A Multicultural Landscape: National Parks and the Macedonian Experience

5. Confronting cultural difference in NPWS

Staff attitudes An email received as part of this research provides insights on the subject of cultural difference in the national park context. On commencement of the project, opinions were sought from NPWS personnel in the Sydney region about the use of parks by different cultural groups. The following observations, made by various staff and relayed to me in the following email, are indicative of the profound challenges that confront us.

In my experience (and at the risk of generalising) the priority for ethnic communities primarily in relation to national parks is their value for social gatherings (ie utilitarian values). This is a valid use, but how are we going to get the messages [across] about other values of national parks into these communities?

Asians have no regard for total fire bans and will only put out BBQs if threatened with a fine, gaol or the fire hose. They know the signs saying ‘total fire ban’ are displayed but they don’t care.

Heat bead cooking is an issue in the park. Both the inappropriate use of them and the disposal of heat beads in the park. Asian and Muslim/Middle Eastern people suggested on this.

Comment that Bosnians ignore signage. That the signage is not significant to them.

General comment about leaving rubbish on the beaches in Royal after having a picnic.^[21]

The officer who relayed these comments apologised for their superficiality. They seemed to indicate that the request for information from Head Office had not been taken as seriously as might be deserved.

How we speak about ‘ethnics’ In actuality, it is the very brevity of these comments, and the underlying attitudes revealed, that is probably most interesting. They expose a set of generalisations and stereotypes based on ethnicity or race. Asians, Arabs, Bosnians, etc, are singled out as exemplars of various types of anti-social behaviour. I am not denying that people of such description have conducted themselves in such manner. NPWS rangers are facing very real problems in trying to protect parks. What is significant is the totalising judgement of a comment like: ‘Bosnians ignore signage.’ No doubt the staff who made these observations would admit that there are White Anglo-Saxon people who also leave rubbish, ignore signs, light illegal fires, and otherwise break the rules. But it is difficult to imagine that Anglo-Saxons or White people would be categorised in quite this way. Rather, we would probably acknowledge that some might break the rules, others are model visitors, the majority are in-between. Where ‘White Australia’ provides a differentiated field, ‘ethnic Australia’ is pathologised as a set of undifferentiated types.

Research conducted for this and other reports suggests that such attitudes are not confined to this email. A 1999 marketing report on the NPWS South Metropolitan District by students at St George College of TAFE discussed staff attitudes to visitors.

The ideal visitors were those that respected nature (eg bushwalkers) and those who were aware of their impact on the environment.

The least ideal visitors were noted as large groups of Lebanese, drunks, drug users, speeding drivers, loiterers and disrespectful campers. Whilst some specifically identified Lebanese (mainly young or in gangs), others said it was collective groups from all sections of society, and not only Lebanese.^[22]

Even though the categorisation of Lebanese alongside drunks, drug users, etc, was qualified by some informants, its manifestation seems to confirm the aforementioned problem with acknowledging difference within particular cultural groups.

We observe from a position of power While acknowledging that the few comments presented above could never reflect the depth or diversity of opinions and experience within the NPWS, they do warrant some reflection. They reveal what might be termed a position of observation. The behaviour of certain people (Lebanese, Bosnians, etc) is measured against an implicit norm which stigmatises people of difference.

This reality is a reminder that the NPWS, like the police force, the armed services, even the tax office, has developed its own set of norms and values since it was constituted in 1967. As the State’s leading conservation agency, the NPWS has developed a unique identity and culture with its own narratives, its heroes, its triumphs and disappointments. We are also a uniformed organisation which perhaps strengthens the sense of camaraderie and consolidates self-image. And though we are hardly without divisions, the common, highly emotive ideal of promoting conservation, and the occasional calls for collective action in dealing with natural adversity, can encourage the forging of unique bonds. The collective mourning at the death and serious wounding of firefighters at Ku-Ring-gai Chase in 2000 is a recent, highly memorable example of this esprit de corps. The tragedy deeply affected all of us working in the agency.

Culture is a lens Precisely because it is a norm – the lens through which we apprehend the wider world – our organisational culture assumes an invisibility that is greatest for those most deeply enmeshed within it. Hence we can easily overlook the way certain forms of knowledge (the dominance of science, say) are prioritised in the NPWS environment. Similarly, there is a propensity to overlook the fact that it is a particular person of particular background who is likely to seek a career in the NPWS. I spoke to staff about this during several focus group discussion meetings. They agreed that their own experience and preferences – often a background in bushwalking and conservation – influenced their view of what might constitute an ‘ideal visitor’. Staff frequently feel at sea in negotiating the linguistic and cultural diversity of park users. On several occasions during this research I encountered the lament: ‘We are such a white organisation.’

NPWS staff The Office of the Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment (ODEOPE) reports directly to the Premier of NSW on employment ratios. The Office surveys government departments and agencies to ascertain the number of women, Aboriginal People and Torres Strait Islanders, people of non-English speaking background and the number of people with disabilities in their employ.

The performance of NPWS in relation to the public sector generally is detailed in the following table.^[23]

The data reported here is highly revealing. NPWS performs poorly in its employment of women and extremely poorly in its employment of people whose first language was not English. The latter make up only 3 per cent of the workforce compared to a state average of 14 per cent (which is still well below the Government target). Our one strength is in the area of Aboriginal^[24] employment. This is due to our responsibilities for Aboriginal heritage under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. It is NPWS policy to recruit indigenous staff to meet these responsibilities.

Obviously, the high rate of employment of Aboriginal people in the NPWS must challenge the simplistic notion of ethnic homogeneity within the Service. But the fact remains that the NPWS, compared to many other NSW Government departments and agencies, is, as the staff observed, overwhelmingly ‘a white organisation.’ In contemplating this state of affairs, it is worth considering the historic legacy of national parks in affirming ideas of nationality.

^[21] Email dated 14 February, 2000. NPWS File No. F/3731 Vol. 1.

^[22] Puzzle Marketing, ‘A Visitor’s Perspective’: NSW South Metropolitan District National Parks: Marketing Report, (Project undertaken for Diploma in Marketing Management, St George College of TAFE), p. 114.

^[23] Data supplied by the Office of the Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment, 2 December 2000.

^[24] ODEOPE counts Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People collectively for statistical purposes. Personal familiarity with many indigenous staff suggests there are few if any Torres Strait Islanders working in NPWS.