The claim asserted that te reo Maori was a taonga that needed to be nurtured. The tribunal’s recommendations, released in 1986, were far-reaching. They led to legislative and policy changes that assisted in the resurgence of te reo Maori from the later 20th century.

Staking a Claim
The Maori language claim to the Waitangi Tribunal grew out of mounting concern among Maori about the state of the language. There were major initiatives to strengthen the language, such as the establishment of kohanga reo (Maori language pre-schools) in 1982, but only about 50,000 fluent Maori speakers remained, most of them elderly. Action was needed, and soon: ‘Ka ngaro te reo, ka ngaro tāua, pērā i te ngaro o te moa.’ (If the language be lost, man will be lost, as dead as the moa.) The moa was gone, but if it was worthwhile saving endangered birds such as the takahe, was it also not worthwhile to save a language and the culture it supported, Maori asked? This was not only for Maori, as Minister of Maori Affairs Koro Wetere told Parliament in 1987, but ‘for the whole nation’.

Retention and protection of Maori language map
The Treaty of Waitangi, signed between Maori chiefs and the Crown in 1840, obliged the Crown to protect te reo Maori. It was claimed that the Crown had failed to do this and was therefore in breach of the Treaty. The claimants asked that the Crown officially recognise te reo Maori, particularly in the areas of broadcasting, education, health and the public service.

During the tribunal hearings in 1985 many Maori spoke of the demise of the language. Some recalled punishments they received for speaking te reo at school. Others argued that a culture could scarcely survive, let alone flourish, without its language. Kohanga reo had grown rapidly in number in three years, and even though there were more than 400 in 1985, youngsters soon lost their fluency when they entered English-only primary schools.

One land, two languages?
The tribunal noted that ‘no Maori may use his language in the Courts of New Zealand if he can speak English’. This was the result of a 1979 case involving Te Ringa (Dun) Mihaka. When the District Court refused to let him address the court in te reo Maori, he appealed to the High Court and then the Court of Appeal. Acting for himself, Mihaka relied on the Treaty of Waitangi for his case. The Court of Appeal agreed that ‘the use of the Maori language in New Zealand is a matter of public importance’; the Treaty had no legal bearing on the matter. The court based its decision on the English common law that applied in New Zealand after 1840.

The statute governing the use of English in the courts was ancient, dating back to 1362. Maori claimants noted that it was ‘ironical that over six centuries later the same statute should be invoked to protect the language of government against the indigenous language of New Zealand’.

Secretary of Justice Stanley James Callaghan acknowledged that denying Maori the right to use te reo Maori in the courts ‘may give rise to such a deep-seated sense of injustice as to prejudice the standing of the courts in some Maori eyes’. The legal situation was, he concluded, ‘at odds with our bicultural foundation at Waitangi in 1840′.

The Waitangi Tribunal agreed. It found that the Treaty of Waitangi was ‘directed to ensuring a place for two peoples in this country’. It questioned whether the promise of the Treaty could 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’.

The tribunal noted that ‘no fair-minded New Zealander would deny them what they ask for’, but it also examined various arguments against the claim: that official recognition was an empty gesture, that te reo could not adapt to the modern world, that it was not an international language, and that minority languages should not be imposed on the majority.

The tribunal saw te reo Maori as an adaptable language that included new words. The tribunal pointed out that with official recognition minority languages had survived and flourished elsewhere. Official recognition of both languages and cultures would encourage respect for their differences.

Paths into the future
The tribunal released its report on the claim in 1986. It recommended five ways for the government to remedy the breaches of the Treaty regarding te reo: pass laws allowing te reo Maori to be used in courts and dealings with local and central government; establish a statutory body to ’supervise and foster the use of the Maori language’; examine the teaching of te reo Maori and ‘ensure that all children who wish to learn Maori should be able to do so’; recognise and protect te reo in broadcasting; ensure that speaking both Maori and English be a necessary or desirable requirement for certain public service positions.

The Māori Language Act 1987 declared te reo Maori to be an official language of New Zealand and set up Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori (the Maori Language Commission) to promote the Maori language. The Education Amendment Act 1989 recognised and promoted kura kaupapa and whare wananga.

The sale of some state-owned broadcasting assets from 1990 onwards led to Maori legal action and further Treaty claims demanding a greater role for te reo Maori in the electronic media. As a result, there were further developments in Maori broadcasting, such as the reservation of radio frequencies for Maori. In 1993, Te Mangai Paho was established as a Crown entity. Its primary function is to promote Maori language and culture by making funds available for radio and television broadcasting, and the production of programmes to be broadcast.

Changes in television have been slower. In 1996 the government tested special purpose Maori television by piloting a television service in the Auckland region. Maori broadcasters saw it as a chance to make Maori television a reality, but it ceased operation in early 1997. Two years later, government approved funding and spectrum for the establishment of a nationwide Maori television channel; it launched in 2004.

