Te Reo Maori i Tamakimakaurau Dr Benton

Te Reo M훮ori i T훮makimakaurau Notes on the M훮ori Language in the Auckland Region, prepared for Te Reo Hapori, M훮ori Language Commission by

Dr Richard A Benton

March 2015

Table of Contents Te Reo Māori – A language for all Aucklanders ................................................... 3

Page

2

The power of numbers ....................................................................................................... 3 He ora te whakapiri ... ........................................................................................................ 4 “Te pai me te whai rawa o Tāmaki” .................................................................................... 5 Digging deeper in Orākei .................................................................................................... 8 Spreading the word ............................................................................................................ 9 Signs Can Work Wonders ................................................................................................. 10 Strategies, Visions, and the Need to Leave the Sidelines ................................................... 12 References ....................................................................................................................... 14

Te Reo Māori – A language for all Aucklanders Te reo is a taonga, but one in wide circulation, like the knowledge of how to make a fishing net discovered by Kahukura – a valuable resource for the entire populace. In this respect, revitalisation efforts cannot be bound by ethnic, regional or iwi-based exclusivenes. Thus, although the use, status, and transmission of te reo within the Māori community is of special relevance, facilitating the knowledge and use of the language within the community at large is also a vital concern; indeed, the two processes are interlinked.

In the decades following World War II, the Māori language shifted from being relatively secure to critically endangered, even among the Māori community. On the basis of data gathered in the mid-1970s, and taking into account developments such as kōhanga reo, bilingual and Māori-medium schools, it was predicted in 1991 that under the best case scenario, there would be about 80,000 fluent speakers (that is, speakers with a native-like command of the language) by 2013, otherwise maybe 15,000, probably less (Benton 1991, p. 29). Census results and the Department of Statistics’ survey of Māori wellbeing in 2013, Te Kupenga, showed that we are closer to the best case than the worst case, but there is no cause for complacency. A UNESCO study, among others, has pointed out that a language spoken by anything less than 100% of a community all of whom speak a language of wider communication like English is endangered already; by the time less than half speak the language, it is already severely endangered.1 The Orākei case study (below) underlines that.

1

Unesco ad hoc Experts Group, 2003, p.9.

Page

This danger to minority languages, played out in real life by the rapid displacement of languages like Māori by English, even in Māori communities, has a simple mathematical basis. People by default will usually speak to strangers – including members of their own community whom they do not know very well – in a language which both are most likely to understand. Once the number of speakers of a minority language (in our case, Māori) falls to 70% of a population in which everybody is known to be able to speak English, the probability that you will meet by chance another Māori speaker falls to 70% of 70% – that is, 49%, already less than 50/50. If the number of speakers of Māori falls to, say, 55%, although more people can speak Māori than those who cannot, the chances that two Māori speakers will meet at random becomes 55% of 55% – that is 30%, so the odds are now 2 to 1 in favour of English. As the percentage drops, the odds of chance encounters become exponentially less – and of course if you add a third or fourth person into the mix, the likelihood of a conversation’s being in English will become close to 100%. This is pretty much the case in Auckland. One way around this, of course, would be to make Māori an in-group language, and simply cut anyone who cannot speak Māori out of the conversation: however that is not a constructive way of making friends and influencing people, and in the long-run would do nothing to promote the revitalisation of the language.

3

The power of numbers

Of course, the chances of being able to use the language outside the home or a special location like a marae or some churches will increase somewhat in different everyday environments, because, for example, despite a low percentage of speakers within a given community, some people will have Māori-speaking neighbours, or live in streets which have an above-average number of Māori speaking households. At rush hour in the city, there would be a better chance of coming across a Māori speaker than when things are quieter. In Wellington, Lambton Quay (with a select population of bureaucrats, and especially the presence of TPK and, nearby, the offices of Te Taura Whiri) would probably be a better location than Queen Street in Auckland -although standing in Queen Street at a controlled pedestrian crossing during the rush hour the 1 in 250 chance of two Māori-speakers meeting each other would be enhanced by the hundreds of people streaming across the road every time the light changes. But will it be someone you know who wants to stop for a chat?

