Sad, but

Opinion

true Island New Zealanders languish at bottom end of the economic and social scale

David Barber

Wellington

It is a sad fact, long known, that Pacific people are at the bottom of the heap in most of New Zealand’s key economic and social performance indicators.

National figures on unemployment, health, housing, income levels, life expectancy and children’s education achievements are all bad news for the Pacific Island community.

To put it simply, the 170,000-odd Pacific people (about five per cent of the population now, but growing rapidly and expected to double in number in 35 years) is just not participating fully in New Zealand’s economic and social life.

This is not only their misfortune, the country is poorer for it. Given their vitali ty, sense of community spirit and strong sense of values (often religion based) they should be one of New Zealand’s major assets.

It is a tragedy that, in many palagi eyes, I

they have instead come to be seen as some thing of a liability. This was one of the rea sons the former Labour government appointed New Zealand’s first minister of Pacific Island affairs 13 years ago. His tiny administration was set up under the umbrella of the Department of Internal Affairs but, in 1990, it was made a depart ment of state in its own right.

Two years later, the Auckland-based operations division, Tagata Pasifika, was separated from the former Maori affairs ministry and combined with a policy unit in Wellington as a fully fledged ministry.

The ministry of Pacific Island affairs was charged with advising the government on policy and piloting new approaches to solving the education, employment, hous ing and health problems that plagued the Pacific community.

But, sadly, in seven years, it has done little, if anything, to improve the lot of the Pacific Island community in New Zealand.

The word around Wellington has it that when chief executive Apii Rongo-Raea resigned in March, it was on the verge of collapsing through internal conflict and lack of accountability.

Pacific Island Affairs Minister Don McKinnon admitted as much when he told parliament the ministry had been “rather difficult” to manage, particularly in absorbing the Tagata Pasifika division.

“I am not 100 per cent satisfied with the work that is being done,” he said diplomat ically. “That is part of the reason why we are doing a top-down, bottom-up review of the whole ministry right now.”

A ministry of foreign affairs official, Kate Lackey, was appointed acting chief executive for about six months to keep the place ticking over while the review was conducted and a new head sought.

Lackey admits there was some concern in the Pacific community about the appointment of not only a palagi but a woman. But she had the advantage of going in as an outsider, untainted by some of the contentious issues of the past, and stresses she is only there temporarily.

A new chief executive, certain to be a member of the Pacific community, is expected to be named later in the year, hopefully taking over a ministry with a more clearly defined role and objectives.

Lackey will not criticise her predeces sor, but says: “I’m aware there have been some shortcomings in our performance.

We have not done as much in working with, and communicating with, the Pacific communities as we should have - especial ly in getting feedback from them.

“It was clearly time to stand back and take a tough critical look at what we are

doing.”

The review of the ministry has not been without controversy, especially in relation to a proposal from its Pacific Island Employment and Social Development Advisory Board.

This called for the creation of a new Crown agency or ‘super ministry’ to pro vide a one-stop shop for Pacific people to access government services.

It would combine the work of the immi gration and labour departments and income support service in their dealings with Pacific people.

The idea was bitterly attacked by ACT leader Richard Prebble, who was the first minister of Pacific Island affairs. “There’s a name for that and it’s called apartheid,” he said.

As a result of the proposal, a steering group review of government services and resources directed at Pacific New Zealanders was set up.

Chaired by Lackey, it included repre sentatives from the prime minister’s department, treasury and state service commission with two eminent Pacific Island representatives.

The report went to McKinnon for a decision in June. He is thought unlikely to pursue the ‘super ministry’ option, which would contradict the thrust of the govern ment’s mainstreaming policy of consoli dating service provision to all through cen tralised agencies.

Lackey says her personal preference is to see a revitalised, strong and united min istry able to pressure the big departments into maintaining a Pacific peoples’ per spective in all their operations.

She says the ministry - which has a total budget of about SNZS million (SUS 3.2 million) - will always be a small policy advisory unit and needed input from the Pacific communities to support its case.

“The big departments have the money and want to fix the problems we have,” she says. “They welcome a robust contribution from the Pacific peoples.”

Of the ministry’s lack of success so far, Lackey says: “The past is behind us. We need to do better, and we can.” ■