- nzhistory.net.nz

Employment Relations Amendment Bill
Hone Harawira: Spokesman on Employment
Maori Party Member of Parliament for Te Tai Tokerau
Thursday 11 December 2008; 2pm

“Eight years ago, Professor Jane Kelsey wrote a book called Reclaiming the Future in which she talked about what happened to Maori during the last recession of the late 80’s; a book which should be required reading for all Members of Parliament, as Aotearoa stares down the barrel of another recession.

And in that book, Jane Kelsey reminds us that until 1987, per head of population, there were actually more Maori working than non-Maori. And that’s just 21 years ago.

And yet the way the media paints it Maori have been basically unemployed, lazy, dole bludgers ever since Pakeha came to these shores.

Strange how much we are influenced by the media isn’t it?

But the fact remains, that just 21 years ago, there were more Maori working than Pakeha, our families were stable, our kids were healthy and crime was down.

And then of course, the crash hit, the world came crashing in on us, and in just six years, Maori unemployment went from 1% to 15%, nearly half of all 16-19 Maori ended up on the dole, and our whole world fell apart.

And now Mr Speaker, it seems we’re heading right down that same track, but that this time we’re starting from a place far worse than 21 years ago because Maori unemployment is already more than twice that of non-Maori, there are four times more Maori beneficiaries than non-Maori, and Maori society has still not fully overcome the devastating effects of the crash of 1987.

And even after nine years of great prosperity, the gaps between the rich and the poor were never closed because Labour chose to close the programme rather than close the gap.”

Maori Party press release:
Hon Tariana Turia and Dr Pita Sharples, Co-leaders

Preliminary electorate results indicating a 55% voter turnout in the Maori seats should concern every New Zealander says the Maori Party.

“Voter turnout rates indicate the confidence citizens have with the political process and political institutions,” said Dr Sharples, Co-leader of the Maori Party.  “There are clearly challenges ahead for Parliament, to increase the confidence of Maori that participation in the democratic process is worthwhile.”

“While we realise there may be some changes to the overall numbers once the special votes are in on 22 November, the low turnout in the Maori electorates on Saturday should worry us all,” said Dr Sharples.

“In 2005, the turnout across the seven Maori electorates varied from 62.05% (Tamaki Makaurau) to 69.79% (Tai Tokerau)” said Dr Sharples. “This year, there was a significant drop right across the range, with the lowest turnout being in Tamaki Makaurau (50.27%) and even the highest in Waiariki (56.14%) was still well below the national average turnout of 78%.”

“The fact that only half of Maori voters exercise the right to vote is an indication that something is terribly wrong with our democracy,” said Mrs Turia. “As a nation, we must address the huge issues around Maori electoral participation.”

“Our party, worked solidly to spread the word about enrolling and voting, to ‘rock the vote’ through door-knocking, phone-calling, viral texting, flag-flying, pamphlet-drops, bebo, you-tube and website advertising,” said Mrs Turia.

“We tried our best to encourage voting to become a whanau habit, to build interest in politics, and to arrest the downwards trend,” said Mrs Turia.

“And yet, when we came face to face with some of the poverty-stricken communities across our electorate, we saw how seriously alienated and disenfranchised many whanau have become. It is an enormous task to bring hope to communities, that casting a vote will make a difference in their lives.”

“We are also aware that we are only five out of 122 Members of Parliament. We will certainly be encouraging our 117 colleagues to consider what they can do to bring confidence to tangata whenua that politics is of value to them”.

“We are keen to encourage this debate across all parties, and have already raised our concerns with the Prime Minister Elect,” said Mrs Turia.  “We believe the new inclusive approach that Mr Key is speaking of, must address the low turnout of Maori voters, as a matter of national concern”.

This week’s seen some exciting launches, like Google Māori going live this Thursday 24 July, allowing you to search for articles in Māori. There’s also “He Pātaka Kupu”, the world’s largest monolingual dictionary which was launched by Te Taura Whiri, available on www.koreromaori.co.nz

For more info on Te Wiki o te Reo Māori see www.korero.maori.nz/news/mlw

Try out a few Maori phrases this week. For tips on how to ask someone about themselves, hit on them, tell them they’re dodgy and heaps more, see below for some basic phrases pinched from www.korero.maori.nz. That’s it from me. And by the way, tō ātaahua hoki rā!

Kua kai anō koe? – Have you had something to eat?

He aha māu? – What would you like?

He wai ārani māku. – I would like an orange juice.

He wai noa iho māku. – Just water for me.

He aha tō mahi? – What do you do for a job?

Kei hea koe e mahi ana? – Where do you work?

He kaimahi ahau nā (place of work) – I work at (place of work)

He aha ō mahi i tēnei rā? – What did you do today?

I pēhea tō rā? – How was your day?

Piro rawa atu! – It sucked!

Pai mārika taku rā! – I had a great day!

Kei te aha koe ā te pō? – What are you doing tonight?

Kāhore kau. – Nothing.

He aha ai? – Why?

E mate kai ana koe? – Are you hungry?

Ka rawe! Tino pai kē! – Too much!

Tō ātaahua hoki rā. – You look good.

Kei ēnā tikanga hoki. – Hey, you’re a bit dodgy.

Ka nui tēnā māku.- That’s enough for me, I’ve had enough.

He aha te waiata pai ki a koe? – What kind of music do you like?

