‘Which side of the bridge to safety?’ How young Pacific Islanders in New Zealand view their South Auckland community

Abstract

The community of South Auckland, an area that is home to the largest population of people with Pacific Island (Pasifika) heritage in New Zealand, has consistently faced scrutiny and criticism from the media, law enforcement, and other sectors of New Zealand for its reportedly increasing levels of violent gang activity and high rate of criminal offences associated with gangs and involving Pasifika youth. Within the community, however, young Pasifika people appear to have a positive opinion of their community and about particular features of gangs in their South Auckland community though they remain highly critical of the presence of gangs. This was revealed in a recent research study for the New Zealand Families Commission (Nakhid et al. 2009), which was carried out with South Auckland youth of Pasifika heritage between the ages of 12 and 28, including those who were involved in gangs and those who had never been involved in gangs.

Keywords:

• Pasifika (Pacific Island) youth
• community
• gangs
• New Zealand

Introduction

South Auckland, New Zealand has one of the largest Pasifika1 communities outside the Pacific Islands. Situated in the largest city in New Zealand, Auckland, there are a number of characteristics that identify these suburbs. South Auckland has some of the lowest rates of employment and educational achievement, high crime rates for violent offences such as homicides, child abuse and aggravated robberies and is home to some of the most deprived areas in New Zealand. The South Auckland suburbs of Māngere and Ōtara are well known to the New Zealand public for their gang activities. This paper seeks to determine the perceptions held by young Pasifika residents of their South Auckland suburbs and of the presence of gangs in their neighbourhood. It also looks at concepts of community in relation to the communities of Māngere and Ōtara. The data were gathered as part of a larger qualitative investigation into how South Auckland Pasifika youth see family, home, community, gangs and the future.

Manukau City

In the second half of the twentieth century, New Zealand evolved from being a bicultural country with monocultural practices to a multicultural nation that increasingly recognised its bicultural constitution.2 At the time of the 2006 Census, 67% of Pacific peoples (177,933 people) lived in the Auckland region. Government restructuring and rapidly rising house prices in the central Auckland city during the 1980s and 1990s had displaced many Māori3 and Pacific peoples, who moved south to Manukau City or west to Waitakere City.4 In the mid 1990s, many the council-owned inner city dwellings that housed Māori and Pacific tenants were sold off by the Auckland City Council, resulting in the displacement of these two groups to areas such as Manukau. In all of the inner city areas there was a marked decline in Pacific populations (Friesen 2006). The growth of Manukau City increased by 2.5% each year over the same period (1980s to 1990s) mainly as a result of greenfield development but also because of residential intensification. Two distinctive patterns define the ethnic cluster of Manukau City—‘some areas of state housing and cheaper private rental housing have high concentrations of Māori and Pacific populations while other greenfields development have attracted large numbers of migrants’, particularly wealthy Chinese (Friesen 2006:62).

Manukau City is the only major city in New Zealand in which those of non-European origin represent more than half the population. Manukau City's Pacific population was 27.8% compared with 6.9% for New Zealand. The Pacific populations for Ōtara and Māngere were 78.9% and 49.18%, respectively (Nakhid et al. 2009). The 2006 Census showed that the median age of Manukau City was 31.2 years, compared with 35.9 years for New Zealand. Twenty-six point two per cent of Manukau City's population was under 15 years of age compared with 21.5% nationally. In Ōtara and Māngere, 34.2% and 28.5% of the population, respectively, were under 15 years of age compared with 21.5% for New Zealand (Statistics New Zealand 2006). Māngere and Ōtara have a higher level of ‘economic deprivation, poverty, transience, housing overcrowding and unemployment’ compared with the rest of New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development 2006:6). The rates of deprivation5 for Māngere and Ōtara are 70% and 74%, respectively. The 2006 Census showed that the median incomes for Ōtara and Māngere for those 15 years and over were $16,450 and $21,800, respectively, compared with $24,200 for Manukau City and $24,400 for New Zealand. Unemployment for those over 15 years of age was 7.1% in Manukau City compared with 5.1% for New Zealand (Statistics New Zealand 2006).

