Maori Identity - Excerpts From Ways of Being Maori by Charles Crothers

A sociographic perspective: “Some Ways of being Māori”

Ka kohi te toi, ka whai te maramatanga.
If knowledge is gathered, enlightenment will follow.

(Cited by T. Moeke-Pickering, 1996.) 

“Far from being members of a homogeneous group, Māori individuals have a variety of cultural characteristics and live in a number of cultural and socioeconomic realities. The relevance of traditional values is not the same for all Māori, nor can it be assumed that all Māori will wish to define their ethnic
identity according to classical constructs. At the same time, they will describe themselves as Māori and will reject any notion that they are ‘less Māori’ than those who conform to a conventional image” 

(Durie, 1995: 465). 

Abstract 

This study attempts to mine relevant material on differences between Māori and nonMāori, and differences within Māori (and to some extent within non-Māori), from “official social book-keeping sources” and surveys. In particular, I endeavour to establish the extent to which non-Māori, sole/mixed Māori and ethnic/descent Māori differ in terms of social background characteristics and their reported behaviour and attitudes.

One part of the study focuses on variability in people’s Māoriness, on identity, and the range of activities and occasions in which people may (or may not) feel Māori. This includes the extent to which (essentially) non-Māori choose to support or even to participate in Māori activities.

Click here for the whole report: 

http://www.auckland.ac.nz/webdav/site/central/shared/about/maori-at-auckland/documents/Wellbeing%20and%20disparity%20Vol%202.pdf

1.1 Objectives 

This study aims to contribute to the understanding of the nature of disparities between Māori and non-Māori, and among Māori in major urban areas specifically within Auckland, and to suggest the formulation of evidence-based policies to assist Māori to overcome those disparities they individually or collectively find undesirable.

In order to study urban Māori disparities, several questions must be separately and jointly addressed:

• What are the historical, demographic and settlement contexts of Māori?
• What are the goals/values/aspirations of Māori?
• What have been Māori achievements/underachievements?
• How do Māori distribute their attention among different domains?
• In each of several life-domains, how well have Māori managed?
• What are the collectivities through which Māori live their lives?
• What government (and other) services/interventions affect Māori, and how are Māori affected?
• What policy implications flow from the needs of Māori and the attempted interventions to meet these needs?

For each of these questions this report is concerned with comparing:
• the differences between Māori and non-Māori;
• the range within Māoridom;
and especially –
• the differences between urban Māori and non-urban Māori;
• the differences between Auckland-domiciled Māori and those in other urban
areas; and
• the differences among Māori domiciled in different areas of Auckland.

Challenges with Maori v Non-Maori analyses

Māori /non-Māori averages have been compared using objective data across a broad array of arenas – and without much attempt at overall summation, except for some particular attention to income and
employment. Differences are interpreted in very broad cultural terms (although the Western value-set is taken as the norm).

Reaction to th[e] “closing the gaps” approach [between Māori /non-Māori]  (e.g. Chapple 2000a; Gould 2000) has extended the approach by suggesting (inter alia) that:

• there are often difficulties with the data (especially that based on official social book-keeping statistics);
• while absolute differences continue in many arenas relative differences are reducing;
• dispersions are as important as averages (and that the very overlap of Māori /nonMāori dampens the differences);
• Māori (and perhaps non-Māori) include a range of ethnic orientations;
• factors other than race (partially) explain Māori /non-Māori differences, e.g. education, social class, cultural/social capital etc (and consequently multivariate data analyses are required to capture these effects);
• there may be pockets where differences are concentrated (e.g. rural locations); and
• “culturally appropriate” programme delivery is seldom appropriate.

In more detail, Chapple asserts that (in quick summary: I have placed the immediate rebuttal of these points in brackets following):

• post 1970 Māori are better off (but a partial recent recovery follows more recently difficult times for many Māori);
• being Māori is a recent (post-1945) invention (but in fact there has been a long history of pan-tribal involvements);
• Māori is a declining construct (but this is based on misleading 1996 Census results);
• through intermarriage, the “Māoriness” of the New Zealand population is declining, although – on the other hand – because of this intermarriage, the possibility for more Māori is increased: intermarriage leads to a more widespread “browning” of the New Zealand population (so the phenomenon is complex);
• since a high proportion of Māori vote on the general roll, there is low participation in Māori politics (but Labour encouraged enrolment on the general roll and the focus of Māori effort has varied over time);
• the more successful Māori tend to choose to emphasise their Pākehā connections (but there is as much evidence to the contrary);
• the Māori ethnic revival is driven by “ethnic entrepreneurs” (who presumably enjoy benefits of this “capture”: but they receive widespread support);
• Māori and Pākehā have different “tastes” (e.g. for leisure and producing nonmarket goods: but evidence for this is not readily available);
• Māori in Australia also do poorly (but Australia is also racist in relation to indigenous groups).