Me āta inu koe. – Go easy on the drinking.

E āta inu ana au. – I’m just taking it easy (i.e. drinking).

Ka rawe te kōrero Māori. – Man, speaking Maori is good fun.

Ka rawe. – Choice, awesome.

Ehara mai! – Awesome!

He aha pea he mahi mā tāua? – Shall we do something?

Kua haere au. – Okay, I’m off.

Ka kite anō. – See you later.

By Hone Harawira, originally published in the Northland Age, reproduced with permission here with thanks to the Maori Party.

Most people won’t know much about Bastion Point, but its history is worth the retelling, and lessons are for life. I don’t have the time or the space here to do it, so here’s a snapshot.

Bastion Point was the last remaining piece of land owned by Ngati Whatua – once proud owners of the whole of the Auckland Isthmus. Problem was, it was also the best piece of real estate in the whole country and Prime Minister Rob “Piggy” Muldoon had put it on the market for sale to developers.
Joe Hawke and his family occupied Bastion Point in 1976 and over the next 507 days, Bastion Point became the learning ground for thousands – gathering place for celebrities (including country music singer John Denver and diplomats from all over the world), a sharing ground for indigenous peoples, a recruitment ground for groups of all persuasions, a melting pot of all races in Aotearoa, a hotbed of political thought, and an opportunity to toss up theories and watch them survive for a week or get shot down in flames the second they’d left your quivering lips.
Bastion Point was in the news every day, it was the birth of many Maori land occupations since, and in my view it was the single action which forced the government to realise how seriously Maori took their land claims. The Treaty settlement process is the better for it.
I was just a young fullah back then, surrounded by other young hotbloods like Mangu Awarau and Ben Dalton, and soaking up the raw energy, knowledge, and power of those who dominated the movement back in those days: people like Tame Iti, Syd Jackson, Dun Mihaka, Joe Hawke, David Williams, Tim Shadbolt, and many, many others.
Hilda and I were arrested on May 25 1978 along with 220 others, and charged with trespass. We fought those charges, we beat them, and now Takaparawha is back in the hands of Ngati Whatua.
Bastion Point taught me heaps that I was able to bring back to the north. Strength of purpose, the need to think through and fight for my point of view, a willingness to step outside my comfort zone, how to stand strong against the power of the state, how to bind people to a common cause, and a commitment to a positive Maori future that has guided all my activities of the last 30 years.
Today I pay my respects to all those from the Far North who gave supported Bastion Point and helped pave the way for our Treaty claims today.

To comment on this column email hone.harawira@parliament.govt.nz or place feedback via Hone’s website at http://www.tokerau.co.nz/index_files/Contact.htm

Peter Williams on National Radio this morning raised concerns about upholding the rule of law, in particular that the Dominion Post’s actions are contempt of court in light of the fact that the Solicitor General’s decision means most of this evidence is inadmissable. Certainly, we must be concerned about the ramifications of allowing the “public to judge” through the media lens, despite Ron Marks apparent enthusiasm for the idea.

However, here we are, and here is the affadavit. So what does it mean for the self-interested (again according to Ron Mark) critics of the police raids and the attempted use of the Terrorism Suppression Act?

Very few of the criticisms that I have read or have made myself fall over in the light of this affadavit.

At the outset, all have stated that if there are charges to be laid, the Crimes Act and the Firearms Act are sufficient pieces of legislation within which to make a prosecution. This is proving to be the case, as in depositions the court has agreed there are charges to answer. The extension of the powers towards a security state that is being sought today cannot be argued on the basis that there are holes in the law through which evil people are escaping prosecution.

All critics have stated that the raids were heavy-handed. Again this stands, as it is increasingly clear from the evidence today that the police were not searching for mysterious figures hidden in the Urewera, but specific individuals well-known to them, no doubt with home addresses, phone numbers, favourite cafes, and all the rest. So we are left scratching our head as to why a whole town and then unrelated individuals’ houses needed to be held hostage by the police – to ensure nobody tried to escape on horseback into the wild blue yonder, perhaps? I suggest it is still a case of testosterone and budgets gone wild in the total institution that is our nation’s violent arm of the state.

All critics have said that the insinuation that political activism is terrorist activity is mud that’ll stick, and an insidious use of the media, parliament and the police. The grab-bag of activists charged still suggests this, and the affadavit goes no way towards proving some violent revolutionary plot across activist groups. Indeed, even the selective reading we have been allowed through the filter of police and then media analysis suggests there was some unease within those involved and a range of views about aims and strategies. People were clearly speaking out against violence here, not just condoning it.

So were there more than empty words in the Urewera. I’m inclined to believe so. I shook my head this morning when I read the Dominion Post, and thought, in relation to those suspects in the affadavit, “you dumb a__es”.

But this is not to be taken as an argument for greater police powers, more intelligence, broader powers to gather communications. The powers of the police are sufficient, our intelligence agencies are as incompetent and conspiracy driven as always, and we don’t need more impositions on our lives. So perhaps the empty words are those ringing out from Wellington, and continue to require us to challenge and critique.

