CHineseINK

 

Local Government Network

NZ Diversity Forum

Wellington

 

24 August 2009

 

 

Biculturalism is now integrated in the political structures of New Zealand, but how well is it accepted by the non-pakeha and non-Maori sectors in New Zealand? If the Treaty has become a quasi-constitutional document, how can the ethnic sector access it?

 

What are the aspirations of the “multi-cultural” sector for future political participation in New Zealand – especially those whose families have settled here for generations, and whose forebears hail from countries destined to be the engines of economic progress in the 21st century particularly in the Asia Pacific region?

 

 

In recent times, Local Government, that is City Councils and District Councils, taking the lead from central government, have integrated biculturalism into their operations. Because the staff of most local government organisations number in the hundreds rather than the thousands, and possibly because they lack the huge budgets of central government departments and other organisations, they have been rather more constrained and more practical in their implementation. Also because a local authority is typically under the control of a single CEO reporting directly to a Council whose members live in the community, local authorities have the potential to respond more quickly to the practical effects of changing demographics in New Zealand.

 

It is fairly obvious even to a casual observer, that in metropolitan areas, and even in smaller centres, New Zealand is becoming increasingly “multi-cultural.”   Aucklanders can hardly fail to notice the number of “Asians,” that is, Mainland Chinese, Taiwanese, Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese in the streets; Wellingtonians will have noticed the sudden influx of Indian students and others in the last couple of years.

 

If Wellington is typical, then Local Government generally will have implemented a number of practices in an attempt to cater to the “ethnic” sector, that is the non-European and non-Maori citizens and ratepayers – of which there are many.Typically Councils will have implemented some multi-lingual and translation services to assist those with language difficulties and organised some regular “Ethnic Forums” to elicit the feelings and to give some  voice to the ethnic sector.

 

Having attended some of these ethnic forums, my impression is that they cater well to new settlers who have yet to find their feet in New Zealand.  However, the relationship whether unwitting or not, often has the flavour of  authority-and-supplicants:  “You can ask, we might be able to give.” In reality it is very difficult to hold a meeting with 200 people who might include Somalis refugees, Zimbabwe poets, Fiji-Indian shopkeepers and Chinese seismologists and to write up a coherent  outcome which can reasonably inform Council services, let alone Council policy. Well-established Wellingtonians from the so-called ethnic sector who may attend out of duty may well find such ethnic forums not entirely productive for them – even if they are too polite to say so.

 

Such people who may be active in their communities may well be invited to participate in the more mainstream Long Term Council Community Plan.  This involves attending a number of meetings which seem to be dominated by play activities such as changing tables every 10 minutes bringing along refreshments,   lining up in a row holding a piece of paper indicating ones preferences on a scale of 1 to 10 for a good sewerage system and then being group-photographed.  One might then see every possible idea in the room being pinned on the wall and then magically written up in an email the next day to be argued over. The outcomes and recommendations are often remarkably in line with Council plans.

 

I would suggest that such processes have been captured by the connoisseurs and cognoscenti of consultation, heirs to the play-way, everyone-is-right, my-opinion-is-as-good-as-yours crowd.

 

I think that this approach is somewhat foreign to the majority of people but especially the long-term, long-established ethnic sector who have overcome the vicissitudes of being new settlers, found a place in New Zealand society, but bring and keep with them the practical experience of surviving racism, building or re-building a family on a foundation of hard work, education and self-discipline,  keep in touch with another culture which has a different history, a  comprehensive set of moral and ethical values and various forms of artistic expression and incorporate a different perspective of life and wider world view.   Welcome to the multi-cultural sector.

 

However, why should local authorities invest time and effort and perhaps political capital to cater for this sector?  Because it is coming to a city near you! In the last 30 years, since the passing of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and its amendment in 1985, the political and cultural landscape of New Zealand has been transformed by recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi and the political Maori Renaissance which it sparked.

 

This biculturalism is manifested in many ways to create a set of political arrangements, government practices and cultural expressions which now uniquely identify New Zealand.  It is the result of many influences which are too numerous to discuss exhaustively here, but include the recognition and the local interpretation and implementation of  human rights, indigenous peoples’ rights, demographic and electoral pressures and the increasing energy and activism of Maori.

 

It would not be going too far to say that the Treaty of Waitangi has nearly the status of a constitutional document – a document which defines the arrangement for the governance of New Zealand – in a country which has no written constitution.Increasingly the Treaty is being referenced in governance at every level including at local government level.

