Ktuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online

ISSN: (Print) 1177-083X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tnzk20

Building political competencies for the

transformation of racism in Aotearoa

HA Came & S da Silva

To cite this article: HA Came & S da Silva (2011) Building political competencies for the
transformation of racism in Aotearoa, Ktuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online,
6:1-2, 113-123, DOI: 10.1080/1177083X.2011.615332

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2011.615332

Copyright The Royal Society of New Zealand

Published online: 02 Nov 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 847

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tnzk20

Download by: [University of Auckland Library] Date: 02 September 2016, At: 20:05
Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online
Vol. 6, Nos. 12, MayNovember 2011, 113123

Building political competencies for the transformation of racism in Aotearoa

HA Camea,* and S da Silvab
a
School of Management, Waikato University, 1732 Pakiri Road, RD 2 Wellsford, 0972 New Zealand; bCreative
Industries and Humanities, Northtec, Whangarei, New Zealand
(Received 20 March 2011; final version received 25 July 2011)

In the face of enduring systemic racial disparities between Ma ori and non-Ma ori, we invite
Pa keha 1 health, education and social service professionals to review their ethical conduct and
to enhance their political competencies to help transform racism. This paper examines how
Pa keha became beneficiaries of racism and how libertarian discourses are used to distract
attention away from the associated privileges. Based on experience in the anti-racism movement,
we (the Pa keha authors) advocate for the grounding of Pa keha practitioners in a deeper
understanding of colonial history. We invite closer attention to structural analysis as a means of
gaining the understanding needed to strengthen political competence in order to avoid collusion
with institutional racism. We make a case to develop co-intentional relationships with Ma ori
through active whanaungatanga and the applications of the teachings of Freire as pathways for
strengthened practice.
Keywords: racism; ethics; political competencies; Te Tiriti o Waitangi

*
Introduction ethical standpoint
Since its signing, Te Tiriti o Waitangi2 remains
a contested site of ideological, legal and poli-
tical debate within Aotearoa New Zealand. It
also poses a potent ethical challenge for Pa keha
professionals about how to respond to the
collective responsibility for Te Tiriti breaches
and the enduring impact of colonization. We
contend that, within the context of Aotearoa,
no professional is an island; all settlers are
bound by Te Tiriti o Waitangi as this is the
mechanism by which access was gained to the
country. Te Tiriti is not a historic document;
rather it has ongoing relevance as, amongst
other things, a statement of intent to direct
Pa keha relationships with Ma ori. The authors
aspirations in regard to Te Tiriti are steadfastly
to transform macro-level colonial power rela-
tions.
We are a pair of sixth- and seventh-generation
Pa keha , accustomed to working in the fields of
health, education and social service provision
and engaging in social change Tiriti work. We
contend that we live in a country producing
profoundly racist outcomes across a plethora
of social indicators (see Robson & Harris
2007). This is unacceptable to us. We recognize
that we are beneficiaries of a colonial system
that was established to advance the aspirations
of settlers of British descent and to minimize
indigenous control and sovereignty. As bene-
ficiaries of racism, we maintain the onus is on
Pa keha to contribute to the transformation of
chronic social and economic disparities and the
disruption of unfavourable power differentials

