Today's post is by Patrick Thomsen
The problems facing NZ’s Pasifika community are vast and aren’t for the fainthearted. Despite our glowing presence in NZ’s beloved All Blacks squad, we’re flailing as a community.
According to a 2015 report titled: Pacific
People in New Zealand: How are we doing? by
Pasifika Futures, 51% of Pacific children live in poverty; the number was 39% for Māori, 15% for Pakeha. Pacific
people have the smallest proportion of its population with a degree and the
highest proportion of its population without any qualifications. This is pretty significant when you consider how
higher earnings are proven to be connected to the level of educational
attainment.
Pasifika are more
likely to be in poor health than other demographics, far more likely to be
unemployed, and have the lowest percentage of any group who owned our own
homes. The gender
pay gap is largest for Pasifika women, on top of the ethnic wage gap, which puts Pasifika
far behind everyone else including Māori. And perhaps most alarming of all, our
youth are three times more likely to commit
suicide than Pakeha.
The reading isn’t exactly encouraging.
Neither is the fact that aside from Labour and Mana, most parties do not have a Pacific
people’s strategy clearly defined as
policy.
So why should it matter? As one twitter user pointed out to
me rather indignantly when I tried to ask all the major parties whether they
would be releasing one, it’s probably
because “We’re all just New Zealanders!” I apparently am despicable for ‘trying
to divide us.’ (You’re really doing your
bit for “All Lives Matter” sweetie).
I, too, once believed that if we focused on raising the tide
of growth (across all socioeconomic
sectors), that this rising tide would lift all boats, including the double-hulled
Polynesian voyaging canoe. Granted, some of our canoes have succeeded in this environment
(mine in particular), but in actuality, a
lot have begun to sink under the tide of so-called economic growth that has
kick started a “rockstar” economy. So I’m
sorry twitter user with no profile picture, it definitely
matters.
A popular line people peddle is that deprivation is the
cause for poor social outcomes. So if we reduce deprivation for all, naturally
it will improve the situation for Pasifika people. This does seem reasonable to me.
However, just to cherry pick a little, a recent study
published by Dr
Jemaima Tiatia-Seath at the University of Auckland showed that even though
an increased level of deprivation leads to a higher likelihood of attempted
suicide, Pasifika suicide rates overall were double those in the worst
deprivation bracket.
What that means is that there are more complex factors at
play. Despite all the major parties committing to reducing inequality in the
middle of their election delirium, even if they succeeded in magically reducing
the gap between the haves and have nots, Pasifika people are still likely to be
the have nots.
The Policies
The Mana Party have had a long standing Pasifika Peoples’ strategy, and they’ve been the boldest in trying to integrate Pacific people into their day to day policy communications. Apologies to the MANA supporters, I won’t be focusing on your policy much at all because it’s by far the best that’s out there. Think amnesty for overstayers, prioritising Pacific climate refugees, and creating a Pasifika broadcasting channel. Recently, the Māori party has also come out strongly with similar policies to help ‘realise’ the aspirations of NZ’s Pacific community, committing to an amnesty for overstayers and investing in our community.
The Mana Party have had a long standing Pasifika Peoples’ strategy, and they’ve been the boldest in trying to integrate Pacific people into their day to day policy communications. Apologies to the MANA supporters, I won’t be focusing on your policy much at all because it’s by far the best that’s out there. Think amnesty for overstayers, prioritising Pacific climate refugees, and creating a Pasifika broadcasting channel. Recently, the Māori party has also come out strongly with similar policies to help ‘realise’ the aspirations of NZ’s Pacific community, committing to an amnesty for overstayers and investing in our community.
But with MANA and the Māori Party unfortunately only enjoying
marginal electoral support, my gaze has shifted decidedly toward the larger
political parties - firmly on the red army itself, Labour. If the Māori Party are returned to Parliament on September 23rd,
Labour looks like the more sympathetic of the two aspiring government spearheads
towards Pacific people’s policies.
However, after reviewing Labour’s Pacific Island Affairs
policy, I had mixed feelings. The first was relief.
After searching and tweeting relentlessly to what seemed like no avail, a
policy magically appeared on Labour’s website a mere two days ago. The policy
squawks and makes all the right noises in an election
year, but at the same time I couldn’t help but feel a little underwhelmed.
To be sure, there are
some highs, such as the Pacific Languages policy in particular. Giving recognition
to five Pasifika languages as ‘community languages’ is definitely a policy that will help preserve the heritage of Pacific
peoples and facilitate the continuity of Pacific cultures in New Zealand. This is ably
supported by a commitment to researching better ways to enhance Pacific
language education.
A lukewarm mid-point is their Policy Area 2: Immigration, Settlement, and Pacific Climate Change.
At first glance, it looks very good.
Labour recognises that the Pacific is going to bear the brunt of climate change
and are committed to: “review migration policy to establish an immigration
Pacific Plan that recognises Pacific
Climate Change […] ensure they have real and timely options for mobility across
the region.” The kicker though is that unlike the Greens,
Mana and Māori Party, It’s not a commitment to take in climate refugees
(although it’s better than National - at least it’s a commitment to find somewhere to put them).