 

However the Treaty essentially defines the relationship between the Crown and Maori.  If asked where the ethnic sector might fit in this arrangement, officials will reply that they are represented by the Crown.  However, just as Maori insist on expressing themselves through the Treaty, so the ethnic sector might wish for some input in constitutional arrangements beyond reliance on the officials representing the Crown in Treaty negotiations.  Otherwise they are being governed under a document to which they have no access.

 

Ironically the only toe-hold for the multi-cultural sector in New Zealand is in Article Three of the Maori version of the Treaty, which says in a recent translation:

 

The Third

For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.

 

The English versions has even less room:

 

Article the third

In consideration thereof Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.’

 

Neither offers a very firm place for the multi-cultural sector to stand. 

 

The reality of recent developments offers some clues to the next step.At the same time as the passing of the Treaty of Waitangi Act, a parallel movement has occurred in the  in the multi-cultural sector.  The impetus for this arises from New Zealand situation – physically at the edge of the Asia Pacific region and economically at the edge of nowhere.

 

Whereas New Zealand has been home to Chinese and Indians (dating back to the 1860s) the numbers have been small. (in the case of Chinese less than 15,000 up until 1986. Since then the number has increased to about 110,000,  about 75% in Auckland.) It is likely that with the increasing importance of China and lately India as engines of the world economy,  we will see a two-way flow of people to service trade and other exchanges. These include increased educational, technical and cultural links.  This will lead to migration and the permanently settlement of people from those countries  to join those already here.

 

Already the so-called Asian population totals nearly 9.2% of New Zealand’s population compared with Maori who comprise about 12%. 

 

Unlike the last century when the migrants were economic, political or social refugees from backward countries, the new wave of migrants will instead come from advanced societies with high educational levels,  substantial economic clout and geo-political heft.In this new world, New Zealand will need to adapt – just it has had to adapt to the reality of resurgence of Maori.

 

Just as we have adapted to biculturalism, New Zealand needs to adapt to a post-biculturalism. I need to choose my words carefully: 

 

A post-colonialist discourse (in literature for example)  seeks not to reject colonialism but to understand the effect of colonialism in a country and to build upon it.  

 

Compare this with post-modernism which rejects the modernist movement (for example in architecture) and seeks to revert to traditional forms, and even use these in an ironical or exaggerated way.

 

New Zealand has come too far with biculturalism to reject it and revert to traditional forms of inter-community relationships. We need to understand it better and to build upon it. How that is to be done is something for the future, but not the far future. Already there is a movement afoot to have  the reality of  multi-culturalism New Zealand official recognised.

 

The New Zealand Chinese Association has (in May this year)  made submissions through the Minister of Ethnic Affairs for the Government to officially recognise multi-culturalism. The New Zealand Federation of Ethnic Councils is at this moment pushing for a Multicultural Act.

 

These are long term projects requiring consultations within the multi-cultural communities as well as between the multi-cultural communities and the Maori community and the wide community.  Like with the use of Revlon shampoo – improvements will not happen tomorrow, but they will happen!

 

How might an official multi-culturalism affect Local Government? That is a question for the future. Just as it was difficult to predict the practical effect of the Treaty of Waitangi Act in 1975 and its amendment in 1985, so it is difficult to predict the long-term outcome of the official recognition of multiculturalism.  However, changes are likely to reflect the new reality of New Zealand’s location at the periphery of two powerful “neighbours” who seemed destined to be provide not only economic leadership, but also technological and cultural leadership.

 

At present, Councils’ response to multi-culturalism is essentially to provide migrant and  new settler support. However in time, these people will overcome their difficulties and integrate their aspirations into the overall system.

 

“Multicultural” councillors might become permanent fixtures in the make-up of the various Councils. Already underway, the percentage of Council officers with a “multi-cultural” background would increase.Within the population, the multi-cultural sector will increase and their own priorities may mandate a re-ordering of priorities  Councils and a re-allocation of resources. 

 

Increasingly migrant and new settler support offered by Councils will evolve into a kind of post-biculturalism where awareness of bicultural practices will extend to other cultures – which may not only be in ceremonial forms and cultural acknowledgements, but attitudes to problem solving, conflict resolutions, productivity and efficiencies.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 26th, 2009 at 9:03 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.