Discussion

• Discussion

The currentNew Zealandgovernment policy on ethnicity data collection needs to undergo some changes in order to be able to provide accurate statistics for policy implementation and resource distribution. Focus should be paid primarily on statistical consistency and public education. This should be considered a high priority for policy makers and theNew Zealandpublic in order to achieve the best and most efficient possible outcomes in public policy.

•  Statistical consistency and education

Statistical consistency continues to be an issue in the collection and implementation of ethnicity data into policy. Whilst key stakeholders have been frequently consulted and have continually called for greater statistical consistency, Statistics New Zealand has thus far done little to address these concerns. The official position of Statistics New Zealand is that any changes to the current system will disrupt previous collections, thus the government department continues to adopt a minimalist policy in regards to making any changes.[1] The issue here lies in the fact that due to a poor level of public education on many of the relevant issues surrounding ethnicity, responses continue to be varied such as in the “New Zealander” case. To compound these issues Statistics New Zealand seems to further undermine matters by causing even further consistency issues by categorizing all these respondents into the dominant ‘New Zealand European group,” when many of these respondents were of Maori, Pacific, and Asian ethnicity.[2][3]

A possible reasoning for such behaviour is the large economic costs that would be incurred should the current statistical standard be changed. Should this be the reason for Statistics New Zealand’s seeming lack of interest in listening to its key stakeholders and improving statistical consistency inNew Zealand, there are economically viable alternatives to such expensive measures. As previously stated Statistics New Zealand has done little to educate the public on such issues. Many of the complaints that the government department directs at the public in regards to consistency could be minimised with a greater explanation of the rationale and uses for such data on its questionnaires and censuses.

A dual system could also be looked into whereas respondents could answer a self-perceived and open ended ethnicity question – answering whatever they wished whether it be their nationality, religion, race, or even in colloquial terminology such as ‘kiwi.’ A separate vital statistics question would follow after this with strict and limited responses designed especially to produce the most efficient and precise transferral of vital statistics into policy. Should the public be informed properly of the rationale for such a strict vital statistics question, I am of the opinion that issues such a non-response, fictitious response and terminology complaints would dissipate due greater public education on the importance and seriousness and of such statistics to all New Zealand society.