He ora te whakapiri ...

Page

There is nowhere in NZ where you can rest on your laurels, least of all Tāmakimakaurau.

Although a scattergun approach is unlikely to be effective in itself, even a focused approach, concentrating on “hot spots”, would also be very restricted in its coverage. Recent reactions to the use of Māori phrases during weather reports on television show that there is still an element of hostility within the general population, which must be overcome. Initiatives such as the Taura Whiri’s Mā te Reo programmes and the work of Te Ataarangi, among others, are already having a positive influence in this regard, and this is not confined to the outcomes of entertainment or exhibitions directed at a general audience. Looked at objectively, Auckland’s North Shore would not appear to be a very productive place in which to fund a language revitalisation initiative. The Hibiscus Coast and Devonport/Takapuna local board areas have very low Māori populations, and within those populations there is a much lower than average percentage of Māori-speakers, even by Auckland standards. Māori comes in 8th after a string of Asian and European languages in numbers of speakers in both these districts. However, Mā te Reo-supported wānanga conducted through a local marae have helped to prepare kaiako for Te Reo Tuatahi, a community-based initiative which has resulted in many schools in this area using their own funds to begin elementary Māori language programmes for all pupils. These initiatives have received enthusiastic support from parents, who come from a very wide variety of backgrounds, thus substantially advancing the cause of “normalisation” of te reo Māori as an essential component of New Zealand society, relevant to newcomers and native-born Kiwis alike.

4

Funding such as that currently provided through the Māori Language Commission’s Mā te Reo programme and similar initiatives, including the resources allocated to a select group of schools by the Ministry of Education, is only a drop in the bucket in relation to what is needed to secure the future of te reo Māori; the task is truly enormous. This makes interagency / interinstitutional cooperation in these efforts essential if there is to be a substantial multiplier effect arising from Taura-whiri sponsored initiatives and those of other groups and agencies.

“Te pai me te whai rawa o Tāmaki” The Auckland region is of critical importance to efforts to revitalise the Māori language in New Zealand for a number of reasons. It is home to about a third of the country’s population, including a quarter of the Māori population, and a fifth of those who were reported as being able to hold a conversation in Māori at the time of the 2013 census. It is also a part of the country which, in spite of the vibrant cultural life centred around the city’s many marae, the language is critically endangered. Over the last two decades there has been a steady decline in the number and proportion of the Māori-speaking population resident in Auckland, and in some of the administrative of divisions of the city te reo comes in eighth or ninth after English and various Asian and European languages in numbers of speakers. Among the Māori population, about 15 per cent were reported as speaking Māori at the time of the 2013 census.

That would give an individual speaker about 1 chance in 25 of finding even another Māori to speak to, or less than 1 in 250 to find another Māori-speaking Aucklander by chance while walking down a central city street. Furthermore, Auckland has received a very small share of the Māori Language Commission’s Mā te Reo funding over the years – less than 10% altogether, a substantial portion of which has been devoted to national or regional events. However the situation varies greatly from one part of the region to another, and, like other parts of the country, there is a need need to concentrate revitalisation efforts on the “hot spots” as well as the deserts and places in between.

Table 1. Speakers of English, Māori and major immigrant languages in Auckland Region, 2006 and 2013

Total people

1,304,958

Percentage of Total Population Census 2006 Census 2013 87.14% 87.15% 2.55% 2.18% 4.43% 4.11% 2.65% 3.50% 2.34% 2.74% 2.32% 2.17% 1.95% 2.14%

1,415,550

Table 1 shows the languages spoken in Auckland by 30, 000 or more speakers in 2013, and compares these numbers with those in 2006. However the situation is even more complex, and the relative position of te reo Māori far more tenuous than these figures suggest. Table 2 shows the distribution of Māori-speakers among iwi in the five Auckland Local Board Areas with the highest Māori populations (and also the highest numbers of Māori-speakers), along with the three North Shore LBAs in which schools are participating in the Reo Tuatahi project. Te reo Māori is in second place to English as the most widely-spoken language in only one of these

5

English Māori Samoan Hindi Northern Chinese Yue Sinitic nfd.