Along somewhat similar lines, Gould argues that:
• different measures of change are required (but, this is a complex methodological concern);
• the concept of Māori ancestry is irrelevant for policy (and also statistical) purposes (but, the evidence is more complex than this);
• socio-economic differences within the Māori population are as great as Mäori/nonMāori differences (nevertheless, Māori have distinctive social features);
• “degree of Mäoriness” (e.g. through intermarriage) determines socio-economic success (but the evidence is more complex than this);
• modernisation is more appropriate than cultural maintenance as a goal for Māori (a value judgment).

However, much of their argumentation in this “revisionist” approach is limited theoretically (especially as it is framed in economic terms and couched at an individual level) and is poorly based on data. As a result there has been considerable contestation of their work (e.g. Alexander 2001; Portal Consulting 2001; Rochford 2001).

A plethora of criticisms has been advanced including points such as:

• Pool’s argument that absolute differences are better measures of change than ratios which may be based on unstable denominators;
• Armstrong’s concern that Chapple’s “forthcoming” papers are still coming, his documentation of data is poor, and he as a civil servant has unfair access to statistics;
• Rochford’s concern that Chapple’s data exclude the low income earners (because unemployed) and also high earners (as a “cut-off”) (Rochford, 2001: 5);
• Rochford’s alternative explanations that any convergences are more a result of increasing employment, and therefore cyclical rather than secular as claimed, and that in fact Chapple’s charts show “recovery” to the smaller gaps of early dates is yet to happen; and that similarly;
• since the education gap has been steady over time it cannot be driving any changes in disparities (Rochford 2001);
• the difficulty in drawing too strong conclusions (in the face of marked colinearity) from use of proportion of variance explained and also the causal ordering revealed by step-wise regression equations (Alexander and Williams 2001).

In sum, the reaction to the Chapple-Gould argumentation has taken one of three forms:
• criticism of particular analyses;
• criticism of the more general framework within which their argument sits;
• attempts to move the debate into wider territory.

......

Social research of a more quantitative type has hardly ignored ethnicities. Indeed, there is a widespread tendency in New Zealand social research for the Māori / non Māori categorisations to be routinely deployed as standard comparisons in data analysis.

As Pool et al. wryly note,

“Finally comparisons between Māori and nonMāori have been made … Indeed, in most social research in New Zealand this is the typical comparison that is made” (1999: 130). 

They go on to suggest wider perspectives can also be adopted:

“Yet in many ways the differences between these two ethnic groups are far less important than those between New Zealand and … other low fertility countries”. 

For example, they suggest that there is a reasonable Māori/North American fit in terms of patterns of contraception and sterilization. However, such a comparative viewpoint is not pursued here.

Moreover, merely reporting ethnic correlations is unduly simplistic, since the comparisons are seldom entirely valid. Multivariate analyses are required to sift out some of the complexity. Another typical move in research has been to oversimplistically publish “league tables” of success (e.g. of schools in achieving good results in school examinations). As Harker and Nash (1998) point out, there is a need
for “value-added analysis” since league tables do not reward the good performance of some schools of turning poorer-quality recruits into better-than-expected outcomes.

A methodological issue which then arises is how the “residual” variance is best explained: this might be understood as “luck” or “differential opportunity” or else assigned to diffuse “structural” or “cultural” factors. Any such approach must be recognised as being arbitrary.

A major issue is how ethnicity should be handled. It is assumed in line with current “best practice” that ethnicity is by self-definition. However, in the course of data collection and analysis self-definitions are often limited through collapsing categories. For example, the terms “Sole Māori” or “Mixed Māori” used throughout this report, are terms imposed by analysts rather than by the participants.

Maori identity

A of Māori research (also going back to the work of the Ritchies) has been on the conceptualization of Māori identity (for a broad review see Kukutai, 2001).

Metge (1995) summarizes some decades of her own work, in some pithy statements:

Taken collectively, te iwi Māori is characterized by a combination of 
characteristics: genealogical descent from the pre-European inhabitants of 
New Zealand, distinctive physical features, distinctive values and ways of 
organising social life, shared history, and consciousness of kind (“a we 
feeling”). Those who identify themselves and are identified by others as Māori 
do not necessarily display all these characteristics in their own person (1995: 
18). 

While demographers, social scientists and the general public continue to 
debate the definition of “a Māori”, the Māori determine the issue in their own 
way. They specify descent from a Māori parent or ancestor as the basic 
requirement, and, provided that is fulfilled, accept as Māori those who identify 
themselves as Māori. Attempts to impose a narrower definition in terms of 
linguistic or cultural competence are generally rejected (1995: 18). 

A far more quantitative approach has been taken by David Thomas (1988) who reports the development and implementation of a 40-item questionnaire that assesses knowledge of Māori language and cultural practice. When administered to samples of school children and university students, the test had satisfactory item-total correlations, internal consistency and also differentiated among ethnic Māori and ethnic Pākehā.