At a time when the parliament and executive have been so loose with labelling political activism as terrorism, when NZ First has again attempted to get parliament to wipe te Tiriti o Waitangi from the record, and the violent arm of the state has brutalised Ngai Tuhoe (again), Jones’ comments are questions of maturity and insight.

Put simply, she asks if Pakeha are willing to build a relationship with Maori yet. She suggests up until now:

“Pakeha have largely refused a relationship of positive, real, engagement, being busy instead with forms of colonisation, and with “being entertained” by, and “doing good things” for, Maori.”

This question is so pertinent because, frankly, as a descendent of te Pirirakau, Ngati Rangiwewehi and Ngati Hinerangi, I am one of a lot of pissed off tangata whenua. I don’t trust the police, the executive, and most of the parliament. I don’t want a bar of the New Zealand that Pakeha are creating for themselves. And as a result of the last month’s events, I’ve rapidly become more sympathetic to those who may have advocated violent struggle. I’ve even caught myself beginning to think in the excluding language that I used as a 19 year old: “those” Pakeha supported by “their” state with “their” kupapa, pet Maori in parliament.

I’d rather have some faith restored that we are building a social contract that seeks a just relationship based in te Tiriti and honours our collective role in building Aotearoa. So the question remains to one and all: are you ready yet?

1846 – the British parliament passed a New Zealand Constitution Act which provided a complicated 3 tier system of Government – elected municipal corporations, two elected Provincial Councils and General Assembly, again with an elected House of Representatives and a nominated Legislative Council. Voting qualifications virtually disenfranchised Maori, so colonists gained full control of Government.

1867 – Maori representation Act. Four Maori seats were created mainly as a way of balancing North Island representation against demands of South Island gold miners forrepresentation. Franchise was granted to Maori males over 21 – free of property qualifications.

1872 - on the motion of a Maori member, two Maori were nominated to the Legislative Council – this remained until Legislative Council was abolished in 1950.

Section 71 of the 1852 Act provided for the setting up of districts within -which Maori laws, customs and usages not repugnant to general principles of humanity could be maintained “for the government of themselves, in all relations to and dealings with each other”. This could have provided for a form of internal autonomy – which Maori saw as an implementation of the tino rangatiratanga guaranteed to them in Article 2 of the Treaty.  The Maori King movement sought this form of autonomy in Waikato before the war and in the King Country afterwards. However this was never recognised by the Pakeha parliament despite efforts by the Maori members to pass an enabling private members bill. So this Section 71 was not allowed to be implemented and it was finally repealed in 1986.

1893 – Maori women as well as Pakeha women got the vote.

1910 – For Maori voting by show of hands abolished in favour of a declaration before a Returning officer. There was not yet a Maori roll.

1937 – The secret ballot, first used in the European seats in 1870 was applied to Maori seats. However rolls were not ready until the 1949 election.

1975 – Maori voters given the chosen option of the Maori and General rolls. Number on roll did not alter the number of seats allowed.

1986 – Royal Commission on Electoral System. Noted the failure to implement Section 71 of the 1852 Constitution Act and the “failure of successive Governments to recognise and give effect to the Treaty as a basis of constitutional government in New Zealand…”

For at least the first four decades of the Nineteenth Century, the Church in New Zealand was a Maori Church. In fact, the Maori Church, formed by the mission to the Maori People of the Church Missionary Society, was the only Church of England presence until the bishopric of New Zealand was offered to George Augustus Selwyn in 1841, and the first attempts were made to provide for mission and ministry to European settlers. Before Selwyn departed from England to take up his appointment, the Parent Committee of the C. M.S. offered him some assistance but reminded him that the Missionaries were not at liberty to minister to the Europeans — their mission was to the Maori. Thus did a tension first become evident which remains 170 years later — how to provide for both Maori and settler in the one Church.

In 1807 Samuel Marsden persuaded the fledgling Church Missionary Society to undertake a mission to the Maori people. Initial delays meant that this work commenced with the Maori group resident for trading purposes in Sydney, New South Wales. There is some evidence to suggest that the first Maori church building was in fact erected at this time on the banks of the Parramatta River in Sydney.

One of the founders of the Church Missionary Society was Henry Venn. His enlightened philosophy of missionary activity contained principles which have become known as the Three-Self Movement, and have significance in the origins of the Maori Church. These can be described thus:

Self-determination: The autonomy of the Church in its new environment.
Self-propagation: The priority of self-development — indigenous ministry and indigenous evangelisation.
Self-support: A structure of physical support governed by the forms of enterprise, found within the local culture.

In practice, however, the motives of the first three lay missionaries put in place by Marsden, seem far removed from the noble principles which Venn was formulating. Kendall, Hall and King were poorly equipped for the task they faced-, but shared a determination to save the souls of the heathen and to replace their culture. The civilising of the natives, it was thought, would eventually lead to their Christianisation. (1)

The Voyage of the “Active” from Sydney to the Bay of Islands in 1814, bearing Marsden, Hall, King and Kendall, accompanied by ten Maori persons led by Ruatara, Hongi and Korokoro, was not without incident. Ruatara had been induced by Marsden to assist the introduction of the missionary group to New Zealand. In mid-Tasman Ruatara’s misgivings almost caused the ship to be turned back to Sydney. He openly stated his regret at having agreed to encourage missionary settlement, because of his belief that settlement would destroy the influence of the chiefs. His desire to bring to his people the new methods of agriculture learnt in Sydney was the deciding factor.

