Dialogue: Emphasis on treaty risks driving a social wedge

By DOUGLAS MYERS*

Probably the great majority of New Zealanders agree on the need to remedy established injustices to identifiable people. But the rub is who should pay.

Taking from the innocent to compensate the victim is hardly restitution. And many of the "victims" are also descended from the alleged wrong-doers. We are likely to generate never-ending demands while benefiting only a few and increasing divisions.

Biculturalism transforms the alleged partnership between the Crown and Maori into one between Maori and Pakeha - two distinguishable peoples, though their identities and the nature of their joint enterprise are unclear.

Those who are neither Maori nor Pakeha are thereby disenfranchised. Thus the Treaty of Waitangi, which conferred common citizenship, now risks dividing New Zealanders.

We undermine respect for the treaty by placing on it a burden of guiding contemporary society which it cannot possibly support. Other historical instruments and traditions - our parliamentary democracy and common law, for example - are of much greater importance to everyday life.

Government ministers are promoting cultural autonomy, biculturalism and multiculturalism while also insisting we are properly developing a single culture. What should we make of all this?

In fact, the cultural milieu of New Zealand results from the spontaneous decisions of countless individuals and groups. It is constantly changing, and, to the extent it is sensible to talk at all about a single national culture, it is an outcome of people coming together naturally on the basis of shared values.

Today, multiculturalism seeks to treat all cultures equally. At the same time, some cultures are to be more equal than others. The contributions of the West tend to be trivialised or ignored and those of indigenous peoples magnified.

This relativism is unhealthy and downgrades the importance of the core traditions and institutions that unite us. Politicised multiculturalism emphasises the things that divide.

We have a civic culture in the form of constitutional and legal institutions that apply to everyone. All our ethnic, religious and other cultures - indigenous and immigrant - operate within this broad, common culture which we must uphold if we are to live together in anything approaching harmony.

Such a framework sets limits on what each individual and group can do without creating disharmony. It is not in the interests of any group to weaken it, yet this is exactly what we risk doing with various constitutional adventures.

Equality and closing gaps are part of the agenda for the creation of a "new society." A more constructive and effective focus would be on lifting all bases. This would involve alleviating poverty and promoting prosperity for all, while recognising that abilities, aspirations and levels of effort will differ, and thus gaps will always exist.

Why should we be overly concerned about gaps if all have the opportunity to get ahead?

All too often, material poverty is the result of personal decisions and behaviour. And here we often find that cultural relativism slides into a moral relativism in which all values have to be respected. The new school curriculum framework says so explicitly. The effects are reflected in the number of one-parent families, in crime rates, and in our tendency to excuse crime on the basis of oppression or trauma.

The focus on biculturalism, multiculturalism, national identity, a "new society" and so on is not only creating new problems but missing the real challenges.

What might be an alternative prescription for the advancement of New Zealand?

First, I would give up constitutional adventures. Having started on the treaty claims process, we should continue with it but aim to end it as expeditiously as possible.

Second, I would rethink the Closing the Gaps policy. This will almost certainly be unsuccessful because the causes haven't been identified and it will end up treating symptoms.

In many cases, such gaps as do exist result mainly from differences in personal and family expectations and motivations. They won't be closed by further welfare distributions and treaty settlements.

Maori interests are better served by a focus on jobs, education and fewer incentives to stay on welfare. The focus should be on poverty and other indications of disadvantage, not inequality as such.

Third, I would get serious about full employment. Unemployment encourages social and family breakdown, individual alienation and crime.

Fourth, we must provide an environment in which the private sector can prosper and provide full employment and strong economic growth.

Fifth, I would not try to impose centralised, one-size-fits-all solutions. Individuals and organisations can decide whether and when collaboration or competition is right. Often it isn't a case of one or the other.

Sixth, in social welfare we must pay much more attention to the difference between the deserving and the undeserving.

Debate, however, will be difficult when the notion of rights without obligation is so firmly entrenched.

Seventh, family policy should put the welfare of children first.

Finally, we should remember the things about which New Zealand can be proud. Of course, our history includes conflict and injustice, but there is far more that keeps us together than divides us.

Our easy acceptance of ethnic, cultural and religious diversity is an enormous strength.

My concern, with so much talk about national identity, biculturalism and multiculturalism, the treaty, and a "new society," is that it can undermine those impressive strengths by creating or accentuating differences.

At the same time it diverts attention from some deeper and far more difficult cultural issues crying out for attention.

* This is a summary of a lecture given by Douglas Myers, a member of the Business Roundtable, at Victoria University last week.