“Assimilation” and “Integration”: the Māori Women’s Welfare League in the 1950s

Turnbull Library Record, Volume 36, 1 January 2003, Page 5

Barbara Brookes

“Assimilation” and “Integration”: the Māori Women’s Welfare League in the 1950s

“The 70,000 aborigines in Australia,” the Territories Minister Paul Hasluck told the assembled Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science delegates in October 1959,

represented crumbling groups held together by tattered threads of kinship.... The sooner they were assimilated and learnt to live like white people the better.... (West Australian)

Hasluckwas quickly taken to task by the anthropologist A. P. Elkin who pointed to the failure of assimilation policies when Aboriginals housed among white families “returned to the warmth of group settlement” (West Australian). Elkin was supported by Professor Bill Geddes who pointed to the success of Maori students at the University of Auckland facilitated by the formation of their own Maori Club. Through grouping together “they gained self respect and this enabled them to get along better with white students” (West Australian). Elkin and Geddes proposed that integration of traditional Aboriginal culture, rather than absorption, was the way forward (Manning 4). 1 The debate touched on a key issue preoccupying those concerned with the position of indigenous peoples in Australia and New Zealand in the 19505, how best to respond to the urbanisation of previously rurally-based groups.

“Advancement,” “Assimilation” and “Integration” were strategies put forward by differing groups in the 1950 sto address the position of indigenous peoples. Elkin was a proponent of integration, by which he envisaged both Aboriginal and Anglo-Australians retaining their traditional cultures, but in 1950 s Australia, assimilation was the preferred strategy. In looking towards New Zealand, Geddes was one in a line of people, later including Nugget Coombs, who saw features in the New Zealand situation that were worthy of emulation (Coombs 143-154). The aim of this paper is to address how these terms played out in the most important post-war forum for Maori people, the Maori Women’s Welfare League. The League played a central role in advocating nationally for Maori throughout the 19505. Here I am less concerned about the day to day activities of League members than with understanding how those involved in directing the organisation thought about the terms “advancement,” “assimilation” and “integration,” the possibilities and limitations they seemed to suggest, and how this played out in the members’ endeavours.

The terms “advancement,” “assimilation” and “integration,” which have been more thoroughly interrogated in Australia, are sometimes understood as belonging to an unenlightened time when “there was a danger that ‘ Advancement Leagues,” involving white and Aboriginal Australians would indulge ‘in the bear-hug of paternalism”’ (Lippmann 29). This type of assessment buys into the idea of “advancement” itself, that things become better later, a view that Tim Rowse has questioned (Rowse 221 -222). 2 Anna Haebich, in “Imagining Assimilation,” presents a nuanced view, charting the ways in which the imaginings of white Australians about assimilation served a particular version of nationhood. Unlike Australia, New Zealand’s identity as a nation relied on imagining itself as upholding a tradition of equality which incorporated difference, signalled by the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, an event commemorated with centenary celebrations in 1940 and the institution of a national holiday in 1960.

In New Zealand historiography there have been criticisms of an assimilation policy, prior to the 19705, which treated “Maoris as brown Pakehas” (Walker 171). Yet rather than scorning the naivety of those who sought advancement, assimilation and integration, we perhaps should rather ask why this was so? What were the particular “historical, material and discursive” circumstances in which these words held out possibilities and under which productive alliances were created (Lake 165)? Jeffrey Sissons, in “The Postassimilationist Thought,” has begun this task with a careful analysis of Apirana Ngata’s rejection of assimilation and his attempt to reconcile economic indi-

vidualism with the strengthening of tribalism through the concept of Maoritanga. Ngata himself recognised at a 1927 conference of Maori leaders that women were central to the adoption of “the Pakeha ideal of‘home’” which was one of the key elements of Europeanisation (Appendices 1928). Sissons suggests that Ngata saw a commitment to Maoritanga as a way of addressing conflict between those Maori who were doing well in Pakeha terms and those who “had been effectively dispossessed” and also as a “nationalist concept” of service in negotiating with Pakeha (5 8). I would suggest that to those speaking to the Maori Women’s Welfare League (MWWL), the term was called into service in all these ways but that it also provided a means to grapple with modernity. A commitment to Maoritanga provided League members (the better-off and more educated of their communities who had the time, interest and resources for attending and running meetings) with a bridge to those members of their communities who might see in “the flower garden, the cottage piano, the gramophone, or radio set, and the tennis court” (Appendices 1931) an unattainable (and perhaps undesirable) way of life.

