Unravelling Colonial Epistemology in Public Administration

15/07/2024

I’m not posting much. I am writing. But the graphic below has my attention.

Let me share some thoughts I’ve been developing, building on Heather Came’s recent work (2024) above. I’m mainly focused on how this applies to public management education and practice in Aotearoa New Zealand. Three critical issues keep surfacing in my analysis.

First, there’s a persistent misunderstanding among domestic officials and international observers about the relationship between kāwanatanga and rangatiratanga. This isn’t a competition or a zero-sum game – it’s a balance, but one with a clear underlying principle: rangatiratanga takes precedence unless there’s compelling, evidence-based justification for kāwanatanga to step forward. This isn’t radical; it’s fundamental to our constitutional arrangement.

The second point is perhaps more controversial in Wellington’s corridors: it’s not the role of kāwanatanga to define or shape rangatiratanga, let alone prescribe what Indigenous public policy or political institutions should look like. Te Ao Māori isn’t static – it adapts and evolves as whānau, hapū, iwi, and hapori make decisions about their institutions and how those institutions exercise rangatirtanga in response to changing contexts.

Here’s what officials need to hear: sometimes, the most powerful thing the Crown can do is maintain strategic silence. Yes, silence. It’s an underappreciated tool in the public service toolkit. Instead of defining and shaping Indigenous spaces, officials should focus on their core responsibility: ensuring Crown institutions embody sound governance principles while delivering equitable outcomes, access, processes, and participation for all.

Let me be blunt: opening meetings with pepeha and karakia, while important protocols, doesn’t absolve anyone from the hard work of rigorous equity analysis, institutional assessment, thorough cost-benefit studies, administrative burden reviews, or proper regulatory impact statements. Cultural competency isn’t a substitute for technical competency – we need both.

My final observation is perhaps the most contentious. I’m questioning whether the current white backlash we’re witnessing is a direct result of attempting to transform our public institutions too rapidly – trying to shift from what I call ‘dazzling-and-off-white’ to explicitly anti-racist and deliberately decolonised structures in just six years was always going to be ambitious – especially when it was done in the absence of accountability and a performance story. This rapid pace might explain the current retreat to what I see as dazzling white institutional frameworks.

Is it possible the white pushback we’re seeing isn’t just about resistance to change—it’s about the pace and process of that change? When we move too quickly without building proper foundations, we risk precisely the white reactionary response we’re witnessing. Admittedly, that extreme and reactionary response survives in pockets and cell-like arrangements.

By the way, this post isn’t just academic theorising. These issues have real implications for how we design and implement public policy, structure our institutions, and, ultimately, serve all communities in Aotearoa New Zealand. We must be more thoughtful about managing the shift from Nieu Zeeland to Aotearoa New Zealand, ensuring it’s sustainable rather than susceptible to extremist capture and unaffordable pendulum swings.

References:

Came, H., Kerrigan, V., Gambrell, K., Simpson, T., & Goza, M. (2024). Unravelling colonial education: from Dazzling White to Deliberately Decolonised and supporting the case for Indigenous universities. Whiteness and Education, 1–17.