Steve Maharey: Our twin keys are diversity and unity

COMMENT

Sometimes it is important to stop and rethink what you are doing. When Don Brash gave his now infamous Orewa speech, like many people I dismissed it as poorly thought through, divisive and factually incorrect.

His speech is all of these things, but it still managed to touch on the concerns of a significant number of New Zealanders.

These concerns cannot and should not be ignored by a nation-building Government that is determined to ensure all New Zealanders have the opportunity to achieve their potential in the new knowledge-based world that is taking shape.

So, to borrow a phrase, I have been thinking about the debate that has been raging and have reached the following conclusions.

For most of the last century, New Zealand was relatively homogeneous. People of European origin were the largest part of the population, and their way of life defined what it meant to be a New Zealander.

From the 1960s, this situation began to change. Youth culture, feminism, environmentalism and other social movements began dismantling the post-war consensus that people such as [National Party premiers] Holyoake and Muldoon represented.

In the post-war period, Maori began to move into the cities from the country. Pacific Island people were invited into our factories. And in the 90s a wave of immigration began that rapidly diversified the ethnic make-up of New Zealand.

Much of this took place at a time of declining economic fortunes. Household incomes declined from the early 1970s until the end of the 1990s. Failed efforts to correct this economic decline in the 1980s and 1990s led to social stress and political instability.

Throughout the latter part of the last century, the main political parties embraced the trend toward greater diversity. In social policy, for example, the old one-size-fits-all approach was replaced by an effort to provide services in ways that suited different populations.

Throughout my academic and political career, I have been a strong advocate of accepting and celebrating diversity and promoted public policy that reflects this trend.

But I now realise there is a limit to how far diversity can go without challenging the ties that bind a society together.

I began thinking about this when Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam was in New Zealand last year talking about the way diversity, particularly ethnic diversity, in a society affects the support people give to institutions such as the welfare state.

Putnam argued that greater diversity led to less support.

Why? In a nutshell, people like to support people like themselves. Implicitly, they say, "I could be in that situation one day so it is all right for me to make a contribution".

The more diversity in a society, the fewer people they have something in common with, the less support they are prepared to give each other.

The trend Putnam is talking about is not unique to New Zealand. There is a loose correlation in all OECD nations between growing diversity and weakening support for the welfare state.

Support for the welfare state is weakest in the United States and strongest in the more homogeneous Sweden.

Now it is happening in New Zealand. As diversity has accelerated over the past decade, many New Zealanders have been questioning why particular groups get support, who is paying and who benefits.

A number of politicians have had a go at capitalising on this feeling Bill English and Winston Peters stand out, but they failed to make much headway.

However, the rumblings have continued to grow and were finally released by Brash's speech at Orewa.

The ostensibly mild mannered banker, who made it clear that he did not want to be considered divisive, in effect gave New Zealanders permission to get stuck into an issue some have been worrying about for some time.

Some have used the opportunity to be blatantly racist. Others complain that diversity is leading to fragmentation and division.

Brash's argument is essentially that we are all New Zealanders. The trend to diversity is nonsense and we should treat everyone the same. The Treaty of Waitangi is important, but only in a historical sense.

But just as greater diversity has led to accusations of division in our society, so too will his effort to mould us into his vision of one South Seas race. Diversity exists and will not be denied. To say, for example, that there is no such thing as a Maori is to lose touch with the real world, as National Party candidate Hekia Parata pointed out in her retort to Brash. She is Maori and she exists - get used to it.

At his worst, Brash is arguing that we should return to the 1950s when one ethnic group, those of British origin, defined New Zealand. It will not work.

So what do we do? First, let us have the debate Brash says he wants, and let us base it on evidence and careful thought.

He must stop lying, for example, about tangi leave and the supposedly inferior qualifications of Maori graduates.

He should state clearly what he will and will not do instead of ducking and weaving.

He should set out his case for the kind of New Zealand that will emerge from his drive for homogeneity.

Likewise Labour needs to take stock of its support for diversity. We need to listen to the arguments many people are making in favour of a more united society.

If we take this approach we will arrive, as the Prime Minister says, at a new balance point. For me, this will mean acceptance of the Treaty of Waitangi as an agreement between Maori and the Crown that matters.

Because of the treaty, we are a bicultural nation. Past wrongs must be set right and it is perhaps time to set a date when all grievances must be settled so we can all move on.

If New Zealand is bicultural we are also multicultural. My city of Palmerston North is home, I am told, to around 64 nationalities. Our society has to respect the cultures of the people who have decided to make New Zealand their home.

One nation, two peoples. One nation, many peoples. It is vital that we do understand ourselves to be a nation. That means consciously building a New Zealand identity that we all have a stake in.

It means we have to manage immigration by choosing migrants carefully and rapidly settling them into jobs, houses, schools and everything else that it takes to be a New Zealander.

If we are all New Zealanders, we must all benefit from living here. No one should feel marginalised. We all have rights and obligations that go with citizenship. There must be no perception that one group gets more than another. This does not mean treating everyone the same way. If we did that, we would perpetuate old patterns of advantage and disadvantage. But we must justify the removal of inequalities as being of advantage to all.

Arriving at a new point of balance in our society is a matter of some urgency. Diversity may be causing social tension, but any attempt to force all New Zealanders to be the same will be a disaster.

In recent weeks, the Government has been criticised for listening and for making changes. Somebody has to. If the debate continues to set one view against the other, there will be no moving ahead. Our future will mirror the divisions we see elsewhere in the world.

That is why Helen Clark is talking about a new balance point. Her argument is not about saving the Government, it is about building our nation - and it needs to be listened to carefully before it is too late.

Herald Feature: Sharing a Country