In 1822 the arrival of Henry Williams saw the work of establishing the Maori Church take a positive step forward. The earliest missionaries had laboured for a decade without one positive act of commitment by a Maori to the Christian faith. Suddenly the tide began to turn and a number of Maori communities requested the presence and teaching of a missionary, or took it upon themselves to spread the faith by their own means. A great deal of activity took place — teaching, the cultivation of crops, building translation into the Maori language of biblical and liturgical material, and printing. Eventually a number of Maori churches were built, and examples abound of Maori lay evangelists and catechists taking a lead in the propagation of the faith.

Thus on the arrival of the Bishop in 1842 the Maori Church was well established and cared for by a number of missionaries, some of whom had by this time secured for themselves the trust and respect of the people amongst whom they lived and worked. Selwyn impressed with his ability to preach in the Maori language immediately upon his arrival, but he was never to enjoy the same mutual trust and respect in the Maori world as did Marsden and the Williams’ brothers. After ten years, Selwyn’s struggles with the C.M.S. and the difficulties experienced in his relationships with the missionary clergy led him to see that “it was harder than he thought to plant the seeds of a new religion in the hearts of the Maori and harder still to unite settler and Maori in a single church …” (2). He turned his attention to matters of church governance, the division of his diocese and the writing of the Constitution. From this point on the division between the Maori Church and the Settler Church was to become even more evident.

Formulation and acceptance of a written Constitution was hailed as evidence of growth and maturity in the New Zealand Church, but it was by its very nature a document of the Settler Church. By 1857, the year it was signed, some 43 years had passed since Marsden had established the Maori Church, yet not one Maori signature is attached to the Constitution. In fact, the missionary clergy felt that the interests of the Maori Church were best safeguarded by the C.M.S. and thus the provisions of the Constitution were not at first intended to include the Maori Church. In his Presidential Address to the first General Synod in 1859, Selwyn expressed ’some doubts of the future stability of the Native Church’ and asked Synod to consider ‘the best mode of drawing our Native brethren into closer bonds of Christian fellowship with ourselves’. That same question, phrased in a variety of ways, was to reappear time and again in both diocesan and General Synods. Selwyn also voiced his concern that it might “be found impossible to carry on a double government for the Colonial and Missionary Church.”

Stresses and strains in the life of the nation were felt also in the Maori Church. The Land Wars of the 1860s placed immense strain on the faith and loyalty of the Maori People to a Church which “told us to close our eyes and bow our heads in prayer, and when we lifted up our heads and opened our eyes, our land had disappeared…”(3)

The division of the Settler Church into dioceses which bore no relation at all to traditional tribal boundaries, and the gradual dissolution of the authority of the missionary clergy over the Maori Church led to the wish to place the care of the Maori Church under a Maori Bishop. In 1876, the Rev. E.C. Stuart (later Bishop Stuart) in reporting to the C.M.S. in England on the condition of the Maori Church, stated that at a meeting at Tolaga Bay the question had been asked as to why the Maori Church should not have a Maori Bishop. The example was cited of Bishop Samuel Crowther, ordained in 1843, and consecrated as the first Negro Anglican Bishop in 1864.

In 1877 The Rev. T.S. Grace recorded that a conference had been held on this matter, but it had been decided that no suitable Maori clergyman was available for such a ministry. Grace forwarded to the C. M. S. a copy of a letter which had appeared in the publication ‘Waka Maori’, written by a Maori who in Grace’s opinion was highly intelligent. In this the author asked “Why are some of us raised to permanent positions in Government and not in the Church? Why is there no Maori Bishop, since the natives of these Islands have, for a considerable time, embraced Christianity?”

In 1880 the General Synod “… received with much pleasure the Memorial of the Native Church Board of the Diocese of Auckland for the appointment of a Suffragan Bishop for the Maori portion of the Church in the Diocese, regarding it as proof of the vitality of that portion of the Church; but the Synod, looking at the one-ness which exists between the English and the Maori portions of the Church throughout New Zealand, and hoping that they will be brought yet closer together in worship and Church organisation, considers that the present proposal for the appointment of a Suffragan Bishop, would not be desirable and is unable to comply with the request …” Once the Settler Church had gained the ascendancy and overall authority, it was not about to surrender part of its control easily.

In 1913 the General Synod was able to bypass a motion calling for the Maori section of the Church to have representation at General Synod of both clerical and lay members elected from among the Maori people.

