46,

366

16,0

9815

,915

40.0

6,39

919

,473

19,2

7433

.26,

954

24,1

8923

,897

29.1

55–5

96,

543

13,8

5713

,688

47.8

5,54

113

,827

13,6

4840

.66,

084

18,6

3018

,325

33.2

60–6

45,

235

10,1

8510

,048

52.1

5,43

911

,550

11,4

0347

.75,

064

12,8

1312

,628

40.1

65+

8,41

215

,834

15,5

7854

.09,

360

17,6

3717

,238

54.3

11,0

3123

,124

22,6

5148

.7

Tota

l12

9,03

352

3,37

451

6,13

225

.013

0,48

552

6,28

151

7,79

825

.213

1,61

056

5,32

955

5,31

623

.7

The

‘Tot

al M

āori

who

ans

wer

lang

uage

que

stio

n’ fi

gure

s re

pres

ent ‘

Tota

l Māo

ri’ m

inus

thos

e w

hose

resp

onse

to th

e la

ngua

ge q

uest

ion

was

‘don

’t kn

ow’, ‘

refu

sed

to a

nsw

er’, ‘

resp

onse

unid

entifi

able

’, ‘re

spon

se o

utsid

e sc

ope’,

and

‘not

stat

ed’ (

that

is, ‘

not s

peci

fied’

(199

6) a

nd ‘n

ot e

lsew

here

incl

uded

’ (20

01 a

nd 2

006)

) as

wel

l as

thos

e w

ithin

the

zero

to fo

ur a

ge g

roup

for w

hom

the

resp

onse

was

‘no

lang

uage

’ (th

at is

, chi

ldre

n to

o yo

ung

to sp

eak)

. Res

pons

es o

f ‘no

lang

uage

’ are

reta

ined

for o

ther

age

gro

ups

(whe

re th

ey a

re v

ery

few

). Pe

rcen

tage

s ar

e ca

lcul

ated

on

the

basis

of th

ose

answ

erin

g th

e la

ngua

ge q

uest

ion.

The

perc

enta

ge o

f spe

aker

s (a

cros

s th

e bo

ttom

line

) inc

lude

s th

ose

for w

hom

the

resp

onse

was

‘no

lang

uage

’ in

the

zero

to fo

ur a

ge g

roup

, as

thes

e ar

e

the

figur

es g

ener

ally

cite

d.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Te Reo Māori

104

Table5.10:LikelihoodtobeatereospeakerbyagegroupintheMāori

ethnicgroupatthe2006census

Rank Age group

(by years born)

Rank of total people

in age group

1 Before 1942 14

2 1942–46 13

3 1947–51 12

4 1952–56 11

5 1957–61 10

6 1962–66 9

7 1977–81 6

8 1967–71 8

9 1972–76 7

10 1982–86 5

11 1987–91 4

12 1992–96 2

13 1997–2001 1

14 2002–06 3

Data sourced from : Statistics New Zealand, ‘2006 Census Data : Quickstats about

Māori – Tables’, undated, http ://www.stats.govt.nz (accessed 2 February 2010),

tbl 9.

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

105

PICtUReCReDIts

Page 8 : Hemi Potatau with petition Photograph by Ross Giblin; reproduced courtesy of the Alexander Turnbull Library (EP/1978/2230/7)

Page 9 : Pita Sharples at Hoani Waititi Maori Primary School Photograph by Gil Hanly; reproduced courtesy of Te Puni Kōkiri and Archives New Zealand (AAMK W3495, box 2 2F, Tu Tangata, issue 27 (December 1985–January 1986))

Page 11 : Chief Judge Durie and Paul Temm QC at Waiwhetu kōhanga reoPhotograph by John Nicholson; reproduced courtesy of the Alexander Turnbull Library (EP/1985/2942/15)

Page 12 : Nan Bella teaching te reo at Waiwhetu School Photograph by Mark Coote; reproduced courtesy of the Alexander Turnbull Library (EP/1991/2155/3)

Page 13 : Te Kura Kaupapa Maori o Nga Mokopuna Photograph by Tom Law

Page 14 : Piripi Walker and Tama Te Huki in the Te Upoko o te Ika studio Photograph by Mervyn Griffiths; reproduced courtesy of the Alexander Turnbull Library (EP/1987/2071/8)

Page 15 : Eugenie Laracy, Martin Dawson, and Sian Elias Photographer unknown; reproduced courtesy of the New Zealand Herald

Page 16 : Scotty Morrison Photograph by Martin Sykes; reproduced courtesy of the New Zealand Herald

Page 16 : Screenshot of TeAra.govt.nz Reproduced courtesy of ‘Te Ara The Encyclopedia of New Zealand’

Page 17 : New Zealand passport Reproduced courtesy of www.scoop.co.nz

Page 18 : Te Rautaki Reo Māori : The Māori Language StrategyReproduced courtesy of Te Puni Kōkiri, Sandra Potaka, and Heke Morris

Page 30 : Ministry of Education advertisement Reproduced courtesy of the Ministry of Education and Te Puni Kōkiri

Page 39 : Te Oranga o te Reo Māori 2006 – The Health of the Māori Language in 2006Reproduced courtesy of Professor Sir Hirini Moko Mead and Te Puni Kōkiri

Page 52 : ‘Kia Tupato’ sign Photograph by Carolyn Blackwell; reproduced courtesy of Carolyn Blackwell

Page 63 : Implementing the Māori Language StrategyPhotograph by Nicola Edmonds; reproduced courtesy of Nicola Edmonds and the Office of the Auditor-General

Page 73 : Welsh road markings seen near Cardiff Airport, Wales Photograph by Adrian Pingstone

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

Embargoed

PO Box 6800, Wellington 6141Aotearoa New Zealand

nativehome.com04 802 4025

Waitangi TribunalWAI 262 Report: Conceptual Design

nativevisual communication design

Copyright © native 2010

Text page_02 Spine Text page_03

Te Reo Māori