*Corresponding author. Email: heather.came@yahoo.co.nz

1
Pa keha in Te Tiriti terms refers to settlers.
2
Unless otherwise specified, the use of Te Tiriti o Waitangi or Te Tiriti is referring to the Ma ori text of the
Treaty of Waitangi as developed by Henry Williams.
ISSN 1177-083X online
# 2011 The Royal Society of New Zealand
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2011.615332
http://www.tandfonline.com
114 HA Came and S da Silva
in whichever arena our professional lives un-
fold.
With the New Zealand governments endor-
sement of the International Declaration of
Indigenous Rights (UN 2007), it is timely to
reconsider the legacy of colonization. The
historic and contemporary actions of many
Pa keha professionals, in developing and imp-
lementing Crown policy, have negatively
impacted on the current political, economic
and social situation of Ma ori.
Whether one is employed in social policy
development or its implementation, it is im-
portant to consider a set of ethical assumptions
and beliefs about how the world is and what is
appropriate behaviour. These, at times uncon-
scious, assumptions and understandings are
shaped by cultural background, life experience,
education and political beliefs. Elements of
these assumptions and beliefs are sometimes
validated more formally into codes of profes-
sional practice or outlined within legislation
about appropriate behaviour. These codes of
practices and legislation often privilege a parti-
cular cultural standpoint; within the context of
Aotearoa, Pa keha viewpoints currently predo-
minate.
Within this paper, we propose a treaty-
centric ethic for Pa keha professionals as a
means to support Ma ori to achieve tino ranga-
tiratanga and minimize the historic and con-
temporary impacts of colonization. Emphasis
on cultural competencies has served to
strengthen Pa keha practice particularly in the
provision of personal services. We advocate for
a deeper engagement with the complexities of
the power relations inherited from decades
of institutional racism as manifested in policies
of colonization and assimilation. Such an
emancipatory approach draws on an existing
legacy of both Ma ori and Pa keha resistance to
racism. Brazilian educationalist Freires (1970)
teachings offer a valuable guide to navigating
the pathway to what Thompson (2006) de-
scribes as anti-discriminatory practice.
Beneficiaries of racism
They [Pa keha ] conveniently forget that their
prosperity, and indeed the wealth of the country
as a whole (wealth from which Ma ori, on the
whole have been excluded) has been built on the
backs of Ma ori  created out of stolen land and
resources and cemented through the exploita-
tion of Maori labour (Mikaere 2001, p. 137).
Where there is racism, one group is being dis-
advantaged. Paradies (2007) maintains privi-
lege and its dialectic opposite are inter-related
concepts that occur within a social system in
which people are divided along racial/ethnic
lines with power unevenly distributed based on
those lines. He maintains (Paradies 2007, p. 67):
. . . oppression is systemic in society and is
unwittingly and unconsciously (re)produced by
many people who have no racist intentions
whatsoever. Institutional racism refers to the
unearned structural advantage, often referred
to as privilege, which works in concert with
systemic discrimination to produce differential
access to societal goods and services by race.
Fig. 1 depicts the concurrent forces of
privilege and racism. Within many colonial
contexts, privilege is intricately intertwined with
historic processes of colonization and assimila-
tion as indigenous sovereignty was usurped. The
descendants of colonizers are thereby the bene-
ficiaries of a legacy of racism enjoying access
to public institutions framed around certain
values and beliefs and beneficiaries of land and
other economic resources that were confiscated
and removed from indigenous peoples.
Figure 1 Dynamics of racism and privilege.

