According to the census of Maori Population and Dwellings, issued by the Department of Statistics in 1964, the estimated Maori population at 18 April 1961 was 167,086, and the European, 2,247,898 – a ratio of 14:1 in favour of the European. There were, however, 3,326 persons aged 65 and over in the Maori total as against 208,649 in the national total, thus giving a ratio of 62·7:1 in favour of the European. These figures underline the widely understood fact that there are radical differences in absolute numbers and in the age structures of the Maori and European sectors of the New Zealand population. In particular, they summarise, as it were, the changing fortunes of the Maori people over the better part of the last 150 years. Inter-tribal wars and wars with the European, plus the ravages of introduced epidemic and infectious diseases, had cut their numbers by upwards of two-thirds – to some 40,000 by the close of the nineteenth century. Subsequent improvements in the birthrate and a continued reduction in the death rate have combined to give a total population which today is greater in number than ever before.
Further factors of importance are, first, that there is a high percentage in the younger age groups, and, secondly, that there are relatively few in the older. Again, in terms of growth, the product of these factors has resulted in a current rate of population increase of 38·1 per 1,000 (cf. 21 per 1,000 for the total population of New Zealand). What this in turn indicates is of some moment for by the year 2000 the Maori population may well total 700,000 and comprise 14 per cent of the New Zealand total, as against that of 7·4 per cent in 1961.
Some modification may be expected in such predictions, based on the assumption that the Maori age structure will slowly approximate to that of the total; that is, there will be some fall in the birthrate and some increase in the crude death rate, in proportion perhaps to the rise in living standards and to an increase in the numbers occupying the older age groups. But it does seem certain that the Maori will increase, both in numbers and in proportion to the total population, for many decades yet.
Relevant to an analysis of the Maori population is the question of what, in fact, constitutes a Maori. For present census purposes he is one who states that he has half or more Maori blood. By the same token, none other than verbal evidence is required to substantiate a claim to his being full Maori and, in the 1961 census, 62·2 per cent of the total Maori population made such a claim. Opinions, based on previous census returns, have been expressed that this figure is a deliberate “overstatement”, which, if true, is of itself an interesting social commentary.
Although there is clear evidence of an increase in the Maori population, it seems to have been largely in spite of, rather than because of, its health record. In comparison with the European the Maori performance has been poor. Nevertheless, it is important to add that it is a steadily improving one, as is indicated by the diminishing death rate.
Infectious and epidemic diseases continue to exact a heavy toll among the younger age groups (for example, the death rate from tuberculosis is some nine times the European rate) while these and degenerative diseases in general take a greater toll among Maoris than among Europeans in the middle-age and older groups, a fact which tends to be obscured by present-day small numbers.
Reasons currently given in explanation of Maori lower levels of health are based upon the frequent overcrowding, inferior sanitation, hygiene and water supply, and poor nutrition.
A second set of factors correlated with the general health standards of the Maori, and particularly with his higher death rate, is his proneness to serious accidents. Once again, causes are obscure, but the obvious ones include occupational hazards for the labouring majority and carelessness among groups, for the Maori is especially gregarious.
Yet another consideration is the distribution of population, and in this respect that of the Maori displays its own marked characteristics. To begin with, some 96 per cent of the Maori people live in the North Island, while only in Auckland (72 per cent of the Maori total), Hawke's Bay, and Wellington provincial districts do they form a significant element. Again, from the point of view of their distribution, the increase during recent decades has two noteworthy aspects. First of all, there is the very considerable increase, both proportionate and absolute, in the numbers living in urban areas (34·4 per cent of the Maori total). According to the 1961 census the Maori outnumbered the non-Maori in five counties, while in four more they constituted 40–50 per cent of the total. Further than this, however, is the fact that their greatest concentration was not necessarily in those counties in which they were dominant; in fact, by far the greatest number in one place was in the Auckland urban area (19,847).
Large-scale movement of the Maori into the bigger towns first became apparent during the 1936–45 intercensal period and has continued at a fast pace since. Nevertheless, in sum, the proportion of Maori to the total population (1961) remains small, except in a few boroughs and cities such as Opotiki (38 per cent), Rotorua (21 per cent), and Auckland (5·2 per cent).
Any discussion of the distribution of the Maori population invites comment on the manner of their employment.