Youth gang activity in South Auckland

Over the past few years, the profile of young Pasifika people and the incidents involving youth gangs, particularly in South Auckland, have been the subject of widespread media publicity and government attention. Several of these incidents have resulted in homicides carried out by Pasifika youth and youth gang members. These include the deaths of Iulio Naea Kilepoa, murdered in the suburb of Māngere in October 2005 by a 19-year-old Pasifika gang member from Ōtara; Riki Mafi, a 17-year-old male beaten to death in September 2006 by a 26-year-old Manukau man and members of a Pasifika-dominated gang; Manaola Kaumeafaiva, a 14-year-old male murdered in October 2006 by a 16-year-old Pasifika youth outside a youth event at his school; and Augustine Borrel, a 17-year-old male from Papatoetoe, stabbed to death in September 2007 by an 18-year-old male from South Auckland.

More recent incidents included the arrests in May 2008 of 60 members of a well-known gang during which police seized $500,000 of methamphetamine and cannabis; the death of 39-year-old Joanne Wang in June 2008, killed by a van driven by a 21-year-old Ōtara man; the murder of Navtej Singh also in June 2008, killed in his Manurewa liquor store by a gunshot wound by one of seven Pasifika youth; and Yang Yin Ping, who died three days after being beaten by a 29-year-old man from Manurewa during a home invasion in June 2008.

Youth gangs in New Zealand

Youth gangs arose as a phenomenon in New Zealand in the 1950s. During that time, the number of gangs was small, with most of their members of European heritage. Throughout the 1970s, gang membership comprised those adults who had grown up as younger members with the gangs. In the 1980s, gangs were composed mainly of adults and membership was long term. In the 1990s, established gangs became more visible and more organised in relation to the amphetamine trade (Meek 1992).

Ethnic gangs in New Zealand first drew public attention in 1971 when Māori gang members, most of them in their early to mid-teens, claimed that they had been brutalised by police (Meek 1992). In the 1970s, Māori and Pasifika gangs expanded, specifically in depressed rural and urban settings. The increase of Asian migrants in the 1980s saw an increase in Asian gangs in the 1990s. Eggleston's (2000) study of New Zealand youth gangs found little evidence of a national youth-gang culture but noted that youth were involved with emerging and established adult gangs. Eggleston also observed that youth street gangs of ‘ethnically homogenous composition’ had become common in the cities (p. 149). The New Zealand Police estimate that there are approximately 73 youth gangs comprising 600 members in Counties Manukau although they claim it is difficult to obtain accurate data on numbers.

Considering community

Community is defined in a number of ways and from a number of perspectives. Community is seen as a process of social structure and cultural behaviour (Arensberg & Kimball 1965); a system where property, beliefs and actions are held in common (Coleman 1988); or where people relate with each other for inclusivity, realism and commitment (Peck 1987). Like Coleman and Peck, Berman (1990) sees community as a group of people who engage in shared decision-making and who acknowledge their inter-connectedness and common purpose.

Wood and Judikis (2002) list a number of criteria by which to determine the existence of a community. These include a group of people with, and assuming responsibility for, a common purpose and interest, who acknowledge their inter-connectedness, respect the individual differences among members, and commit to the well-being and integrity of each other and the group. Bauman (2001) believes that ‘community’ feels good because of the meanings which the word conveys, with the meanings holding the promise of all that is good and positive, and the concept standing for a world that is not available but to which we aspire. Hoey (2007) describes both a denotative and connotative definition of community. His denotative description is similar to that of Peck, Berman and Wood and Judikis in that it refers to social groups connected by locality or common interest. Hoey's connotative application supports Bauman's idea that it is the meaning behind the concept of community, that is, the sense of belonging that connects us to others in society.

This study investigates the perspectives of Pasifika youth on their community. There is a multiplicity of factors in South Auckland such as the presence of low-income neighbourhoods, gangs and impressions of exclusion that threaten the ‘feel good’ concept of community proposed by Bauman. Diasporas and migration have the potential to make it difficult for people to hold strong affiliations with their community. However, despite Māngere and Ōtara having a significant number of diasporic communities and a high level of migration, it is possible for these influences to be accommodated, as community is not a closed system of relationships, and people often choose areas where they feel comfortable, leading to similarities of behaviour and lifestyle (Hoey 2007).

This study looked at Pasifika young people's feelings about their community and whether some of these factors have impacted on their perceptions of their community. The findings enable us to get an idea of why Pasifika youth, in spite of adverse social conditions inherent in their neighbourhoods, maintain a sense of community, and affection and allegiance for their community.