Background From the 19305, the Labour Party had promised “equality with racial individuality” (Orange 15 7). In the 19405, the government could not ignore the fact that two very different standards of living operated within New Zealand, a situation brought into relief by the need for labour during the 2nd World War. “Akarana” writing to the Rotorua Morn ing Post on 10 January 1941, found the situation in Ohinemutu disturbing. “The contrast is indeed painful,” he wrote, “between the home life and surroundings of the Maori children in the area and that of their pakeha school-fellows.” The houses of the former, he suggested, should be “condemned by the health department” (Archives NZI). A conference of the four North Hospital Boards in November 1943 viewed “with alarm the present housing, food, and general living conditions of the Natives in the North” (Archives NZ 1). In the Manawatu, Maori were being drawn to Opiki to work in market gardens and were forced to live in such appalling conditions that the local Medical Officer of Health, Dr T. C. Lonie, was moved to write in the Manawatu Evening Standard that though the Department of Health had few statutory responsibilities, it “had many moral ones”( Archives NZ 1). Job opportunities drew Maori families to Hamilton where in one instance over 40 persons “exist[ed] in some 3 to 4 dilapidated sheds with earthem floors” lacking

suitable sanitary facilities (Archives NZ 1). In July 1944, the Auckland Maori T ribal Executive Committee wrote to Peter Fraser, the Minister in charge of the Maori War Effort Organisation, asking for urgent consideration of “the dire need for housing to accommodate the Maoris of Panmure, Auckland and Pukekohe.” Families were living in tents or one room hovels (Archives NZ 1).

By 1948, the Department of Maori Affairs recognised that housing was one of the most urgent problems for Maori. The Maori industrial worker, although “a vital part of the economy” was, according to Tipi Ropiha, under secretary for the Department of Maori Affairs, “the poorest housed person in the urban community today” (Archives NZ 1). Discrimination was all too clear. Landlords would not rent to Maori and urban communities were opposed to having Maori housed in their midst (Archives NZ 1). How to counter discriminatory practices became a pressing issue. Peter Fraser used his powers both as Prime Minister and Native Minister, from 1946-49, to push through policies that would facilitate Maori employment and educational opportunities. He also saw that Maori people were promoted into positions of authority. Tipi Ropiha, from Ngati Kahungunu, was one of these and he together with Rangi Royal, Chief Welfare Officer, sponsored the development of the Maori Women’s Welfare League (Butterworth and Y oung 89-99).

At the time of the League ’ s founding in 1951, Ernest Corbett, the Minister of Maori Affairs in the National Government, made clear his resolute stance against anything that savoured of segregation or separate development. In housing, for example, the policy was “to disperse Maori houses among European and not to segregate Maoris in separate communities” (Archives NZ 1). Ironically he had no trouble welcoming the formation of a separate women’s organisation which, in his eyes, would serve to promote integration. The Maori Women’s Welfare League grew out of women’s committees promoted by Maori women welfare officers after the Second World War to help raise the standard of living in Maori communities. Members of the League were also opposed to segregation. “Our organisation,” Mira Petricevich stated,

Does not exist because of segregation, but because of the very fundamental needs of our women, the most important of which is the need to identify themselves as self-determining individuals, with the right to choose what was best for themselves in this ever-changing world. (MWWL 4 th Annual Conference)

In answer to the question as to why Maori women were providing leadership on welfare issues in the 19505, Jacquie Sturm (Baxter) replied that “nearly all the disadvantages of the Maoris ’ position are felt most acutely in the home, so that it is the women, not the men, who have to cope with them daily, understand them more fully, and are most strongly moved to do something about them” (Te Ao Hou 9, 58). In urban areas Maori women provided the buffer between traditional expectations and the aspirations of the burgeoning population of young people who wanted, in many ways, to live like Pakeha.