The rising popularity of the movement started by T.W. Ratana caused the Church in the 1920s to fear for its Maori membership. In his Presidential Address to the General Synod of 1925, Archbishop Julius recalled Selwyn’s parting address to the Province, bequeathing to us “as a precious legacy the Native Pastors and the remnant of their flocks. In some sort we have endeavoured to fulfill the task. There are many good Christians among the Maoris; they are served by many faithful Pastors, but none of us can regard the situation as satisfactory. The Maori Mission ought to be in some measure Provincial, but efforts to make it so have broken down, in part because the Church has not escaped the influence of the foolish and petty jealousies which divide the chief cities of the Dominion. Perhaps there is no type of Christian Mission in which the man counts for so much and money for so little. We want another Apostle of the Maoris …”

Later in the 1925 Synod, a Select Committee recommended that a Commission be set up to “…consider what steps may be taken to consider the present position of the Maori Church and advance the Kingdom of Christ among the Maoris…” The Select Committee consisted of two bishops, three archdeacons, and two laymen. As there were no Maori members of the General Synod, the membership of that group is understandable. However, no such restriction need have been placed on the membership of the Commission set up as a result, but the membership of this was as follows: The bishops in the North Island, the same three archdeacons, and two European priests. The terms of reference of the Commission were destined also to have a familiar ring:

1 To make careful enquiry into the present state of the work of the Church amongst the Maori People in those districts which are, at least outwardly, Christian.

2 To enquire as to the best means to be adopted to evangelise those Maori who are indifferent or avowedly hostile to Christianity.

3 To consider and report upon the growing manifestation of a desire on the part of Maori Christians for a greater degree of self-expression, both in the services of the church and control and government of the work of the Church amongst them, and more particularly how to incorporate into the work of the Church the best features and characteristics of Maori ideals.

4 To formulate a scheme whereby the Maori portion of the Church may have proper representation on the General Synod.

5 To consider whether it would be advisable to establish the work of the Church amongst the Maoris as a separate entity.

The Commission resolved to consult the Maori Church at a Conference, and this was duly held at Rotorua in June, 1925. Leading spokesmen amongst the Maori clergy in each of the North Island dioceses were present. These men were asked to form a Committee to bring their own report to the Commission, and this report was subsequently adopted unanimously by all present, and sent on to the Standing Committee of General Synod. The Report was in six parts:

a) That, in the opinion of the Committee, it is advisable that, in place of the present arrangement whereby Maori Mission work is carried on in each Diocese separately, the work be united into one mission for the whole of the Province of New Zealand.

b) That the Mission be constituted with a Bishop at its head, and with Archdeacons, the latter to be members of the Maori race working under him; a Synod or other properly constituted authority; and a Standing Committee.

c) That in each Archdeaconry of the Mission there be a properly constituted Archdeaconry Board.

d) That, in the opinion of the Committee, the steps previously recommended would have the effect of so stimulating the interest of Maori Church people that an adequate response would be forthcoming to meet the extra financial outlay involved.

e) The Committee feels it to be its duty to inform the conference that amongst the Maori Church people there is a very generally expressed desire that the Bishop at the head’ of the Mission be a member of the Maori race, but at the same time, in view of the difficulties which would of necessity surround the office of Bishop in the first appointment, the Committee does not wish to stress this point, and would welcome the appointment whether the Bishop was a Pakeha or Maori.

A further Commission was then set up to examine the constitutional questions involved. Three bishops, three archdeacons and two laymen this time made up the group. One of the laymen, and the only Maori, was The Hon. A.T. Ngata, M.P. (later Sir Apirana Ngata).

This Commission had three short recommendations:

That a separate Maori diocese be created, to be called the Diocese of Aotearoa.
That the area of such Diocese be the area of the Te Aute College Endowment, or an area in the Bay of Islands based on Paihia.
That a Special Session of the General Synod be convened for the purpose of passing necessary legislation.

The legislation was prepared, and the Commission obtained the necessary number of signatures to a Requisition for the convening of a Special Session of the General Synod.

The Special Session was held in December 1925. It had been a year of intense activity, after so much delay. In his Presidential Address, the new Archbishop, A.W. Averill, dealt at length with the constitutional legality of the proposal to create a Maori Diocese, and giving as his personal view “… I cannot see that there is any real Constitutional difficulty … so long as we are satisfied that circumstances require such a change in the organisation of Church Work amongst the Maoris …”

The Archbishop then gave his view of the underlying reason for taking this Step: “A Maori Church for Maoris because they are Maoris is un-Christian and unthinkable, and a Diocese for the Maoris because they are Maoris is equally un-Christian and unthinkable. The one idea in the creation of our Diocese for the Maoris is the spiritual welfare of the Maori Race so that it may be enabled to make its full contribution to the fullness of the Holy Catholic Church…”

The Bill to create a Maori Diocese was passed on the second day of the Special Session of the General Synod. The Diocese of Aotearoa was to have its own Synod and Standing Committee, and the jurisdiction of the Bishop could extend to all members of the Maori race living in any part of the country, provided that the Bishop of a particular Diocese gave his written consent for the provision of such ministry. The Bishop was also given the right to licence clergy to exercise the care of souls or to hold other ecclesiastical office in respect of the Maori Race within his jurisdiction.