Methodology

A qualitative design involving focus group interviews was used to gather data on the perspectives of Pasifika young people of their community and to find out how they viewed their suburb and the presence of gangs in their neighbourhoods. The study also provided an opportunity to find out how youth gang members, a particular group of people considered to be alienated from mainstream society and difficult to research, perceived their community and the existence of gangs. The data provided insights into the views and experiences of young Pasifika youth not involved in gangs as well as Pasifika gang members in the face of the challenges confronting their community. The information obtained would be relevant to understanding Pasifika youth in other parts of Auckland and New Zealand.

Recruitment and participants

The initial form of recruitment for the study was the researchers’ own personal relationships and networks in the suburbs of Māngere and Ōtara, the two areas that were the focus of the research. As long-time residents, two of the researchers were able to gain access to young Pasifika people, and especially those actively involved in gangs. The participants in this study were of Pasifika ethnicity and were born and/or raised and still living in Māngere and Ōtara. The data presented here are based on interviews with two distinct groups.

Group One comprised young people who had never been involved in gangs. They were recruited from churches, educational programmes and the streets and neighbourhoods in Māngere and Ōtara. Participants in this group were separated into two age groups, 12–17 years and 18–24 years. In general, the participants for Group One came from very diverse backgrounds: they included those who were members of a number of different churches, as well as those participants who were not involved with a particular church or youth group; some of the participants were employed full time, while others were students at the local intermediate or high schools or at the city's tertiary institutions. In the Group One 12–17-year-old interviews there were more males than females, but a balance of males and females in the 18–24-year-old interviews. A total of 21 Pasifika youth who had never been involved in gangs were interviewed.

Group Two participants were young Pasifika people who were actively involved in gangs. One of the researchers who lived in Māngere and had worked with some of the gangs recruited participants with the help of the leaders of the gangs. The assistance of a trusted youth/gang worker was significant to the success of these meetings with the gangs. A well-known and respected community organisation assisted the researchers in recruiting participants from the Ōtara suburb. Four gangs, two from each of the suburbs of Māngere and Ōtara, participated in the study. For the Māngere gangs, there was one multi-ethnic and predominantly male gang and one male Samoan gang. For the Ōtara participants, there was one multi-ethnic male gang and one multi-ethnic ‘gang-affiliated’ group of females. All together, 26 gang members took part in the interviews.

A small number of the Group Two participants were Māori who were friends of gang members. All of Group One and most of Group Two participants met the Ministry of Youth Development definition of ‘youth’ (12–24 years old).

Interviews were carried out separately with each of the four focus groups from Group One. The four gangs were also interviewed separately. The interviews took place at venues in the Māngere and Ōtara suburbs, and in all of the interviews at least two of the three researchers were present in an effort to maintain reliability and consistency in the interviews.

Results

In the analysis of the data, a distinction is made between ‘home’ and ‘community’. ‘Home’ is used to refer to the family-associated living spaces of Pasifika youth whereas ‘community’ refers to Pasifika youth's area of contact and socialisation away from the immediate family. However, for some Pasifika youth, there was little distinction between community and home. The data are presented under the broad themes of ‘home’, ‘community’ and ‘gangs’ with specific sub-themes to highlight the emphasis given by the participants.

In the presentation of the data, ‘Pasifika youth’ or ‘Pasifika young people’ refer collectively to those involved in gangs as well as those not involved in gangs unless the terms are qualified, for example, ‘Pasifika youth not involved in gangs’. The names of the gangs interviewed as well as those referred to in the data have been changed to protect the identity of the participants and the gangs.

Key

Group One participants

Māngere 12–17: Group One participants between the ages of 12 and 17 years who had never joined or had never been involved in a gang and were from the suburb of Māngere.

Māngere 18–24: Group One participants between the ages of 18 and 24 years who had never joined or had never been involved in a gang and were from the suburb of Māngere.

Ōtara 12–17: Group One participants between the ages of 12 and 17 years who had never joined or had never been involved in a gang and were from the suburb of Ōtara.

Ōtara 18–24: Group One participants between the ages of 18 and 24 years who had never joined or had never been involved in a gang and were from the suburb of Ōtara.

Group Two participants

CWI: a multi-ethnic and predominantly male gang from the suburb of Māngere.

Twain: a male Samoan gang from the suburb of Māngere.

