Analysis and Findings

• Analysis and Findings

This report is a study of theNew Zealand’s current policy of ethnicity data collection and its implications on public policy.

 The collection of ethnicity data for the purpose of this report should be view primarily as a key tool for accurate policy implementation and resource distribution.

 To accurately assess if government failure was a key issue in this context, a literature review was undertaken in order to establish the relevance of this analytical framework. Data was collected and categorized from all relevant sources. These sources included primaryNew Zealandethnicity data collection government organizations such as Statistics New Zealand and secondary statistical data collection agencies such as the Department of Corrections, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Social Development, and Youth Development among others. Other useful sources included key users of statistics such as academic and private sector researchers, interest groups such as the New Zealand Medical Association and the New Zealand Children’s Social Health Monitor, and foreign statistical organizations such as Statistics Canada. This literature review proved extremely useful with certain issues and themes continuing to arise both inNew Zealandand abroad.

 These issues were then recorded and divided into two categories, consisting of government failure through inadequate and inconsistent ethnicity data collection methods and a failure to adequately educate the public on such issues.  

•  Contradictory Definitions of Ethnicity

The New Zealandgovernment via Statistics New Zealand, as previously stated – defines ethnicity as “the ethnic group or groups that people identify with or feel they belong to.”[1] Officially ethnicity is also said to have one or more of the following characteristics:

• Having a sense of shared origins.
• Having a shared and distinguishable past and future.
• Having a distinctive and united sense of being.
• Possessing one or many unique dimensions of a communal cultural identity.[2]

 Statistics New Zealand also states that there is little agreement on the definition of ethnicity and “in practice, ethnicity is defined as the ethnic groups reported by respondents to the ethnic group question in the Census of Population and Dwellings and other Statistics New Zealand surveys.” It then states that these responses are often a limitation in its ability to produce a standard classification.[3]

•  Key Issues affecting policy implementation and resource distribution

The current erraticNew Zealanddefinition of ethnicity and lack of education surrounding this issue will continue to disrupt and interfere with the accurate collection of data and implementation of policies.

•  Comparative institutional alternative and recommendation

In 2009, Canadaapproved a new statistical standard to replace ethnicity. This standard is known as the ‘Population Group of Person.’[4] Whilst this measure cannot be efficiently transferred toNew Zealand due to key differences in ethnic make up and cultural issues, it does serve as a prototype forNew Zealand.

It is recommended that New Zealand keep its current ethnicity standard as an open question and self-identifiable feature in its census and create a separate standard for vital statistics used for policy implementation and resource distribution.

It is imperative that for this recommendation to work, that an explanation of this new standard’s rationale and its ultimate uses be plainly stated as a part of the question.

•  Inconsistent data collection across departments and social sectors

The lack of current consistency in ethnic statistics across New Zealand Government institutions and key social sectors continues to be extremely worrisome. Whilst this has been an issue for some years[5] and promises have been made to rectify this[6][7], little change has yet to be seen.

•  Comparative Recommendation on inconsistent data collection issues

The 2011 Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG) is a recently developed standard for the classification of ancestral data within Australia.[8]  The ASCCEG was developed as a consistent measure using the geographical region in which respective groups either originated or settled. The ASCCEG is intended for use in policy relating to cultural diversity in the population of Australia.[9] It is imperative thatNew Zealand follows along similar lines to eitherAustralia orCanada in order to coordinate a basic level of consistent vital data collection across all of its institutions and key social sectors. The creation of a new statistical standard purely for the collection of vital statistics and public policy outcomes would also make it easier for all relevant parties and institutions to conform to a consistent standard.

•  Public awareness and education

The New Zealandgovernment via Statistics New Zealand is the key supplier of educational information on vital statistics such as ethnicity. Statistics New Zealandstates that its major issues in retrieving consistent and accurate ethnic data are public non-response, fictitious responses, lack of public understanding of key concepts, mutually acceptable terminology and a lack of understanding of the policy implications of ethnicity data[10]. This is a major institutional issue and a source of government failure. Here the government is the sole provider of such statistical educational information to the public, yet Statistics New Zealand continually reiterates that a lack of public education is at fault for inconsistencies in data.

•  Recommendations on public awareness and educational issues

It is recommended that Statistics New Zealand informs the public of the specific intended uses for such data on all it official forms. This would limit issues such as fictitious and non-responses and problems with terminology. Theoretically more people would become invested in the need for accurate statistics should they know that there uses included direct allocation of resources and social policy implementation.

•  Potential costs and considerations of implementing recommendations

1. There may be substantial administration costs in implementing a new statistical standard, due to the large amount of development work required by Statistics New Zealand to effectively and accurately create it.
2. Other costs that could be incurred would be based around the updating of systems, creation of new software, and the training of staff in handling of the new standards.
3. Longitudinal surveys and other long term forms of data acquisition would also be upset by such a new standard.
4. There would potentially be large costs across the board with all institutions having to implement changes in their current systems. These institutions range from small local organizations such as health clinics and community centres to national scale departments of the central government.[11]