In an earlier study (1986), Thomas found that Māori children with some knowledge of Māori language and culture have higher scores on achievement tests than Māori children who have little or no knowledge of Māori culture.

In a later study (Thomas and Nikora 1996), it was found that Pākehā people see ethnic differences as consisting primarily of differences in physical appearance, whereas Māori students’ conceptions of being Māori emphasized culture and language.

Very recently, Broughton et al. (2000) reviewed the conceptualization of identity and found broad support for the notion that ethnic identification is associated with higher levels of cultural involvement. But, they found little hardcore involvement in Māori culture, perhaps because the age group they studied is seduced by youth culture (2000: 28). They claimed the implications are that:

…because of the high variation in ethnic identification and participation 
among those classified as Māori there is a need for a parallel variability in 
service provision with services for young Māori spanning a range of options 
that include both mainstream and Māori community based services (2000: 29). 

Gibson found that how women saw themselves was rarely congruent with how they were perceived by others (cited by Kukutai, 2001: 60).

Maori Voting Patterns - Summary of A Report into Māori Electoral Participation

Summary of A Report into Māori Electoral Participation

A 2007 Report for the Electoral Commission by Eljon Fitzgerald, Brendan Stevenson and Jacob Tapiata

Best Outcomes for Māori: Te Hoe Nuku Roa
School of Māori Studies
Massey University
Palmerston North

May 2007

1.0 Executive Summary
Sixty-nine respondents from Best Outcomes for Māori: Te Hoe Nuku Roa household survey were specifically interviewed for this research. In addition the voting patterns of 400 kaumātua/older Māori are also reported.

The profile of Māori who do not vote:
• Age and standard of living were the two main variables affecting voting: i.e. younger Māori with a less comfortable living standard were least likely to vote.
• Cultural identity i.e. the level of involvement in Te Ao Māori had less effect on participants’ propensity to vote than their age, level of education and standard of living.

Participation in the electoral system
• For Māori, participation in the electoral system involves two steps: choosing an electoral roll and then voting in a general election;
• Cultural identity appears to influence voting behaviour and participants’ views of politics. Particularly, cultural identity was significant in the selection of electoral roll and may explain lower levels of faith and trust
in government and politicians;

Māori attitudes towards politics, elections and representation
• Māori participants had relatively greater trust in democracy and voting than they did in the actions of government and MPs.
• Māori participants had high expectations of Māori MPs, and were likely to be more familiar with their Māori electorate MP than either their general electorate or local list MP.
• Māori participants expressed a preference to approach their Māori electorate MP rather than other local MPs in some instances;
• Despite having comparatively low levels of confidence and trust in government and MPs, participants in this study were more politically active than respondents in the New Zealand Elections Study 2005.
• Across a range of “Māori” policy areas, participants were strongly of the view that the status of the Treaty of Waitangi should not be weakened by suggested amendments to current constitutional arrangements.
• A strong preference for the retention of the Māori seats in parliament was consistent with other electoral studies.

Māori Attitudes Towards Policy Issues
Older Māori
• A study of 406 older Māori undertaken in 2006(1)  confirmed the findings  of this study
• 79% of these respondents preferred the Māori electoral roll, 20% general, and 1% reported they were not enrolled;
• 92% of these respondents reported they had voted in the last general  election.

1.1 Introduction
This report has been prepared for the Electoral Commission. It focuses on three specific features of Māori voting and electoral participation;

(1) The profile of Māori who do not vote;
(2) The reasons why Māori participation in the electoral system is lower than for non-Māori;
(3) Māori attitudes towards politics, elections and representation.

Best Outcomes for Māori: Te Hoe Nuku Roa is a longitudinal study of 600 Māori households. A sub-sample of respondents have been specifically interviewed on electoral participation issues. In addition, an overall analysis of the main sample (adults 18 years of age and over) has provided comparison data.

.................For a copy of the Full Report
Click here http://www.elections.org.nz/sites/default/files/plain-page/attachments/massey_report.pdf

Te Reo - Wai 262 Analysis of State of Te Reo & Critique of Surveys

Sections on the Measurement of the Health of Te Reo Māori

(Excerpts taken from WAI 262 EARLY REPORT)

5.3.4 Censuses and surveys

(1) Pre-1996 national speaker estimates

We have already noted the findings of Richard Benton’s 1970s survey on the health of te reo, especially the scarcity of fluent speakers among Māori children.

