Just under 1,600 people aged 18 and over answered the survey. The results were then weighted to roughly represent the population. NZ European 71%; Maori 13%; Pacific 6%; Asian 15% and other <1 (The percentages do not tally to 100 percent as some respondents have more than one ethnicity.)
The participants were asked a range of questions relating to their attitudes towards the care and well-being of children. For instance, "Do people think Aotearoa New Zealand is getting better or worse at caring for children?" The group that answered 'worse/much worse' had increased from 28% in 2019 to 36% in 2022.
The data for Maori is provided and says, "37% of Māori feel we are getting worse/much worse, compared with 30% in 2019" but no other ethnicity's individual response is available.
There are two sections in the report dedicated respectively to Maori and Pacific responses which both include further analysis regarding gender and age. There is none provided for Asian or NZ European. In fact, the word 'Asian' appears just twice in the entire report, and both instances are contained in a table detailing ethnicity of the respondents.
In a page of "What was said about the factors which contribute to a lack of thriving by children" there are seven quotes. Five are from Maori females. Only one quote was from a male and he was described as of "other ethnicity".
The methodology used to make comparisons between groups is, "When subgroup differences are mentioned, the results discussed are always in comparison with the overall/total result." That results in Maori being compared to everyone (including themselves!) rather than the more useful, Maori compared to non-Maori. Further analysis of a more useful nature is not possible because the necessary desegregated data isn't provided.
An argument might be advanced that, as the majority of children who come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki are Maori then most interest should centre on Maori attitudes. But attitudes of those whose children are under-represented should be of equal importance. Comparison of attitudes could shed light on differing outcomes.
The surveyors claim to have engaged "All New Zealanders" but report on only some. The dismissive attitude taken to Asian interests is an affront. But it is typical.
Across the board, the almost exclusive focus of the public service on Maori and Pacific needs is increasingly evident (whether or not it is welcomed by the groups themselves). The diminishing goodwill and gathering resentment of the majority risks loss of participation and co-operation. Bureaucrats and politicians may not want to know what that looks like in practice, but they are going to find out. Disengagement with the forthcoming census might be about to deliver a nasty shock.
If people are to be asked what they think - or how they live - their responses must matter and must count regardless of their skin colour.
Lindsay Mitchell is a welfare commentator who blogs HERE.
There are two sections in the report dedicated respectively to Maori and Pacific responses which both include further analysis regarding gender and age. There is none provided for Asian or NZ European. In fact, the word 'Asian' appears just twice in the entire report, and both instances are contained in a table detailing ethnicity of the respondents.
In a page of "What was said about the factors which contribute to a lack of thriving by children" there are seven quotes. Five are from Maori females. Only one quote was from a male and he was described as of "other ethnicity".
The methodology used to make comparisons between groups is, "When subgroup differences are mentioned, the results discussed are always in comparison with the overall/total result." That results in Maori being compared to everyone (including themselves!) rather than the more useful, Maori compared to non-Maori. Further analysis of a more useful nature is not possible because the necessary desegregated data isn't provided.
An argument might be advanced that, as the majority of children who come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki are Maori then most interest should centre on Maori attitudes. But attitudes of those whose children are under-represented should be of equal importance. Comparison of attitudes could shed light on differing outcomes.
The surveyors claim to have engaged "All New Zealanders" but report on only some. The dismissive attitude taken to Asian interests is an affront. But it is typical.
Across the board, the almost exclusive focus of the public service on Maori and Pacific needs is increasingly evident (whether or not it is welcomed by the groups themselves). The diminishing goodwill and gathering resentment of the majority risks loss of participation and co-operation. Bureaucrats and politicians may not want to know what that looks like in practice, but they are going to find out. Disengagement with the forthcoming census might be about to deliver a nasty shock.
If people are to be asked what they think - or how they live - their responses must matter and must count regardless of their skin colour.
Lindsay Mitchell is a welfare commentator who blogs HERE.
2 comments:
One for all and all for one. Centuries old but no relevance in our corrupted racist public services. Kiwialan
I'm just waiting for Jackson, Mahuta and Co screaming at how much money should be going to Maori based on the Census results. Despite the huge amounts already going there but apparently making little or no improvement....except on the tribal leaders bottom line.
Nobody else will get a look in. Non-Maori are effectively ignored in modern NZ where racism is perfectly fine as long as it's brown. Even our Race Relations Commissioner supports it!
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.