Revival of the Lost Māori Language Identity –New Zealand National Identity Regained? Tatiana Tökölyová Abstract This paper analyzes the national identity of New Zealand, providing the most fundamental and crucial elements and moments of its continuous development from the colonial era until now. It deals mainly with the language aspect through the loss of the monolingual character of the country through bilingualism to the present multilingualism in the background of the Māori issue – loss of their land, political autonomy and language and the present efforts toward the remedies. Keywords: Māori, national identity, language, ethnicity, ethnic diversity, multiculturalism, assimilation, Treaty of Waitangi The distinctiveness and uniqueness of the Mäori language is one of the defining characteristics of the Māori people, and of New Zealanders. The Māori language is a thread that binds us together as a nation and sets us apart from any other people or place in the world. (Statement of Intent 2008–2009, 12) Following the arrival of the first white settlers to New Zealand in 17691 a fierce colonization of the country began, which was also accompanied by a ruthless abuse of the indigenous people, Māors (who originally come from a Polynesian tribe; Kelle – Mariot. 1992). It had catastrophic consequences for Māori people and their number was rapidly decreasing until the end of the last century. This was also supported by the fact that there was no authoritative power in the country which would maintain general order. The islands 1
In 1642, the Dutch navigator Abel Janszoon Tasman named the newly discovered land Staateland. The
country was given its current name later according to the Dutch province of Zeeland. Capitan Cook landed on
the shore of New Zealand in 1769. At that time, the Māors used mainly stone–made tools and the society was
divided into tribes.
were no longer isolated, the trade and organized hunting started to develop and the country was gradually being inhabited more permanently and extensively, which was manifested by the development of farming. In 1858, Māors were already a minority in their own country. Since the Māors are the indigenous tribe on the islands (so-­‐called „peoples of the earth “ – tangata whenua), they created a key moment in New Zealand’s identity. They dramatically differ from Pakeha (white relocated settlers) by customs and social skills. Introduction The methodology of this paper is based on the following eight aspects of the progressive loss of the Māori identity consequently followed by the second part of the paper, an analysis which attemps and approximates its renewal. This scheme was elaborated by a specialist working within the National Māori Mental Health Training Programmes explaining the main issues of the contemporary Māori position and situation explained in more detail concerning not all of the 8 crucial moments using relevant official documents, research and analyses. The paper deals with the impacts of the loss of land, loss of political autonomy, loss of language and learning – the 3 most crucial aspects that shaped the national and language identity of New Zealand. As the issue is so vivid and wide, the volume of this paper does not allow addressing the matter in more detail. It deals with the language, which is considered fundamental to the cultural identity of both an individual and the community to which it belongs to because it expresses the membership to such group and its specific features. This paper focuses on the idea of the importance of a language and consequently the weakening of which makes the nature of the society (or that particular group) weaken, too. Therefore, one may state that the Māori language is the main vehicle to retain and consequently promote the Māori language, as done in the last decades. A bilingual (or multilingual) context may enable or disable the survival of the language of a minority; therefore, the attitude of the whole society, at least the most crucial elements, is fundamental in the process of the revitalization of any threatened language as the Māori language was by the 1970s because of its decline. As stated by the Māori Language Commission, „Māori is the predominant language of New Zealand“. This paper deals with the basis and contemporary conditions and state of the Māori language/cultural identity, which we consider a fundamental element of the whole New Zealand identity, either cultural or language related. The main aim of this paper is to stress that upon the Treaty of Waintagi, the Māori element had started to be a fundamental element of the whole Pakeha society and to point out the development of the New Zealand society from a monocultural society, the Māori society through a bicultural (after colonisation started, the European descendants prevailed as well as their language and identity) up to the present multicultural society mainly due to immigration. Of course, these flows have influenced the whole society, all of its aspects and levels. This issue is to be analyzed in this paper through an analysis of several selected factors determining the loss of the Māori cultural/language identity, which later caused contemporary stress towards a better mutual understanding and appreciation of the cultural and language roots of the New Zealanders. In multiple reports and publications, which also served as the basis for this paper, there are various terms occurring, such as race-­‐ ancestry-­‐ ethnialc origin, which should not be confused with the terms ethnicity. According to the Statistical Standard for Ethnicity – 2005, race is a biological indicator, ancestry is a historical concept bound to kinship and the very ethnicity is a self-­‐perceived cultural concept. Therefore, the ethnic origin expresses a historical relationship of an individual or his ancestors to a certain ethnic group. The ethnicity represents the current relationship to a certain ethnic group, which is expressed by its customs, language dinstinctiveness or cultural traditions. (In: Statistical Standard for Ethnicity -­‐ 2005. p. 4. http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/publications/analytical_reports/ review_of_the_measurement_of_ethnicity/ statistical-­‐standard-­‐for-­‐ethnicity-­‐2005.aspx 1. THE ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF THE NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY Chart no. 1: Ethnic composition of the New Zealand society Five Largest European Ethnic Groups 2001–2006 Censuses Ethnic group 2001 count 2006 count Percentage change 2001–2006 New Zealand 2,696,724 2,381,076 -­‐11.7 English 35,082 44,202 26.0 Dutch 27,504 28,641 4.1 British 16,572 27,189 64.1 Australian 20,784 26,355 26.8 European(1) 1. In 2001, and previous censuses, New Zealanders were counted in the New Zealand European category. The 2001 Census data for New Zealand European therefore includes approximately 80,000 New Zealander responses. New Zealander was a separate category for the first time in the 2006 Census, and forms part of the Other Ethnicity category. Note: People can choose to identify with more than one ethnic group, therefore the figures may not sum up to the totals. Source: http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2006-­‐census-­‐data/quickstats-­‐about-­‐culture-­‐
identity/quickstats-­‐about-­‐culture-­‐and-­‐identity.htm?page=para017Master As it follows from the chart above, three quarters of the population of New Zealand consists of people of European origin. This is caused particularly by the migration waves occurring in the middle of the 1970’s, when the migration structure was dominated by the Europeans. Later on, it was also migrants from the Pacific Islands and Asia. Similarly, there was an increase in the number of children born to mixed marriages; according to the 2001 census, 18% of children below 15 years of age belonged to more than one ethinical group (see the census methodology below in the text). More than a half of these children grew up in a mixed family of European–Māori origin. Researches show that New Zealand has been gradually becoming less „European“ not only due to multiculturism and richer ethinical diversity but also due to a lower birth rate in the „European“ segment of the population and more frequently occurring in mixed marriages (Fleras – Spoonley 1999, 234 -­‐ 235). Māori continues to be the key minority, although until the country was discovered by James Cook, they had been the only and indigenous people on the islands. In their mother tongue, Māori call themselves tangata whenua (the people of the land) and the Māori culture is deemed to be the key element of New Zealand’s identity and its nation. Despite this generally acknowledged fact, the Māori are in many respects disadvantaged in comparison with other minorities. As the original inhabitants of the country, as opposed to the so-­‐called „new“ minorities, they claim historically distinctive conditions, measures and treatment. The reality is, however, that their longevity, lifestyle and health and educational level are much lower