The reo which Benton measured as ‘fluent’ in the 1970s was probably at a higher level than that considered fluent today, given that there were many more older native speakers of te reo alive then. As Māori language academic Ian Christensen has remarked,  ‘A tendency towards a diminished perception of fluency may be a natural characteristic of a language in decline.’133 

In a 1992 report commissioned by the Ministry of Education to engender discussion on a New Zealand languages policy, Dr Jeffrey Waite projected the results of Benton’s survey forward to 1986 with corrections for mortality and other demographic variables. This showed that, at the time of the Tribunal’s report on the te reo Māori claim, only 700 North Island Māori children under the age of 10 were fluent in te reo, as opposed to 19,400 fluent speakers aged 55 and over. This did, however, appear to represent an increase in the number of younger speakers from that estimated by Benton in 1979. Overall, Waite guessed there were 81,000 fluent and marginal speakers of Māori in the North Island in 1986.134

In 1995, Statistics New Zealand conducted a national Māori language survey on behalf of T e Puni Kōkiri and Te Taura Whiri. It confirmed Benton’s conclusion that te reo was in a perilous state, finding that 8.1 per cent of Māori aged over 16 had a high proficiency in spoken Māori, 51.3 per cent had low to medium fluency, and 40.6 per cent had no proficiency. Put another way, it showed there were just over 22,000 highly fluent adult Māori speakers – a significant decline from the 64,000 revealed by the 1975 survey. Nearly three-quarters of those highly fluent were aged 45 and over.135 Obviously, if children learning at kōhanga and kura kaupapa had been included, the figures would have been somewhat different.

(2) Māori-language education demand surveys, 1992, 1995

Two surveys conducted in the first half of the 1990s indicated the then potential market for Māori-language education. The first survey, conducted in 1992 by AGB McNair for the Ministry of Education, canvassed the caregivers of 500 Māori and 500 non-Māori pre-school and primary school children and suggested that supply was a long way off meeting Māori demand for Māori-language education.

According to the survey, some 77 per cent of the caregivers for Māori children wanted their charges to receive at least some primary-school teaching in te reo (over and above learning Māori as a subject), but only 33 per cent of those with school-age children had their children in such schools. And, though a mere 7 per cent of caregivers wanted their children to have little or no Māori language taught, 50 per cent of school-age Māori children were receiving just this kind of education.136

At that time, there were 89,115 regular classroom Māori primary-school students but only 13,671 Māori students in Māori-medium classes at primary school (15.3 per cent). This is a far cry from the more than 68,000 that would have been seen if the preferences of the 77 per cent of caregivers had been met. Seventy-seven per cent of Māori caregivers also preferred that their children receive Māori-medium education at secondary-school level, though because those children had not yet begun secondary school, we have no placement figures to compare with those preferences.

However, at that time, there were 37,061 regular classroom Māori secondary-school students, and if a 77 per cent demand had been met, there would have been 28,537 students in Māori-medium classes. Instead, there were just 2,380 (6.4 per cent).

Non-Māori children tended to be much more likely to attend a type of school that accorded with their caregivers’ preferences. Notably, 7 per cent of the caregivers preferred their children’s primary schooling to be in Māori and English, with 2 per cent preferring their instruction to be mostly in Māori.

While the survey indicated that this ambition was met for most of those who held such preferences and who had children already at school, 137 the percentages are more important than they first seem, because if accurate they would have translated nationally to a relatively significant number of children (that is, 29,546 students out of the 328,286 regular classroom non- Māori primary-school students).

In actuality, the number then in Māori-medium classes was 1,275 (0.4 per cent). Māori-medium education at secondary school level was also preferred by 9 per cent of non-Māori caregivers, which would have translated into 17,177 of the 190,851 regular classroom non-Māori students in Māori-medium classes. The real figure was just 100 (less than one tenth of a per cent).

The second survey was carried out for the Ministry of Education by MRL Research in 1995 and was intended to ascertain the likely demand for Māori and Pacific Island language education to 2020. Accordingly, 650 Māori and 550 Pacific Island caregivers for children aged 10 or under were interviewed in Auckland and Wellington.

The results were similar to those recorded in 1992, in that a 68 per cent demand for Māori-medium primary school education was being met by a 43 per cent supply, while a 14 per cent preference for education weighted most heavily towards English was contradicted by a 39 per cent placement in such schools. The trend continued at secondary-school level, with bilingual learning wanted by 57 per cent of caregivers, instruction mainly in Māori by 5 per cent, and Māori immersion by 4 per cent.138

There were then 97,091 regular classroom Māori primary- school students. Had 68 per cent of them been in some form of Māori-medium education, there would have been 66,022 such students, but the figure was only 19,044 (19.6 per cent). At secondary-school level, there were 38,049 regular classroom Māori students, and had the preferences of the 66 per cent of caregivers been realised, there would have been 25,112 in Māori-medium learning. Instead, there were 2,943 (7.7 per cent).139

 At both levels, the clear gap between supply and demand again seems irrefutable.

These results allow us to comment on the demand for Māori-language instruction in the 1990s and the extent to which that demand was being met. While margins of error exist and there is some evidence of slightly reduced demand and somewhat improved supply in 1995, there is a striking consistency across the two surveys. It is, of course, unknown whether places in such forms of education were full or whether a large number of Māori students had Māori-medium learning options available locally but were not making use of them. In other words, the rate of placement cannot be regarded simply as the rate of supply. 