The League’s motto “Tatau Tatau” (Let us be United), could be interpreted in various ways, and earlier had denoted the unification of Iwi. In addressing the 1 st Dominion conference of the League in 1952, Corbett suggested that it meant “two people in one house” and that New Zealand had the opportunity to see it “translated into reality” (MWWL l sl Dominion Conference). The formation of the League seemed particularly timely to the Minister since recent disparaging articles in Auckland newspapers about the conduct of Maori were, he believed, “ill-timed and intemperate” and he was anxious that “feelings of race antipathy” should not develop in New Zealand (MWWL Ist1 st Dominion Conference). In welcoming delegates to the 1954 Auckland conference, the Mayor of that city, J. Luxford, expressed his belief that the current times were “critical” (MWWL 3' d Dominion Conference).

“The world looks to this country of ours,” Corbett suggested, “to the solution of the problem of the indige[nous] people the original owners of New Zealand having a full place of equality and in all aspects of our social, our Christian and our economic life” (MWWL 2 nd Dominion Conference). New Zealand’s commitment to social and economic rights (rather than civil and political rights) had been made clear in its contribution to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the subsequent charter, in which Peter Fraser had taken a keen interest (Bell 42). The “ W elfare” of the League ’ s title reflected a key preoccupation with health and living standards but wider matters of language retention and cultural identity were always important.

The post-war climate was shaped by the 1945 Act “to make Provision for the Social and Economic Advancement and the Promotion and Maintenance of the Health and Social Well-Being of the Maori Community”. This Act was a compromise by government. During the war years the Maori War Effort Organisation had empowered Maori by giving them self-governance and many expected self-development to continue after the war. That they were disappointed was a matter of opposition from Pakeha old guard in the Native Affairs

Department and the Labour government’s eye to electoral politics. The League, founded with government support, became the one national organisation giving voice to Maori concerns in the 19505. In mapping a course for the future to League members, the Assistant Controller of the Welfare Division of Maori Affairs, Mr Charles Bennett, laid out three basic principles for his people: (a) The retention of Maoritanga as a means of stimulating and mastering pride of race (b) The mastery of Pakeha culture (c) Respect for religion. “A Maori who masters pakeha culture but forsakes his own,” he suggested,

loses his sheet-anchor by so doing. Such a person is neither one thing nor the other, nor is he entirely acceptable to either. On the one hand the Maori who achieves nothing in the field of pakeha culture but isolates himself within the confines of Maori culture in effect dedicates himself to a world of the past. Rather should we aim at developing an individual who while primarily acknowledging and strengthening his Maoritanga builds his achievements in the other culture upon this sure foundation. (MWWL Ist1 st Dominion Conference)

Isolation within the confines of Maori culture was becoming increasingly difficult as the population burgeoned and young Maori were drawn to urban areas in search of work, for the pleasures of town life, and sometimes to escape the expectations of their communities. The churches, both orthodox and the Maorichurches of Ringatu and Ratana, provided a bridge between rural and urban life (Walker 503) The Ngati Poneke Club in Wellington and the Maori Community Centre in Auckland provided places for getting together and a place for the continuation of cultural life, even if in new forms (Grace, Ramsden and Dennis).

Exposure to the Pakeha urban environment threw Maori ways of living into relief and “pride of race” was one way to hold on to distinctively Maori elements in the face of the Pakeha majority. Charles Bennett urged League members to become “ambidextrous beings,” an unfortunate necessity in a world where Maori were continually judged by Pakeha “measuring-rods” (MWWL Ist1 st Dominion Conference). Economics demanded an acceptance of the Pakeha way of life and Bennett suggested that it was necessary to be both a “good Maori by Maori standards and a good pakeha by pakeha standards” (MWWL Ist1 st Dominion Conference). In order to protect their children from discrimination,

members of the League wished to learn Pakeha ways, participating in a range of cookery, mending, fancy-work and gardening competitions. To hold on to Maori ways they competed in traditional weaving and action song performances.

By focusing on Maori self-development, the League attracted many members who wished to work for their community. The League focused attention on “the mother, the child and the home” as the main routes to address the problems of poor health and educational status facing Maori (James 26). “The Mother,” the Senior Inspector of Maori Schools, Mr M. W. Parsonage, told the League , “is the custodian of the whole family life, whether it is Maori, pakeha or Chinese” (MWWL Ist1 st Dominion Conference). In the eyes of Hilda Ross, Minister for the Welfare of Women and Children, Maori and European women shared the same difficulties, those of “making home life more secure than it often is today.” In her view Maori women were central to Maori society and she believed that “the men have had a trial and been found wanting” (MWWL Inaugural Conference). In mothers’ hands, according to the Prime Minister, Sidney Holland, lay the power of “raising our standards of living” (MWWL Inaugural Conference). Mothers were responsible for training the children who, according to Tipi Ropiha, would “paddle our canoe in the future” (MWWL Inaugural Conference).