Number of speakers Census 2006 Census 2013 1,147,638 1,233,633 33,246 30,927 57,831 58,200 34,623 49,518 30,576 38,781 30,282 30,681 25,422 30,282

Page

Language

Table 2. Iwi with 1,000 or more Māori-speakers resident in Auckland Region, 2013 (Note: People claiming affiliation with several iwi are included in the totals for each iwi nominated.)

Local Board Areas of special interest, showing number of Māori-speakers (Census 2013)

Censusdefined Iwi

(Total population resident in Auckland)

Ngapuhi (50,557) Don’t Know (29,226) *Waikato / Tainui (18,078) Ngāti Porou (13,161) Te Arawa (all) (8,793) Ng. Maniapoto (8,436) Ng. Kahungunu (all) (7,680) *Ngāti Whātua (7,353) Te Rarawa (7,224) Tūhoe (6,228) Tūwharetoa (5,808) Te Aupouri (3,828) Ngāti Kahu (3,747) TOTAL (incl unlisted iwi)

Manurewa

Papakura

Hibiscus & Bays

Kaipatiki

Devonport Takapun a

Total MāoriSpeakers, All 21 Local Board Areas

HendersonMassey

Mangere -Otahuhu

OtaraPapatoetoe

1,320

915

951

1,653

792

147

471

117

111

78

93

165

111

33

39

15

357

546

375

837

600

39

132

39

414

195

183

429

279

54

111

42

219

222

177

339

162

42

124

45

171

201

177

393

240

30

75

21

1,908 (22.9%)

243

102

97

219

114

42

93

45

1,470 (19.1%)

216

123

102

195

93

30

84

18

1,713 (23.3%)

372

159

159

273

117

27

111

30

216

216

204

426

159

15

78

24

192

111

111

174

120

15

75

33

183

96

93

174

93

9

57

15

114

132

96

177

78

6

72

18

2,904

2,271

2,112

3,696

2,169

405

1143

375

1,920 (26.6%) 1,920 (30.8%) 1,353 (23.3%) 1,098 (28.7%) 1,005 (26.8%) 24,000 (15.0%)

9,434 (18.7%) 1,065 (3.6%) 4,596 (25.4%) 2,733 (20.8%) 2,208 (25.3%)

Page

6

(*These two iwi are the largest in terms of number of Auckland residents of those accorded mana whenua status by the Auckland City Council. Other iwi and hapu with this status, all with total populations of less than 2,000, and less than 1,000 Māori-speakers, resident in the Auckland region are: Ngāti Wai, Ngāti Rehua, Ngāti Manuhiri, Te Kawerau, Te Uri o Hau, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāi Tai, Ngāti Tamaterā, Patukirikiri, Ngāti Whanaunga, Te Akitai, Te Ahiwaru, Ngāti te Ata, and Ngāti Tamaoho. See Table 4 for more information.)

districts (Papakura); it comes in third after Samoan in Henderson-Massey and Manurewa, 4th after Samoan and Tongan in Mangere-Otahuhu; 5th after Samoan, Hindi and Tongan in OtaraPapatoetoe, 6th in Kaipātiki after Northern Chinese, Yue, other Sinitic languages and Korean, and 8th after those languages along with German and Afrikaans in Upper Harbour and German and French on the Hibiscus Coast. The number and percentage of Aucklanders speaking Māori declined between the two Census periods. The number of speakers of the languages other than English and Māori increased, along with their overall proportion of the total; the number of people speaking many of the other languages not listed in the table showed even more substantial increases, Tagalog-speakers in Auckland for example increasing from 7,509 to 14,925.