However, given that there was a shortage of Māori-medium teachers at the time, it is unlikely that the actual level of supply was significantly higher.  Even if we assume that the surveyed level of demand was exaggerated, 140 this would not bridge the clear chasm between supply and demand. For example, if the actual level of demand in 1992 was radically lower – say only 35 per cent instead of 77 per cent – this would still have meant that 17,500 Māori primary school children were not attending their caregivers’ favoured form of Māori-medium education.141

Overall, one can thus see that the supply of Māori medium schooling probably improved between 1992 and 1995 but that Māori demand, while still high, may have fallen slightly. Peak demand (in terms of the proportion of Māori students in Māori-medium learning) came in 1999. In the decade since, demand has clearly declined, irrespective of supply, although of course we must remember that ongoing teacher shortages have shown an incessant supply side problem.

(3) Census results, 1996–2006

The 1996 census was the first to ask respondents which languages they could hold a conversation in about a lot of everyday things. It found that 25 per cent of the Māori ethnic group could hold such a conversation in te reo Māori. Nena and Richard Benton found this an ‘amazing revelation’, having assumed, on the basis of the 1995 national survey, that the result would be far worse. Half the speakers were under 25, whereas the 1995 survey had suggested the median age of speakers aged 16 and over would be closer to 50.142

There have now been three censuses asking a language question, and further significant Te Puni Kōkiri commissioned surveys into the health of the Māori language in 2001 and 2006 (see below).  Setting the results of the 1996 census alongside the 2001 and 2006 results, we can discern medium-term trends in the health of the language (see table 5.9)

• The proportion of those aged zero to nine who can speak the language has declined significantly since 1996. 
• In all the age groups from 10 to 39, the proportion of te reo speakers rose between 1996 and 2001; for the 10- to 24- and 35- to 39-year-olds, this proportion declined again by 2006 (in the case of 10- to 19-year-olds to less than 1996 levels) ; and for the 25- to 34-year-olds it continued to climb, but at a much reduced rate. 
• For the 40- to 64-year-olds, there was an ongoing decline which was dramatic at the older levels (for example, from 47.8 per cent of those aged 55 to 59 in 1996 to 33.2 per cent of those aged 55 to 59 in 2006). 
• Amongst those aged 65 and over, there was a marginal decrease in 2001 and a steep decline in 2006. 
• In 2006, the age groups with the lowest proportions of reo speakers were those spanning the years zero to 14. As these also happen to be the most populous, the more positive responses – such as the nearly 50 per cent of those aged 65 and over who were speakers – represent much smaller numbers of people.
• The key concern about this lower-speaking ability amongst the young is that it was not the case in 1996, when those aged zero to nine had higher proportions of speakers than those aged 20 to 29, and those aged 10 to 14 out-rated those aged 20 to 34. 

While the reasons for these changes are undoubtedly complex, some trends do seem readily explicable. 

• The decline in younger speakers would clearly seem to relate to the drop-off in those attending kōhanga reo and the declining proportion of those attending Māori-medium schooling. 
• Conversely, the rises among some age cohorts will relate to factors such as the increased participation in Māori-medium schooling in the late 1990s or the growth in those in later age brackets taking tertiary courses in te reo (notwithstanding Earle’s comment that such courses would not enable one to converse proficiently in Māori on their own).143 
• An example of the latter may be the 30- to 34-year-olds in 1996, who as 35- to 39-year-olds in 2001 and 40- to 44-year-olds in 2006 increased their proportion of reo speakers. 
• The decline of speaker proportions in the older age groups also clearly relates to the fact that, as many older speakers pass away, they are increasingly replaced by those who have never learnt te reo.

(4) Projecting the census results forward

Looking to the future, we know roughly how the Māori population pyramid will look in 16 years’ time. 

By 2026, according to Statistics New Zealand, the Māori population is likely on mid-range projections to number 811,000 – up from 624,000 in 2006.144 It will be older, but still have a larger-than-average number of younger people.145 

If current trends continue, and the proportion of children aged zero to four able to speak Māori continues to decline across censuses, we estimate that (and using an approximate analysis based on the ageing of current age cohorts): 

• 16 per cent of the 258,000 Māori in the zero to 14 age range will be te reo speakers in 2026 (unadjusted for those too young to speak) will be te reo speakers in 2026.  
• 20 per cent of the 303,000 aged 15 to 39 will be te reo speakers in 2026, 
• 24 per cent of the 181,000 aged 40 to 64 will be te reo speakers in 2026, and 
• 26 per cent of the 69,000 aged 65 and over will be speakers. 

In other words, it is unlikely that the official tally of Māori speakers of te reo Māori in 2026 will be more than 150,000.146  That is a rise of 14 per cent during a period in which the Māori ethnic group population is projected to rise by 30 per cent (on medium projections). 