Advancement: “Maori Arts combined with western comforts” Homemaking, Pakeha-style, was seen as a crucial key to advancement and here women’s role was regarded as essential for Maori to be desirable as tenants or neighbours (Archives NZ 2). Housing gave rise to the “fiercest discussion” at the 1952 conference of the League, with the president, Whina Cooper, arguing that “all social problems” arose from bad housing (TeAo Hou 1,55-6). One of the League’s first undertakings was to institute a housing survey in Auckland where over 8,000 Maori were living by 1951 and many in the only accommodation they could get: substandard housing. The survey exposed gross overcrowding and a lack of basic amenities (Te Ao Hou 2, 53-4). As a result of the survey the League forwarded hundreds of applications from Maori and Pacific Islanders for state rental applications. The survey prompted Auckland City Council and the Departments of Maori Affairs and Housing to demolish slums and increase the building of state houses for Maori (King 176-7). Pakeha housing was to provide the shell in which a transformation of values would be enacted.

And women were central to the socialisation process which would ensure adoption of Pakeha norms of home life. The Director of Maori Housing from the Department of Maori Affairs, J.H. Barber, told the League that home ownership promoted “responsible citizenship” and that “Home building and home ownership develop initiative, self-reliance, thrift and other good qualities which go to make up the moral strength of the nation” (MWWL Ist1 st Dominion Conference).

From the mid-1950s TeAo Hou, a quarterly magazine fostered by the Department of Maori Affairs, gave information and advice on matters from hanging out the washing, to making curtains and mothercraft. It also reported on best-kept Maori home and garden competitions (TeAo Hou 3: 28, 57, 58-59). In 1959, 41 entrants competed for the best kept Maori home competition in Mangonui county, North Auckland, sponsored by local businessmen. The competition, seeking the best of “Maori arts combined with western comforts,” was judged to be an outstanding success (TeAo Hou 7, 79).

The League put a great deal of effort into trying to ensure the availability of good quality housing. “The influence of a good home” was seen as “a bulwark against delinquency” (Archives NZ 3). As mothers of the burgeoning population, League members directed their efforts into channels such as hygiene, cooking, sewing and gardening. They also, crucially, encouraged their children to stay at school and supported scholarship and training opportunities. Maori leaders were aware of the great gap between Pakeha and Maori educational achievement. Charles Bennett suggested to the League that‘“Acculturation through education’ could well be [its] watchword” (MWWL Ist1 st Dominion Conference). Education was regarded by Bennett and others as central to the quest for equality. In May 1952, the Dominion reported on the opening of the Manutahi District High School. The Minister of Education, Mr Algie, stressed that striving for higher education did not mean Europeanisation. Maori schools, he claimed aimed to “help each pupil to resolve the conflicting claims of the two cultures, Maori and pakeha” (MWWL IATL). In order to enable their children to succeed, Maori women had to assist in this project.

Alongside concerns to do with housing and education, League members kept alive traditional activities such as weaving and action songs. As I have argued elsewhere, League members occupied a necessarily contradictory position in that they wanted to uphold both modernity and tradition (Brookes 210225). This was exemplified in their later complaint about tourist postcards which, they suggested:

Should depict a Maori woman suitably dressed in European clothing pictured beside one who is in national costume. In short, a stronger comparison should be stressed to show how we have adapted to modem society yet still retained our identity by holding on to our culture. (Archives NZ 4]

Indeed the political influence that the League was able to exercise arose from its very ability to draw on both worlds signified by its maintenance of Maori protocol alongside Pakeha bureaucratic forms. Living as Maori prior to the 1950 s often equated with substandard housing and all the attendant problems of illness it brought. The members of the Maori Women’s Welfare League wished to live “as pakeha” in terms of housing opportunities. They learned new skills, to become, those “ambidextrous beings” Charles Bennett exhorted them to be (MWWL Ist1 st Dominion Conference). Many were proud of these new skills and used them, alongside “pride of race” to argue for integration into all aspects of New Zealand society.