than in Pakeha. One of the reasons is also the fact that until the middle of the 20th century, Māori inhabitance was more of a village character, when the Māori share in the city population increased to approximately 58%. Another distinctive ethinical minority is represented by the Pacific Islanders, in which nearly half is of Samoan origin, Cook Island Māori and Tongans. The motley ethnical structure is contributed to by the inhabitants of the islands, which used to be under New Zealand administration, such as Niueans and Tokelauans. Most of them live just on New Zealand because of better employment opportunities. Statistics of the past few years showed an interesting fact: many of these people were actually already born in New Zealand. Another very important ethnic element of the country is the population of Asian origin, which started to arrive in the country already during the Gold Fever as a cheap work force. After a slight slowdown of the Asian population growth, the census results in 1991 and 2001 showed, however, that the population actually doubled and currently reached 6.6 % of all New Zealand population. The Asian community has a very long tradition in the country and its members today are descendants of many generations living in the country in the past (Fleras – Spoonley 1999, 234 -­‐ 235). In addition to building its own national identity, the increasing ethnic diversity in New Zealand was also partly created by the participation of the country in both world wars, which also meant a change in its position in international affairs, a consequent change in relations with Great Britain following its accession to the EC in 1970 and the formation of New Zealand as a Pacific state associated with the change of government approach towards a solution of the Māori „issue“, a change in the immigration structure and thus the politics as well as the recent increase in New Zealanders‘ settling and travelling outside the country. For example, until 19862, the questions in censuses were race-­‐based (i.e. which race is the respondent affiliating to), which caused problems to people of mixed origin who must decide which race or ethnic origin is „closer“ to them. Everyone who felt being a Māori at least by half-­‐blood could have declared himself a Māori. According to various researches, many respondents experienced problems in answering the question of their ethnic origin and in identification with some of the selected groups. In 1986, the race–based measure was replaced by a cultural affiliation concept and the notion of a ‘cultural affiliation’ concept of ethnicity was launched, i.e. the ethnicity is measured according to the cultural identity or according to the feelings of the respondents – their self-­‐identification with a group, which appears to be the best method of expressing the ethnical composition (Ethnic Self-­‐
prioritisation of Dual and Multi-­‐ethnic Youth in New 2008, 5). This measure reflected the actual movements within society which concern not only the race-­‐ethnical issues but also constitutional and political changes (e.g., publication of a report by the Royal Committee on electoral change). This measure also reflected a change of public opinion concerning the race issue; an increase in inter-­‐race marriages which brought in outstanding demographic changes was another important indicator (Draft Report of a Review of the Official Ethnicity Statistical Standard: Proposals to Address the ‘New Zealander’ Response Issue 2009, 14)3 According to the Statistics New Zealand 2005, page 2, the basic ethnicity indicators are as follows: „these are the people who have one or more identical elements of common culture, such as religion, customs or language.“ (Draft Report of a Review of the Official Ethnicity Statistical Standard: Proposals to Address the ‘New Zealander’ Response Issue. 2009, 14). Other indicators are a unique community bound by common interests, feelings or conduct, a joint sharing of origin, either historical/ethnical or geographical. As it is referred to in the Draft Report of a Review of the Official Ethnicity Statistical Standard: Proposals to 2
The change occured based on 1983 Statistics New Zealand research report This dramatical change was followed by another two administrations, i.e. in 1988 and 2004, which introduced
the so-called self- identification standard and principles of the so-called Multiple Responses.
3
Address the ‘New Zealander’ Response Issue, the respondents themselves do perceive the division to groups based on the distinctiveness of cultural values, or lifestyle, respectively (Draft Report of a Review of the Official Ethnicity Statistical Standard: Proposals to Address the ‘New Zealander’ Response Issue 2009, 15-­‐ 16) Obr. č. 1 Ethnicity question for the 2001 and 2006 Censuses: Source: Statistical standard for Ethnicity 2005, 10 Out of all of the elements described above which characterize the ethnicity, the report by the Statistics New Zealand stresses just the ancestry, which is directly associated with the aforesaid increase in intermarriages due to which the inhabitants may affiliate to more than one group. Since 1986, the share of such multiple ethnicities has increased from 4.3 per cent to 10.4 per cent in 2006 (Statistics New Zealand 2007a). In 1991, a new category called „New Zealand European“ appeared for the first time for the purpose of a better „population classification“ and a better adjustment of educational, social, health and other policies. This category applies to the population of the European origin (i.e. New Zealanders with ties to the original European immigrants). The group is the largest ethnical group in New Zealand with an approximate 80 per cent share and, as such, expresses a new unique national and ethnical identity of the inhabitants (Draft Report of a Review of the Official Ethnicity Statistical Standard: Proposals to Address the ‘New Zealander’ Response Issue 2009, 14). As we mentioned above, the terms, such as race, nationality and ‘ethnicity’, are often confused and used as an explanation of the other term. However, the statistics we use are based on the following difference (as we suggested above) –ethnicity associates with cultural customs and belief, race associates with bodily features and nationality associates with geographical origin. According to other definitions, race is an allocated characteristic while ethnicity may be voluntarily chosen by the individual. According to Hollinger, all three elements are connected by the notion of ancestry or community of descent (Hollinger 1998, 312-­‐328). The official statistics used in New Zealand in order to study ethnicity refer to Smith (Smith. 1986) who bases his theory specifically on the geographical origin. The „New Zealander“ category and its contents is thus rather questionable and was demanded by the development of the society as it expresses the national identity of the New Zealanders (Draft Report of a Review of the Official Ethnicity Statistical Standard: Proposals to Address the ‘New Zealander’ Response Issue 2009, 14). The Māori Chart no. 1: Census results from 2006 – Māori population by age Note: The Māori ethnic population includes those people who stated Māori as being their sole ethnic group or one of several ethnic groups (QuickStats About Māori 2007, 2). Despite the information stating that only one out of seven New Zealanders (the total of 526,281 according to a census from 1991) ethnically identifies himself with the Māori, the demographers claim that the development for Māori is favorable. It assumes an increase in the numbers of those inhabitants who have „Māori“ blood due to a higher birth rate in Māori women than in women of Asian or European origin. The number of children born in mixed marriages also grows. The majority of children below 15 years of age are of European–Māori origin, which is very important (since it is also considered by the election law; see below). This trend results in the fact that the New Zealanders become less „European“ since their birth rate is lower than in other ethnical groups.4 According to census results from 2006, the Māori population increased from 434,847 in 1991 to 565,329 in 2006 (an increase of 130,482), i.e. by 30%. Therefore, one out of seven 4
During the 19th and 20th century, the tribes (iwi) were slowly replacing hapū (by tribes or ancestral groups) as
the main political body. In the middle of the 19th century, the Māori unified with the aim to create opposition
against the government measures that were not in the Māori interests. The government actually did support and
welcome the change of hapū to iwi; even the Crown preferred communication with a smaller number of regional
representations rather than with a large number of entities representing the tribes. The unification process has
continued until present days, the tribes are regrouping also for the purpose of representation before the Waitangi
Tribunal founded in 1975, which became the forum of declaration of Māori disagreement and anger over the
colonization by the Europeans.