The estimated number of speakers represents a likely 20 per cent proportion of the official 2026 census-night tally for the Māori ethnic group, compared with 23.7 per cent in 2006. It is also likely that, by 2026, there will be very few older native speakers of te reo left. 

Today, those with higher degrees of language proficiency are found in the older age brackets. It is unlikely that the overall proficiency of those 150,000 speakers in 2026 will be any better, if better at all, than the 131,610 Māori speakers of te reo today. Current trends, therefore, suggest that the ongoing gains being made with te reo are not offsetting the ongoing losses occurring as older speakers pass away. 

Moreover, the theoretically ongoing gains are in fact beginning to turn into losses amongst the crucial younger age groups, who represent the future health of te reo. 

In its report on The Health of the Māori Language in 2001, Te Puni Kōkiri stated, with respect to the census results, 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 speakers that occurred over a number of decades may have been arrested.147

When the 2006 census results were released, officials suggested that the small increase in the number of Māori speaking Māori represented a stabilisation of te reo after a long period of decline, with a likely rise in the number of younger speakers. 

In fact, however, the age group recording the biggest growth in te reo speakers between 1996 and 2006 (in absolute numbers) was those aged 60 and over, as the population aged. Speakers in this age group increased from 13,647 in 1996 to 16,095 in 2006.148 By contrast, the numbers of speakers aged zero to 14 declined from 38,595 in 1996 to 35,151 in 2006. 

The 2006 result does not appear to be evidence of a further stabilisation at all.

 (5) Te Puni Kōkiri’s 2006 survey

In 2006, Te Puni Kōkiri conducted a survey on the health of the Māori language that seemed to contradict the census result. Announcing the results in July 2007, the Minister of Māori Affairs said that they showed ‘significant progress towards the achievement of the goals of the Māori Language Strategy’. 148 He said highlights included:

• a 9 percentage point increase since Te Puni Kōkiri’s 2001 survey in the number of Māori who could speak more than a few words and phrases (that is, from 42 per cent in 2001 to 51 per cent in 2006) ;

• a 7 percentage point increase in those who could speak te reo very well, well, or fairly well (that is, from 20 per cent in 2001 to 27 per cent in 2006) ;

• the numbers who could understand (by listening), read, and write more than a few words and phrases increasing by 8, 10, and 11 percentage points respectively ;

• the number of 15- to 24-years-olds who could speak te reo increasing by 13 percentage points and those 25 to 44 by 16 percentage points ; and

• an increase in adults speaking te reo to their pre-schoolers at home by 17 percentage points, to primary school children by 14 percentage points and to secondary school children by 20 percentage points.149

As noted, the Ministry of Education also hailed the survey results, arguing that increased Māori proficiency in te reo since 2001 had been helped by the substantial growth in enrolments for tertiary te reo Māori courses during that period.150

(6) Discrepancies between the 2006 census and survey

The 2006 census and the 2006 survey are thus at odds with each other. While T e Puni Kōkiri found major improvements in speaking proficiency amongst those aged 15 to 44 since its previous survey, the census showed declining proficiency among those aged 15 to 24, a very marginal improvement for those aged 25 to 34, and a decline for those aged 35 to 44.

The very small improvement in speaking proficiency for those aged 55 and over in the survey contrasts with a major decline amongst those in this age group in the census. Te Puni Kōkiri has publicly stated its view that:

The Māori Language Survey is a better measure of the Māorilanguage [than the census] as it is a face-to-face interviewand has a variety of questions that investigate languageacquisition, skill and use. It asks a number of questions, eachtargeted at an aspect of language revitalisation that we needto know about.

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

Despite this, the Ministry of Social Development’s influential Social Report for 2007 was equivocal about whether progress was being made or not. It noted that the survey and census data were ‘not directly comparable’ and concluded that:

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

Dr Peter Keegan from the School of Māori Education at the University of Auckland has also commented on the 2006 census and survey results, saying that the question of whether te reo Māori ‘is gaining or losing ground today’ was ‘difficult ’to answer.153

Linguist Dr Winifred Bauer of Victoria University has conducted a comprehensive comparison of the census and survey results for 2001 and 2006, and is less than impressed with the reliability of the 2006 survey.

She argues, first, that changed sampling methods and reportage of data between the 2001 and 2006 surveys make ‘serious survey comparison impossible’. She then points to the large margins of error in both the surveys (particularly when focusing on small subgroups within the overall survey sample), which were even bigger in the 2006 survey. She also notes the added potential for unreliability in the 2006 survey introduced by the particular sampling method.154

Most importantly, Dr Bauer says that the 2006 survey is simply not credible because it is so at odds with the census results in respect to general speaking proficiency, the gap between men and women’s proficiency, and the use of te reo by children. Many of the gains claimed by Te Puni Kōkiri relate to very small numbers of survey respondents, are well within the margin of error, and are achieved by combining those stating they can speak ‘very well’ and ‘well’ (since the former group is too small on its own for any credible analysis). By contrast, the census has asked the same question of the entire population, so there are no sampling errors and the results are directly comparable.155 