Table 3. Growth or Decrease in Speakers of Major Languages Other Than English, 2006-2013 + Increase in proportion of total population 2006-2013; - Decrease; ~ Static (Less than .02% difference) Yellow highlighting: most widely spoken language other than English in district, 2013; Red highlighting, most widely spoken in 2006, if not the same as 2013. Samoan was the language most widely spoken overall in both years.

Languages* arranged by language family.

Puketapapa

Orākei

Maungakiekie/Tamaki

Howick

Mangere/Otahuhu

Otara/Papatoetoe

Manurewa

Papakura

Franklin

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+ +

+

+

+ + +

+ +

+

+ + +

+ + +

+ + +

+ + - + + +

+ + + - - + + + +

+ + +

+ + + -

- + + - +

+ -

+ -

+ -

+ +

+ ~

+ +

-

+ -

+ -

+ + +

+ +

+ + +

+ + +

+ + - - + + +

+ + +

+ + +

+ + +

+ +

+ ~ +

+ + -

+ + +

+ +

+ +

+ ~ +

+ + ~

+ ~ -

+ + -

+ + -

+ ~ + -

- - + + + +

+ +

+ + -

- + + +

+

-

+

-

+ -

+

-

+ +

+

+

-

+ + +

- + -

+ +

* “North Chinese” includes Mandarin; “Yue” includes Cantonese; “Other Sinitic” includes remaining Chinese languages. The external relationships of Korean are uncertain so it is generally regarded as a “Language isolate”. “Other languages” includes all those not included in this table. Source: Statistics NZ, Regional Summary Tables: TA & Auckland LBA: Language Spoken (Total Responses), 2006 and 2013 Censuses.

7

Albert/Eden

-

+

Page

Whau

~

+

Waitemata

-

- - ~ +

Waiheke

- -

+ - + -

Great Barrier

Waitakere

- -

+ +

Devonport/Takapuna

-

- - + - - + + +

Kaipatiki

- - +

+ + + +

Upper Harbour

- -

Hibiscus and Bays

Henderson/Massey

Austronesian Māori (2.2%) Samoan (4.1%) Tongan (1.8%) Tagalog (0.6%) Sino-Tibetan N.Chinese (2.7%) Yue (2.2%) “Sinitic” (2.1%) Indo-European Hindi (3.5%) French (1.2%) German (0.8%) Afrikaans (1.0%) Spanish (0.8%) Unclassified* Korean (1.4%) Other (9.8%)

Rodney

Percentage of speakers in total population (2013) in parentheses.

Local Board Area

This change in the fortunes of te reo Māori (it would certainly have been by far the most widely spoken language other than English in the Auckland region, as elsewhere in Aotearoa, during the first half of the twentieth Century) is dramatically illustrated in Table 3, which shows the distribution of speakers of Auckland’s major languages other than English as reported in the 2006 and 2013 censuses. During the seven years between the censuses the Māori population of Auckland declined slightly as a proportion of the total population (from 10.5% to 10.1%), but at 143,000 people, remained by far the largest ethnic group, apart from “Europeans”: the next largest, as identified by the Census, was “Indian”, with 99,000 individuals. The difference is, however, that the Māori language showed a decline in the number of speakers in all Local Board Areas but one – the exception is Devonport, where the Māori-speaking population rose from 516 (0.98%) in 2006 to 720 (1.3%) seven years later, hardly a spectacular increase! Māori remain the largest ethnic group in every Auckland LBA, but Māori-speakers trail behind those of other languages except on the periphery – Great Barrier Island, with its tiny population, Rodney, Franklin, and Papakura. In Waiheke it had been edged into second place by French.

Other Polynesian languages had fared slightly better, but not much: Samoan had lost ground in 13 LBAs and Tongan in 14; the languages in both communities were gradually becoming tongues for consenting adults. Their cousin Tagalog was the only Austronesian language on the rise, thanks to greatly increased migration.

