Warnings of institutionalised racism in NZ

Opinion

“THERE are disturbing signs that all is not well ... Racial discrimination and harassment are on the increase ... It is time New Zealand took its race relations issues more seriously.” So says New Zealand’s Race Relations Conciliator Rajen Prasad in an annual report to parliament that highlights a far from satisfactory state of affairs in a country that officially projects itself as a multi-racial, multi-cultural, model. ‘There is a sense of urgency among our citizens,” he says. “Some fear the worst in terms of growing institutional racism, discomfort with the results of recent migration, a deterioration in the race relations environment, and the evidence of poverty, disparity and unemployment differentially affecting particular ethnic communities.”

They are words that should be studied by every member of the new parliament elected last month and taken to heart by the new government. For Prasad’s fourth annual report gives little sign that previous governments have taken any notice of warnings in his first three or pleas for more money to undertake the critical educational role parliament has delegated to his office.

If the politicians harbour any suspicions that he is indulging in hyperbole in order to increase his funding, they need only note that the number of complaints to his office jumped an incredible 47 per cent in the year to June 30. The Race Relations Office is a small body with an immense task and nobody could call its budget of $1.3 million a year extravagant or its staff of only 15 overblown. These levels seem downright risky when you look at the blunt warning Prasad gives in his report: “As it becomes more diverse, our society will become more insular, suspicious, intolerant and restricted in geographical areas and in the types of work available. Incidents of discrimination will become more widespread and institutionalised. ‘The schism, increasingly evident, between the Marie community and others, will widen. The human capital needed to achieve economic growth will not be sustained. We have seen evidence of this in other countries. We could eventually deteriorate into situations of civil unrest, disorder, disobedience and violence. Again there is ample international evidence of this risk.”

If that is not plain enough talking for a politician, what would be?

It spells out a scenario that would border on criminal negligence for any government to ignore. His office having experienced a four-fold increase in workload over the last decade while its funding has remained static and staff numbers have been cut by 25 per cent, Prasad has given the incoming government due notice that he will be seeking

a substantial increase in money in the next financial year. But on past experience his chances of getting it do not look good. He had three requests for additional funds turned down the year before last when he pointed out that Britain made “significant state resources” available to his counterpart and Canada and the United States made enormous investments in multiculturalism. His current funding, he points out, means the country spends the grand sum of 31 cents per head of population each year to try to secure peaceful race relations.

“Considering the volatility of our environment, the threats to racial harmony and the challenges we face, this is seriously inadequate,’’’"he says. Interestingly, the largest group of complainants last year was, for the first time, the European/pakeha community, whose complaints were up an extraordinary 90 per cent over the previous year to account for just over half the total. The number reflected the increasing number of new white immigrants who felt they were discriminated against, particularly in their difficulties in getting jobs.

Large numbers of Europeans also complained about what Prasad calls “positive discrimination” in the form of affirmative action measures designed to help ethnic groups such as Maori which had been disadvantaged in the past. Other Europeans suspected that some employers were favouring members of their own ethnic communities and cutting out other New Zealanders from work opportunities. (Prasad does not say so, but anecdotal evidence points particularly to the Chinese community in this regard.) This reflects the increasing complexity of New Zealand’s race relations as the ethnic mix changes rapidly and the government aggressively woos new immigrants.

The total number of complaints from Maori declined slightly to account for only one-in-five of the total, while the Indian community represented the third largest ethnic group with 8 per cent. The Indian percentages were particularly high in specific complaints about employment discrimination (14 per cent) and racial harassment (13 per cent).

Overall, the figures suggest the Pacific Island community is not widely affected, accounting for only 4 per cent of total complaints, the same proportion as Chinese. But this percentage doubled for specific complaints about racial harassment and discrimination in the provision of goods and services. Pacific peoples accounted for only 3 per cent of complaints about racial discrimination in employment These figures should perhaps be viewed cautiously, however, for Prasad notes that in a meeting to consult the Pacific community on his proposed Agenda New Zealand designed to launch a long-term education strategy for positive race relations, many were unaware of the services available through his office.

It could be that Pacific peoples do not make many complaints, not Decause they don’t face discrimination but because they don’t know how to go about complaining. Prasad’s Agenda New Zealand report should be completed this month, with discussions on the new strategy le envisages setting the scene for improved race relations over the next 10-15 years scheduled with the new government early in the new year. One can only hope they will be ready to listen. ■

David Barber

Wellington