Broadways: a multi-ethnic ‘gang-affiliated’ group of females from the suburb of Ōtara.

Birdies: a multi-ethnic male gang from the suburb of Ōtara.

Home

Feeling safe

‘As long as you are close to people you feel safe around, that's home’– Ōtara 18–24

Home was many places, and was represented in many different ways for Pasifika young people. It included grandparents’ homes, their bedrooms, the flea market or their friends’ homes. Home extended beyond the family domicile and included the organisations where youth congregated such as the churches and youth centres. For those gang members who lived in one suburb but belonged to a gang in another suburb, they regarded both suburbs as their home.

Many of the non-gang participants said they felt safe in their neighbourhood despite their awareness of the potential for violence particularly with respect to the youth gangs. This feeling of safety may have been due to the similarity in ages between them and those involved in gangs, and thus the opportunities to interact with each other in schools and other social arenas:

Like Remuera, Ponsonby they are scared of South Auckland. I'd like to think we know it is safe and we can walk the street and then when we go to Uni [university], we are not around people who are from South Auckland. We can make it out as if it was real bad and they are real scared but just joking around, but I like the fact that it's safe and that it's just home. I can walk the streets and all the gangsters and people they're afraid of, they are like people that I grew up with and so I like that. (Māngere 18–24)

Many of the gang members said they could not see themselves living anywhere else other than their current neighbourhood. They felt safe and experienced a sense of belonging in their neighbourhood:

It's like that aye, it's like you just can't wait to get back to Ōtara. You go out of here, like you just go to Papatoe [Papatoetoe, suburb of South Auckland] and when you get over the bridge, you're just safe aye, you're invisible. Ōtara is my home. (Birdies)

Community

The ‘not so good’ in South Auckland

‘I don't want them to see a rock thrown through the window’– Twain

Pasifika youth were realistic and honest about their community. Although they liked living in their neighbourhood they would have preferred that certain groups they considered to be ‘trouble makers’ were not a part of the neighbourhood. They also believed that the lifestyle of those who lived in the area needed to change or improve as the neighbourhood had too much poverty, too many dysfunctional families and was home to too many gangs.

Despite their affinity for their own neighbourhood, those gang members who had children of their own wanted a safe environment and neighbourhood in which they could raise their children, and did not consider a neighbourhood to be safe if gangs were present. They blamed the other gangs for this and did not consider how their own presence might contribute to the lack of safety felt by the community. They were critical of other gangs but keen to justify their own existence. They believed that it was more dangerous living in South Auckland than in other suburbs but they did not want to live where they would not be around their friends.

One of the gang leaders, who had recently had a child, had taken the child and his mother to live in another suburb that he considered safer:

I think the environment makes a big difference. I mean, where I'm staying now in Botany [suburb in East Auckland] is quite nice. It would make a difference if I raise my kids somewhere else, and it's not because I don't want to raise my kids around my friends. Of course I do, but it's like I don't want them to see a rock thrown through the window aye and stuff like that. (Twain)

Although Pasifika youth did not like the lack of safety on the streets of Ōtara at night they said they were grateful to be here in New Zealand because they had heard stories from their parents about the sacrifices they had made to live in New Zealand.

The Pasifika youth acknowledged that their community was less well-resourced than other communities and said that this forced young people on to the streets. The gangs said that if the economic and social situation in South Auckland was not addressed, the violence and gang activity were going to worsen:

But I tell you, the government has got to act quick bro’. Straight up, I mean this is the generation right here and only the worse will happen and the worse is still to come. Every generation is getting badder and badder if the government don't do nothing about it. (Birdies)

Reducing youth-related gang activity and youth offending is a priority for community and government sectors, including the Counties Manukau Police (Auckland Youth Support Network, 2006), the Ministry of Justice Crime Prevention Unit (Ministry of Justice, 2006) and the Ministry of Social Development. The Youth Development Strategy Aotearoa (YDSA) report (Ministry of Youth Affairs, 2002) focused on how government and society could support young people aged between 12 to 24 years to develop the skills and attitudes to participate positively in society as it found that a disproportionate number of young Māori and Pasifika were becoming adults unprepared to contribute productively to their communities (Nakhid et al. 2009).