people affiliates with the Māori ethnical group but only a slightly more than 50% (52.8%) of them identified Māori as their only ethnicity; the rest identified with the European ethical groups (42.2%), with the Pacific and Asian ethnical groups, and 2.3% stated just „New Zealander“. (QuickStats About Māori 2007, 2) As we already mentioned, even those New Zealanders who have no kinfolk among the Māori may affiliate themselves to the Māori ethnic group. However, recent research shows that the number of consanguineous Māori gradually grows mainly due to a higher birth rate of Māori women (according to a census from 2001, the total population number is 526,281; see chart no. 1 below for comparison – census of Māori population from 2006). 2. EIGHT ASPECTS OF A GRADUAL LOSS OF MĀORI IDENTITY5 The relationship between colonizer and colonized in New Zealand has formally been bound by the Treaty of Waitangi signed in 1840 which has countinuously grown into New Zealand culture and later on into its political life as the idea that relations between the Māori and Pākehā6, i.e. colonizers and colonized, should be conducted on the basis of a partnership of equals. As shown later in this paper, a sequent assimilation of Māori into Europeans started just by this Treaty intented by the Māori to be a confirmation of their rights and intented by the Pakeha to provide a moral and legal base for their quite long stay. Finally, it occurred as a formal and many times even forcible process of survival taken by both sides as proven by numerous conficts and fights. However, the moral content of this conflict is rather disputable. This process of Māori assimilation into the Pakeha society by the end of the 19th century is called “westernization”7. There were not any armed conflicts with the Māori after the Māori wars (1860 – 1864), Māori sanctums were taken and made into Pakeha homes and farms and crucial changes occured -­‐ system of Māori values – in their religious, moral 5
As stated above, this part of the paper is based on TE IHO – Māori Mental Health Training Programme.
Source: http://www.teiho.org/Identity/ LossOfMaoriIdentity/Culture_(2).aspx
6
The Māori term used to denote „white“ comes mainly from Europe.
7
Based on the implementation of the Pakeha moral, social, court, religious and other systems into the Māori one
to make them completelly assimilated.
norms as well as in their form of health care, child care and mainly significance of their language together with other relevant aspects of the Māori nation (and as well as of any nation) were influentially marked by or changed into European. Two of the aspects should be stressed -­‐ a material sign and a national one. The most important and the only material sign of the Māori, their land was mainly taken by Pakehas and only a few Māori tribes were left their land. The second sign of the Māori nation, the use of the Māori language started to continuously decline because of official governmental prohibition. It should be marked that this process was partially reinforced by a lack of moral and societal ties within the Māoris. (Sinclair 1986, 148) Picture no. 2: The process of gradual loss of Māori identity via eight aspects This process includes the gradual: 1. Loss of Land 2. Loss of political autonomy 3. 4. Loss of physical and psychological health 5. Loss of language and learning 6. Loss of traditional beliefs 7. Loss of Spiritual well-­‐being 8. Loss of Family The following part of this paper is to address the most important of the aspects listed above, which had the greatest influence on the loss of Māori identity in the past and which currently mean its successive renewal and thus building of the national identity of New Zealand. 2.1
Loss of Land This aspect – the aspect of land – may be deemed to be the key and leaving point of the entire issue of the loss of Māori identity as a nation since the land expressed their affiliation as the indigenous people to the country; through their holy and traditional places where they performed their rituals and expressed their religious and cultural identity; through the collective ownership of land, it expressed their religion and sense of life in a community and mutual responsibility; it expressed their confidence and geographical frame of each tribe that cultivates its own dialect within the Māori language which thus becomes enriched. Through the Treaty of Waitangi Act, this aspect also represents the outsets of finding and a new building of not just the Māori but the national identity of New Zealand. Although the Māori, by signature of the Treaty, acknowledged the sovereignty of the British Crown, a war soon broke out between the white settlers and the Māori. Many Māori chiefs who signed the Treaty actually believed that the governor of the colony would become protector of their independence and land, which did not happen. „White“ politicians, including the Governor, did take over the majority of Māori independence but used it nearly exclusively for the benefit of Pakeha. The economic situation of Māori was even more serious because of their economy was traditionally bound with land. This motivated the Māori for using various strategies in communication with the Pakeha, from cooperation to resignation. However, even cooperation would not secure the „intangibility“ of their land. Social conditions of the Māori were also changing and mixed-­‐origin individuals assimilated into the European population. Smarter chiefs brought their tribes to enterprise activities on their land but the majority of the Māori gradually lost the land 8 (nearly 3 million acres of land were legitimately confiscated and, at times, armed conflicts occurred), survived in destitute conditions and moved from place to place. This situation was also supported by numerous acts of law which accelerated transfers of land, such as Native Land Acts from 1862. 8
After adoption of laws and after the process of seizure of land in possession of the Māori was completed, the
Māori owned only approximately 11,000 acres from the original 66.5 million acres.
The seizing of Māori land occurred upon two acts of Parliament: the Settlement Act and the Suppression of Rebellion Act from 1863. Based on these acts, the tribes and their members who held back against the seizures of land were called rebels and their land was confiscated. Chart no. 1: Comparison of the volume of land in possession of the Māori in the period of 1860 and 2000. Source: http://www.teiho.org/Identity/LossOfMaoriIdentity/Culture_(2).aspx The process of seizure not only resulted in the physical loss of land but also in a violation of family and tribal structures and ties to the legacy of their ancestors (particularly in loss of the so-­‐called holy land), and the sense of the ethnical identity was gradually disrupting and disappearing. As it is showed in this paper, the second half of the 20th century meant for the Māori an outstanding move ahead in solving their problems. As far as their land and their legitimate claims are concerned, in 1991 the Parliament enacted The Resource Management Act 1991, which, among others, also stipulates under Part 2 Section 6 that Māori values related to the environment should be considered in approving any building permits or permits related to the use of land, water and other resources. Part 2, sec 6 Matters of national importance •
In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance:.... o
(e) the relationship of the Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga: o
(f) the protection of the historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development... (The Resource Management Act 1991, Part 2, Section 6) The Māori Land Act, i.e. the Te Ture Whenua Mäori Act 1993, is similarly based on the traditional Māori values attached to the land and, in particular, to its significance for future generations. An Act to reform the laws relating to Maori land in accordance with the principles set out in the Preamble to this Act Preamble Whereas the Treaty of Waitangi established the special relationship between the Maori people and the Crown: And whereas it is desirable that the spirit of the exchange of kawanatanga for the protection of rangatiratanga embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi be reaffirmed: And whereas it is desirable to recognise that land is a taonga tuku iho of special significance to the Maori people and, for that reason, to promote the retention of that land in the hands of its owners, their whanau, and their hapu, and to protect wahi tapu: and to facilitate the occupation, development, and utilisation of that land for the benefit of its owners, their whanau, and their hapu : And whereas it is desirable to maintain a Court and to establish mechanisms to assist the Maori people to achieve the implementation of these principles:... (Māori Land Act 1993) This Act very much embarrasses the tranfer of the Māori land outside Māori ownership. The individual provisions of the act, however, do not prevent the economic development of the country and the prospective issues are being solved by various trusts or corporations, which allows more efficient and an easier return of the the Māori land, even the land which used to be exploited for business purposes. 2.2
Loss of political autonomy Māori political participation – issue of national political participation as a way of national identity building In 1852, the new NZ Constitution Act granted active election rights to all Pakeha men and the foundations of the first national assembly were built. In 1867, the Mäori Representation Act granted election right to a majority of Māori men; however, since the Māori were not familiar with the individual ownership of land (and the election right was built upon the property census), the right became just a formal one. The act also constituted 4 Mäori parliamentary seats (Koper 2003, 134). This apparently accommodating gesture – providing the Māori with certainty that they will have their representatives in the national assembly – had a much more pragmatic background. The provision was to elude the fact that many Māori had acquired the land into individual ownership and thus the election right as well. Therefore, the predominance of Māori votes was legitimately prevented in the regions with a higher concentration of Māori population on the Northern Island. Even those Māori who met the condition of ownership of their own land could also vote in Pakeha election districts9 and the system of Māori election districts has became a part of the election system since 1876. The Government attempts to pursue a better education and election conditions (e.g. by placing ballot boxes to exclusively Māori places of living) was reflected by the higher participation of Māori in the elections of the 1870’s 1880’s. Many critics warned, however, that those were just formal measures, which did not fulfil their objectives. In 1893 and 1896, the process of full separation of the Māori election system from the Pakeha election system was legitimately completed. This situation lasted until 1975, when only those voters of half-­‐Māori origin could have decided in which election list they 9
In 1868, Māori could participate in the elections for the first time ever but their participation was very low; the
system of „double vote“ existed until 1893.
