Debatably the most criticised directions in Māori policy, assimilation and its feeble successor integration have dominated the historical Māori policy landscape to the detriment of positive Māori development. The colonial ideology from which they
were conceived, and their resulting consequences, have been the bane of Māori advancement and the cause of Māori struggle for more than 150 years (Walker, Ranginui 2004). While official policy has for the most part moved on from the rhetoric of assimilation, even condemning it in official reports, there is and may always be an underlying current of support for the ignorant and idealistic idea of
‘one people’ that is deep set in the psyche of many sectors of New Zealand society. There exists an argument, generally prevalent among those with little knowledge of
Māori culture, history or aspirations that the government should strive to build a nation of New Zealanders, rather than a nation of Māori, Pākeha and others.
Colonisation and in particular assimilation, has its legacy in negative social and
economic outcomes for Māori, a legacy with an undeniably long reach that continues to warrant continued discussion. In a more productive vein, the response of Māori to
colonisation and in particular contemporary social, political and economic developments is important to any assessment of the strengths, weaknesses and future
24 In New Zealand there has historically been an underlying desire to foster a mono- cultural sense of national identity and policy is often developed on the basis of that mono-cultural idea of wellbeing (Duncan 2008). According to Ranginui Walker (2004), assimilation is a situation of dominance and subjection where the coloniser thinks they have created unified society and this illusion is maintained by the ideology of one people. Supporting this assertion, there has historically been a strongly held belief among many of those in power that the assimilation of Māori
into the dominant Pākeha culture would be the foundation of national unity and the means by which Māori ‘disadvantage’ might be solved. This has never been so overt,
as in the period following the publication of the Hunn Report in 1961. Relevant policies of this persuasion included the encouragement of urban drift, the deliberate
housing of Māori families in non-Māori communities and the down scaling of te reo
Māori in School Certificate exams (Walker, Ranginui 2004). Furthermore, national structures had evolved which were rooted in the values, systems and viewpoints of
one culture only and Māori participation was conditional on Māori subjugating their
own values and systems to those of the power culture, an issue which still requires addressing today (Walker, Ranginui 2004).
Ranginui Walker (2004) asserts that “the coloniser once embarked on a policy of exploitation is committed” and that the colonial power cannot see that their
dominance is not only bad for those dominated, but also for those in power (p.151). Despite the evidence that assimilation was producing negative consequences, not
only for Māori but for New Zealand as a whole through negative social consequences and growing Māori disaffection, governments continued to stand by their policies. Institutional racism, the outcome of monocultural institutions which simply ignore and freeze out the cultures of those who do not belong to the majority, became embedded over this time (Walker, Ranginui 2004).
According to Kelsey (1990) active assimilation demanded that Māori adopt the
psyche and behaviour of the Pākeha while the same society continued to discriminate against them for being Māori. This placed Māori in a grim position where both available options perpetrated further disadvantage. The so called equity measures associated with assimilation did not bring Māori all the promised perks and
25 unequal (Smith 1999). Furthermore, equality among individuals does not necessarily solve structural inequality and while some Māori thrived, Māori as a group
continued to fall behind their Pākeha counterparts over a range of social and
economic indicators (Walker, Ranginui 2004).
It is also a fundamental problem of the Māori struggle against Pākeha hegemony, that there is a tendency among conservative leaders to side with the dominating class against their own people, and the coloniser uses this to their advantage (Walker, Ranginui 2004). Walker provides the example of Graham Latimer’s public response to a paper read by Hirini Moko Mead at the 1979 Labour Party conference calling
for a Māori Parliament. Following the reading of the paper, the press were quick to seek the counter opinion of Latimer as President of the Māori Council, and
interestingly also a member of the National Party. Latimer obliged the press,
publically stating that the original Māori Parliament had grown out of disaffection
but that as far as he could see, that was not a current issue. In more contemporary times, policy reform has been initiated to move Māori to the middle class. The
assumption seems to be however, that once there Māori will take on the values and interests of the dominant Pākeha middle class, putting aside Māori values and
interests (Smith 2007).
The assimilation approach to Māori policy has now been condemned as not only
ineffective but also detrimental to positive Māori development. However, there are
still currents of support for assimilation both in power and amongst the population. The most obvious example of this is the reaction to the then leader of the National
Party, Don Brash’s 2004 Orewa Speech where he attacked “racial privilege” for
Māori and vowed to remove Treaty references in legislation and policy and dedicated Māori representation if elected to government. Far from the public being outraged by his unashamed racial politicking, National party support surged in the weeks following the speech, uncovering a strong undercurrent of support for the ideologies out of which assimilation was born.
Ranginui Walker (2004) asserts that the consciousness of the reality of a people’s
exploitation is a key to its liberation. It is important then for a community to have its own ideal vision, define itself in its own terms and maintain social cohesion within
26
the group in the face of change (Smith 2007). Looking to the future, while “the
oppressed are dehumanised by the colonial experience...the great humanistic task of the oppressed is to recover their stolen humanity; to liberate themselves and to liberate their oppressors as well” (Walker, Ranginui 2004, p. 151). Far from dwelling
too strongly on the injustices of the past it is now a challenge for Māori to forge a Māori way forward through a strong and cohesive vision. Policy, politics and
cultural revitalisation are arguably now the key vehicles for post-colonial Māori advancement meaning that a commitment to a steady change by evolution is imperative (Smith 1999).