The ‘good’ in South Auckland

‘There's good things, there's bad things, there's ups and downs. But no matter what, it's Ōtara’– Broadways

The Pasifika youth liked the amount of talent that they saw in the youth in their suburb, as well as the food, the different cultures, and their friends. They also liked being able to depend on one another. The gangs said they knew that their members would look out for each other and their families in times of need. Pasifika youth found the culture of South Auckland to be vibrant and interesting compared with how they perceived other communities. They knew they were being watched by the rest of New Zealand but they saw that as a result of the interesting things that took place in their area. They liked the similarity and acceptance of being Pasifika or Māori in South Auckland without the gaze of discrimination and difference that they felt elsewhere.

Just the culture—South Auckland culture, like when you go somewhere else—boring …. Like in the hood, is like everybody is all brown. (CWI)

The knowledge that others in their community were experiencing similar difficulties to themselves led to a feeling of community for the Pasifika youth. They recognised the independence and uniqueness of South Auckland despite the negativity surrounding the activities that took place there. Like the rest of the Pasifika youth who were not involved in gangs, the gang members liked the friendliness of their suburb perhaps because it was where they had grown up and where they knew many of the people. It was also where their friends lived and where they had a lot in common with the people in terms of ethnicity, cultural traditions and heritage, social status, and schooling and thus felt familiar and safe with them.

Stereotyping South Auckland

‘People don't know nothing about what we are’– Birdies

Many of the Pasifika youth said they had heard negative comments about South Auckland from people who lived outside their neighbourhood and this tended to make them reluctant about revealing their place of residence. They believed that people who only listened to the media reports and had no friends or contacts in their neighbourhoods were likely to believe what was said about their area. They knew that people associated their area with gangs and there was the expectation that if you came from South Auckland you were a gang member. This was particularly insulting to the young Pasifika people who were not involved in gangs.

The Pasifika youth said that people outside South Auckland regarded Ōtara and Māngere as poor communities with few opportunities or attractions. The youth did not deny that there were many poor areas in South Auckland but they resented and objected to their community being seen only from a negative perspective.

Like you're from Ōtara, you must be poor or something [laughter]. Poor or like you're in a gang. (Ōtara 18–24)

Community organisations

‘They look like they are trying to do something for the community’– Birdies

The Pasifika youth acknowledged and appreciated the work of the community organisations in their area and especially the support of the youth workers. They said that these organisations gave them food, recreation and shelter, and provided advice when needed. They knew that the community organisations were there to help but were also aware of their limited resources.

Shelter and food because food is a major factor in 274, aye [laughter].6 They give us skills that we can take outside the environment and even at home, like leadership skills and confidence, like talking in front of others, like at present I say what I believe. (Ōtara 18–24)

Cause they look like they are trying to do something for the community but the government should get involve because you can't just rely on one source. I mean you gotta have other sources to help the community to work and it's like your car, if you don't have a battery it won't start, and if no petrol it just sits there. (Birdies)

Bauman (2001) argues that welfare can no longer be considered a local community matter and national government needs to provide the financial assistance that communities require. If poverty is due to a lack of income, claims Bauman, then having a supply of income is the obvious solution.

Gangs

Gangs and the neighbourhood

‘Ban the gang … and if they don't listen, just put them in jail’– Māngere 12–17

All of the Pasifika youth interviewed expressed concern at the presence of gangs in the neighbourhood and would have preferred that they were not a part of their community. Many said they had no respect for them because of their involvement in illegal activities and the hurt that they caused to members of the community. Some believed that gangs should be banned and members imprisoned if they chose to remain in gangs. However, what the youth considered worse than the gangs were the conditions in their neighbourhood that they believed led to the presence of gangs. One of the gangs said that the number of liquor stores was a factor in the level of violence in the area.

The gangs themselves felt that they belonged in the neighbourhoods and that they should be given opportunities to improve their welfare. One of the gang members who said that his gang was no longer involved in criminal activities said that its members helped each other to stay out of jail. This gang said they were working towards providing facilities and opportunities for other youth in the area.

Most of the Pasifika youth who were not involved in gangs did not see any value in the presence of gangs and viewed them primarily as a source of trouble. Several said they had been threatened by the gangs at some point. Many said that instead of confronting gangs, they would run away from them to avoid getting hurt. They said they could not rely on the police to protect them or to keep them safe as the police very seldom showed up on time if they showed up at all.