As is shown from the map, the concentrations of Maori population are at a distance from the centres of employment, a fact which is already causing some anxiety because of the high rate of increase in the rural Maori labour force – one even now with some underemployment. Concern at the trend was shown as long ago as 1948 when an inter-departmental (Government) committee discussed the pros and cons of decentralising industry. The basis of the proposal was the assumption that the rural labour force would, by the nature of its composition, be more stable than one recruited in the towns. But the major difficulty then, as now, was the uneconomic process of moving raw materials from the centres of distribution to the rural labour, and the return of the product back to the centres of consumption. The alternative, administrative action, would involve meeting the accommodation and social needs of some several thousand migrants each year, and this in turn would create new social problems in urban areas.
It is difficult to gauge changes in the occupational distribution of the Maori people because statistics kept by Government Departments at various times lack a common base. For all that, the statistics are a sound enough guide to show that between 1936 and 1956 primary industry and secondary industry have changed places as avenues of employment. The number of Maoris engaged in farming, etc., has fallen from 45·30 per cent, to 2676 per cent in 20 years, while the number of Maoris engaged as craftsmen, production process workers, etc., has increased from 36·86 per cent to 4190 per cent.
A comparison between Maori and European incomes (including women) taken from the 1961 census is also worthy of some note:
| £ | Maori | European |
| Nil | 13·6 | 10·9 |
| Under 100 | 1·3 | 2·1 |
| 100–299 | 3·4 | 3·3 |
| 300–499 | 7·1 | 4·2 |
| 500–699 | 19·7 | 8·7 |
| 700–899 | 28·0 | 20·6 |
| 900–1,099 | 15·3 | 20·3 |
| 1,100–1,299 | 5·2 | 11·3 |
| 1,300–1,499 | 1·7 | 5·4 |
| 1,500–1,999 | 1·2 | 5·4 |
| 2,000 ahd over | 1·6 | 7·2 |
| Not specified | 1·9 | 0·6 |
As with much else concerning the Maori, there is little information of a national coverage to indicate the state of his housing and his accommodation needs in general. But the 1961 census showed that the average Maori house contained 4·1 rooms occupied by 5·5 people, whereas the average non-Maori house had 4·9 rooms occupied by 3·5 people. It has been estimated that 30 per cent of the Maori people live in grossly overcrowded conditions, mainly in Northland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, East Coast, and urban Auckland.
Urban housing in particular is becoming a vexed question for administrators and social workers, as well as for the Maori himself. It is a question which revolves around two aspects of the urban (Maori) population structure: (a) the extreme rapidity with which it is growing, due mainly to immigration; and (b) its youth, and therefore the high percentage of single individuals, childless couples, and small-sized families.
It is generally agreed that a youthful, insecure, and vocationally ill-equipped sector of the population should be provided with sound accommodation at the outset if there is to be any hope of its surviving the difficulties of adaptation to urban life.
While attention has repeatedly been addressed to this problem, no solution is yet apparent. It is a situation, furthermore, which is deteriorating in proportion to the rate in which apartment house areas are being rezoned and taken over for industry, and to the total increase in demand for such accommodation.
As for all New Zealand, education for the Maori is compulsory up to the age of 15 years. Although this is a great advance in the battle for literacy there are still certain weaknesses. Regular attendance at school is not always encouraged by parents when families are large and wages are high and easily obtained. Offsetting this to some extent is the fact that where a Maori child's home environment is stable (no overcrowding, adequate income, no division of parental control) much of the European competitive instinct for examination success impresses itself upon him too. On the whole, however, Maori morale and performance appear to be low. It is only slowly being realised by the Maori that the immature and poorly equipped early school leaver, who so often becomes a fickle employee, remains a loss economically and socially to the community. In an increasing population with a very rapidly increasing Maori minority, this social maladjustment may contribute much to racial misunderstandings and perpetuate inequalities. For this reason a Maori Education Foundation Fund was established in 1961 to help the Maori to take greater advantage of the educational facilities which New Zealand offers than has been the case in the past.
by Ian Hugh Kawharu, M.A.(CANTAB.), B.SC.(N.Z.), B.LITT., D.PHIL.(OXON.), F.A.O. Research Fellow, University of Auckland.