wished to be registered –Māori or Pakeha. Due to the creation of the centralized state administration since 1875, when the system of provinces was abolished and New Zealand became a unitary state, the Māori were gradually excluded from the decision-­‐making processes at the highest level owing to the weak political representation as well as rural isolation, when the Māori were becoming the source of a cheap and unqualified work force (particularly because of the loss of land due to its transfers; e.g. during the Great Crisis in the 1930’s where the Māori made up a half of the total number of all unemployed people). As we mention below, the formation of the mutual relationships between the Māori and Pakeha has always had various forms depending on the motives of behaviour of both sides and the development stages in which they found themselves at a given time. During the 19th century, the Māori established several supra-­‐tribal organizations with the aim to „struggle“ for Māori rights, e.g. Māori Kings‘ Movement from the 1990’s and Māori Prophets‘ Movement whose representatives actively participated in the political life of the country (since the Māori did not distinguish between religion and politics).10 These hui (assembly) resulted in the establishment of the Māori Parliament in 1892. Its activity lasted until 1907 and although it has never been acknowledged as the Parliament of New Zealand, it represented a significant moment in the formation of the social and political elite of Māori. This period brought to light some of the very renowned Māori personalities and first leaders, such as Sir Āpiran Ngatu, Sir Māui Pōmar, Te Pue Hērangi, Sir Peter Buck and others who, in 1890, founded the The Young Māori Party, which won the cultural and political influence mainly thanks to Mr. Ngatu. His initiatives mainly concerned the access to the Parliament of New Zealand (Mr. Ngata himself served as a member of the Parliament and also later became a cabinet member). He focused on the introduction and distribution of public health reform among the people (e.g. hygiene, etc.) in order to strengthen the immunity of the Māori population and, last but not least, one of the most important issues was the issue of Māori land, its administration and cultivation. The initiatives of these politicians led to the so-­‐called renaissance of the Māori culture. This period also saw the formation of a rather successful Māori intelligence which tried to solve the situation of a long-­‐term basis in order to prevent the obvious threat – full assimilation of the Māori population. 10
Some of the members of the Movement were e.g. Te Ua, Rua Kenana, T.W. Ratana and others. The so-called
Kingit Movement lasted until the 20th century; its leader was Te Puea Hērangi. Another movement was e.g.
Kotahintanga founded by the Māori who signed the Treaty and those who participated at the convention.
One of the methods selected by Māori representatives was the adoption of the process of westernization; however, under the condition of maintaining Māori cultural identity within as much wide extent as possible by means of building a strong and capable political representation on all political levels of the country’s administration. Another vision of this issue was pursued by the aforesaid Maui Pomare, Peter Buck and Apirana Ngata who promoted another method of Māori westernization and the creation of favorable conditions for a greater control of the state by the Māori as well as their autonomy with lesser possibilities of the central government to interfere. They defended the vision by claiming that it is the so-­‐called dual identity of the country that had participated in the drastic decrease in the number of Māori inhabitants and the dissapearance of their traditional values; the solution was to have Māori sovereigty achieved by the Māori via the support and development of their language and culture through the education and conquests of the Western civilization (Sorrenson 2003, 280 -­‐ 282). The issue of meeting the expectations of the Māori population and its representatives awaited its resolution until the 1920’s when the New Zealand governments approached the resolution of the Māori land issue with greater understanding.11 The year 1975 became a turning point when the Treaty of Waitangi Act was enacted. This act not only acknowledged Māori as „tangata whenua“ (the indigenous people of New Zealand) and the right to be Māori but also grants them legitimate titles arising from the Treaty of Waitangi. Constitutional and political outcomes of national identity – Treaty of Waitangi outcome of national identity? 11
This new approach was largely supported and participated in by the aforesaid generation of influential Māori
political leaders, e.g. Gordon Coates who led the Ministry of the Indigenous Peoples Affairs and became the
Prime Minister in 1925. He, along with Ngato, had merit in the gradual positive resolution of nearly all Māori
demands (exemption of a government fund for cultivation of Māori land; furthermore, the tribal councils also
received at least a financial compensation for the seized land which the tribes then used for e.g. scholarships for
talented children, improvement of quality of the cultural life; public utility works for unemployed Māori people,
etc.). Many of these measures would not follow just an improvement of the economic situation but Ngata, in his
Māori care system, also saw an instrument serving for a renewal of the tribal pride and culture. This period is
typical for movements within the Māori society, e.g. the Ratana movement obtained the first Parliamentary chair
in the 1922 elections; in the 1928 elections, all 4 Māori election districts had their own candidates. The
candidates, however, acquired second places but later on, in the subsidiary elections held in 1931, 1 candidate
won; in the 1935 elections the Māori had again 1 chair in the Parliament and in the following elections they got
all 4 chairs and entered in the coalition with the Labor Party.
