ADMINISTRATION IN NEW ZEALAND'S MULTI-RACIAL SOCIETY

Te Ao Hou, March 1969, Page 54

ADMINISTRATION IN NEW ZEALAND'S MULTI-RACIAL SOCIETY Edited by R. H. Brookes and I. H. Kawhuru Oxford University Press available from Government Printer, $2.00 reviewed by J. R. McCreary One of the problems presented in reviewing a book of this kind is that it is a collection of papers by a variety of authors drawn from differing backgrounds and, to some extent, each paper is complete in itself and worthy of comment. The authors divide into two general groups — the academics and the administrators. The academics are made up of Dr Kawharu, Department of Anthropology, Auckland University; Dr Metge, Department of Anthropology, Victoria University of Wellington; and Dr Ritchie, Professor of Psychology, Waikato University. The administrators include, R. J. Mardle, Department of Labour; R. L. Bradly, onetime Superintendent of Education, Auckland; J. M. McEwen, Secretary for Maori and Island Affairs; L. G. Anderson, Superintendent of Child Welfare. They are a panel drawn together for the New Zealand Institute of Public Administration's annual convention held at Auckland in 1966. The first three papers set the stage against which the administrators must present their policies and practices. Kawharu, in the introduction, raises the question of how much we know of our multi-racial society and puts in a special plea for research which may show what can, in fact, be done. Mardle, drawing on census returns, departmental reports and private research papers, shows what we do know of the ethnic constitution of our population, emphasising not only the Maori and Polynesian elements but the Chinese, Indians and non-British Europeans who help to form New Zealand's population. Finding such a polyglot collection included under the general heading of ‘multi-racial’ made me doubt again the wisdom of the use of the term ‘race’, as I had done on first seeing the title of the series. Metge, however, deals with this question in her opening section and points out that if one attempts to substitute something such as ‘ethnic group relations’ for ‘race rela-

tions’ the usage is clumsy and unfamiliar. Metge goes on to examine what she terms alternative policy patterns, including such topics as segregation, assimilation, pluralism, integration and fusion. It is in her development of these policy patterns and Ritchie's subsequent manipulation of similar concepts that, it seems to me, lies one of the major issues in the papers which although not explicitly stated seems to divide the policy-makers from their commentators. In presenting these as alternatives, Metge appears to be indicating that an adminstrator can choose a policy of integration or assimilation and his choice will have a fundamental effect on the path of social change. Ritchie, also, seems to argue that rational decision is a primary motive for conduct in social comment. In one comment, for instance, he lists attributes which he feels are necessary to guarantee integrated adjustment. He includes such things as ‘commitment to the development of the full education potential of one's children’, ‘a willingness to enter into and accept responsibility in neighbourhood and other voluntary associations’, and ‘some change in the status of women and the care of children’. It is not altogether clear whether he believes that administrative decisions can achieve these states but seems to imply they can. On the other hand, we find Anderson saying bluntly, ‘The whole history of the development of our welfare services in New Zealand has been one of practical measures undertaken to relieve immediate need in the manner that appeared appropriate at the time’. And McEwen stating, ‘What is going on in the Maori world today is a revolution — a revolution as tremendous and as far-reaching to the Maori as the industrial revolution was to society in England a couple of centuries ago’. Both these administrators, although they do not say it directly, appear to be indicating that they are the servants of historical development, not its masters. Do policies determine history? This may be a foolish question and the answer perhaps that the interaction between the two is the real determinant of social events. It can be argued that in free society the only sensible choice for the administrator is to co-operate with change. The wisdom of his policies therefore depends upon his awareness of the necessities of the situation, rather than his skill in inventing irrelevant paths for his citizens to follow. In societies which are not free, societies with totalitarian overtones in their administrative procedures, it is possible to devise policies such as apartheid which have a profound effect upon the lives of people. It is also clear that where such policies exist the liberal thinkers of the world believe that the administrators are flying in the face of history and are moving towards an inevitable cataclysm. To put this point in another way, it can be argued that it is possible to introduce a policy which, with the consent of the governed or some of the governed, will produce segregation but it is much more difficult to legislate for integration rather than assimilation. The theme which runs through the papers and which is commented upon by Ritchie is what he calls ‘an expression of a national sense of assurance that we can handle minority groups capably within our present administration’, or what he also refers to as ‘self-congratulation’. Certainly, when one reads the statements in this book of what has been achieved in the various government departments and examines the appendices outlining some of our social services, then there is clearly room for a sense of achievement. The key question, however, does not seem to have been asked — are the consumers of social welfare or other programmes in our minority groups satisfied with what they have received? Are their needs truly being met? Have our services been adequately adapted to meet their needs? In assessing welfare services, and much of this book is concerned with such services, it is more important to find out about how the services are actually delivered by administrators, officials and professional workers than it is to examine the structure and relationship of services. None of the speakers raise as a major topic the problem of communication between the administrators and those for whom they administer. It could be argued that in examining any multi-racial society the lines of communication, the process of communication, and the efficacy of this communication form the major set of criteria upon which one will judge the success of the society itself. The emphasis is rather upon the accommodation of the minority group to the services of the majority rather than the relationship between them. We are offered a description of administrative structures