Privilege is not however evenly endowed on
all the descendants of colonizers. Rather, as
Moreton-Robinson (2004, p. 5) and Griffith
et al. (2007, p. 298) hold, privilege intersects
with the experiences of class, gender, sexuality
and (dis)ableness. Some descendants are better
positioned than others to utilize the full extent
of privilege. Aspects of privilege can also be
neutralized by political activism and challenges
the structures that convey privilege. These
privileges present unique ethical challenges to
the beneficiaries of racism about how to
navigate amongst contemporary inequalities
that have been generated from socio-historic
racism and colonization.
Colonization is inherently racist in that it
assumes the superiority of one group of people
and their cultural institutions over another.
Since the settler (Pa keha ) government assumed
unitary sovereignty soon after 1840, Pa keha
have dictated the systems of political represen-
tation, industry, health, education and criminal
justice in New Zealand (Awatere 1984; Cook
1984). At the core of the Crowns contested3
claims of sovereignty is the false notion that
Ma ori ceded sovereignty in 1840. This belief led
the Crown to establish ka wanatanga arrange-
ments that have consistently denied Ma ori
rangatiratanga and failed to protect Ma ori
interests as guaranteed under Te Tiriti o Wait-
angi. Instead, successive settler governments
have vigorously pursued policies of coloniza-
tion and assimilation and have been active
agents in the alienation of Ma ori land and
the marginalization of Ma ori cultural practices
and communal ways of life (Waitangi Tribunal
1986; Williams 2001).
These policies have frequently been admi-
nistered by Pa keha professionals to the advan-
tage of Pa keha . Pa keha have been the direct
beneficiaries of this transfer of economic assets
and the normalization of Pa keha cultural values
and beliefs. Pa keha have been able to individu-
ally inherit family land, enjoy culturally relevant
3
The major Ngapuhi claim, Te Paparahi o te Raki, currently before the Waitangi Tribunal, directly addresses
issues surrounding Ngapuhi denial that they ceded sovereignty to the English.
Beyond cultural sensitivity 115
education at all levels, preferential access to
employment, housing, goods and services and
most powerfully, define ourselves and Pa keha
ways as ordinary or normal. For example,
Pa keha privilege gives Pa keha the power to
define history and extends to attempts to con-
trol the spelling of Ma ori words as recently
evidenced in the debate about the spelling of
the river and city of Whanganui (Moon
2009, October). Reid and Robson (2007, p. 5)
therefore maintain that any:
. . .discussion on equity and rights must be
informed by acknowledging this preferential ben-
efit accrued by Pa keha from the systems they
introduced and built, and continue to redefine
and control.
Libertarian discourses of denial
Many whites explain the gap between black
and white earnings not by invoking inequality
and prejudice, but by relying on individualistic
explanations about thrift, hard work, and
other factors-all of which tend to explain white
success through white merit and equate white-
ness with ability and employability (Mahoney
1997, pp. 332333).
It is possible for Pa keha to understand*and
accept*that they have been beneficiaries of
racism. However, libertarian discourses serve
to undermine and disrupt these understan-
dings. Rhetoric of formal equality and antira-
cism has been supported in principle within
Aotearoa for decades. Aspects of these views
are embodied within United Nations (1976,
1966) human rights agreements which the New
Zealand government has ratified. Underlying
this, however, is often the libertarian notion of
Aotearoa being a meritocracy and that all
individual citizens have equal opportunities to
succeed and fail within society; success reflects
an individuals resourcefulness and ability to
engage in the market. These seemingly benign
standpoints, maintain Augoustinos et al. (1999),
116 HA Came and S da Silva
through their study of race talk in Australia,
are set against moral values such as the protes-
tant work ethic, self-discipline and individual
achievement, not the more traditional racist
discourses of biological or genetic superiority.
Some libertarians acknowledge the proble-
matic historic existence of racism but believe
through Treaty settlements and assorted gov-
ernment initiatives such racism has now been
fixed. This analysis, Thomas (2000) maintains,
denies the existence of the structural disadvan-
tage of indigenous peoples while simultaneously
obscuring the structural advantage or racial
privileges enjoyed by white people.
The framing of a problem, contends Borell
et al. (2009, p. 34) is inherently political, in
that it precludes some*and predicates other*
policy solutions and channels resource alloca-
tion. Individual and race-based explanations
for racial disparities such as cultural deficit
theory are often utilized by libertarian advo-
cates. Indeed, Pihama (2001, p. 139) maintains
it is a destructive dominant hegemonic dis-
course. From a cultural deficit standpoint, the
overrepresentation of indigenous peoples and
other minorities in negative social statistics is
seen as the function of systemic indigenous
failure. This deficit analysis credits these fail-
ings to a lack in an individual or group (Black
& Stone 2005; Thomas 2000). Valencia (1997)
contends that these purported failings are
represented as laziness, lack of motivation
and/or a welfare mentality, while Reid and
Robson (2007, p. 5) maintain that they are
incorrectly credited to a mix of inferior indi-
genous genes, intellect, education, aptitude,
ability or effort.
Pihama and Gardiner (2005, p. 21) argue
that deficit theory has had significant influ-
ence on social policy and has become en-
trenched in the everyday language of many
New Zealanders. They maintain that within
deficit theorizing, the home environment and
family background have become the focus by
which to explain differences in school achieve-
ment, involvement in crime and health beha-
viours. Those that subscribe to the deficit
model, Subban et al. (2008, p. 770s) maintain,
tend to treat minorities as if they are deficient
and need fixing. The solution to racial dispa-
rities from this standpoint is more cultural
assimilation, as to succeed, one must be assimi-
lated and be more white-like (Solorzano &
Yosso 2002, p. 31). This approach, according to
Fine et al. (1997), ensures that the behaviours
of dominant groups are seldom closely exam-
ined and white privilege is rarely exposed.
Pa keha resistance
Contrary to the impression left by Borell
et al. (2009) in their article on privilege, there
is a longstanding tradition of Pa keha individu-
ally and collectively challenging racism and
privilege. Much of this activity (see Huygens
2007; Margaret 2002) comes from an activist
tradition of holding those in authority accoun-
table to principles of justice and equity and
developing honourable power-sharing strate-
gies with Ma ori. Central to this approach
has been feminist traditions of consciousness-
raising and informing other Pa keha .
Walker (1990, p. 278) contends that through
the 1970s and 1980s Pa keha organizations like
ACORD (Auckland Committee on Racism and
Discrimination), mounted a systematic, unre-
mitting, and uncompromising attack on institu-
tional racism. Campaigns included: critiques
of social policy, lobbying for interpreters, a
critique of racist portrayals of Ma ori in the
souvenir industry and facilitating an inquiry
into the treatment of Ma ori children in social
welfare homes. The Nelson Action Group
(Sutherland et al. 1973) reviewed legal repre-
sentation for Ma ori and Pacific offenders, the
Kawanatanga Network (1996) wrote an alter-
native constitution and the Womens Action
Committee (Berridge et al. 1984) investiga-
ted perceived institutional racism within the
Department of Social Welfare. This work was
strengthened by the emergence of a revisionist
history through the work of Simpson (1979),
Scott (1981) and Orange (1987) amongst