Digging deeper in Orākei

Page

In the Orākei LBA, 11.4% of all Māori could converse in te reo in 2013. However, 37.4% of Orākei residents identified as Ngāti Whātua spoke Māori in 2013, compared with 35.4% in Orākei North Census Unit in 1996. These were most probably members of the tangata whenua clustered around Kitemoana St, but in any case for the rest of Orākei, i.e. excluding Ngāti Whātua affiliates, only 8.2 percent were reported as Māori-speaking in 2013. This would mean that there would be about one chance in seven that any two members of the Ngāti Whātua community meeting by chance at the local shops would be able to have a conversation with each other in te reo Māori, but if they came across another Māori resident of Orākei, not of Ngāti Whātua descent at the mall on the other side of the main road, the likelihood of their being able to have a conversation in Māori would be considerably less – the odds against it would be about 32 to 1. Of course, if these people happened to be older people, or graduates

8

The iwi and hapū recognized as mana whenua by the Auckland City Council are listed in a note to Table 2 (most have only small populations resident in the Auckland region), and Table 4 shows the Local Board Areas in which they have been accorded mana whenua status by the Council. However it would be a mistake to attend only to the most populous areas, largest iwi or any other single dimension. The North Shore for example is of interest because of a particular local initiative involving more than 20 schools. However there is a need to dig deeper than that. Orākei Local Board Area, for example, has the lowest percentage of Māori residents of any Auckland administrative division, and is below the median in the proportion of Māori who speak te reo. However, Orākei has within it a significant hot spot that should be nurtured, and which also illustrates the need to avoid complacency.

of the kura kaupapa Māori, the odds would be somewhat higher, but in general, the opportunities to use Māori conversationally outside the home, except in a socially Māori setting like a marae, would be still be few and far between, even within the Ngāti Whātua community itself.

Nevertheless, they will be far greater than for most Māori on the Hibiscus coast, where in the last census only 8.4% of the Māori population could converse in Māori, and less than 1% of the general population. The situation was only slightly better in most other parts of Auckland’s North Shore. However, this part of Auckland does have some very active groups promoting the revitalisation of the Māori language. Te Herenga Waka o Orewa marae in Silverdale has hosted two Mā te Reo Wānanga over the last few years, and also runs its own programmes, while 24 North Shore schools, including four on the Hibiscus coast, are involved in the Mā te Reo program, teaching Māori language to all pupils, with whole-hearted support from the parents in each community. Waitaha marae, in Northcote, has also hosted Mā te Reo programmes.

Spreading the word

Page

The need for interagency cooperation is vital. Without it, progress will be very limited. The Ministry of Education has a huge role potentially to play in the revitalisation of te reo Māori, just as its intransigence regarding the funding of programs in schools as of right has probably been a major contributor to the decline of the language, and certainly an obstacle to its normalisation in the wider community. Taura Whiri staff should use all their diplomatic powers of persuasion to secure a policy change in this regard. Te Puni Kōkiri can no doubt also play a facilitative role, and should be given every encouragement to do so.

9

The needs of Tāmakimakaurau in respect of fostering knowledge and use of te reo Māori are great to the point of overwhelming, and obviously programmes with very limited funding, like Mā te Reo, can only meet a very small part of this need. A small number of initiatives directly focused on teaching te reo Māori to Aucklanders funded through Mā te Reo over the last five years. Apart from the three marae-based programs mentioned above, three, possibly four (the participants at one marae-sponsored Wānanga were not identified in the records I examined) were held for particular Whānau, hāpu or iwi, and two were Auckland-wide initiatives for children and adults respectively. A Ngāti Porou wānanga had 30 participants of moderate fluency. This iwi is third after Ngapuhi and Waikato/Tainui in its Auckland-based population (see Table 2, above), 20.8% of them able to converse in Māori in 2013, down from 25.82% in 1996. If the 30 participants in the Wānanga were among the conversationalists, they would have more than 10,000 whanaunga to impart their knowledge to. This does not by any means imply that such Wānanga are of no significance, simply that the task is huge and the effects of these interventions need to be multiplied a hundredfold. It may be noted in this respect that strictly speaking the second biggest iwi in Auckland (about 21% of the Auckland Māori population in 2013) is “Don’t Know” – only 3.6% of whom can converse in Māori (down from 5.05% in 1996).