The Retention of Maoritanga The government’s vision of New Zealand as “two peoples in one house” supported the League’s commitment to Te Reo, the retention and fostering of the Maori language and culture. Assimilation, or “disappearing into the Pakeha,” was a danger to be fought against, though the frequency of intermarriage meant that some were, in the phrase of Turi Carroll, “whiter than others” (2 nd Dominion Conference, 1953, MWWL). Maoritanga, Charles Bennett suggested consisted of “those facets of Maori culture the preservation of which will promote a healthy pride of race” (italics original). Warfare, polygamy, cannibalism, superstition and slavery did not lead to the latter while arts and crafts, action songs, poi dances and hakas reinforced tradition and promoted unity (MWWL Ist1 st Annual Conference). At the Ist Dominion Conference of the League, South Island Maori who described themselves as living “as Pakehas” appealed through the League for a teacher of Maori language. The League campaigned with the teaching of Maori language in schools, requested a chair in Maoriat Auckland University, and promoted weaving and cultural competitions. It was critical of misrepresentation of Maori culture in film, in tourist items and in school publications. The importance of its opinion may be seen in the later 1964 controversy over Washday at the Pa, a publication for schools which the League succeeded

in having withdrawn and destroyed because members believed it misrepresented Maori culture. There were other aspects of Maori culture, however, which the demands of urban society worked against. Most crucial, and contested from the time of first European settlement, was the notion of individual ownership. In a series of lectures in Wanganui on “The Maori situation Today,” T.B. Henry from the Department of Maori Affairs pointed out that Maori traditionally had had no need “to strive for individual home ownership.” He continued: “the expression ‘the Englishman’s home is his castle,’ could not have been translated to ‘the Maori’s home is his castle’’’(Archives NZ 2). A move towards home ownership, officials hoped, would lead to new attitudes towards thrift and a futureorientation in the community. Much ink was spilt on the leisurely work-habits of the Maori and their lack (in one commentator’s words) of those “compulsive incentives to work which are derived from the basic psychology of the pakeha” (Beaglehole and Beaglehole 38). Some went so far as to suggest that a change in child rearing practices was required to reform Maori character structure to conform to Pakeha noons. There was particular criticism of absenteeism from work, for Tangihanga (which involved going back to one ’ s ancestral lands) and other community occasions.

Young adults were thought to be an important focus for reform. Despite his opposition to separate development, Corbett was forced to admit that separate hostels for young Maori men and women moving to urban areas were necessary because of the barriers which young Maoriexperienced - no doubt he was also concerned about rising rates of delinquency (MWWL 2 nd Dominion Conference). By 1953 there was hostel accommodation for over 300 young women and 150 young men. The Department of Maori Affairs subsidised them and the League was keenly interested in their maintenance.

Hostels could well stand as an exemplar of the ideal that Maori culture should be retained while the skills of the Pakeha were learned. They were also an indication of the youthfulness of the Maori population, of which over 61% were under 21. Resonating though the conferences of the League is concern with the young set adrift and lured by the temptations of the city. The attentions of whanau were not always seen as the answer, however, and some members of the League blamed relatives and friends for distracting young people from the straight and narrow (MWWL1 st Dominion Conference). Hostels for girls were considered to be especially important by Pakeha because there, according to Terence McCombs, Labour member for Lyttelton, Maori girls could learn “European standards of living” and “could do more to raise the standard of

living of their people than the boys could” (2397; qtd in Woods 120). A constant preoccupation for League members was the issue of how best to raise children. When League branches surveyed homes suitable for foster children, they specified the importance of training children in the “fundamentals of Christianity, not only in theory but by example” (MWWL Ist1 st Dominion Conference). Christianity was at the heart of their enterprise and permeated their deliberations. It meant welcoming Pakeha women into the League and a commitment to working together. “It is contrary to Christian teaching,” Corbett reminded League members, “that we should be apart,” and he chastised Pakeha organisations for not facing up to their responsibilities (MWWL 2 nd Dominion Conference).