others, and conscientization gained through
involvement in anti-Springbok tour campaigns.
Pa keha treaty work has cumulatively con-
scientized thousands of New Zealanders, thro-
ugh treaty education workshops and other
interventions (Huygens 2007; Jones 1992). Con-
scientization in this context often has three
key components: acquiring (a) an awareness of
ones own history and culture, (b) an aware-
ness of others history and culture and (c)
motivation to take action of some kind to
rectify injustices. Many of those working for
any length of time within the public and social
service sectors will have been exposed to basic
New Zealand history and Te Tiriti information.
Pa keha Treaty educators and activists report
specific changes in professional practice from
conscientized allies as celebrated in the well-
attended Treaty 2000 conference (see Huygens
et al. 2000).
Further in-depth research needs to be done,
however, to quantify the impact of anti-racism
intervention. Research commissioned by the
Human Rights Commission (2011, p. 38) con-
sistently shows that a third of New Zealanders
felt that they have a high level of knowledge
about the Treaty of Waitangi which in part
can be credited to Pa keha Treaty work.
Within the remainder of this paper, we
suggest that further work needs to be done by
Pa keha professionals to consolidate and expand
our core political competencies in this area
and to enable effective co-intentional relation-
ships with Ma ori. We maintain that informed
power-sharing within respective spheres of in-
fluence lies at the heart of ethical practice for
those of us that are beneficiaries of racism.
The case for political competencies
Existing competency documents and ethical
frameworks (see Health Promotion Forum
1999; New Zealand Association of Counsellors
2002; Public Health Association 2007; Social
Workers Registration Board 2005) have at-
tempted to articulate ethical practice for
Pa keha professionals. The codes generally do
Beyond cultural sensitivity 117
not specify the political competencies necessary
to achieve a treaty-centric ethic.
This paper is an attempt to locate political
competence within a critical understanding of
the power dynamics associated with Te Tiriti,
colonization and the realities of Pa keha being
beneficiaries of racism. The aim is to provide
guidance for practitioners wanting to apply this
knowledge to their practice. By abandoning our
colonial ethics of paternalism towards Ma ori,
we open up the possibilities of more informed
dialogue and partnerships with Ma ori. We
contend deeper reflection and capacity-building
needs to occur so that Pa keha professionals are
enabled to appropriately engage with Ma ori to
transform ethnic disparities and uneven power
relations.
In articulating the case for political compe-
tencies, within this section, we examine some of
the limitations of current Pa keha practice as we
have observed them and, in turn, define possi-
ble political competencies to strengthen prac-
tice.
Limitations of current practice
Cultural competency/safety has been the pre-
ferred pathway for some decades in order to
increase responsiveness to Ma ori by those
involved in service provision. The considerable
resources invested into cultural safety training
have not resulted in the transformation of
underlying power relations between Pa keha
professionals and Ma ori. The intent of cultural
competence training always involves more than
learning how to consistently pronounce te reo
Ma ori and learning Ma ori concepts of tapu,
noa, mana kitanga and wairuatanga. Ramsdens
(2002) approach called for shifts in power from
professionals to those receiving the care/educa-
tion/policy with Te Tiriti o Waitangi providing
the framework for that progression.
The substance of the power-sharing Rams-
den advocated for has largely not been affir-
med nor implemented by Pa keha decision-
makers. Instead, a diluted form of cultural
awareness is packaged and delivered within
118 HA Came and S da Silva
Crown agencies across the country, leaving
well-meaning practitioners without leadership
on this issue. Public sector management and
policy-makers have generally failed to partici-
pate in relevant professional development and
have not therefore acquired the understanding
necessary to alter practice (Richardson 2004;
Wepa 2003).
We have observed the failure of some
Pa keha to recognize our position as the domi-
nant culture. The lack of awareness of this
power dynamic makes it difficult for practi-
tioners to reposition themselves to become one
of many within a multi-ethnic population, or
to enact an effective Treaty relationship with
indigenous peoples. This cultural blindness can
be observed in the struggle of Pa keha to
understand the dynamics of wha nau and collec-
tive responsibility that permeate many Ma ori
cultural practices because Pa keha culture tends
to emphasize the individual.
This cultural blindness or mono-cultural
practice can be clearly observed in the develop-
ment of policy. Here Pa keha practitioners and
decision-makers often use Western paradigms
to reject Ma ori knowledge and evidence as not
being scientific or robust enough. These omis-
sions whether conscious or not, negatively
distort policy. The practice of making policy
for everyone marginalizes other groups and
ignores Te Tiriti obligations to serve the inter-
ests of Ma ori. Skilful bicultural practice and
political insight is required to mitigate this ever-
present risk.
Through their study of public administra-
tion, Adams and Balfour (2009) maintain that
public servants, often unintentionally, function
as tools of oppression, reinforcing the very
marginalization they are committed to minimiz-
ing. Adams and Balfour name this phenomenon
administrative evil. They suggest it is entirely
possible to adhere to the tenets of public service
and professional ethics and participate in ad-
ministrative evil and not be aware of it, until it
is too late. They contend that the prevailing
hegemony relies on the participation of ordi-
nary citizens to fulfil their morally neutral
professional roles and act in socially normal and
appropriate ways to maintain its powerbase.
Within Aotearoa, there is extensive evidence
that Maori receive lower levels and poorer
quality service than non-Maori peoples. This
has been verified in the realms of housing (see
Housing New Zealand 2007; Robson & Harris
2007), employment (see Alexander et al. 2003;
Sutherland & Alexander 2002), income levels
(see Maani 2004; St John & Wynd 2008), access
to goods and services (see Howell & Hackwell
2003; Van Ryn & Burke 2000), within the
justice system (see Fergusson et al. 2003a, b)
and within the education system (see Reid 2006;
Te Puni Kokiri 2001). These inequities in access
to essential services are a product of current
practice.
Defining political competencies
In the face of endemic Pa keha privilege, Pa keha
professionals, individually and collectively, need
to develop a core base of political competencies
to avoid collusion with institutional racism.
We maintain this base knowledge and insight
is necessary to enable practitioners to make
strategic choices within our respective spheres
of influence.
Grounded in decades of Tiriti work with
non-Ma ori, we advocate for Pa keha to become
knowledgeable about whanaungatanga, acco-
untability mechanisms, decolonization and the
tools of structural analysis. This knowledge
and the associated understandings can make
visible the dynamics of racism and privilege,
thus opening up the possibility of informed
ethical choices.
Understanding the past is critical to under-
standing the present. Jackson (2000, pp. 67)
contends that Ma ori perceptions of government
institutions, policies and practices are shaped
by historical and contemporary experiences.
He maintains it: . . .is an unwise person who
attempts to discount the continuity between
past and present and in the Ma ori context
it would be culturally impossible and intel-
lectually incomprehensible to do so. Pa keha