Overall, Dr Bauer concludes that :

The surveys simply do not tell us what lies behind the key trends discernible from the census, and in fact ‘have failed to provide a better picture than the censuses in crucial areas’. Consequently, it is arguable whether these five-yearly national surveys ‘have any value’.156

The survey results contradict reality: that the health of the language continues to decline. Certainly, there was no improvement in the language proficiency of the critical parenting generation cohorts, who are vital to intergenerational transmission, between 2001 and 2006.157 There is real danger in casting the 2006 survey results in such a positive light. Doing so will encourage complacency about the health of the language at a time when a sense of urgency is still needed.158

5.3.5 Conclusions : how healthy is te reo in 2010 ?

There was a true revival of te reo in the 1980s and early to-mid-1990s. It was spurred on by the realisation of how few speakers were left, and by the relative abundance of older fluent speakers in both urban neighbourhoods and rural communities. The revival was a Māori movement, it was achieved through education, and it was incredibly successful at a grass-roots level. The movement was perhaps at its most powerful during its earliest surge, as  demonstrated by Māori born from 1977 to 1981 being more likely to speak te reo than those born either from 1967 to 1976 or from 1982 onward (see table 5.10).

From around 1994 to 1999, te reo has been in renewed decline. The problem is not just one of declining numbers of Māori speakers but also, strikingly, declining proportions, for it has also coincided with a significant rise in the number of younger Māori. Critically, the decline is now occurring at both the young and old ends of the spectrum. The figures clearly contradict the perception that, among Māori under 40, it is younger people who are more likely to speak Māori. The figures also show that the most populous Māori age groups are also the least likely to be Māori-speaking (see table 5.9).

All this means that, if trends continue, over the next 15 to 20 years the te reo speaking proportion of the Māori population will decline further, even as the absolute number of speakers continues to slowly climb. And despite the higher numbers of te reo speakers likely to be found in, say, 2026, they are likely to be less fluent than speakers now, given the relatively few older native speakers who will still be alive.

The 2006 Te Puni Kōkiri-commissioned Māori language survey showed much more positive results than the 2006 census, but it has been strongly criticised by a leading scholar for its lack of reliability. 

The survey certainly does have large margins of error. Moreover, its inconsistency with key trends apparent in the census and backed up by other data sources suggest it is unwise to proclaim, as did the Minister of Māori Affairs, that the results showed ‘significant progress’ towards achieving the Māori language strategy goals. Needless to say, the decline in te reo overall – and in particular the loss of older native speakers – must be having a major impact on the health of tribal dialects. 

By definition, older native speakers are speakers of dialect. This by no means holds true for children today whose first language is Māori. Something of the fate of tribal dialect is indicated by the fact that there were 20,190 Māori te reo speakers born before 1942 in the 1996 census, but only 11,031 speakers of the same cohort in 2006. 

By 2026, there will probably be not many more than a couple of thousand. In certain areas of the country, of course, the loss of older native speakers is more pronounced than elsewhere, as shown by Te Puni Kōkiri’s regional profiles of the health of the Māori language. In any language with faltering health – or, in this case, a faltering revival – its own variations must be its most vulnerable elements. This is the inevitable state of tribal dialects today, with some elements already all but gone and others clearly in peril. Unless dialects begin to be spoken more by younger Māori, their prospects beyond the next 20 years are obviously bleak. 

The current decline in te reo Māori seems to have several underlying causes. They include:

• the ongoing loss of older native speakers who have spearheaded the revival movement ;
• complacency brought about by the very existence of the institutions which drove the revival;
• concerns about quality, with the supply of good teachers never matching demand (even while that demand has been shrinking);
• excessive regulation and centralised control, which has alienated some of those involved in the movement; and,
• an ongoing lack of educational resources needed to teach the full curriculum in te reo Māori.

The issue of teacher supply strikes us as crucial – the 1992 and 1995 surveys showed the potential market for Māori language education, but the amount of Māori medium education available has clearly never come remotely close to those levels. We are unaware of any attempt to follow up on these these demand surveys, which is of itself a concern. We suspect that demand would be less today, highlighting the failure to capitalise on past momentum.

Successes in Māori language education are today confined to pockets. Undoubtedly, excellent speakers are coming through kura kaupapa and wharekura, but this does not offset the overall decline in Māori participation in Māori-medium education. The Ministry of Education wishes to increase Māori participation rates in early childhood education, but would appear content for this increase to be in centres that are typically English medium.

At tertiary level, more students are studying te reo than in the 1990s, and this may be contributing to language revival at some levels. But it will not help produce the teachers so sorely needed while so many te reo.

Maori Culture and Broader Outcomes - Massey Uni Update 2007

Boost for Te Hoe Nuku Roa project

The unique and inspirational Te Hoe Nuku Roa project has started its 11th year with fresh funding and an extended research programme.