The churches provided a crucial bridge for those moving into urban society but increasingly the needs of the young were coming into conflict with the religious beliefs of their elders. The Elders of Tai-Tokerau approached the MWWL with their concern about the fact that the Maori community centre in Auckland ran Sunday night dances which, they believed, undermined the spiritual and religious “core of real Maori life” (MWWL 4 th Dominion Conference). The matter led to a long and spirited debate between those who upheld the sanctity of the Sabbath and those who believed that young people were better off dancing at the community centre than wandering and making trouble in the streets of Auckland. Unable to reach a consensus, the League eventually decided to hand the matter back to the Waitemata District Council to resolve.

Identity The question of Maori identity came to the fore for League members through their participation at the 1954 Pan Pacific Women’s Association conference. The League delegates, Mrs Bennett and Mira Petricevitch were part of a New Zealand delegation, as was Samoa. At the conference Samoa (a NZ Protectorate) was given a place at the official table but the Maoriwomen were not. The two League delegates objected, stating “they should have their own identity and a seat at the official table” (MWWL 4th Dominion Conference). Mrs Bennett refused to have anything further to do with the Association unless Maori received separate representation. “She thought other races should be recognised also - the Aboriginals of Australia, and the Negros of America” (MWWL 4 th Annual Conference). The League’s stance brought forth praise from others, such as the Ngati Ranginui leader, Maharaia Winiata, who believed and increasingly articulated the view that the “structure of New Zealand society” needed to

change in order for Maori to retain their identity (MWWL 4 th Annual Conference).

By 1960, the Dominion Executive of the League saw its achievements in promoting education, “furthering the desire to be accepted as a neighbour and citizen” and promoting a high standard in housing. Mothers fostered and appreciated integration for their children, questioning and asking for inquiries in instances where discrimination had occurred (MWWL Bth8 th Annual Conference). League members wanted the opportunity to have equal access to the housing, educational and health status that Pakeha enjoyed but not at the cost of losing their distinctiveness, their Maoritanga. By 1961,33 per cent of the Maori population were based in cities and boroughs and the idea of New Zealand as a nation in the “vanguard of those that are building multi-racial societies” was coming under strain. “Full integration of the Maori people into the mainstream of New Zealand life,” stated the landmark 1961 Report on Maori Affairs (The Hunn Report), “is coming to be recognised as just about the most important objective ahead of the country today” (78). The Report defined “Integration” as “To combine (not fuse) the Maori and pakeha elements to form a nation wherein Maori culture remains distinct.” To those Maori who resisted pressure “to conform to what they regard as a pakeha way of life” the Report insisted that what was at issue was not a Pakeha, “but a modern way of life, common to advanced people (Japanese for example) - not merely white people - in all parts of the world” (italics original), and that many white people were unable “to make the grade” (16).

By the early 1960 s the leadership which the League had provided was giving way to that of the male Maori Council which reaped the benefits of its work in communities. “The nicest definition of integration we have yet seen,” the Maori Council News letter stated in 1963,

Is simply ‘being included in everything that everybody else is included in’. That means that no club, hotel, school, church, profession, etc., should be exclusively for pakehas or exclusively for Maoris. We would like all pakehas to know they would always be welcome at Maori gatherings, though naturally we would hope that they would understand the correct way of behaving on the marae and in the meeting house. (Maori Council Newsletter, September 1963)

By the 19605, the resilience of Maori culture that groups like the Maori Women’s Welfare League had been so crucial in sustaining allowed Maori to turn the spotlight on Pakeha behaviour and its cultural insensitivities. Learning to live like Pakehas was no longer the issue: Pakehas had now much to learn from Maori, integration was no longer a one way process.

Notes 1 I am very grateful to Corinne Manning for access to her unpublished thesis. 2 Tim Rowse discusses the complexity of assimilation policies and Aboriginal responses also in “Aboriginal Respectability,” unpublished paper, courtesy of the author.