need to know our own history, the collusion
with colonization and the history of the peoples
with whom we are working.
Pa keha professionals have historically val-
ued professional detachment which requires
practitioners to remain in role to protect
themselves from getting overly involved and
which claims to be objective. This protective
device produces aloofness and negates an active
exploration of boundaries and ethics. Wha-
naungatanga, on the other hand, for us, is
about building and maintaining relationships
with the people with whom we work; it is an
ongoing and organic dynamic which encom-
passes wha nau in its broadest sense. It requires
an active exploration of roles, boundaries and
ethical dilemmas and becomes not just a
professional skill, but a way of life.
Whanaungatanga requires engagement with
people and an understanding that you cannot
work with people you are not engaged with.
Building on a base of political and cultural
understanding, Pa keha professionals need to
ensure they have robust relationships and net-
works with Ma ori to ensure that critical dialo-
gue occurs. These individual and collective
relationships are built on common interest and
amiability and often bridge (in Pa keha terms)
both professional and personal spheres. Reci-
procity and honesty nurture these key poten-
tially life-long relationships.
Tuakana (older sibling) and teina (younger
sibling) dynamics, with their respective obliga-
tions and responsibilities, are nurtured by us in
our professional practice in our dealings with
Ma ori who do not work for the Crown. This
is one of a range of models of reconfigured
power dynamics. Formal cultural supervision
can powerfully supplement and reinforce these
relationships.
Central to Pa keha Tiriti work traditions,
maintains Huygens (2001) from her extensive
study of the movement supported by colleague
Herzog (2002), are attempts at power-sharing
and the redistribution of resources. Huygens
4
Within the womens refuge movement, Tauiwi is the term used to distinguish non-Ma ori.
Beyond cultural sensitivity 119
(1999, p. 16) explains that Project Waitangi,
which was set up to educate Pa keha on Tiriti
issues, operated with a system of Ma ori moni-
tors to ensure that the overall direction and
outcomes met the needs of Ma ori. This ac-
countability structure was influenced by the
writings of Ramsden (2002) who advocated for
non-dominant groups to become the experts
and monitor the effectiveness of a service.
Due to the, at times, . . .irreconcilable ten-
sions between Pakeha feminists and Maori
cultural practices, Huygens (2001, p. 396)
maintains that considered decisions have also
been made to organize separately and/or em-
brace parallel development. The womens refuge
movement is a powerful example of parallel
development, with resource sharing, comple-
mentary service delivery and a partnership
system consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The partnership has not always been smooth
and working through the issues that arise has
not been easy but the women in the move-
ment, Ma ori and Tauiwi,4 are committed to
making the partnership work so that the women
of Aotearoa New Zealand are provided with
services that are appropriate and sustaining.
We, the authors, have layers of diverse
accountabilities to individual Ma ori and more
formalized arrangements with Ma ori groups.
These relationships are valued and actively
protected/nurtured as these ensure the rele-
vance of our work. Uncomfortable moments
and challenges occur but we recognize the
investment Ma ori have made in mentoring us
within our respective roles. There are also
moments of deep satisfaction and joy as we
build just and enduring relationships and cele-
brate break-throughs.
Acting in a supportive role, Pa keha Tiriti
workers often work in co-intentional relation-
ships with Ma ori to support the aspirations of
tino rangatiratanga, attempt to prevent further
breaches of Te Tiriti and work towards achiev-
ing constitutional change. Both of us have
been involved in co-delivery Tiriti education
120 HA Came and S da Silva
with Ma ori trainers and through our profes-
sional and activist work, have negotiated for
frequent peer review from Ma ori. We have
responded to requests from Ma ori to support
particular political actions to moderate the
racism of local and central government. This
engagement has taken the form of strategizing,
submission writing, fund-raising, baking, baby-
sitting and involvement in protest marches and
occupations.
Decolonization is both an individual and
collective process of revealing and actively
analysing the historic and contemporary impact
of colonization, mono-culturalism and institu-
tional racism combined with political move-
ment towards the restoration of sovereignty.
Freire (1970) has made a significant contribu-
tion to decolonization processes worldwide and
especially in Aotearoa. One of his critical
insights was that of separate but co-intentional
tasks: that is, the descendants of the colonizers
and the descendants of the colonized have
different tasks to complete but that this should
be done in dialogue with each other.
Liberation, he held, was never given by the
powerful to the oppressed; rather the oppres-
sed would seize their own liberation, affecting
the freedom of both parties. The ethical stand-
point of the descendants of the colonizers is
to assist this process by challenging systems
of power and holding our own people*those
being obstructive*accountable. The challenge
for Pa keha professionals is identifying our
contribution to decolonization and reconfigur-
ing our engagement with Ma ori individually
and collectively.
As Pa keha professionals, rather than doing
what we have always done, we need to ask
critical ethical questions to make sense of uneven
power relations within society. We need to be at
least curious about the way in which chronic
disparities are maintained. We need to ask what
we are contributing to perpetuating these dis-
parities within our sphere of influence. What can
we do to affect positive change?
Structural analysis is a powerful frame-
work to explore some of these questions. Freire
(1970, 1998) has been influential within this
field. His teachings reveal an analysis of the
historical-sociological, cultural and structural
context behind a multitude of oppressions
and are a useful lens for examining institutional
racism. Through systems-level analysis, the
gaze is lifted from pathologizing the failure of
individuals and groups of people into examin-
ing the structural and institutional origins
of disadvantage and advantage in society
(Delahunty 2001).
Various tools have been developed to enable
systems-level analysis. One of the more well
known, The Wave (see Fig. 2) was introduced
to New Zealand by Father Fanchette from
Martinique. It is used to illustrate that, from
different vantage points even when in the same
place, people observe different dynamics and
have very different experiences. These disparate
viewpoints are all valid but the challenge in
terms of ethical behaviour is to develop a
macro-level analysis of power and oppression,
to see the impact of ones own current practice
and to consider the likely medium-term impact
of those same actions.
If there is an exclusive focus on addressing
the constant and pressing challenges immedi-
ately presented, there is a risk of missing the
opportunity for transformative action. If as
busy Pa keha professionals we practice without
a macro-level analysis, we risk doing harm by
accepting cultural deficit thinking and paterna-
listic behaviour. Ma ori are neither personally
nor collectively responsible for the fact that
(Rankin 2010).
Figure 2 The wave.