A longitudinal project within Te Pütahi-ä-Toi, the School of Mäori Studies, Te Hoe Nuku Roa, is a 25-year study of Mäori households. The overall aim is to produce a sound empirical base that will provide information for Mäori and other planners, and facilitate the development of policies and programmes appropriate to Mäori in cultural, social and economic terms.

Programme manager El------------jon Fitzgerald says recent funding from the Public Good Science Fund has extended the project’s reach into Northland and Southland and results in a greater comprehension and representation of the Mäori population. The two regions are in addition to an original focus in Manawatu/Wanganui, Gisborne/East Coast, Wellington and Auckland.

“We aim to examine the changes that have occurred over time, providing an opportunity to chart a natural history of Mäori families and households and to assess the effectiveness of policy that have been designed to address Mäori needs,” Mr Fitzgerald says.

Te Hoe Nuku Roa began in 1992 in response to pressure from tribes and other Mäori groups, who recognised the need for a longitudinal study of Mäori households. Today more than 650 families are involved.

“When fieldwork started in 1993, there was ambition to maintain research for at least one generation of families. The first two years were developmental, where researchers fine-tuned tools and methodologies, and since then three waves of interviews have been undertaken at three yearly intervals with the same families.”

Mr Fitzgerald says key end users of the research findings include government agencies a well as iwi authorities, trust boards and pan-tribal Mäori service groups. The study is unique in its intentions, and has captured considerable interest at conferences and forums held in Australia, the South Pacific and in Europe.

“There has been significant international interest in the research methodology and the methods employed on the project. This is especially important because it implies that the methodology is transferable to other indigenous peoples.”

Te Hoe Nuku Roa incorporates four specific aims. First, it uses a Mäori relevant framework to gauge personal and family development. Second, it attempts to objectify the context in which Mäori families and individuals exist by examining their relationships with societal structures at local, regional and national levels, as well as their relationship with Mäori structures.

Third, it proposes an integrated and holistic approach to personal and family development with a simultaneous focus on cultural, social and economic dimensions. Fourth, it includes a longitudinal component that offers an opportunity to chart the natural history of Mäori individuals and families and to assess the impact of policies and programmes designed to address their specific and unique situation.

The research team comprises academics from a range of disciplines. Each is thoroughly familiar with Mäori cultural processes and has credibility within Mäori communities. The team’s central role is to ensure that data gathered from participants is translated into useful and effective information that positively contributes to Mäori advancement and development. The research team is led by Professors Mason Durie and Chris Cunningham and includes Professor Arohia Durie, Associate Professor Taiarahia Black, Dr Ian Christensen, Julia Taiapa, Brendan Stevenson, Rangihaanu Rolls and Phillip Cockle.

Maori Health - Burden of Disease Study 2013

Report highlights disparity in health system for Maori

By Rebecca Quilliam

3:45 PM Friday Aug 9, 2013

A new report highlighting the disparity in the health system for Maori shows the challenge in improving fairness in the health sector, the New Zealand Medical Association says.

The Burden of Disease study, which was released yesterday by the Ministry of Health, measured "health loss" or how much healthy life was lost due to premature death, illness or impairment.

The Ministry said the data would help predict fatal and non-fatal health losses until 2016.

Amongst the report's findings was that Maori had about a 75 per cent higher rate of health loss than non-Maori.

The data confirmed research that Maori experienced higher exposures to risk factors for poor health, more injury, more disability and poorer outcomes when they interact with health services, the New Zealand Medical Association said.

Its chairman Mark Peterson said the Ministry's report confirmed there were continuing challenges to address to improve health equity.

"The fact health loss in Maori is almost 1.8 times higher than in non-Maori and that this occurs earlier on in life is unacceptable.

"Addressing these issues must be a priority for us all - government, society, industry and health professionals," Dr Peterson said.

Other key report findings were that heart attacks and stroke each contributed 17.5 per cent of New Zealand's overall health loss, followed by mental disorders (11 per cent), musculoskeletal disorders (9 per cent) and injury (8 per cent).

It also revealed that data from 2006 showed people with a diet high in salt and saturated fat accounted for 11.4 per cent of health loss - more than tobacco at 9.1 per cent.

From that data, the Ministry predicted by 2016 obesity and a high body mass index would continue to cause more health loss, and tobacco would bring about less health loss because the number of smokers was dropping.

"We must therefore continue to actively pursue the achievement of a Smokefree New Zealand by 2025, and also apply the same energy to addressing obesity and nutrition," Dr Peterson said.

University of Otago, Wellington's Associate Professor Nick Wilson said improving the nutritional environment for New Zealanders should therefore be a high priority for the Government.

"Fortunately, this can be done in ways that might also save health costs such as by taxing sugar in soft drinks, and regulations that limit maximum salt levels in high-salt processed foods," Professor Wilson said.

- APNZ