PERSONAL IMPRESSION

There was the delight of meeting old friends, with some of whom I had lost contact altogether. There was the pleasure of hearing once again the voices of older men whose lead I had followed in other years and other situations, men like Bishop Panapa, Lieutenant-Colonels A. Awatere and J. C. Henare, Messrs M. R. and P. Te H. Jones, Mr T. T. Ropiha and Mr S. R. Morrison. There was the opportunity of paying my respects to those leaders and teachers such as Mr A. T. Carroll, Dr Belshaw, Dr Winiata and Dr Biggs all of whom I knew more by repute than by personal acquaintance.

Then, still speaking personally, there was my own deep satisfaction at being associated even for so short a period and on so transient a pretext with the University of Auckland. Such academic studies as I had contemplated as a youth had been scattered like dead leaves in the wind with the outbreak of war, scattered and never again gathered together. So I liked to think as I came into the echoing entrance hall each morning of the conference that I was part, even in a humble way, of that great institution of learning.

THE YOUNG AND THE OLD

From the first I tried hard to pick how the two groups—the younger and the older—differed, why it was that I felt more at home with the older men, although I was one of the youngest at the 1939 Round Table. Now I know. We looked at each other across the years of war. We had grown up in the shadow the war had cast before it and had matured before our time as it rolled over us; they had grown up in the years which followed.

What are they like then, these young people, these young leaders?

Honestly I think I can answer: Better than we were, yes, better than we were.

They are more confident than we were, more assured than we were, more knowledgeable than we were, better adjusted to the strains of this day and age than many of us were to ours.

They have the fire of youth, the burning enthusiasm which sees things that are wrong and which demands instant change; they tend to see in compromise a deviation from principle and not a bridge towards it.

They are angry without being bitter, merry without being frivolous, eloquent without being verbose, passionate without being cynical, forth-right without being discourteous.

If they differ with their elders they do so with respect, if they feel they are not well enough informed on a subject they will seek the best advice available, if they are certain that the course they have decided upon is right they will not be diverted from it.

Above all they are proud of their race, its achievements, its traditions, its culture; jealous of its good name; earnest, sincere and determined in their desire to help their fellows towards fuller, better and happier living.

Let me now compare the deliberations of the younger group with those of the older.

Round Tables A and B approached their tasks in a different manner from that adopted by the 1939 Round Table. In one way at least, that of definition, it was often a more effective approach. One has but to read the reports of the junior round tables to see that problems by and large were better defined, laid upon the operating table, so to speak, in a manner well fitted to receive the surgeon's attention. When it came to making a firm decision as to where to cut, what to remove, what instruments to use and how to assist the patient back to health again—ah, then it was clear that a vital necessity was not always on hand, and that necessity was experience.

This is not a matter for concern, for experience grows fast in ground into which learning has been ploughed and which is cultivated with enthusiasm's incomparable hoe.

The elders did not always define their problems as completely as did their juniors. More often than not this was because they knew these problems well and were thus able quickly to come to grips with the essentials. When definition was disputed, however, then the tussle began, then the views of the veterans were sought, the experts called in and a solution arrived at after a session of really hard slogging.

I think that this can be well illustrated by considering the land section in the discussions on economic conditions as shown in the reports. The general impression I gain is that while the younger people stated broadly that something had to be done, their elders said so in much more precise terms. The latter quoted specific Acts of Parliament and sections of those acts, they referred to relevant powers conferred upon the Maori Land Court, they pointed to decisions of the Supreme Court. When they saw the need for expenditure of money, they nominated the amounts they thought necessary and where it should come from.

And yet from time to time I detected among those sitting at the 1939 table a tendency to adopt defensive attitudes—and for good reasons. Whereas the younger people could discuss a matter quite impartially, here were men who had themselves had a hand in the framing of Acts of Parliament or in the moulding of departmental policy. To their very great credit they discussed

these matters with as near an approach to objectivity as they could. They would have been less than human had they sat back and watched their brain children being beaten over the head.

An interesting sidelight on the relative importance placed by the two age groups on the same subject was given in the treatment accorded

“Leadership”. The reports of Round Tables A and B made most interesting reading. The 1939 Round Table did not even discuss the matter.

Time was pressing when we reached that section of the agenda so it was decided to pass on to education. Several — including myself, — voted against this course but I now think the majority decision was correct. Leadership to acknowledged leaders can best be an academic topic, at worst an arid one. They could do something practical by discussing education for they were in a position in their private and public capacities to influence the powers that be. I feel that much good will yet come from the education debate but that only one or two like myself would have benefited by hearing leadership discussed.

SOME CRITICISMS

If I might be permitted to criticise one minor point I would question the value of the plenary sessions as they were conducted at the conference. I feel sure that it was not the intention of the organisers that these sessions should become, as

some of them did, opportunities to re-word statements, to split hairs over the exact meaning of phrases and to link up split infinitives. I think the worst offenders in this respect were members of the 1939 group—which of course includes myself.

I feel too that notwithstanding the undoubted interest of addresses given on subjects outside the conference's scope, it would have been more valuable to have heard views on Maori topics, perhaps papers given by one or other of those attending on matters about which they had special knowledge. In my mind the most valuable address was that given by Mrs Penfold. How I would have enjoyed listening to, say, Mr Carroll or Mr Pei Jones or Mr Morrison or Dr Winiata or Dr Biggs or Dr Metge speaking on some subject connected with the Maori people but not on the agenda of the conference!

These apart—and they are only minor quibbles—I am wholehearted in my praise for those who organised the conference and for the way they worked to ensure that it was a success. Mr Morrison was an admirable director. His assistants, in particular, the organising secretary, Mr M. Te Hau, were deserving of the highest praise. And congratulations too, to those who prepared the valuable data papers.

The organisations which supported the conference financially, and in particular the Maori community of Auckland, may be assured that dividends in the form of enlightened and inspired work for the Maori people will repay them a thousandfold.

The conference is over. It can never be repeated in exactly the same manner. But the spirit which we all felt, the strengthening of will we all experienced, the knowledge we all gained will help and inspire us for our people's sake in the years to come.