The Bishops then proceeded to meet the Maori representatives for the purpose of nominating a bishop for the Diocese of Aotearoa. Led by Sir Apirana Ngata, the Maori conference insisted that the first bishop must be a Maori. The Bishops, however, “… could not see their way to hand over their sacred responsibility for their Maori people to any one of the Maori clergy at the present time…” After several sittings, and some intense negotiations including an attempt to persuade the Maori leaders that accepting a Pakeha nominee would also solve the problem of the lack of finance, the Conference was adjourned. A second attempt to make progress later in the year, was similarly deadlocked. A compromise was suggested which would have created a Maori Bishop as an assistant to the Primate but this was not supported by the diocesan synods.

The next step came at the 1928 General Synod. A select Committee set up to examine the question of the Maori Bishopric urged General Synod to rescind the 1925 legislation, and create an Assistant Bishop who would be a Maori, working under a diocesan bishop.

Accordingly, the Statute which was entitled “Of Episcopal Supervision of the Maori Race” came into being, and for the next fifty years the Bishop of Aotearoa existed as a suffragan bishop to the Bishop of Waiapu, with “… episcopal supervision of members of the Maori Race in the said Diocese and also in any Diocese the Bishop of which. shall have given him under his hand and seal a commission thereto…” What seemed at first an acceptable compromise, soon was revealed as grossly inadequate.

The Maori people were challenged to provide the finance for their Bishop. From within the Diocese of Waiapu, Maori people responded. Ngata pledged that his own people, Ngati Porou, would provide two hundred pounds, to be guaranteed by their two companies — the Ngati Porou Manuhuia Augustus Bennett. Dairy Company and the Waiapu Farmers’ Co-op Ltd. The Arawa people, in recognition that the first bishop was an Arawa, provided two hundred and fifty pounds through their Arawa Trust Board. This amount was subsidised by the Henry and William Williams Memorial Trust, thus arriving at the sum of eight hundred pounds for stipend and one hundred pounds for travel. When the first bishop, Frederick Augustus Bennett was consecrated, he continued to live in a house at Kohupatiki that had been deeded to him personally. He later transferred the home to the Diocese in order to provide a home for future bishops. The first five years of the new arrangement coincided with the years of the Depression. In 1932 the Diocese of Waiapu appealed for help from the other dioceses to provide for the financing of the Maori Bishop, as the Williams Trust had been forced to reduce their subsidy by two hundred pounds. The Auckland Maori Synod responded immediately with a promise of an annual commitment of one hundred pounds, but the Diocesan Standing Committee reacted angrily and refused to allow any money to be sent for such a purpose. The reason given was that no such provision had been made by the General Synod. The Maori people in the Diocese of Auckland were being thwarted by a resolution of a body on which they had no voice and no vote.

The first Bishop of Aotearoa was received enthusiastically by the Maori people wherever he went. Outside Waiapu, Auckland was regarded as a priority because of the significant numbers of Maori people resident in the Diocese. However, with the consecration in 1940 of Archdeacon Simkin as Bishop of Auckland, a new policy was put in place in that diocese. Many of the Maori Pastorates were abolished, and Maori clergy became assistant curates to Pakeha Vicars in various areas. It was felt that the Church should show the way with a policy of integration. In 1946 a further appeal from the Diocese of Waiapu asking each diocese to co-operate with the Bishop of Aotearoa in his work for the development of the spiritual side of the Maori Race, met a positive response from all except Auckland. Bishop Simkin refused to give the Bishop of Aotearoa access to the Maori people in Auckland, and withdrew diocesan financial support.

The first three bishops were all greatly respected men, yet it was not uncommon to hear their own people refer to their office as that of “the bob-tail bishop”, as men of war without guns, as no more than the tukutuku without the poupou (lattice-work without supporting pillars). On one occasion, the Chaplain to the Maori Battalion, in camp at Ohaeawai in Northland, had more than 100 candidates for confirmation, but as the Bishop of Aotearoa was not permitted to officiate in that Diocese, the Chaplain was forced to move his group in Army trucks to Rotorua in order to allow the Bishop of Aotearoa to confirm them. When Wiremu Netana Panapa was consecrated as the second Bishop of Aotearoa, the restriction placed on his activities in the Diocese of Auckland were felt all the more, as he was a man of the North, and his own people resided there.

In 1928 the General Synod had resolved to approve the principle of the Maori people having direct representation on General Synod with a right to vote, and appointed another Commission to consider the necessary legislation. A report was finally made to the 1961 General Synod, with an apology for the lack of any suitable legislation, and a request to sit again with enlarged membership. A Bill was presented to the 1964 General Synod with three provisions, relating to the status of the Bishop of Aotearoa, Maori representation in Synod, and establishment of Maori pastorates and mission districts. The Synod decided that “… until it be found practicable to make more permanent provisions for further such forward movement, the Bishop of Aotearoa shall have a seat as a bishop in the General Synod…” The clause providing for separate Maori representation on General Synod was defeated.

In 1976 a further attempt to provide separate Maori representation in General Synod was also defeated, but the sixth in a long line of such Commissions was set up to re-examine the whole situation. This body was responsible for the presentation of the legislation in 1978 which provided for ”the full pastoral episcopal care and supervision of the Maori people…” The Bishop of Aotearoa was to be licensed by the Primate to share in partnership with each diocesan bishop, under a Commission from each diocesan bishop, in the ministry of episcopal care for and oversight of the Maori people. Provision was made for the Aotearoa Council to be the equivalent of a synod, and its Executive Committee to be the equivalent of a Standing Committee.