they might not thrive in an environment,
largely created by Pa keha professionals, that
is hostile to Ma ori.
Conclusion
It is an unearned privilege to be part of the
dominant cultural group and to have beliefs
and assumptions that are considered normal.
To operate in public institutions that reflect
personal values and understandings of the world
is comfortable. Realizing that one is a bene-
ficiary of racism involves significantly more
tension and complexity. Power and the possi-
bilities of sharing power lie at the heart of
that tension. We maintain that with power
come professional responsibilities to examine
the nature of individual and collective privileges
in order to ethically manage this dynamic. We
advocate for Pa keha to develop core political
competencies and co-intentional relationships
with Ma ori to work towards transfor-
ming racism within our professional spheres of
influence.
References
Adams G, Balfour D 2009. Unmasking administra-
tive evil: rethinking public administration. 3rd
edition. Armonk, NY, ME Sharpe. 199 p.
Alexander R, Genc M, Jaforullah M 2003. Maori
disadvantage in the labour market. Dunedin,
New Zealand, University of Otago. 28 p.
Augoustinos M, Tufn K, Rapley M 1999. Genocide
or a failure to gel? Racism, history and nation-
alism in Australian talk. Discourse and Society
10: 351378.
Awatere D 1984. Maori sovereignty. Auckland, New
Zealand, Broadsheet. 108 p.
Berridge D, Cowan L, Cumberland T, Davys A,
McDowell H, Morgan J, Riley L, Ruck A,
Wallis P 1984. Institutional racism in the
Department of Social Welfare. Auckland, New
Zealand, Department of Social Welfare. 90 p.
Black L, Stone D 2005. Expanding the denition of
privilege: the concept of social privilege. Journal
of Multicultural Counselling and Development
33: 243255.
Borell B, Gregory A, McCreanor T, Jensen V,
Moewaka-Barnes H 2009. Its hard at the top
but its a whole lot easier than being at the
Beyond cultural sensitivity 121
bottom: the role of privilege in understanding
disparities in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Race/
Ethnicity 3: 2950.
Cook J 1984. Maori sovereignty: a Pakeha womans
response. Woman on Peace 910.
Delahunty C 2001. Kotare trust and popular educa-
tion. New Zealand Journal of Adult Learning
31: 520.
Fergusson D, Swain-Campbell N, Horwood J 2003a.
Arrests and convictions for cannabis related
offences in a New Zealand birth cohort. Drug
and Alcohol Dependency 40: 5663.
Fergusson D, Swain-Campbell N, Horwood J 2003b.
Ethnicity and criminal convictions: results of a
21-year longitudinal study. Australia and New
Zealand Journal of Criminology 43: 354367.
Fine M, Weis L, Powell L, Wong L 1997. Off white:
readings on race, power and society. New York,
Routledge. 453 p.
Freire P 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New
York, Herder and Herder. 186 p.
Freire P 1998. Pedagogy of freedom: ethics, democ-
racy and civic courage. Lanham, MD, Rowman
and Littleeld. 144 p.
Grifth D, Childs E, Eng E, Jeffries V 2007. Racism
in organizations: the case of a county public
health department. Journal of Community Psy-
chology 35: 287302.
Health Promotion Forum 1999. Nga kaiakatanga
hauora m Aotearoa: health promotion compe-
tencies for Aotearoa-New Zealand. Auckland,
New Zealand: Author. 32 p.
Herzog C 2002. Locating treaty education within
adult education. In: Margaret J ed Pakeha
treaty work: unpublished material. Auckland,
New Zealand, Treaty Resource Centre. Pp.
7478.
Housing New Zealand 2007. Te au roa: Housing
New Zealand-Maori strategic plan 2007
2012. Wellington, New Zealand, Housing New
Zealand. 49 p.
Howell G, Hackwell K 2003. Why dont Maori and
Pacic children get the disability allowance?
Wellington, New Zealand, Downtown Commu-
nity Ministry. 45 p.
Human Rights Commission 2011. Tui tui tuituia :
race relations in 2010. Auckland, New Zealand,
Human Rights Commission. 95 p.
Huygens I 1999. An accountability model for Pakeha
practitioners. In: Robertson N ed. Proceedings
of Maori and psychology: research and practice
symposium. Hamilton, New Zealand, Maori
and Psychology Research Unit, Waikato Uni-
versity. Pp. 1722.
Huygens I 2001. Feminist attempts at power sha-
ring in Aotearoa: embarrassing herstory or
122 HA Came and S da Silva
signicant learning towards treaty-based struc-
tures? Feminism and Psychology 11: 393400.
Huygens I 2007. Process of Pakeha change in
