to the conclusion that in the early loth century, as subsequently, Maori health was at a lower level than Pakeha health.
5.8 Such testimony puts into perspective the consideration that the general level of health in New Zealand and in the Hauraki region was not especially high. In 1893, for example, measles was rampant throughout New Zealand, and public schools were closed from Dunedin to Auckland. In Hauraki the situation at Paeroa seems to have been especially bad. But Pakeha, among whom this and other diseases had been common for generations, had a much higher level of inherited immunity They also had better access to medical services. In Thames alone in July 1893 two doctors received £73 from the local bodies as their fees for notifying cases of infectious disease to the government; at 2s 6d a case this equals 584 consultations in a brief period (Thames Advertiser, 6 and 7 July 1893).
5.9 It would be unreasonable to argue that Maori should have received health services above the level of those that were generally available; the welfare state was still half a century away. Here a less ambitious argument is advanced: that though the condition of Maori health was worse than that of Pakeha they had even less access to health services than Pakeha. The state could have been expected to make more of an effort to bridge the gap. Although successive governments in fact made some special provision, they did so on a very modest and economical scale. Governmental action fell well below the needs of Maori and below the level of facilities available to Pakeha.
5.10 Most of the evidence that takes up the remainder of this section is derived from official sources—Native Agents, Native Medical Officers, Native school teachers and inspectors. Their reporting is haphazard, anecdotal and discontinuous, and cannot be organised systematically. As Maori were not required to report communicable diseases (the kind from which they most suffered) nor to register deaths, mortality and morbidity statistics for the period relate wholly to non-Maori. The creation of a Department of Public Health in 1900 and the appointment of Maori health officers and district nurses in the early loth century did nothing to improve the quality of the evidence. This region was for the most part outside the areas to which attention was directed; perhaps this arose from the assumption that the greatest need was in remote rural areas like Northland and the East Coast. Perhaps this was so; nevertheless, in Hauraki the situation was by no means good.
The region does not figure in the annual reports of the Department of Public Health until 1913 (though from time to time comments in the Auckland Health District reports may well refer to Hauraki). In 1913 it was reported that a native health nurse had been stationed at Thames, where enteric cases were numerous among Maori and likely to prove a health risk to the settlers pouring into the district (AJHR 1913 H31). She retired after a year, and was replaced by 'Nurse Ellen Taare, a Maori nurse'. By that time typhoid had become especially serious in Paeroa and was 'spreading all through Thames Valley'. The report went on: 'There were serious epidemics in progress in different
46