A concerted effort should also be made to secure cooperation with local iwi, both “taura here” or tauiwi and mana whenua. The complication here, of course, is that only two of the 10 major iwi by population and number of Māori-speakers have mana whenua status. Most of the latter group have very small populations resident in Auckland: Table 4 lists the 18 separate iwi authorities that have been accorded mana whenua status by the Auckland Council. Members of some of the smallest of these iwi and hāpu have very long associations with the Tāmaki isthmus, however, and can be very sensitive about programmes being run in their rohe without their having been informed. This is something which both potential providers and programme administrators should keep in mind.

There should be a pro-active dimension to any follow-up of funded projects in Tāmakimakaurau, including a fresh look at both the geographical areas in which best to locate projects, and the types of endeavour on which it might be most productive to concentrate. This will have to be discerned through discussions with existing providers, along with marae kaiwhakahaere, groups like Te Kōhanga Reo, Te Ataarangi and Comet Auckland, as well as iwi representatives and the Council’s Māori Statutory Board, to gather ideas and facilitate links which would increase the effectiveness and outreach of future initiatives.

The current situation is scandalous, in my opinion inexcusably so. It is now 28 years since the passage of the Māori Language Act which made te reo Māori an official language of New Zealand, in fact, at the time, the only official language. It has since been joined by the NZ sign language (known, incidentally, by only 0.4% of Aucklanders in 2013, down from 0.5% in 2006, when each LBA reported more residents who were familiar with it). Twelve years before that (1975), “basic elements of the Māori language” were made part of the core curriculum for all New Zealand schools (admittedly in a rather haphazard way, and zapped by the curriculum “reforms” some decades later, but officially nonetheless2). Since then, literally thousands of children have passed through Kōhanga Reo (the first of these opened in 1982), the first bilingual schools of the modern era opened in 1977, Kura Kaupapa Māori began educating children in the Māori language in Auckland in 1985, and yet the Census of 2013 revealed that only 24,000 Māori Aucklanders (about 17% of the Māori population of the SuperCity) and 7,000 others (about 1% of the remaining New Zealand-born population), that is, just 2.2% of all Aucklanders, could hold a conversation in Māori – and a follow-up study to the Census by the Department of Statistics (Te Kupenga) conculded that only about half of that number were likely to be really fluent. Nā te aha?

2

See The Flight of the Amokura, pp. 30-33.

Page

The report to the Treasury on the economics of Māori language revitalization by Grin and Vaillancourt (1998) gave considerable attention to signage, the significance of which, as a costeffective way of developing an environment which supported language revitalisation, was discussed chapters 8, 11 and 12 of their report. The “linguistic landscape” as a factor in

10

Signs Can Work Wonders

reinforcing or undermining the vitality of a minority language has gained considerable scholarly attention in recent years, following the classic study by Landry and Bourhis, who defined it thus (1988, p. 25): The language of public road signs, advertising billboards, street names, place names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on government buildings combines to form the linguistic landscape of a given territory, region, or urban agglomeration.

To this list may be added any other kind of written communication encountered by visitors, customers, or clients inside as well is outside shops, offices, workplaces, public buildings and private establishments. They went on to comment (p. 46):

Page

Subsequent studies by Cenoz & Gorter (2006), Gorter (2013), Marten et al (2012), Shohamy (2006) and others have borne out these conclusions.