Works Cited Appendices to the Journal of the House of Representatives\929: G-8. Appendices to the Journal of the House of Representatives\97>\ : G-10. Archives NZ 1: HD Ace W 1353 3/211 PL Archives New Zealand, Wellington. Archives NZ 2: HD Ace W 1353 3/211 P2. Archives New Zealand, Wellington. Archives NZ 3: MA 1 36/26/11 Vol. 2. Archives New Zealand, Wellington. Archives NZ 4: MA 1 36/26/11 Vol. 3. Archives New Zealand, Wellington. Beaglehole, Ernest, and Pearl Beaglehole. Some Modern Maoris. Wellington: Whitcombe and Tombs/Oxford University Press, 1946. Bell, Miriam. “New Zealand’s Contribution to the Early Post-War Development of International Human Rights.” www.hrc.co.nz/index.php?p=42 Brookes, Barbara. “Nostalgia for ‘lnnocent Homely Pleasures’. The 1964 New Zealand Controversy over Washday at the Pa.’’’’ At Home in New Zealand: History Houses People. Ed. Barbara Brookes. Wellington: Bridget William Books, 2000: 210225.

Butterworth, G.V. and H.R. Young. Maori Affairs. Wellington: IWI Transition Agency/GP Books, 1990. Coombs, H.C. “Aborigines and the Treaty of Waitangi Aboriginal Autonomy: Issues and Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994: 143-154. Grace, Patricia, Irihapeti Ramsden and Jonathan Dennis. The Silent Migration. Ngati Poneke Young Maori Club 1937-1948. Wellington: Huia Publishers, 2001. Haebich, Anna. “Imagining Assimilation.” Australian Historical Studies 118 (2002): 6170. Hunn, J.K. Report on Department of Maori Affairs. Wellington, Government Printer, 1961. James, Beverley. “The Maori Women’s Welfare League. From Social Movement to Voluntary Association.” MA thesis Waikato U, 1977. King, Michael. Whina. A Biography ofWhina Cooper. Auckland: Penguin Books, 1991. Lake, Marilyn . “Political Communities of Women.” Communities of Women. Historical Perspectives. Ed. B. Brookes and D. Page. Dunedin: University of Otago Press, 2002: 163-175.

Lippmann, Loma. Generations of Resistance. Mabo and Justice. 3 d ed. Melbourne: Longham, 1999. Manning, Corinne. “‘Humpies’ to Houses: Victoria’s Transitional Aboriginal Housing Policy 1957-1967.” PhD Diss. La Trobe U, 2001. Maori Council Newsletter, 1.1 (Sept 1963). Maori Women Welfare League, ATL, 1: MWWL. MS-Papers-5402-1. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington. MWWL Inaugural Conference 1951. MS papers 1396-001. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington.

MWWL Ist1 st Dominion Conference 1952. MS papers 1396-001. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington. MWWL 2 nd Dominion Conference, 1953. MS-papers 1396-002. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington. MWWL 3 ul Dominion Conference, 1954. MS-papers 1396-002. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington. MWWL 4 lh Annual Conference, 1955. MS Papers 1396-002. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington.

MWWL sth Annual Conference, 1957. MS Papers 1396-002. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington. MWWL Bth8 th Annual Conference, 1960. MS Papers 1396-004. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington. Orange, Claudia. “An Exercise in Maori Autonomy: The Rise and Demise of the Maori War Effort Organisation.” New Zealand Journal of History 21.1 (1987): 156-72. Rowse, Tim. White Flour, White Power: From Rations to Citizenship in Central Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Sissons, Jeffrey. “The Post-assimilationist Thought of Sir Apirana Ngata: Towards a Genealogy of New Zealand Biculturalism.” New Zealand Journal of History 34.1 (2000): 47-59. Te Ao Hou 1 1952). TeAo Hou 2 (1952). Te Ao Hou 9 (1954). TeAo Hou 3.2 (1955). Te Ao Hou 7.3 (1959). Walker, Ranginui, ‘Maori People since 1950’ in Geoffrey Rice, ed. The Oxford History of New Zealand, Auckland: Oxford University Press, 1992: 418-519. —. Nga Tau Tohetohe. Year of Anger. Auckland: Penguin, 1987. West Australian, 29 Aug 1959. [ln] Smoke Signals, Oct 1959. Woods, Megan. “Dissolving the Frontiers: Single Maori Women’s Migrations, 19421969.” Shifting Centres. Women and Migration in New Zealand History. Ed. L. Fraser and K. Pickles. Dunedin: Otago University Press, 2002: 117-134.

TurnbullLibrary Record 36 (2003), 5-18