This thesis examines how cultural heritage policies are developed in New Zealand. Cultural heritage symbolises the development of a society, illustrating past events and changing customs and values. Because of its significance, the government has accepted responsibility for protecting cultural heritage, and has developed a number of institutions and a variety of policies to address this responsibility. It is important to understand how the goverment uses these mechanisms to protect cultural heritage, and the subsequent relationships that have developed between actors in the cultural heritage area. These will have an impact on the effectiveness of the policy which is developed.
Cultural heritage is treasured by society for a number of reasons, but as social attitudes change, so does the treatment of cultural heritage. It is re-defined, re-interpreted and used to promote a sense of pride in the commmunity. This manipulation extends to policy making. Since the 1980s, the government has influenced, and been influenced by, two major social changes. There has been an introduction of free market principles such as rationalisation, competition and fiscal responsibility into the New Zealand economy and political structure. These principles have been applied to cultural heritage and consequently cultural heritage is treated as a commodity. As the result of changing attitudes towards the treatment of the Maori and Maori resources, there has been a movement towards implementing biculturalism. This has meant a re-evaluation of how Maori taonga is treated, particularly of the ways Maori cultural heritage has been used to promote a sense of New Zealandness.
There are several major actors involved in cultural heritage policy making - government, policy units, cultural heritage organisations and local authorities. Central government is the dominant force in the political process, with control over the distribution of resources and the responsibilities assigned to other actors. Because the use of market principles and movement towards biculturalism have been embraced at the central government level, other actors in the policy making process are also expected to adopt them. Policy units develop options to fit with the government�s general economic and political agenda. The structures adopted for the public service are designed to encompass market principles, particularly the efficient use of resources and competitiveness. While cultural heritage organisations may influence the government�s agenda through lobbying and information-sharing, they are limited by issues such as funding and statutory requirements. Government has shifted many responsibilities to the regions, but while territorial authorities are influenced by the concerns of their communities, they are also subject to directions from the government.
The process and structures which have been outlined do not contribute to an effective policy making system. The use of market principles to direct cultural heritage protection tends to encourage uneven and inconsistent policies, both at national and local levels. The range of cultural heritage definitions used by government agencies also promotes inconsistency. Cultural heritage is encompassed in a large number of government departments and ministries, which makes the co-ordination funding by meeting required �outputs� and the government�s requirement of fiscal responsibility. This is not appropriate language for cultural heritage, which should not have to be rationalised as an economic good. Although the government has devolved a number of responsibilities and territorial authorities have a variety of mechanisms available to protect cultural heritage, there is no nation-wide criteria for territorial involvement. Because of regional differences there is an uneven treatment of cultural heritage. Those policies developed by territorial authorities will also be influenced by the government�s economic direction. Organisations supported by the Dunedin City Council, for example, must also provide budgets and strategic plans which fit with Council�s fiscal objectives.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/217630 |
| Date | January 1996 |
| Creators | Smith, Amanda Jane, n/a |
| Publisher | University of Otago. Department of Political Studies |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Rights | http://policy01.otago.ac.nz/policies/FMPro?-db=policies.fm&-format=viewpolicy.html&-lay=viewpolicy&-sortfield=Title&Type=Academic&-recid=33025&-find), Copyright Amanda Jane Smith |
Page generated in 0.0026 seconds