If the various reo Māori programmes and similar activities sponsored by the Māori Language Commission, te Wānanga o Aotearoa and a myriad of other community organizations, educational institutions and other agencies are to give substance to the Commission’s vision that ‘the human landscape of Aotearoa will resonate with its indigenous language’, their beneficiaries must be inspired to take their enthusiasm for the language beyond their whānau and personal networks and out into the community at large. A potentially highly productive way to facilitate this would be to ask them to suggest to the various authorities and enterprises with which they come in contact that their signage in advertising should feature the Māori language. Local and National Government agencies are an obvious place to start – they are responsible for signs on roads and buildings which at present are on the whole conspicuously monolingual. They should instead be as a matter of routine follow the example of the Welsh local authorities, a specimen of which is provided here! The Israeli sociolinguist Elana Shohamy has pointed out (2006, p. 112) that “linguistic landscape is a mechanism of language policy”— and the ordinary Māori-speaker on the street along with their

11

… It seems clear that the informational and symbolic functions of the linguistic landscape may constitute an important factor in the processes of language maintenance and language shift for ethnolinguistic groups regardless of the strength of their vitality.

Consequently, language planners as well as language activists can ill afford to ignore the issue of the linguistic landscape, not only as a tool to promote language maintenance or reverse language shift, but also as another front on which to wage the struggle for consolidating the vitality of their own ethnolinguistic groups in multilingual settings.

advocates on Councils and statutory boards could exert a powerful influence in this direction (and in turn benefit from the increased awareness this would bring of te reo Māori as the language of Aotearoa New Zealand), if they were given the inspiration to do so. The flow-on effects are manifold: with more Māori signage, visitors to Auckland would be reminded that they are in Aotearoa, and not Los Angeles or Singapore. With te reo Māori growing legs and walking down Queen Street, we ourselves would at last, as Waihoroi Shortland once wisely observed, know we were at home.

Strategies, Visions, and the Need to Leave the Sidelines The Māori Language Strategy approved by Cabinet in 2014 consists of five “results” areas, which, taken together, make it clear that the knowledge and use of the Māori language is both a right which all New Zealanders should enjoy, but one which brings with it responsibilities to do what is needed to ensure that this right is exercised: i. Te Mana o te Reo: increasing the status of the Māori language in New Zealand society; ii. Te Ako o te Reo: increasing the number of whānau Māori and other New Zealanders who can speak Māori; iii. Te Mārama Pū ki te Whakaora Reo: increasing critical awareness about Māori language revitalisation; iv. Te Kounga o te Reo: supporting the quality and appropriate use of the Māori language and iwi dialect maintenance; v. Te Kōrerotanga o te Reo: increasing the use of the Māori language among whānau Māori and other New Zealanders, especially in the home.

If we really want to make this strategy work, and achieve the aspiration of the Māori Language Commission’s Vision for Aotearoa: Ka haruru a Aotearoa tangata i tōna reo taketake, pressure must be brought to bear on those who have the power to act in the interests of promoting the language, whether in great things or small, to do so. Our identity as a unique people at the ends of the earth is at stake.

It is time to take to heart the opening words of the French National Anthem, now that French has eclipsed Māori as the leading language of Waiheke – and Wellington: Allons enfants de la Patrie Le jour de gloire est arrivé !

And act on the injunction of the whakatauākī:

Page

12

Tūranga mua, tūranga tika; tūranga muri, tūranga hē.

Table 4. Iwi and Hapū recognized as having mana whenua status by Auckland Council Contact information for mana whenua iwi and hapū is obtainable at: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/ratesbuildingproperty/consents/resourceconsents/Pages/enga gingwithiwi.aspx#contact

+

+

+ +

+

+ +

+ +

+

+ +

+ +

+

+ +

+

+ +

+ +

+

+ +

+

+ + +

+

+ +

+ +

+

+ + +

+

+ +

+

+ + +

+

+

+ + +

+ + +

+ + + + + +

+ + + + + + + +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Rodney

+

+

+ + +

+

+ + +

+ +

+

+ + + + +

+ +

+ +

+ + +

+ + +

+ +

+

+ + +

+

+

+ + +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ + +

+ + +

+ + +

+ + +

* Census 2013, Waikato/Tainui combined; separate tabulations for Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, Te Akitai Waiohua, Te Ahiwaru not available. The majority of those affiliated with Patukirikiri may be subsumed under Ngāti Maru and other Hauraki iwi.