Bishop Panapa had had a two-fold aim for his episcopate: to unify the work of the Maori Mission throughout the Province and to create a Maori Diocese. Bishop Manuhuia Bennett inherited a situation in which the Church had simply not allowed these things to happen. He was determined to work towards the resolution of this impasse so that his successor should not be hampered in the way that the first three bishops had been.

The 1978 legislation took some very significant steps in this regard. The status of the Bishop as an equal with the diocesans was safeguarded. A structure was set in place which both supported the Bishop and provided the whole Church with the possibility of hearing a Maori voice and learning something of the Maori values which had ensured the continuing life and spirituality of the Maori Church in the face of enormous mis-understanding and neglect for over 160 years.

In order to give some foundation to that equality, each diocese was invited to assist the Bishopric of Aotearoa provide for a permanent Endowment Fund. Target amounts were set and agreed to by each diocese. The process of reaching those targets differed in each diocese, but in some instances provided a means of mutual understanding, respect and trust in a co-operative effort, between the Maori Church and the descendants of the Settler Church.

On other grounds, however, the emergence of the Bishopric of Aotearoa has caused different reactions. A great deal of effort has gone into an attempt to define, to understand, to display “Partnership”. For the minority partner that effort has been costly. The familiar question of loyalties to two masters has often been raised. The minority partner has felt acutely that the majority partner has remained inert, has made little attempt to be anything more than a partner in name only.

On the positive side, it is possible to identify a number of advances which have been made since the 1978 legislation.

— The Aotearoa representation in General Synod has gained the respect of that body for its contribution to and enrichment of the whole life of the Church;
— The Bishopric Office and administration has taken its place alongside that of the dioceses — and a number of bodies have demonstrated their trust.
— The Ministry Education programme gives a hint of the enormous potential of the Bishopric. Where it has been allowed to develop according to tikanga Maori, not subject to diocesan restrictions and guidelines out of another culture, it has been successful.
— There is an increasing awareness in parts of the worldwide Anglican Communion of the potential creativity in the Bishopric, and a number of requests for help from other ethnic minorities within the Church. The Bishopric was able to assist and advise the Australian Church in the 1985 process leading to the Consecration of the first Aboriginal Bishop.
— The Bishopric representatives in the Maori Council of Churches continue to play a major part in ecumenical activities. In this respect the change from diocesan representation to Bishopric representation is significant. They are elected by, and responsible to, a national Maori base.
— The Bishopric was able to negotiate with a major overseas Archdiocese and successfully establish a chaplaincy to the Maori people in Sydney.
— The Bishopric was asked to take a significant part in the process of appointment of the Maori Studies Lecturer at St. John’s College.
— New initiatives in the South Island have come from Bishopric direction.
— Church-related bodies that administer Maori land trusts have been greatly helped by valuable advice from the Maori perspective.
— The Aotearoa Trust Board is carefully administering a potentially valuable economic base.
— A fruitful and trusting relationship with the Henry and William Williams Memorial Trust is evolving.

There are still problems, however, and these can be identified in the following areas:

— The Bishop of Aotearoa is seldom permitted to act on his own. That does not apply to his episcopal partners. True partners do not always act in tandem — rather do they often act in trust, individually.
— The Bishop of Aotearoa is still seen as “The Visiting Preacher”. He is referred to as a guest at Maori Church hui, and invited to preach, but not to be the chairman. A clear instance of control rather than partnership.
— The Aotearoa Council provides an enjoyable Maori form of sy nodical government, without standing orders, yet managing to perform efficiently. A common Maori identity, unity and purpose emerges, only to be eventually frustrated by the proudly independent and autonomous diocesan structures.
— The granting of episcopal ’status’ but the withholding of episcopal ‘jurisdiction’ has caused continuing dissatisfaction over the inability of the Bishop of Aotearoa to select, train, ordain and licence clergy and lay workers.

The familiar debate continues. The 1985 meeting of the Aotearoa Council gave careful consideration to a number of papers setting out self-determination as a goal for the Bishopric, in which Maori identity and a Maori cultural framework would be given greater prominence. The suggestion is that more Maori control and self- determination would result in the Maori partner becoming more visible, more responsible, more aggressive, and better able to negotiate with the diocesan partners.

Ko te pae tawhiti
Whaia kia tata.
Ko te pai tata
Whakamaua kia tina.

Footnotes;
1. Binney, Judith: “The Legacy of Guilt: A Life of Thomas Kendall” O.U.P. 1968
2. Morrell W.P. “The Anglican Church in New Zealand” C.P.N.Z. 1973. Page 47.
3. A remark often heard in marae whaikorero, perhaps originating from the Sunday attack on Ruapekapeka Pa in Northland, 1845146. Quoted in a sermon preached by The Venerable K.M. lhaka at the Third Aotearoa Council meeting at Waiomatatini, August 1982. 13