Gangs and the police

‘On the bad side, the cops want to fuck with us and they are the one that make us look bad. They're the one that make the problems worse’– Birdies

As expected, the gangs had a number of issues with the police, with many of the members believing that the police were racist or biased against the gangs, often harassing them for being a gang member.

We've had cops calling us little bitches … and it's like ‘you are lucky – you're in your uniform’. (Broadways)

The gang members believed that it was the police that made them ‘look bad’ to their community and to the rest of New Zealand. Pasifika youth also resented the presence of the police in Ōtara and Māngere, saying that they gave a negative impression of their suburbs.

They [police] are over our streets every day, obviously every single day, everyone talking about our street. (Ōtara 18–24)

Relationships between the gangs and the community

‘Show them respect and … they will make sure that none of their boys will get into trouble and do this and that’– Broadways

One of the gangs believed that the best way to foster a positive relationship between the community and the gangs was for the community to get to know the gangs and to enter into discussions with them. If the community chose not to do so, then they should not get involved in or concern themselves with the gangs but carry on with their own lives. When asked how the community should deal with the presence of gangs, one of the gang leaders said that the two groups should not interfere with each other:

You are a family guy, you're a gang, keep your stuff to your side. (CWI)

The gangs believed that if they were shown respect by the rest of New Zealand, gang leaders would try to ensure that their members did not get into trouble with the law. The gang members said that the way that they believed they were perceived by others made them react in ways that brought them into conflict with certain sectors of society.

The Pasifika youth who were not involved in gangs but had gang members as friends were not as afraid of gangs as those who were unacquainted with gang members. These youth said the gangs made their neighbourhood dangerous although they themselves felt safe.

The gangs appreciated certain aspects of gang culture such as the camaraderie, support and friendship which they wanted to pass on to their children. They were there to support each other in times of financial and emotional need.

I have mad love for my brothers bro, like they know that I'm going through some stuff and every now and then they're dropping off coin just to help me out. (Birdies)

They talked about the hatred that existed between gangs and spoke with bravado about how they felt about or would deal with other gangs. This ranged from hatred of other gang members to killing certain gang members if the opportunity arose. Though they disliked the police, they had no reservations about reporting to the police on other gangs with whom they had negative relationships.

Gang members believed that even when they laid claim to a street or neighbourhood, the community belonged to everyone. They resented those gangs that tried to claim the neighbourhood as their own or attempted to control the gang activity in the area. They detested the image that the presence of some gangs had created of their suburb.

They [K*** gang] disgrace Ōtara. They make us look like idiots, they make us look like murderers, like no hearts. (Broadways)

The gangs had their own set of rules for making a living and objected to being prevented by others from doing so.

Well if they ain't gonna help us get it, then might as well get out of our way or else it's over … it's fuck the world or nothing, and that's either you or them so if they ain't gonna put food on the table then you're either standing right beside us or elsewhere. (Birdies)

The Pasifika youth who were not involved in gangs believed that the experiences of ex-gang members were helpful in dissuading some youth from joining the gangs. Some had been dissuaded from joining the gangs after hearing stories of gang life from family members who had been or still were gang members.

The gangs believed that they made a positive contribution to the community because they looked after the families of gang members and supported young people in the neighbourhood by providing them with resources such as sports equipment and food and by offering them protection and companionship. They said that they served the community by protecting the neighbourhood from rival gangs.

That's one good thing with gangs, like when trouble comes in, they're always there to try and keep other people out of our area … [they] are good for protecting their own environment and own neighbourhood. (Twain)

Discussion

The Pasifika communities in the South Auckland suburbs of Māngere and Ōtara reflect Taylor's (2003) three ideals of community—they are descriptive, normative and instrumental. The descriptive nature of these communities lies in their being a group of people who share a common interest and interact with each other. For Māngere and Ōtara Pasifika youth, their common interest is in keeping their community safe and resourced for the youth. The level of their interactions with each other is dependent on their social group. Whether or not they are part of a gang, Pasifika youth are aware of and often form friendships with other Pasifika youth in or out of gangs.