13

+

+ + +

+

Page

+

Franklin

+

Howick

+

+ + +

+

+ + + + + +

+ +

Maungakiekie

+

Puketāpapa

+

Orākei

+

+ + +

+

+ + +

+

Albert/Eden

+ + +

Waiheke

+ + +

Great Barrier

+ + +

Kaipātiki

+ + + +

+

Whau

Devonport/Takapuna

Waitematā

+ + + + +

Upper Harbour

Ngāti Whātua 7,353 (23%) ~ Rūnanga ~ Ki Kaipara ~ Ki Orākei Te Uri-o-Hau (459; 24%) Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki (312; 34%) Te Kawerau (96; 28%) Ngāti Paoa (1,437; 28%) Ngāti Maru (1,227; 18%) Ngāti Whanaunga (294; 28%) Ng Tamaterā (615; 24%) Patukirikiri (9; 33%) Tainui * (18,087; 25%) Ngāti Te Ata Ngāti Tamaoho Te Akitai Te Ahiwaru

Waitākere

Ngāti Wai (1,905; 19%) Ngāti Rehua Ngāti Manuhiri

Hibiscus & Bays

Papakura

Manurewa

Ōtara/Papatoetoe

Māngere/Ōtāhuhu

Local Board Area (+ indicates Mana whenua status)

Henderson

Iwi / Hapū with mana whenua status (Auckland population; % able to converse in Māori)

References

Page

14

Benton, Richard A (1981). The Flight of the Amokura, Oceanic Languages and Formal Education in the South Pacific. Wellington, NZCER. Benton, Richard A (1991). The Māori Language, Dying or Reviving? Honolulu, East West Center Association (reprinted, NZCER, Wellington, 1997).

Benton, Richard A. (Ed.) (2002). Well-being and Disparity in Tāmaki-makaurau. Volume 5, Background Studies. Wellington, Te Puni Kōkiri.

Cenoz, Jasone & Durk Gorter (2006). Linguistic landscape and minority languages. International Journal of Multilingualism Vol. 3, No. 1, 2006, pp. 67-80.

Department of Statistics (2013). Te Kupenga 2013, Key facts and commentary (Corrected); and Tables (Corrected). Downloaded from http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Māori/TeKupenga_HOTP13. aspx Department of Statistics, New Zealand [2015]. Census 2013, customized spreadsheets of results: Dataset: Iwi, Total responses: Language spoken: Māori by Territorial Local Authority Iwi (total responses) and iwi groupings, by territorial authority area and Auckland local board area, 2013 Census. Language Spoken: Total Responses by territorial authority area and Auckland local board area, 2016 and 2013 Censuses. Dataset: Selected Ethnic Groups: Total Responses by territorial authority area and Auckland local board area, 2016 and 2013 Censuses.

Gorter, Durk (2013) Linguistic landscapes in a multilingual world. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 33, pp. 190-212.

Grin, F., & F. Vaillancourt, 1998. Language Revitalisation Policy: An Analytical Survey.Theoretical Framework, Policy Experience and Application to Te Reo Māori. Report to the Treasury, Wellington.

Marten, Heiko F., Luk von Mensel & Durk Gorter (2012). Studying minority languages in the linguistic landscape. In D. Gorter, H.F. Marten & D. Gorter (eds), Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Shohamy, Elana (2006). Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London: Routledge.

Te Puni Kōkiri (2014). Te Rautaki Reo Māori: Māori Language Strategy 2014. Wellington, Te Kāwanatanga o Aotearoa.

Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori / Māori Language Commission (2013). Statement of Intent 2013-2016.

Wellington.

Unesco ad hoc Experts Group (2003). Language Vitality and Endangerment. Document submitted to the International Expert Meeting on UNESCO Programme Safeguarding of Endangered Languages, Paris, 10–12 March 2003.