“We have been strong and honest enough to learn from past 150 years and acknowledge that the Treaty was not fully kept. Let´s look at it as a promise of hope“. Kráľovná Alžbeta II. (z prejavu na oslavách Zmluvy z Waitangi v roku 1990; http://www.gg.govt.nz). New Zealand’s fundamental act, with the constitutional power, was enacted in 1975 and was based on the Treaty of Waitangi Act, i.e. Treaty of Waitangi from 6 February 1840. This Treaty acknowledged British sovereignty declared on the country on 29 January 1840 by Mr. Hobson, Governor of New Zealand, upon the power of the British government and following the agreement made with the local tribal chiefs. On 6 February 1840, an agreement was signed between the Crown’s representatives and 46 Māori chiefs. The agreement was the first one ever made between the Māori and Pakeha. It follows from the agreement that all rights and sovereign power passes on to the British Crown represented by Queen Victoria. The Māori were granted the rights and privileges of British nationals and formally also the right of land. Later on, other chiefs joined the agreement. Ethnical impacts of the Treaty The colonization was carried out primarily by the British. This one, however, crashed on persistent opposition of the local people mainly because of the seizure of land, which was culminated by the 10-­‐year war (from 1860 to 1870).12 As a consequence of armed conflicts as well as diseases to which the Māori did not have immunity, the number of the indigenous peoples reduced during the 19th century very quickly down to the present 9 per cent of the total population count. The economic situation of the Māori was all so serious that their economy was traditionally tied to the land, which was little by little seized from them.13 12
It affected particularly the indigenous population; a great part was slaughtered or deprived of the land under
the pretence that it was a compensation for costs associated with war. 13
Their right to fight for the land was supported by the Land Act based on which they could seek their rights
before the Court of Justice for Tribal Land. They might have created formal conditions for equality; however,
one fact prevented the law from being exercised – the court procedure demanded a great amount of money from
the Māor. These Māori obtained money by selling the only valuable thing they had – their land. During the
development of the mutual relationships among the indigenous population and immigrants, multiple lines
showed in the Māori fight for their rights: rejection of communication, or passivity supported by the assurance of
an agelong right of the Māori to their land and belief of good cohabitation supported by the Treaty of Waitangi;
the failure to abide by the Treaty brought the Māori in a situation where the communication and cohabitation
with the „whites“ shifted to another level – open opposition and struggle against violent seizure of their land and
attempts to change their lifestyle. This eventually led to the aforesaid bloody war; another level of their mutual
relations represents the realization of their own strong points and advantages – by distributing food supplies and
Another impact of the Treaty was a progressive change of the Māori social circumstances; the Māori became more and more assimilated (see above) into the so-­‐called European population, smarter chiefs made their tribes carry out business on their land but most of the Māori were losing the land surviving in poor conditions and moved from place to place. Constitutional impacts of the Treaty – the role and the position of the Māori population in the formation of the contemporary political system and national identity of New Zealand The Treaty of Waitangi14 was written in Māori language and in English but the majority of Māori chiefs signed only the Māori version. According to the Treaty, all governments must treat the Māori in compliance with the principle of: 
the governments – the government creates and administrates the law-­‐making process; 
self-­‐administration – this means that the Māori have the right to rule over themselves; 
equality – all citizens of New Zealand stand equal before the law; 
reasonable cooperation – the Crown must act in compliance with the Treaty; 
compensation – this principle has been recently implemented since the Crown is obliged to resolve the disputes relating to the Māori indemnification and settlement. According to G. Palmer (Palmer – Palmer 2004, 333 – 346), the New Zealanders largely owe the legitimacy of the government system in New Zealand specifically to the Treaty of Waitangi, which was concluded between the Crown and the Māori in 1840. Although it is not an extensive document, the Treaty represents the rights and obligations of the Māori and the obligations imposed upon them on behalf of the Crown. Many lawyers other agricultural products to the settlers, the Māori managed to create positive prerequisites for understanding
the mutual neediness and dependance.
14
From the point of view of the Treaty’s place within the constitutional system, it makes it an integral part of the
contemporary New Zealand’s constitution for the Treaty is not a common law due to the lack of a general effect
like in laws. The Treaty is not a part of the fundamental constitutional document with a supreme effect but a key
source of the moral and political justness of the country’s government.
believe that the law of New Zealand as the nation to create its own laws, rule over itself and exercise justice has its roots exactly in the year 1840.15 Upon a more detailed analysis of Section 1 and 2 of the Treaty, we can see an indication of the issues of resolution as to how to secure the balance between the Crown’s sovereignty and the Māori „chiefdom“. As the Waitangi Tribunal stipulated in its report from 1983, the treaty is a gift to the New Zealanders which enables them to make laws and binds them by promise to act in compliance with Māori interests (Palmer –Palmer.2004, 334). The Treaty suggests a need to secure Māori interests balanced with the overall interests of the government. The Māori interests are directly connected with the existence of their continuing identity as Māori, although the Māori must have to be certain of having the right to continue in their existence as the Māori. Another dimension of the Treaty’s contents consists in the determination of the upcoming relations between the Crown, the Māori and the New Zealanders, and these relationships are to be permanent (Brookfield 2006, 98). In 2004, the Parliament had 120 chairs out of which 7 are occupied by the Māori. As stated by J. Koper, the current political life of New Zealand is marked by „the government’s attempt for at least a partial remedy of injustices committed on the Māori population in the past“(Koper 2003, 133) by returning the original Māori land or by increasing of possibilities of their political participation (e.g. via the election system reform, see below), educational possibilities, etc. The individual provisions of the election law provides also for registration of Māori voters. The benefit consists of the fact that the Māori and descendants of the Māori ethnic may decide whether they want to be registered in the general list of voters or in the Māori list. If a citizen is a member or a descendant of the Māori inhabitants and votes for the first time, he/she cannot forget to specify in the questionnaire in which list he/she wants to be registered. This is only possible to do every 5 years, usually after the census. The voter registered this way votes in the Māori election districts. The voters are divided according to their registration into two groups: 15
Many Māori currently feels that the government then failed to respect the obligations stipulated in the Treaty.
There are many complaints now about the Crown having infringed the Treaty multiple times and the methods of
its resolusions of the historical complaints in the past 30 years. In the past few years, two significant shifts have
occurred: an increased realization of the fact that the Treaty symbolizes a set of the contemporary relations, not
just the past ones, and second, that the realization fo the constitutional place of the Treaty is growing.  general voters, Māori voters – are of Māori origin (or descendants of the indigenous peoples of New Zealand, respectively) and are participating voters (The New Zealand Compendium 1999, 12). The main criterion for the division of the territory of New Zealand into the individual election districts is, besides the topographic and regional specific feartures, particularly the population count, which seemingly creates a disproportion between the size of the individual election districts – some of them are smaller in size (municipal districts with a high population rate), while the Māori and rural districts are usually much bigger. Having studied all rules of determination of the election districts and analyzed the course of the elections in 1996 and 1999, we must state that the system in fact does provide for the just representation of all regions in the country; it is also supported by the fact that the frontiers of these election districts are controlled, or changed, respectively, after the census of inhabitants, apartments and houses every five years. In the 1996 elections, the country was divided into 5 Māori and 60 general districts, while the 1999 elections were held in 61 general election districts and in 6 Māori ones owing to an increase in the total population count as well as an increase in the registered Māori voters. The date actually confirms the fact of assimilation and modification of the election districts according to the demographical changes, either in the number or the structure of the population.16 Activation of the Māori depends on the situation occurring on the domestic political scene. The Māori protests were stronger under the National Party‘ government and dying away under the Labour Party. The reason thereof may be the political program of the Labour Party, which was more acceptable for the Māori (it is proven by the continuous representation of the Māori in the government). However, one government could not avoid resolving the Māori situation (deterioration of the Māori living conditions in cities, street gangs, gradual disruption of the natural ancestral ties of the young Māori, poor education and job qualification of the Māori, etc.). In the 1981 and 1984 elections, the new political party Mana Motuhake was quite successful in the struggle for self-­‐determination and renewal of the Māori national identity. Two of its members later became members of the 16
The country is divided to 61 general election districts, out of which 45 are on the North Island and the number
of election districts on the Southern Island has been strictly stipulated by law as being 16. Along with 6 Māori
election districts, the total number in the country is 67. Out of 60 general election districts, 28 election districts
have a Māori name.