Taylor describes a normative community as one where solidarity, participation and coherence are found. The Māngere and Ōtara communities share similar experiences of poverty and prejudice yet their members see themselves as a distinct community identifiable by culture and place. The feelings of alienation, pride, uniqueness and togetherness that Pasifika youth commonly feel appear to strengthen their defence of their community. They feel at home, welcomed, protective of and protected by South Auckland. Though the different ways in which the youth participate and contribute to their community may differ and may be looked at differently by certain sectors of their community, they are united in their views on how they perceive threats or expectations of their community by those from outside. Negative stereotypes abound, not only of South Auckland but of Pasifika peoples in New Zealand. A study by Loto et al. (2006:100) showed that Pacific people are frequently portrayed in the media as ‘unmotivated, unhealthy and criminal others who are overly dependent on the support of’ the dominant group in New Zealand. Despite the negative stereotypes that prevail of their suburbs and of them as peoples, Pasifika youth wish to maintain the uniqueness of South Auckland as a multiculturally united community despite the hardships faced by many of its members. The attitudes held towards South Auckland by those from outside do not diminish the Pasifika youth's perception of their community. Rather it strengthens their support for and commitment to the values and idiosyncrasies of their suburb.

The poverty, gang presence and negative image held of South Auckland, the community, through its youth workers, parents, community organisations and youth, are not deterred from trying to improve the situation for the future generation of Pasfika youth. This is what Taylor refers to as an instrumental community—where it acts as an agent to maintain or change its circumstances through the location or orientation of services and policy interventions. Through their conversations, the youth make appeals to the government and to local policing authorities to take some responsibility for the situation of South Auckland and for ensuring positive and acceptable opportunities for the young people. The community is instrumental in wanting and advocating these changes to its circumstances. The acknowledgement and acceptance of community organisations in the area indicate the efforts being made to maintain a sense of community despite the many challenges to the presence of community.

Conclusion

Māngere and Ōtara communities possess common characteristics such as having the largest proportion of young people and a greater proportion of Pasifika peoples than the rest of New Zealand. Their political leanings have traditionally been towards liberal governments perhaps because of their socio-economic position and status as ethnic minorities. However, they are conservative in their views on social issues such as parental discipline, sexual orientation and schooling, a consequence of the impact of colonisation and Christianity. There are similarities in their heritage as coming from the Pacific islands where customs and traditions, though not the same, are similar. These factors make it easier for members of these communities to band together to support each other during crises despite the diverse Pacific Island heritages of these communities.

Communities can become arenas of conflict (Day 2006). Intergenerational differences and the changes taking place within communities remind us that community is not static or bounded. In these Pasifika communities, conflict exists in the interactions among gangs, and between the gangs and those not involved in gang life. Despite this competition and conflict, there is a consensual belief by Pasifika young people in the value of their community and community organisations to their lives, and a concern for threats to community wellbeing such as the presence of gangs. Though Pasifika youth may have different views on the contribution of gangs to their community, they are mutually apprehensive about the impact of poverty, police behaviour and societal expectations on their community.

Day (2006:116) observes that ‘in the absence of community anything can be done to people and little can be accomplished by them’. Hoey (2007) notes that the more intensely community is felt, the more it becomes exclusionary. The loyalty that Pasifika young people express towards their community may come from their feelings of exclusion from the dominant society. A sense of community requires affirmation and community-building involves finding ways in which the community can affirm its members and acknowledge its accomplishments (Berman 1990). Fortunately for the suburbs of Māngere and Ōtara, the admiration and allegiance of Pasifika youth for their South Auckland community are essential to the changes necessary to make the community one in which Pasifika youth can remain proud.

Notes

1. Pasifika is a collective term used to refer to people of Pacific heritage or ancestry who have migrated to or been born in Aotearoa/New Zealand (Ministry of Education, 2011).

2. Relationship between the New Zealand government (the Crown) and Māori formally recognised in the Treaty of Waitangi (www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz).

3. Māori are the indigenous people of Aotearoa/New Zealand.

4. In 2010, the local territorial authorities (cities) were amalgamated into a single authority, Auckland Council. This article refers to the territorial units and authorities that used to exist, i.e. Manukau City, Waitakere City and the authorities that used to govern them, the Auckland City Councils.

5. The New Zealand Deprivation index is often analysed by decile, where decile 1 represents the 10% of meshblocks least deprived in New Zealand and decile 10 the most deprived. Meshblocks are geographical units defined by Statistics New Zealand, containing a median of approximately 87 people in 2006 (Counties Manukau District Health Board 2006).

6. 274 is a community organisation that works with South Auckland youth.