This might be something that you take for granted. The question may seem unnecessary or difficult. But with co-governance becoming an increasingly hot topic, it's worth reflecting on.

In what follows I will argue that while New Zealand’s bicultural approach to race relations may seem like the ideal form of ‘coexistence’ to outsiders, its colonial roots mean that any effort to cater for Māori principles is merely superficial. I will contrast the mythical representation of New Zealand which perpetuates overseas with the disparity which is evident according to statistics. After proposing self-determination as a way of avoiding the binary trap, I will conclude with a reflection.

It may seem, particularly to outsiders, that New Zealand has ideal race relations due to our government’s embrace of ‘biculturalism’. Biculturalism is described by the Waitangi Tribunal (1999) as being “an integral part of the overall Treaty partnership … [involving] both cultures existing side by side in New Zealand, each enriching and informing the other” (cited by O’Sullivan, 2019, p. 233). This description would seem to paint biculturalism as one way of achieving Edward Said’s goal of ‘coexistence’, a situation in which groups coexist peacefully and their differences are “respected and understood without coercion” (Palestine Diary, 2012). If all of this accurately describes race relations in New Zealand, it is easy to see why the rest of the world would envy us, when even other ‘developed’ countries such as the United States still fall short of such a peaceful ‘coexistence’ amid countless race-based crimes and the unanswered voices of the Black Lives Matter movement.

However, New Zealand’s biculturalism has been constructed on top of a colonial, assimilationist hierarchy. Unavoidably, some may argue, this has left it with an “inherently and necessarily colonial character” (Maaka and Fleras, cited by O’Sullivan, 2019, p. 236). If this was unavoidable, then it follows that all biculturalism can do is try to make that character work better for the indigenous population. This has resulted in a ‘makeover’ of government agencies, such as Oranga Tamariki and Kāinga Ora. Unfortunately, such changes have proved to be superficial, and this is where biculturalism really starts to fall apart. As put by Maguire (cited by O’Sullivan, 2019, p. 234), the bicultural ‘makeover’ has occurred “while maintaining institutions where Pakeha values, procedures, and practices are seen as always normal and right.”

Yet from the outside, biculturalism can retain its appeal. Through national myth-building, images of haka, hongi, and a perfect prime minister give the impression of New Zealand being unified, accepting, and perfectly in-touch with both halves of our binary. However, our statistics paint a different picture; one of Māori continuing to be left behind by social policy and practices. For example, a working-age Māori person earns an average of $140 less than their non-Māori counterparts; “one third of the working age [sic] Māori population have no qualifications”; and just 37 percent of Māori own their own home compared to 52 percent for New Zealand overall (Tokona Te Raki, 2017, pp. 2, 15).

A key issue is that biculturalism encapsulates the danger of the binary, the belief that one government can be altered to serve two peoples perfectly. Stephens (cited by O’Sullivan, 2019, p. 232) writes that “Maori [sic] must be able to shape the Crown and its institutions to reflect their values and serve their interests; creating a culturally meaningful Maori sense of ownership and belonging”. But if the Pākehā side is also attempting such shaping for themselves (or rather, attempting to preserve it), will an agreeable form ever be reached? Why not adopt self-determination, where each group shapes their own institutions instead of just fighting for their half-share? In such a system (or in this case, systems), the goal would shift from equality to equity. As put by Vitikainen (2021, p. 13), “it may not be enough to resort to a model where the different political spaces are viewed as equal, but to amend this normative model with substantive weight given to Indigenous perspectives.” In this way, the shameful disparity in our statistics may finally receive an effective antidote.

In conclusion, while it must be mentioned that biculturalism has enabled several Māori initiatives to be realised (for example, kōhanga reo), I argue that it is holding them back from realising their full potential, something that may only be unleashed with their own space for self-determination. Perhaps that is the true realisation of Said’s ‘coexistence’ – race relations where we work alongside each other instead of against each other.

References