Labour Party and managed to enforce very important legislation changes associated with the Treaty of Waitangi, which granted power to the Waitangi Tribunal retrospectively to the year 1840. The Tribunal was then overwhelmed by loads of complaints, which was an obvious proof of a deeply rooted feeling of injustice committed on the Māori population. In the years to come, many decisions were successfully implemented and the Māori significantly strengthened their positions in all areas of society (also thanks to the support of education); however, the factual political power yet remains in the hands of „white“ New Zealanders (Sinclair 2003, 295). 2.3 Loss of language (ko te reo) and learning-­‐decline and revival KIA ORA TE REO MĀORI HEI REO MATUA, HEI REO KŌRERO MŌ AOTEAROA MĀORI LANGUAGE IS A LIVING NATIONAL TAONGA FOR ALL NEW ZEALANDERS (Te Taura Whiri i Te Reo Māori; retrieved from http://www.tetaurawhiri.govt.nz) The political situation in New Zealand in the past decade may be characterized as a stable one. New Zealand’s political scientists argue that following the election reform from 1996, the political communication and culture has very much improved and the government’s cooperation with the Parliament’s committees was facilitated. The past years have witnessed economic stability, which allows the country to address the issues that used to stand beyond their interest before. The number of Māori deputies in the Parliament increases, which is the result of both the political consensus as well as a more extensive education of the indigenous peoples. The country has been known for its past democratic reforms. This trend continues. New Zealand has two official languages, i.e. English and Māori (which has become the official language in 1987) as a result of the process of acknowledgment of the Māori minority. The Māori language has been acknowledged as the original and basic language of the country protected under the Treaty of Waitangi. An Act to declare the Māori language official: Section 3: Māori language to be an official language of New Zealand 3. „Māori language to be an official language of New Zealand -­‐ The Māori language is hereby declared to be an official language of New Zealand.......“ This Act was a result of long-­‐term activities of the so-­‐called Māori protest movement; however, its activity would not certainly come to a successful resolution if the society itself would not have changed. Given the fact that the Treaty of Waitangi did not disappear from the set of relevant components of the constitutional system but the opposite, it acquired more and more significance since the middle of the 1980’s (e.g. by establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal) as well as the fact that after the accession of Great Britain into the European Economic Area in the same period, New Zealand found itself in a situation of searching for identity (which was not just a question of looking for new markets) found in its past – these facts are the basis of the overall perception of the language (and thus dual) identity and national identity of the country. Various international political affairs after World War II as well as the growth of the economic power convinced the formed colony of its maturity. It was, of course, encouraged and supported by an outstanding personality of British Queen Elisabeth II. The decision passed by the Waitangi Tribunal on the issue of „one land, two languages“ (see below) also clearly contributed to the enactment of this law. A prominent role was also played by other decisions of the Waitangi Tribunal, which, in addition to others, also resolved the language issue of „One land, two languages?“ It states in its decision that the aim of the Treaty of Waitangi was to provide for the cohabitation of two nations in one country. It is also related with the statement saying that „Te reo Maori, an essential part of Maori culture, must be regarded as a taonga, a ‘valued possession“.... 17 (Waitangi Tribunal, Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Te Reo Maori Claim, 3rd ed, Wellington, Brooker’s Ltd, 1993) New Zealand is the only country in the world where the Māori language has developed18, is being used and acknowledged as the official language based on the Māori 17
In its report from 1986, it states 5 recommendations for the government of New Zealand in order to rectify the
infringement of the Treaty in terms of the language. It is e.g. appointment of an authority which would control
and manage the use and promotion of the Māori language; allow the use of Māori language at courts and in the
official communication on both central and local level; control the education of Māori language, broadcasting in
Māori and others.
18
The language of New Zealand’s Māor belongs to the Eastern Polynesian group and the most approximate
language is Cook Islands Māori.
Language Act 1987. Above all, it involves the uniqueness of the language and national identity of New Zealand.19 As mentioned above, it is not just the Māori intelligence which fought for the continuation of the Māori nation during the period of the Māori Intelligence but also the later governments perceived and do perceive the Māori language in the current measures as a main instrument for a best and deepest reverse of the current status as possible, when only a few young Māori actively speak their mother tongue. The Māori language has recently been preferred not only among the young Māori (see below) but also among the Pakeha, thus finding its way into the various social areas of the population as well as into the official language, owing to the fact that according to this law, the Māori may use their mother tongue even in proceedings held before the court. The language thus becomes an instrument of formal and also factual return of the dignified position of the Māori in their own country. The enactment of the Māori language was also followed by the Māori Language Commission (Te Taura Whiri I Te Reo Māori) whose main task was to pursue promotion and support of the Māori language in cooperation with the government and non-­‐governmental organizations. One of the measures aiming to promote the Māori language was the establishment of the first Māori Television channel in 2004, which broadcasted a part of the program in the Māori language; since 2008, the broadcasting has been purely in the Māori language in order to support the fluency and also to serve as an educational tool for the young Māori. The Māori language nearly disappeared from the life of the indigenous peoples for various reasons as a consequence of the events occurring and governmental measures taken since the beginning of the colonization. As we mentioned above, the idea of assimilation or civilization of the Māori and all practical steps leading thereto begun shortly after the signature of the Treaty. As the current government supports various educational activities and educational system for the Māori, the governments in the 1980’s also perceived the education as an ideal instrument of assimilation of the indigenous population. The Pakeha 19
Prime Minister Kirk became an outstanding personality of the history of New Zealand (as well as the
contemporary times as he still has many followers and admirers) not just because of his charisma and tough
foreign policy but mainly for the reason that became the starting point of his foreign policy – for „building“
a sense of the national New Zealand identity. In 1973, Kirk introduced the tradition of New Zealand Day; a year
later, he initiated a legislation appoining Queen’s title to „Queen of New Zealand“ and also supported the
position of the Māori minority, which became one of the factors expressing the country’s identity (so-called
principle of bi-culturalism).