response to the Treaty of Waitangi. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Waikato Univer-
sity, Hamilton, New Zealand. 317 p.
Huygens I, MacLachlan M, Yensen H, Huijbers K,
Reid P 2000. Proceedings of Treaty Conference
2000. Auckland, New Zealand, Treaty Publica-
tions Group. 165 p.
Jackson M 2000. Steven Wallace: an analysis of the
police report. http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/
smoana.htm#abs (accessed 28 October 2010).
Jones D 1992. Looking in my own back yard: the
search for white feminist theories of racism for
Aotearoa. In: Du Plessis R, Bunkle P eds.
Feminist voices: womens studies texts for
Aotearoa/New Zealand Auckland, New Zeal-
and, Oxford University Press. Pp. 290299.
Kawantanga Network 1996. Pakeha/Tauiwi discus-
sion paper on future constitution. In: Margaret
J ed. Pakeha treaty work: unpublished material.
Auckland, New Zealand, Treaty Unit, Manu-
kau Institute of Technology. Pp. 156164.
Maani SA 2004. Why have Maori relative income
levels deteriorated over time? The Economic
Record 80: 101124.
Mahoney M 1997. The social construction of white-
ness. In: Delgado R, Stefancic J eds. Critical
white studies: looking behind the mirror. Phila-
delphia, Temple University Press.. Pp. 330333.
Margaret J ed 2002. Pa keha treaty work: unpub-
lished material. Manukau, New Zealand
Manukau Institute of Technology Treaty Unit.
248 p.
Mikaere A 2001. Racism in contemporary Aotearoa:
a Pakeha problem. In: Nakata M ed. Indigen-
ous peoples, racism and the United Nations.
Sydney, Australia, Common Ground Publish-
ing. Pp. 133155.
Moon P 2009 October. Spelling debate brings out
bigotry and racism. New Zealand Herald. http://
www.nzherald.co.nz/news/print.cfm?objectid10
600742&pnum1 (accessed 1 April 2010).
Moreton-Robinson A 2004. The possessive logic
of patriarchal white sovereignty: the high
court and the yorta yorta decision. Borderlands
E-Journal 3. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/7690/1/
7690.pdf (accessed 10 August 2010).
New Zealand Association of Counsellors 2002. A
code of ethics: a framework for ethical practice.
Wellington, New Zealand, New Zealand Asso-
ciation of Counsellors. 16 p.
Orange C 1987. The Treaty of Waitangi. Wellington,
New Zealand, Bridget Williams Books. 356 p.
Paradies Y 2007. Racism. In: Carson B, Dunbar T,
Chenhall R, Bailie R eds. Social determinants of
indigenous health. Sydney, Australia, Allen and
Unwin.. Pp. 6586.
Pihama L 2001. TI`hei mauri ora: honouring our
voices. Mana wahine as a kaupapa Ma ori theore-
tical framework. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. http://
www.kaupapamaori.com/theory/5/ (accessed 8
March 2011).
Pihama L, Gardiner D 2005. Building baseline data
on Maori, whanau development and Maori
realising their potential. Auckland, New Zeal-
and, Te Puni Kokiri. 63 p.
Public Health Association 2007. Draft generic com-
petencies for public health in Aotearoa-New
Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand, Ministry of
Health. 69 p.
Ramsden I 2002. Cultural safety and nursing educa-
tion in Aotearoa and Te Waipounamu, Doctor-
al thesis, Victoria University, Wellington, New
Zealand. 223 p.
Rankin J 2010. The Wave (Illustration). http://www.
awea.org.nz/waveintro (accessed 23 June 2010).
Reid J 2006. Barriers to Maori student success at the
University of Canterbury. Masters thesis, Can-
terbury University, Christchurch, New Zealand.
155 p.
Reid P, Robson B 2007. Understanding health
inequities. In: Robson R ed, Harris R Hauora
Maori standards of health IV. Wellington,
New Zealand, Te Rpu Rangahau Hauora A
Eru Pomare. Pp. 311.
Richardson S 2004. Aotearoa/New Zealand nursing:
from eugenics to cultural safety. Nursing In-
quiry 11: 3542.
Robson B, Harris R eds 2007. Hauora: Maori
standards of health 4. A study of the years
20002005. Wellington, New Zealand: Te Rpn
Rangahau Hauora a Eru Pmare. 287 p.
Scott D 1981. Ask the mountain. Auckland, New
Zealand, Reed. 270 p.
Simpson T 1979. Te riri Pakeha: The white mans
anger. Martinborough, New Zealand, Alistair
Taylor. 256 p.
Social Workers Registration Board 2005. Code of
conduct for social workers. Wellington, New
Zealand, Social Workers Registration Board.
10 p.
Solorzano DG, Yosso TJ 2002. Critical race meth-
odology: counter-storytelling as an analytical
framework for education research. Qualitative
Inquiry 8: 2344.
St John S, Wynd D 2008. Left behind: How social
and income inequalities damage New Zealand

