Biculturalism in Aotearoa/New Zealand: the public service response

Abstract

This thesis examines the development of biculturalism within the New Zealand Public Service. New Zealand was settled by two primary cultures: Maori, recognised as the Tangata Whenua, and people of British and other European ancestry known as Pakeha. The Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 established a relationship of coexistence between Maori and British settlers on the basis of mutual recognition of both British authority (Kawanatanga) and Maori authority (Tino Rangatiratanga). However, this mutual recognition did not endure. Within a few decades after the Treaty signing the British dominated the country's political and social institutions, much as they had done in other settler countries including Australia, Canada, and South Africa. In the late 1980s, after 150 years of attempts to assimilate and then integrate Maori into the pakeha culture, a policy of biculturalism was adopted by the Government of New Zealand and its institutions including the Public Service. However, confusion has surrounded both its meaning, and its implementation. This thesis contends that biculturalism is best viewed as a journey based on equal partnership between iwi/Maori and the Crown. The study develops the 'Bicultural Journey Framework' to measure the extent of movement of an organisation toward bicultural partnership. The journey begins at stage one as a monocultural organisation, and moves through to stage four, where a bicultural partnership exists. For the Public Service to claim to be bicultural would require it to demonstrate a partnership in its organisational structures, in its work, and in its service delivery. This thesis contends that such partnerships have not yet been established. The approaches of successive Governments to Maori affairs have been primarily based on administrative responsiveness. In turn, the Public Service has adopted a number of responsiveness measures, including the development of Maori units and contracting out to Maori service providers. But these all fall short of bicultural partnership. This contention is evidenced in a case study of the Department of Social Welfare (DSW) and its experience of biculturalism. DSW has been a significant agency in the Crown's relationship with Maori. It made significant changes in the way it worked following the 1986 report Puao-te-Ata-tu. Despite these changes the thesis contends that the two DSW business units which were examined, the Social Policy Agency, and the Children Young Persons and their Families Service, progressed only to stage two of the 'Bicultural Journey Framework' before their establishment as separate departments in late 1999. For comparison, the Department of Conservation, another Public Service department, and the New Zealand Methodist Church: Te Hahi o Weteriana o Aotearoa, a non profit voluntary organisation, are also evaluated and assessed with the 'Bicultural Journey Framework'. The Department of Conservation, evaluated as being at stage three, has moved further along the bicultural journey than DSW. The Methodist Church, as a voluntary organisation unconstrained by government restrictions, has gone further than any of the Public Service agencies, having developed a structure that fully reflects a bicultural partnership Finally, the study suggests that, for the Public Service to become fully bicultural there must be structural and constitutional change within the wider institutions of government, in particular in the policies and attitudes of Cabinet and Ministers. It would be difficult to have a bicultural Public Service serving a government which is in itself, not bicultural.