values were to be instilled in the Māori children (in adults, it was pursued by the missionary activities). Although the Māori were very fond of learning and even promoted writing among themselves (as the Māori language lacked the written form), later measures taken by the governments (such as e.g. the Stolen Generation) gradually and purposefully led to the elimination of the Māori language and Māori customs. Chilren would be punished at school if cought speaking in the Māori and English successively forced the Māori language out of the family lives. According to the survey (depicted in Chart no. 3), in 2006 only 23.7% of Māori were able to communicate in the Māori language in daily matters (as this is an increase anyway, althtuogh a slight one compared to the preceding census from 2001 (New Zealand 2006 Census). This particular census showed that the Māori speakers had 4.2 per cent of the total New Zealand population and only a few of them used the Māori language at home (most of them used just a few words or frazes, i.e. the so-­‐called passive bilingualism). Since the Māori language is currently used in the Māori communities, many Māori learn the language before learning English and their upbringing is biligual. This is the positive resulut of various governmental measures, such as the Māori preschools where the children speak only Māori language. The community plays an extraordinaly important role in the protection and support of the Māori language, the so-­‐called marae, i.e. the councils in which the Māori language is the one and only and serves as the basic tool of communiation. Chart no. 3 Source: QuickStats About Māori. Revised 27 March 2007. Census 2006 / Tatauranga 2006. Statistics New Zealand. Retrieved from www. @stats.govt.nz on 26.6.2009. p.5 The 1970’s are extremely important in this process of renewal and mean literally the rescue of the Māori language as it was the beginning of pursuits to be made in favour of the renewal of the Māori identity.20 The core of these pursuits was the renewal and support of the Māor culture and language (Te Taura Whiri i Te Reo Māori. http://www.tetaurawhiri.govt.nz). In addition of the successes mentioned above, it was for example the Māori language day (since 1975); in 1978, the first new bilingual school was opened in Ruatoki and in 1983 saw the broadcasting of the Māori radio and other activities aimed at the renewal of the language and education (e.g. teaching the Māori language at preschools). MĀORI LANGUAGE TODAY Māori language in bilingual surrounding English language had the greatest impact on the Māori language as being the logical consequence of the colonization process. This impact, however, was mutual and reflected itself specifically in the area of the word stock as pointed to in this part of the paper. Since the middle of the 19th century, English started to become the dominant language of the country and Māori language was gradually pushed into the purely Māori neighbourhoods separated from the Pakeha. Therefore, English became the “supreme” language – the language of urban environment, the official language of education, while the Māori language became the language of rural environment (the Māori formed the majority of the village settlers). Given the insufficient representation of the Māori peoples in the country administration, the Māori language was not exactly regarded as the aspect of pride and identity of the nation. 20
In this period, new groups are forming to fight for the Māori historical rights, e.g. Nga Tamatoa (The Young
Warriors), The Kohanga Reo Movement and others.
In the process of the „English dominance“, the influence of English onto Māori language was reflected in several lines. The first one is that the Māori language has adopted many „borrowings“ from English (such as “hōiho” -­‐ „horse“, “kura” -­‐ „schol“, “motukā” -­‐ „car“, “tāone” -­‐ „town“), which meant further extension of the original meaning of the Māori words by a new sense (a change of connotation and denotation, e.g. the Māori word „huka“: its original meaning was „snow frost“, its new meaning is „sugar“). The so-­‐called New Zealand’s English has been equally influenced by the Māori language (e.g. names of places, animals and plants which had no equivalent in English). Nowadays, the New Zealanders use many words and frazes of the Māori origin, which has become an integral part of the communication in the country. In fact, since the second half of the 20th century, the Māori language has become a part of the New Zealand English also in the non-­‐Māori context.21 The official bilingualism mentioned above is also reflected in the relations with authorities as the ministries and government bodies have both the English name and its Māori equivalent, and their documents, information materials as well as the internet websites have a Māori alternative (e.g. Te Tari Taiwhenua means the Department of Internal Affairs; Ministry for Culture & Heritage -­‐ Te Manatū Taonga; Ministry of Education -­‐ Te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga; National Library of New Zealand -­‐ Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa; Electoral Commission -­‐ Te Kaitiaki Take Kōwhiri; Ministry of Māori Development -­‐ Te Puni Kōkiri; Waitangi Tribunal -­‐ Te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi; http://www.tereo.govt.nz/english/pub_e/bilingualtitles.shtml). The Māori language is used most frequently in the areas of dense Māori population. 21
see the following examples (which are also used in this paper): haere mai (welcome); Aotearoa (New
Zealand; „land of the long white cloud“); hui (used by New Zealand media to describe business meetings
relating to Māori affairs); iwi (tribe); kia ora (hello); mana (combination of authority, integrity, power and
prestige); Māoritanga („Māori-ness"); marae (ceremonial meeting ); Pākehā (people of non-Māori origin,
especially those of European origin); tāngata whenua („people of the land“, the Māori in New Zealand). CONCLUSION In contrast with Lijphart, one can see one more cleavage in New Zealand society, an ethnic cleavage, between the European New Zealanders (in Māori language called “Pakeha”) and the indigenous Māori population. This highlights the fact that New Zealand is not a homogenous society. However the Māori minority is not very large and the rest of population “is” rather homogenous; it was just the attitude towards the indigenous inhabitants that in the past as well as present has influenced everyday policy in New Zealand so much. It was exactly the feeling of responsibility for the indigenous population that appeared as one of the reasons why New Zealand did not join the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. It is also considered one of the most important reasons for electoral change as the temporal electoral system allows New Zealand’s population to choose whether they are going to vote using the “Māori vote” or the vote of other inhabitants (this tendency of special indigenous votes started within the past FPP system; for more details see below). Thus, the indigenous population and its relationship with the societal majority is an interesting feature of the system, since it is in contradistinction to Lijphart´s understanding that the primary facet of political parties’ interest has been the socio-­‐
economic situation, (reflected in i.e. the strict division of political parties across the spectrum). The Māori rebirth and strengthening of the language at the beginning of 1980’s started to recreate the monocultural New Zealand (i.e. with the dominating Pakeha culture) into a bicultural country. However, the process ceased to continue with the arrival of the new immigrants and a new stage begins – the New Zealand becomes a multicultural country in terms of the composition of the population as well as the lifestyle. To a certain extent, this facilitates the Māori peoples’ situation as the pressure on the acceptance of minorities is logically increasing proportionally towards their growth in the numbers or volume. 