children. Auckland, New Zealand, Child Pov-
erty Action Group. 160 p.
Subban J, Terwoord N, Schuster R 2008. With or
without Intent: How racial disparities prevent
effective implementation of care. The Journal of
Nutrition, Health & Aging, 12: 770s775s.
http://ndarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7616/is_200812/
ai_n32311001/?tagcontent;col1 (accessed 1 April
2010).
Sutherland O, Hippolite J, Galbreath R 1973 Feb-
ruary. Justice and race: a monocultural system
in a multicultural society. Paper presented at the
New Zealand Race Relations Council Annual
Conference, Wellington, New Zealand.
Sutherland H, Alexander R 2002. The occupational
distribution of Maori 19972000 Economic dis-
cussion papers. Dunedin, New Zealand, Depart-
ment of Economics, University of Otago. 25 p.
Te Puni Kkiri 2001. Follow up review of the
Accident Compensation Corporations service
delivery to Ma ori. Wellington, New Zealand, Te
Puni Kkiri. 24 p.
Thomas M 2000. Anything but race: the social
science retreat from racism. African American
Research Perspectives 6: 7996. http://www.
rcgd.isr.umich.edu/prba/perspectives/winter2000/
mthomas.pdf (accessed 10 March 2010).
Thompson N 2006. Anti-discriminatory practice.
Hampshire, UK, Palgrave MacMillan. 208 p.
Beyond cultural sensitivity 123
United Nation 1966. International convention on the
elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.
New York, United Nation. 9 p.
United Nations 1976. International covenant on
economic, social and cultural ights. Geneva,
Switzerland, United Nation. 8 p.
United Nations 2007. Declaration on the rights of
indigenous peoples. New York, United Nation.
12 p.
Valencia R 1997. The evolution of decit thinking:
educational thought and practice. Washington,
DC, The Falmer Press. 270 p.
Van Ryn M, Burke K 2000. The effects of patient
race and socio-economic status on physicians
perceptions of patients. Social Science and
Medicine 50: 813828.
Waitangi Tribunal 1986. Te Reo Maori claim [WAI
11]. Wellington, New Zealand, Waitangi Tribu-
nal. 51 p.
Walker R 1990. Ka whawhai tonu ma tou: struggle
without end. Auckland, New Zealand, Penguin
Books. 334 p.
Wepa D 2003. An exploration of the experiences of
cultural safety educators. Journal of Transcul-
tural Nursing 14: 339348.
Williams D 2001. Crown policy affecting Maori
knowledge systems and cultural practices. Well-
ington, New Zealand, Waitangi Tribunal. 343 p.