But this is where the rest of its policy falls flat. There’s too much air and not enough
substance. Create a “New Pasifika Vision” is their Policy Area 3. They say that
we need to develop a vision that explores what it means to be Pasifika in New
Zealand today, (I agree) so they’re going to establish a forum to talk about
it. Don’t get me wrong; I like talking, and
so do a lot of other people. But my experience with these forums (Pasifika focused
ones especially) is that a lot of oxygen turns into carbon dioxide and not much
else.
When there’s no financial commitment or guaranteed autonomy
handed back to the community, it sucks out the utility of such forums. This is a concern that Labour’s policy doesn’t
alleviate because it’s so light on numbers.
They do make the right noises regarding investing in
Pasifika youth. They want to get our kids into employment (Pacific youth
unemployment is a real concern). They stress in the policy a need for our kids to be part of the
high-value, high-skilled, high-earning workforce. But this is no different to what they are doling out to all youth in New Zealand. This is essentially a Moana dress for the same
mannequin called their new party trick. It’s just not enough in the face of
systemic issues that Pasifika academics and researchers have been uncovering
and screaming about for decades now.
I was surprised to see no mention, not even a nod to
attempting to deal with mental health issues for Pasifika people. When the
research shows that we are disproportionally
represented in suicide rates, a commitment to our communities means a
commitment to find a way to stem the tide of graves our people need to be
digging. All of this relates to the unique positioning of Pasifika people and our
historical genealogy in New Zealand.
The roots of our communities were
set in labour-intensive, low-paid, dirty jobs with low levels of capital,
both economic and social. Following our convenient scapegoating during the Dawn
Raids era, which was followed hotly by the lethal attacks of the Rogernomics
era, our people were forced to compete against generational wealth and social
privilege.
As a result, our socioeconomic
position has solidified at the bottom of
the ladder from our very first imaginings in New Zealand. And this carries with
it continued deprivation, familial stresses, underachievement, low-incomes,
high rates of domestic violence and delinquency; the list goes on for at least
a coconut mile. This history is conveniently forgotten by those quietly
advocating integration of our community while
not dealing with this historical trauma or context.
What does real
advancement look like?
As a Pacific person, we are constantly being told that what’s best for the overall well-being of the nation, is best for us. But how can this be true when we were originally cast as “the help” in New Zealand’s post-war story?
As a Pacific person, we are constantly being told that what’s best for the overall well-being of the nation, is best for us. But how can this be true when we were originally cast as “the help” in New Zealand’s post-war story?
What our community truly needs is systemic change. Yes, we
do need our social and economic bases to grow, but that’s not enough on its
own. You saw the long list of problems we have. Tinkering around the class edges isn’t going to fix these issues. What
we also need is for inherent social bias against Pasifika people, much like that
pitched against Māori, to be dismantled. It’s not clear if a Pacific languages
policy is enough to this. Our community needs social and economic autonomy. We
don’t just need more jobs; we need more
Pacific businesses, political leaders, representation in our own organisations.
We need social and economic autonomy.
One of the greatest challenges to centring Pasifika in any systematic form is the rising tide against so-called identity politics. This weaponised term has become a pejorative of late
in NZ political circles. Its critics are quick to espouse that we provide
social assistance based on need, not on race or ethnicity. But what happens
when both become intertwined?
Perhaps that’s too high an
expectation to be placing on a singular policy or party; to be honest, the Nats fizzle from the outset as
non-starters. It’s really hard to analyse policies that don’t exist. But in all
reality, no major political party seems committed to seeing this vision in
their policy because we’re not willing to have the hard conversations around
racial bias in New Zealand’s social, judicial, and political institutions. Moving on this may be political suicide. I know
this, you know this, and politicians know this.
So where does this leave us?
In essence, it means that Pasifika identity doesn’t really mean much anymore to the political
establishment besides being able to add some dancing and singing at glitzy
events here and there; what we commonly view as ‘diversity’. As long as political
parties continue to work toward Pasifika advancement in a piecemeal policy
fashion, the gap between Pasifika well-being and mainstream New Zealand will
continue to be as wide as the lack of nuance we have on understanding the
complexities of intersecting racial bias and socioeconomic
deprivation in this country.
Patrick Thomsen is a
visiting professor at the Institute for Poverty Alleviation and
International Development, Yonsei University South Korea. Born
and raised in South Auckland, he is a current New Zealand Green Party
member. Patrick is of Samoan descent and holds the chiefly title of
Seutaafili from the village of Tauese in Samoa. He was also the first Pacific
Islander to be admitted to the University of Washington's Jackson School of
International Studies doctoral program in 2015 where he is concurrently a
PhD candidate. He has spent the past few years in
Seattle researching Korea, transnational subjectivity, human
rights norms, gender and international development.
No comments:
Post a Comment