1960’s were typical for the general demand for the return of Māori culture – Māoritanga (Sorrenson 2003, 285 – 286) when the discussion reopend concerning the justness of the Treaty of Waitangi; according to the majority of population, the Treaty was unfair to the Māori population. In 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal was founded as to return, upon many complaints, the land seized unjustly upon to the Treaty of Waitangi to the Māori tribes. The government then started to pay more attention to the promotion of Māori language in the media and in schools and the interest in the Māori literature increased in general. Television and radio started to broadcast programs in Māori language, many places on New Zealand were renamed according to their original Māori name, the authorities received names in both official languages (in Māori and in English), tribal structures and councils were strenghthened and the number of Māori deputies in the Parliament increased (there were 16 Māori Deputies in the Parliament in 2004). The Māori influence gradually increases not just in culture but also in the political life. The change of the social life caused by the migration of population into cities forced the Māori to pursue better organization, which is associated with the process of merging into unified large units led by formally appointed representatives who thus create a link between the government and the self-­‐administration. This is also related to the establishment and activity of the first political Māori organizations in 1960’s. The Māori establish their own enterprises, Māori-­‐speaking schools and social institutions. The Māori learnt how to present their culture, language and traditions because they already experienced the threat of their loss and political parties, in attempt to maintain the values, are gaining ever more political power, which is documented not only by their representation in the Parliament committees and foundation of a separate ministry for Māori affairs but also by the election reform which, in many respects, provides for the Pakeha attitude to the Māori indigenous part of the country. REFERENCES 1. Brookfield, F. M.: Waitangi and Indigenous Rights. Revolution, Law and Legitimation. Auckland University Press 2006. ISBN 13: 978 1 86940 372 0 2. Capie, D.: Constructing New Zealand in the world. In: Miller R.: Political leadership in New Zealand. Aucklad University Press. 2006 3. Constitution Act of New Zealand 1986 4. Červená, T.: Analýza reformy politického systému Nového Zélandu v kontexte teórie demokracie A. Lijpharta, Tribune EU s.r.o., Brno, 2008 5. Electoral Act 1993 6. Fleras, A. – Spoonley P.: Recalling Aotearoa. Indigenous Politics and Ethnic Relations in New Zealand. Oxford University Press. Auckland 1999. ISBN 0-­‐19 – 5583-­‐71-­‐X 7. Goodyear, RK (Statistics New Zealand) (2009). The differences within, diversity in age structure between and within ethnic groups. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand. 8. Hollinger, D A. (1998). National culture and communities of descent, in Reviews in American History, 26(1), 312-­‐328. Reviews in American History -­‐ Volume 26, Number 1, March 1998, pp. 312-­‐328. ISSN: 0048-­‐7511 In: Draft Report of a Review of the Official Ethnicity Statistical Standard: Proposals to Address the ‘New Zealander’ Response Issue. 9. Kelle, F.-­‐ Mariot, P.: Ostrovy a súostrovia oceánie, SPN, Bratislava 1992 10. Kollárová, Ľ.: Status a revitalizácia jazyka novozélandských Maoriov. „He Taonga Torero“ – Jazyk je poklad, Slovenská politologická revue 2/2003 from www.ucm.sk/revue/2003/2/Kollarova.pdf, máj 2009 11. Koper, J.: Mechanizmy vzniku politického systému, Bratia Sabovci, s.r.o., Zvolen 2003 12. Lijphart, A.:Democracies. Yale University Press. Londýn1984 13. Mason H. Durie: Identity, Conflict and the Search for Nationhood. RANZCP Congress College Address 1996. http://www.teiho.org/Identity/IdentityAnAddressByMasonDurie.aspx 14. Miller, R.: New Zealand Government and Politics. 3. vydanie. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2003 15. Mulgan R.:Politics in New Zealand. Auckland University Press. Auckland 1997 16. New Zealand Election Study, Waikato 2002 17. Palmer. G., Palmer. M.: Bridled Power. New Zealand’s Constitution and Government. 4. vydanie. Oxford University Press. Wellington 2004 18. PRATT, J.: Punishment in a Perfect Society. : the New Zealand penal system, 1840-­‐1939. Victoria University Press, Wellington 1992. ISBN 0864732392 19. Quentin – Baxter A.: Recognising the Rights of Indigenous People. Institute of Policy Studies. Victoria University of Wellington. Wellington 1998 20. Sinclair, K.: Dějiny Nového Zélandu. NLN s.r.o. Praha 2003 21. Sinclair, K.: A History of New Zealand. Penguin Books. Auckland 1988. ISBN 0-­‐
14-­‐022821-­‐7 22. Smith, A. (1986). The Ethnic Origin of Nations, Blackwell, Oxford. 23. Sorrenson, M. P. K.: Moderní Maorové in Sinclair, K.: Dějiny Nového Zélandu, NLN s.r.o., Praha, 2003, str. 285 – 286 24. The New Zealand Compendium, Electoral Commission. Wellington 1999 25. The Oxford Illustrated History of New Zealand, 2. vydanie, Auckland: Oxford University Press, 1996 26. The Oxford Illustrated History of New Zealand, 2. vydanie, Oxford University Press. Auckland1996 Documents: 1. 1983 Statistics New Zealand research report 2. Draft Report of a Review of the Official Ethnicity Statistical Standard: Proposals to Address the ‘New Zealander’ Response Issue. 2009. ISBN 978-­‐0-­‐478-­‐31583-­‐7 (online). p. 14 3. Kukutai (Tahatū Consulting), Statistics New Zealand (2008). Ethnic Self-­‐prioritisation of Dual and Multi-­‐ethnic Youth in New Zealand, Wellington: Statistics New Zealand, ISBN 978-­‐0-­‐478-­‐31551-­‐6 (online). 4. Māori Land Act 1993. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/DLM289882.html 1. Māori Language Act 1987 http://www.tetaurawhiri.govt.nz/act87/3.shtml 2. New Zealand 2006 Census 5. QuickStats About Māori. Revised 27 March 2007. Census 2006 / Tatauranga 2006. Statistics New Zealand. Retrieved from www.stats.govt.nz on 26.6.2009. 6. Statistical Standard for Ethnicity -­‐ 2005. http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/publications/analytical%20reports/ review%20of%20the% 20measurement%20of%20ethnicity/ statistical-­‐standard-­‐for-­‐
ethnicity-­‐2005.aspx 7. Statistical standard for Ethnicity 2005 3. Statistics New Zealand. (1988). Report of the Review Committee on Official Ethnic Statistics, Statistics New Zealand, Wellington. 4. Statistics New Zealand. (2004). Report of the Review of the Measurement of Ethnicity, Statistics New Zealand, Wellington. 5. Statistics New Zealand. (2005). Statistical Standard for Ethnicity 2005, Statistics New Zealand, Wellington. 6. Statistics New Zealand. (2007). Guidelines for Using Ethnicity Data: 2006 Census, Statistics New Zealand, Wellington 7. Statistics New Zealand. (2007). Profile of New Zealander Responses, Ethnicity Question, 2006 Census, Statistics New Zealand, Wellington. 8. Statistics New Zealand. (2009). Draft report of a review of the official ethnicity statistical standard: proposals to address issues relating to the ‘New Zealander’ response. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand. April 2009. ISBN 978-­‐0-­‐478-­‐31583-­‐7 (online). 9. TE IHO – Māori Mental Health Training Programme. Zdroj: http://www.teiho.org/Identity/ LossOfMaoriIdentity/Culture%20(2).aspx 8. The New Zealand Compendium, Electoral Commission, Wellington, 1999, str. 12 9. The Resource Management Act 1991 10. The Resource Management Act 1991. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/ 1991/0069/latest/DLM230265.html 11. The Statement of Intent 2008–2009, Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Mäori, Mäori Language Commission 2008. Wellington. 10. Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0114/latest/DLM435368.htm 11. Waitangi Tribunal, Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Te Reo Maori Claim, 3rd ed, Wellington, Brooker’s Ltd, 1993 Internet resources: 1. http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/1966/H/HistorySettlementAndDevelopment/en 2. http://www.elections.org.nz 3. www.electionresults.govt.nz 4. www.maori.nz 5. www.nzhistory.net.nz 6. www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz 7. http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/095030F8-­‐BD62-­‐4745-­‐836D-­‐
0EF185619C37/0/2006censusquickstatsaboutmaorirevised.pdf, QuickStats About Māori, http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/095030F8-­‐BD62-­‐4745-­‐836D-­‐
0EF185619C37/0/2006censusquickstatsaboutmaorirevised.pdf, retrieved on 2007-­‐11-­‐14 (revised 2007) 8. http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2006-­‐census-­‐data/quickstats-­‐about-­‐culture-­‐
identity/quickstats-­‐about-­‐culture-­‐and-­‐identity.htm?page=para017Master http://www.tereo.govt.nz/english/pub_e/bilingualtitles.shtml 9. 'History of the Maori language -­‐ Te Wiki o Te Reo Maori', URL: http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/culture/maori-­‐language-­‐week/history-­‐of-­‐the-­‐
maori-­‐language, (Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 9-­‐Jun-­‐2009 10.
www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz