Proceedings of the

20 - 21 November 1996Hamilton, New Zealand

����� ��

�������

� � � � � � � �

����

Preface

This report contains a summary of the proceedings of the M�ori Users of Statistics Conference,held at the University of Waikato, Hamilton on 20 and 21 November 1996.

The conference was the first of this type, and was held by Statistics New Zealand and the M�oriStatistics Forum, with the aim of being specifically focused on the use of M�ori statistics. Theconference attracted participants from a number of organisations and regions throughout NewZealand, with the majority of those representing iwi/M�ori organisations.

The aim of the conference was to focus on ‘users and uses of M�ori statistics’ rather than ‘M�oristatistics’. Emphasis was placed on how to access, use, and draw on data collected by StatisticsNew Zealand and other government agencies. Also, how other organisations and agenciescollect and use M�ori data, as well as its ownership, management and the balance between therole of the Crown and Iwi. The speakers, panelists and those contributing to questions anddebate have provided Statistics New Zealand and others with a wealth of experiences andinsights. This material will help Statistics New Zealand deliver the advances needed forproviding quality statistics that meet M�ori needs.

The conference has highlighted the need for a survey ‘cookbook’ designed specifically to assistin the collection, analysis and use of M�ori data. The resource will include guidelines onmethods of data collection, fieldwork, data capture, and data analysis and presentation.

Len CookGovernment Statistician

Contents

Page

The Paua, the Mermaid and Others 7

Use of Tribal Registers 19

Development of the Whakatohea Tribal Register 23

Statistics and Information - Collecting, Collating and Analysing:The Tainui M�ori Trust Board Scholarships 25

Injury Prevention Needs Assessment Survey for the Tai Rawhiti CommunityInjury Prevention Project 31

Male M�ori Adolescent Health Programme 35

Iwi Statistics: The Development of Resource Allocation and ServiceProvision Models 39

Whaihua Tatau - A Representative Sampling Method for M�ori Populations 45

Treaty Implications for Crown Information, Collection, Disseminationand Ownership 57

Official Statistics and Statistics on M�ori 67

Data and Services Available from the New Zealand Information Service 81

Fisheries Allocation and Iwi Demographics 87

What are We Counting? And Why? Some Lingering Methodological Issues 99

�

����� ��

�������

� � � � � � � �

����

The Paua, the Mermaid and Others

Dr Papaarangi Reid, Director

Te R�p� Rangahau Hauora a Eru Pomare

I feel that I must preface myself today by stating that I’m not a statistician - some statisticiansI know would go further and say I’m not a statistician’s anything. However, I’m a naturallycurious person. When I was in Form 2, my teacher noted on my report that I was “a nosyparker” and “too big for her boots”.

Harnessing these natural talents, I’ve found a niche in both a profession and a work collectivewhich are constantly involved in measurement and comparison. Not being a statistician meansthat I need a supportive relationship with them to keep me out of trouble.

I do however, remember some of the first lectures that we had on biostatistics at Medical School.Most notably, I remember the lecturer saying, “Statistics should not be used like the drunk usesthe lamp-post for support rather than illumination”. On reflection, I’m usually guilty of usingstatistics for support. I’ve often considered our job as similar to a munitions factory where wecan uncover or build evidence to “aim at” policies, programmes, politicians and occasionally,people. Like many M�ori, we feel sometimes that we are in a war zone, and that illuminationseems a luxury seldom afforded while crises abound, not only in M�ori health, but also in M�orisocial, cultural, political and economic environments.

I need to make another admission today and that is to acknowledge that there is a lot of rhubarbaround. Some of it is created and generated by M�ori. Some of us are stuck in an 1840 timewarp, clinging to traditional tools and romantic ideals. We need to remind and reassureourselves that we are the face of M�ori in 1996 and be ourselves. This means that we can usemodern statistical tools and methodologies just as we can drive Japanese cars, wear Nike gear,eat Thai food and drink French champagne (now that they’ve stopped bombing Mururoa). Wemust reclaim the right to be ourselves, M�ori poised at the entry into the 21st century. We can’tall be statisticians (although many more of us should train to be!), but most of us can learn touse statistics wisely, with credibility, and with some back-up support from a statistician.

We need to recognise however, that some of the rhubarb keeping M�ori at a distance fromstatistical support belongs with statisticians who have elevated their science to a high level ofgobbledygook to put the rest of us off and justify their salaries. People everywhere usestatistics. We process available information, qualitative and quantitative to survive, and toimprove our lives - we always have and always will. The outcome of this information usedepends significantly on world views, experiences and processes by which the information isassimilated. But I cannot believe that any one profession or culture owns the science of datacollection and utilisation. Without lapsing into romance, let’s acknowledge that our tupuna hadsignificant scientific knowledge in areas such as astronomy, horticulture, navigation, foodtechnologies, pharmacology and public health. Furthermore, we had processes to testhypotheses. We learnt to prepare karaka berries from the toxic to the edible, almost certainlywith clinical trials. Whakapapa could provide commentary on demographic issues. We hadprocesses to test scientific theory.

In the first years of this century, when M�ori councils were established under the Department ofNative Affairs - in part to support health development - one of the first tasks given them by thethen Dr Maui Pomare was to collect statistics - births, deaths and marriages. This representedan early relationship between M�ori collection of M�ori data for use by both M�ori and the

�

Crown. During this relationship, one of the most vexing questions which has, it seems, puzzledthe Crown greatly is, “Who is a M�ori?”. I’m reminded of Keri Kaa’s poem about the paua andkoura. This is how I remember it.

“Are you a M�ori?” said the paua to the koura.

“Yes, I’m a M�ori,” said the koura. “Are you?”

“Yes”, said the paua, “I’m a M�ori because I’m black.”

“Well, I’m brown”, said the koura, “but I go red when they cook me.”

“That’s nothing” said the paua, “overseas they cook me in baking soda and I go white.”

“So, are you a M�ori?” asked the koura to the paua.

“Yes, I’m a M�ori,” said the paua.

“Me too,” said the koura.

Like the paua and the koura, M�ori have an interesting history of other people trying to defineour ethnicity depending on our various circumstances. We spent about three quarters of thiscentury being described in this manner (based on biological definition). Enlightenment hasdawned in recent decades and those concerned with describing ethnicity have decided to askM�ori how do we identify ourselves. Like the paua and the koura - we’ve known all along.Now the preferred definition of a “M�ori” is a person who has M�ori ancestry and who choosesto identify as M�ori.

However, if we look at statistics, the situation is more complex. The 1991 Census describedthree M�ori populations.

� Firstly, the M�ori ancestry group (~511,000 in 1991)

This is an important group because its members have constitutional rights. Members mayexercise rights to enrol on the M�ori electoral roll, and/or take claims to the Waitangi Tribunal.Only New Zealanders who belong to this group by way of whakapapa M�ori can access theserights.

Out of this 511,000 ancestry population are 435,000 who cultural identify as M�ori (or partM�ori) - the M�ori ethnic group. So 76,000 of M�ori ancestry do not culturally identify as M�ori- I’ll come back to them later.

Of those 435,000 M�ori, 324,000 give M�ori as their only ethnic affiliation and these are the so-called ‘Sole M�ori’, while 111,000 call themselves ‘part M�ori’ or ‘M�ori and Other.’

There has been significant debate about which of these three populations should be consideredthe “real” M�ori population for statistical purposes. Perhaps we should conclude that each ofthese groups has their strengths and weaknesses and we should come to an agreement on whichis best fitted to use on which statistical occasion. There are significant differences in thesegroups.

�

M�ori Ancestry511,000

(76,000)

M�ori Ethnic435,000

Sole M�ori324,000

(111,000)Wanna Be’s

9,000

NB: It is also important to recognise about 9,000 New Zealanderswith no M�ori ancestry consider their ethnicity to be M�ori.

Firstly, from the ancestry group - the 76,000 who do not give their ethnicity as M�ori or partM�ori. This group are:

• more likely to have tertiary qualifications;• more likely to be two-parents or couple households;• less likely to live in a one-parent family situation; and,• proportionately more represented in older cohorts and have greater income (see

overheads).

The sole M�ori group on the other hand, are:• less likely to have tertiary education;• less likely to be in the labour force; and,• more likely to be in one-parent families.

Those who describe themselves as part M�ori are somewhat intermediary.

This led us, at Te R�p� Rangahau Hauora a Eru P�mare, to the belief that the Sole M�ori ethnicgroup probably bears the brunt of the burden of illness suffered disproportionately by M�ori.However, we have had two reminders that M�ori are flexible people.

A national survey on tobacco use among M�ori carried out 18 months ago, which surveyed3,000 M�ori adults selected from the M�ori ancestry group of M�ori on both the M�ori andgeneral electoral rolls, asked ethnicity as part of postal questionnaire. Fifty-seven percentresponded. Very few respondents gave their ethnicity as ancestry only. We weren’t too worriedabout this at the time, as we thought that this ancestry group felt the survey wasn’t for themand then were over represented in non respondents.

Recently however, Eljon Fitzgerald from the Department of M�ori Studies at Massey Universitywas presenting some early findings of Te Hoe Nuku Roa, a longitudinal study. They had a veryhigh response rate (95%+) from an ancestry sample and noted ~80% of respondents to be soleM�ori and ~20% to be part M�ori (M�ori and other).

��

The question in my mind being where did the M�ori go who tell the Census that they are ofM�ori ancestry but don’t self identify as M�ori ethnicity, the 76,000. To M�ori researchers, itseems that some or many may identify themselves as M�ori while classifying themselves asnon-M�ori to the Crown. This is an extremely illuminating hypothesis which needs moreinvestigation. It creates big scientific troubles for us researchers, but it is a wonderful exampleof the human spirit.

I can’t help but remember a line in a poem I saw in one of Rangi Walker’s writings which wascalled “Being M�ori” and listed a number of one-liners, one of them being, “fouling up theGovernment and its statistics”. Now these last two issues, I think, are significant signposts ofrecent times.

The point about reluctant or non-participation and misrepresentation in government statistics isimportant, and a symbol of how M�ori have viewed the Crown and its role in the collection andmanagement of statistics. On the other hand, the earlier issue showed a new willingness byM�ori to participate in M�ori-centered, M�ori-driven research and statistics.

These illustrations lead to very important issues. Firstly, those of ownership, control, primarybenefit, cultural and intellectual property, accountability, and ethics are all emerging.Boundaries are being challenged by M�ori participating in statistics and other research methods.

These issues recognise the role of colonisation in our past and our need for the space, time andresources to work through these issues.

The second fundamental from the issues raised previously, is the role of the Crown (includingtherefore, Statistics New Zealand), because of the Treaty of Waitangi. Statistics New Zealandhas a lead role to play in many of the Treaty principles. In Article I, ensuring the Crown isinformed to provide good governance usually requires good information. A unified policy onthe way ethnicity is collected throughout Crown agencies and process to audit the accuracy ofthis will be a good starting point. These functions will stand in good stead for the Article IIIobligations of the Treaty.

A piece of work we have been doing this year on disparities in health highlight these disparitiesas breaches of Article III of the Treaty. Article III is, I believe, the very bottom line below whichwe cannot accept that good governance is being carried out. In many situations, statisticalinformation on ethnicity is poorly conducted, grossly inaccurate or just simply not collected bymulti-million dollar Crown agencies, thus leaving gaps in our ability to show disparities andhence, Treaty breaches.

Without doubt, the most challenging role for the Crown and its agencies is to fulfill its Article IIresponsibilities by supporting tino rangatiratanga. M�ori, be it iwi or other collectives of M�ori(which, of course, is another debate waiting to happen), have significant data needs. Howexciting if Statistics New Zealand became part of a Treaty settlement - either as informationprocesses, resources or as a relationship.

However, the Crown and Statistics New Zealand need to position themselves willingly to beresponsive to these issues. There were many aspects of the bilingual census whichdemonstrated a good start.

��

In summary, therefore:

• M�ori users of statistics are a vitally important group - both in terms of M�oridevelopment, and in terms of the Crown’s Treaty obligations.

• M�ori users of statistics need support to do our jobs better (Statistics NewZealand may be able to provide some of this support).

• We have to feel good about who we are and what we’re doing and give it heaps!

• The Crown has to get its current collection of ethnicity data into good order.

• We have to recognise diverse M�ori realities, flexibility and fit our science aroundthe realities, not try to squeeze us into moulds predetermined by the Crown.

• Science has some interesting things to learn from us.

• We need space to clarify really important issues of cultural and intellectualproperty, ethics, accountability, ownership and benefit.

• Statistics New Zealand can play a key role in assisting the Crown fulfill its Treatyobligations and in monitoring its Treaty breaches.

• Statistics New Zealand can play a key role in M�ori workforce development.

Kia ora

Papaarangi Reid (Dr)

��

3234

33

43

29

4544

45

42

46

1615 15

10

16

7 7 75

10

15-24 25-44 45-59 60 & over0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

%Sole Maori %Maori ethnic %Maori ancestry %Mixed only %Ancestry only

Age Structure.

Years

Percent

��

.

1415 15

19

16

11

1314

18

22

30

28

25

22

10

29 2930

28

38

3 34 4

10

0 0 0 01

0 0 0 0 0

7

12

10

26

00

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

%Sole Maori %Maori ethnic %Maori ancestry %Mixed only %Ancestry only

Income of 15-24 Year Olds, by Ethnic Group

Nil incomeor less

$1-$5,000

$5,001-$10,000

$10,001-$25,000

$25,001-$40,000

Notspecified

$50,001and over

$40,001-$50,000

Percent

��

1 1 1 1 1

7 7 78

9

2322

20

16

9

42 4241

40

34

1516

1921

30

23

45

8

12 2

3

68

76

5

2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

%Sole Maori %Maori ethnic %Maori ancestry %Mixed only %Ancestry only

Income of 25-44 Year Olds, by Ethnic Group

Nil incomeor less

$1-$5,000

$5,001-$10,000

$10,001-$25,000

$25,001-$40,000

$40,001-$50,000

$50,001and over

Notspecified

Percent

�

4 4 4 45

6 6 6 65

2928

26

20

14

3635 35

3435

1415

17

21

26

3 34

67

2 23

5

7 76 6

4

1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

%Sole Maori %Maori ethnic %Maori ancestry %Mixed only %Ancestry only

Income of 45-59 Year Olds, by Ethnic Group

Nil incomeor less

$1-$5,000

$5,001-$10,000

$10,001-$25,000

$25,001-$40,000

$40,001-$50,000

$50,001and over

Notspecified

Percent

�

0 0 0 0 0

4 4 3 2 1

60 5956

51

47

2527

30

36

41

3 3 4 57

0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 2

7 6 53

00

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

%Sole Maori %Maori ethnic %Maori ancestry %Mixed only %Ancestry only

Notspecified

$1-$5,000

$5,001-$10,000

Nil incomeor less

Income of 60 Year Olds and over, by Ethnic Group

$10,001-$25,000

$25,001-$40,000

$40,001-$50,000

$50,001and over

Percent

��

1 parent families 2 parent families Couples oly0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Sole Maori Maori plus other Maori ancestry only

Family TypePercent

��

����� ��

�������

� � � � � � � �

����

Use of Tribal Registers

Summary of presentation by Terry Ryan,

Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu

� Introduction

The interest in whakapapa continues to increase dramatically. We are deeply aware of thenature, the confidentiality and the spirituality of our work. We endeavour to ensure that all ourfindings are as correct and authentic as is possible, thus providing a strong and accurate base forfuture generations in their research.

The Ngai Tahu system is unique in M�oridom and indeed the world, no European orindigenous organisation has anything to parallel it.

As the Whakapapa files approach their 70th birthday, the task of collecting Whakapapainformation must continue. Like the information collected last century the purpose of collectingpresent day details is to maintain the tribal genealogical record.

The applications for enrolment have increased dramatically since the 1970s. Latest figuresindicate that in excess of 2,000 enrolment forms are distributed every month.

The need for further research has also increased over the past few years. The Whakapapa Unithas been engaged in an extensive effort to obtain historical material. Information andmanuscripts have been collected from the National Archives, museums, private collections andthe M�ori Land Court.

Computerisation of certain records has allowed for greater mobilisation of the service offered bythe Whakapapa Unit. Computerisation and other technologies have been utilised foradministration purposes only. The Beneficial register and M�ori Land Court records have beencomputerised in order to improve the management of, and speed of access, to these records. Interms of future planning, the use of the information superhighway is being explored. TheInternet may offer access to a range of information agencies.

Terry RyanTe Runanga o Ngai Tahu

Terry, who has Ngai Tahu and Ngati Maniapoto affiliations, is the longest servingemployee within the Runanga-o-Ngai Tahu.

He commenced work with the Ngai Tahu Trust Board in 1974, to work on the whakapapaof the 1334 names included in the Ngai Tahu Census of 1848. Prior to this Terry had beenemployed in the M�ori Land Court, commencing Auckland, then Hamilton, Whangareiand eventually Christchurch. He was also Trade Training Officer for the Ikaroa District

(1972) and Private Secretary to the then Minister of Tourism (Mrs Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan) in thethird Labour Government, 1972-1974.

��

It should be noted that the policy remains firmly that no Whakapapa is stored by electronicmeans. All Whakapapa are still kept in the original format. In some cases these files are up to72 years old. The age of the documents was of concern and alternative models of storage wereexamined.

It was decided to maintain tradition as opposed to any new options. The original files have, in asense been cloned. The primary documents have been laser copied and two exact duplicates ofeach of the 346 files are now in existence. The original files have been retired and placed intosafe keeping while the extra copies are kept as a back up.

� The Enrolment Process

The enrolment process as it exists today began evolving in the mid 1960s. The main informationrequired, besides personal details, are your whakapapa and the name(s) of your original 1848Kaumatua and their corresponding census number(s). Details of these Kaumatua can be foundin the Blue Book “Ngaitahu Kaumatua Alive in 1848 As Established by the M�ori Land Court in 1925and the Ngaitahu Census Committee in 1929”, available from the Whakapapa Unit. If you are notfamiliar with your Whakapapa or are unable to complete the required details, assistance isavailable from the Whakapapa Unit.

� Verification of Enrolment Details

On receipt, each application for enrolment is verified. As noted earlier, only the relevant detailssuch as name, age, occupation, Kaumatua descent and file references are placed on thecomputer system. No Whakapapa is stored on the computer. No application is accepted untilits authenticity has been verified. In some instances, applications for enrolment have beenrejected because of insufficient or incorrect whakapapa details. The roll of beneficiaries ispoliced for authenticity. On very rare occasions it is necessary to remove people from thebeneficial role. Without exception this has occurred because erroneous information has beensupplied at the time of enrolment. Being on the Tribal Register is important as it is the mainfacet for tribal communication. The Register provides a mail link between the Trust Board andits beneficiaries. The Human Resource Database Questionnaire is designed to provide statisticaldata for the targeting of social development plans.

It is vitally important that the Register be kept as accurate and up to date as possible. This canbe achieved by enrolled beneficiaries notifying the unit of any change of address, occupation,births, and family bereavements.

� Adoption

The issue of adoption is governed by Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu policy and Governmentlegislation. The policy is that enrolments are only accepted from bloodline descendants of the1848 Kaumatua only. Adopted persons are therefore not eligible to enrol as Ngai Tahubeneficiaries unless they are of Ngai Tahu descent. This stance is reinforced in law. Thebeneficiaries of the Board are declared to be the descendants of the persons, being members ofthe Ngai Tahu Tribe living in the year eighteen hundred and forty eight (1848).

��

� Summary

The interest in our own information collation is primarily driven by a desire to establish thetribes contingent liability to its beneficiaries. We need to know, in the interests of our presentand forward planning, the size, shape and age of our beneficial population so that properprovision can be made for them in a context of our tribal development policies. Furthermore,the recording of this information is essential for the maintenance of the tribal whakapaparecord.

In developing our forward strategy, we have been at pains to ensure that no person holdingNgai Tahu descent rights is excluded from benefit, whatever their degree of Ngai Tahu blood.This is because of our traditional view that whakapapa is the basis of access to Ngai Tahuresources and benefits.

� Further Information

If you are interested in obtaining further information, contact the:

Whakapapa OfficeNgai Tahu Trust BoardPO Box 13-046CHRISTCHURCH

Phone: 0-3-3664 344Fax: 0-3-365 8420

��

����� ��

�������

� � � � � � � �

����

Development of theWhakatohea Tribal Register

Tu Williams

National M�ori Congress

The experience in terms of the development of the Whakatohea Tribal Register is a reasonablyrecent one. In 1947 Whakatohea was granted their first raupatu compensation, and this enabledthe establishment in 1943 of the Whakatohea M�ori Trust Board. As a result of that, aWhakatohea whakapapa book was compiled. In those days the experts in whakapapa were stillvery much alive and they were able to compile the whakapapa book which was the forerunnerto what we have recently developed. Unfortunately, the original booklet went missing from theWhakatohea M�ori Trust Board office premises a few years ago.

The catalyst in recent times for the establishment of the current register has been our TrustBoard elections. For many years Whakatohea never followed the regulations in the Act withregards to trust board elections. In 1993 when we had our elections there was a challenge to theway in which those elections were conducted. As a result of that challenge, the Minister ofM�ori Affairs commissioned an enquiry, and a judge was appointed from the M�ori Land Courtto undertake the enquiry. Following the enquiry the judge advised the Minister to tellWhakatohea to declare the 1993 elections invalid. Whakatohea were instructed to go back to thedrawing board and follow the regulations in the Act.

In February 1996, Whakatohea began setting up a tribal register so that Whakatoheabeneficiaries could exercise their right to vote for the person who would best represent theirhapu interests on the trust board. We put together a pro forma in a few days, not realising whatthe far reaching implications of this would be. By May 1996 before the trust board elections tookplace, we had enrolled 8,500 people of Whakatohea descent. The eligibility for registration wasbased on whakapapa. In order to validate that whakapapa we had a number of kaumatua andkuia who had the responsibility for vetting those applications. The manifestation of this processis that we now know who and where those 8,500 people are, and the register provides us withage, gender, and birth breakdowns of the Whakatohea population.

Keeping track of those on the register and the maintenance of the register are a major concern toWhakatohea. Inputting the data is a very time consuming process and the trust board haddedicated one staff member to do this work as part of their duties for the trust board. However,because of the large number of applications coming in over a period of time, the board can nolonger dedicate that person to the job. They now need to employ someone full-time to carry outthis task.

The register provides us with a fundamental tool that is needed for the development ofWhakatohea. Most of you will know that the Crown has made an offer to Whakatohea to settleits claim. I have just spent three weeks travelling around the country and Australia with a teamof people explaining the nature and characteristics of the Whakatohea claim to beneficiaries.Based on that experience, the register is vitally important because those that are registered onthe Whakatohea roll will be required to make a decision on whether or not Whakatohea acceptsor rejects the Crown’s offer. It is a huge burden that is now being placed back on iwi to make

��

that kind of decision, and in making that decision also understanding and realising what thefar-reaching implications of that decsion are.

In the Whakatohea Deed of Settlement there is a critical component which is about thecommitment that the Crown is making to Whakatohea to forming a more positive ongoingrelationship, which the Crown has acknowledged has not been good in the past. Thatcomponent of the Deed of Settlement is causing a great deal of consternation amongst theWhakatohea people, mainly because we have been operating in that grievance mode where wehave found some level of comfort. Now with the Crown’s commitment of developing a morepositive relationship with Whakatohea, the onus is back on us as to how we respond to it. Thepublic comments made by some of our people, I think, is a reflection of the difficulty oftransferring from a grievance mindset to the development mindset, and that’s a huge leap for usto take. But in identifying that development issue, the register provides us with thefundamental tool.

Another concern that I have, is the affect of the claims process. It is encouraging iwi to ‘bulk-up’, the more numbers that you have, the more assets that you are going to get for resources likehealth, education, and other social need areas. Government policy encourages that concept ofthe need to ‘bulk-up’. We, as M�ori, need to give this serious consideration because it is notabout numbers, it’s about rights.

�

����� ��

�������

� � � � � � � �

����

Statistics and Information -Collecting, Collating and Analysing:

The Tainui M�ori Trust Board Scholarships

Presentation by Sarah-Jane Davis

Tainui Trust Board

Sarah-Jane DavisTainui M�ori Trust BoardSarah-Jane Davis is a Dphil student studying at the University of Waikato. A recipient of the TumateMahuta Waikato Raupatu Memorial Scholarship, her thesis topic aims to examine M�ori participation inhigher education. Prior to returning to study, Sarah-Jane was employed by the Centre for M�ori Studiesand research at the University of Waikato as a research assistant. Her involvement in projects includediwi reports collated from information from the 1991 Census. Sarah-Jane has also been involved incollating information for the database that the Tainui M�ori Trust Board has established in relation to itsScholarship recipients.

AbstractIn 1947, the Tainui M�ori Trust Board established the Tumate Mahuta Memorial Scholarship, to assisttertiary students of Tainui descent in their studies. Since the settlement of Raupatu in 1995, changeshave been made to both the structure and allocation professes of the scholarships. In order to monitor boththe progress of scholarship recipients and the effectiveness of the whole scholarship programme, the TainuiM�ori Trust Board established a database. The types of information being collected relate to studentschoices on programmes of study, length of study, gender, age and hap� affiliations. The purpose ofcollecting this information is to enable the Board to build up a profile of the average student, to establish anetwork of educational talent of its beneficiaries, and to target areas which may need future development.The database is one way of enabling the Board to examine the effectiveness of the scholarship programmeand, more broadly the Tainui education strategy.

The establishment of the database is a reflection of the interest expressed by the Tainui M�ori Trust Boardin gathering and collating statistical information. During the consultation rounds prior to the settlementof the Raupatu, the Trust Board used a demographic profile of its average beneficiary to highlight theurgency needed for tribal development through initiatives such as education. A major review of thebeneficiary roll and the types of information collected was also conducted during this period. The TrustBoard was an active participant in sending submissions to Statistics New Zealand when reviewing the1991 Census. The Trust Board has also had input into the TOKM model developed for the allocation ofFisheries, and at present is in the process of upskilling its staff in the finer aspects of the GIS system.

�

� Introduction

Since the Tainui M�ori Trust Board was established in 1946, many changes have occurred in boththe management and administration of Board affairs. Such change in recent times has seen theTrust Board recognise the importance of collecting information and the use of statistics as avaluable tool in aiding planning for tribal development. This paper will describe ways in whichthe Trust Board has gathered and used these types of information, focusing specifically on theeducational Scholarships.

� Background

The Tainui M�ori Trust Board was established in 1946 under the Waikato-Maniapoto M�oriClaims Settlement Act. Its purpose at that time was to administer the annual payments from theCrown as a result of Raupatu negotiations between the Crown and the Waikato people led byTe Puea. The payments were used to fund educational scholarships and other initiatives whichsupported the Kiingitanga. The Trust Board expanded its operations as a result of the M�oriAffairs Act 1955, to include social and economic development.

Negotiations for the settlement of Raupatu continued throughout this period with successivegovernments resulting in the return of the ownership of Taupiri, an increase in the annualpayments to the Board and a claim being filed with the M�ori Land Court for ownership of theWaikato riverbed, inland waterways and coastal harbours. The main catalyst however, occurredin 1987 when the Crown introduced State Owned Enterprises, in particular when State Coalbecame Coalcorp. As the Crown failed to negotiate with Tainui over the sale of Coalcorp, as ithad promised to do, the Trust Board took the Crown to court in order to stop the sale. In short,the Court of Appeal decided in favour of the Tainui M�ori Trust Board and in 1989 the Crownnegotiations for the settlement of Raupatu were scheduled.

Before the settlement of Raupatu, the Tainui M�ori Trust Board undertook an extensive series ofconsultation hui with its beneficiaries, not only in the Waikato region, but as far away asWellington and the South Island. The culmination of these hui saw the signing of the Heads ofAgreement in December 1994 and a postal referendum from beneficiaries giving the TainuiM�ori Trust Board the mandate to settle the Raupatu claim in 1995.

� Use of Statistics by the Tainui M�ori Trust Board

During the time the Trust Board has existed, it has become more conversant with the varyingtypes of information statistics has provided. Over the last ten years, this has increased to thepoint where statistics and the range of information available through statistical surveys and thelike are now important components in the development of policies and initiatives for futuretribal development. During this time, the Trust Board has also strengthened it’s relationshipwith Statistics New Zealand. In light of the changes made to the 1991 Census specifically in thecollection of information on iwi affiliations, the Trust Board became involved in the iwiconsultation process developed by Statistics New Zealand and made submissions proposingfurther changes for the 1996 Census. During the consultation hui prior to the settlement ofRaupatu, the Tainui M�ori Trust Board used information from the 1991 Census to build ademographic profile of the average Tainui person to illustrate the importance for the tribe tomove forward in development rather than stagnate in it’s current position. The information thatStatistics New Zealand has been able to provide over the years in areas such as housing,employment, and iwi profiles has enabled the Trust Board to be more informed about suchissues which in turn have assisted the tribe in it’s continuing development.

��

In collecting information itself, the Trust Board has used the Beneficiary Roll to determinenumbers of beneficiaries, keep track of growth or decline in hap� and marae, as well asvalidating tribal membership (through whakapapa). The Tainui M�ori Trust Board has recentlybeen involved in the GIS programme, providing financial aid to beneficiaries who were on theprogramme here at Waikato University and some of whom are now putting those skills to usefor the Trust Board. The role of the Tainui M�ori Trust Board in the Fisheries area has also reliedon information and statistics in determining it’s quota eligibility and so forth. One other areawhere the Trust Board has collected information, which I would like to discuss in more detail, isthe area of educational scholarships.

� The Scholarships - Background

The Tainui M�ori Trust Board first established educational scholarships for its beneficiaries in1947, as a result of the Waikato-Maniapoto M�ori Claims Settlement Act 1946. The firstscholarship, the Tumate Mahuta Memorial Scholarship, was established in memory of TumateMahuta a member of the Kaahui Ariki, who led negotiations over Raupatu. Tumate Mahutadied in 1938.

Scholarships were awarded to those students studying at tertiary institutions, such as university,polytechnic, teachers colleges and w�nanga. Major changes to the scholarships did not occuruntil 1995, when the Tumate Mahuta Memorial Scholarship was restricted to those students whowere studying at the Masters level or higher. The Tainui Education Grant was established forthose students who were studying at the undergraduate level. The reason for this change wasthe growth of beneficiaries applying for financial assistance from the Trust Board to study at atertiary institution. In 1995, 347 students received financial assistance from the Tainui M�oriTrust Board.

As a result of the settlement of Raupatu in 1995, the Trust Board announced a new series ofScholarships commencing 1996. To commemorate the signing of the settlement, the TumateMahuta Waikato Raupatu Memorial Postgraduate Scholarship was established. Specifically, thisscholarship is available only to Auckland and Waikato University students who are studying atthe Masters or Doctoral level and whose thesis topics are able to contribute to the futuredevelopment of the tribe. In 1996, fourteen students were receiving this scholarship.

The Pei Te Hurinui Jones Travel Scholarship was established to assist a student or scholar withtravel expenses to the UK to study, and Tainui Sports Scholarships were also established toassist students studying in the areas of sports science, sports management and other sportrelated subjects.

Over the last five years the number of recipients of scholarships has increased to over fourhundred. Several years ago, the Trust Board started monitoring the progress of it’s recipients.The purposes for this monitoring were to build a profile of an average student, that is age,gender, programme of study, length of time spent studying, and so forth. The purpose being toexamine how students’ are progressing during their tertiary study; to compare the Tainuistudent population between tertiary institutions; to establish a network of Tainui graduates; andto determine the success of it’s scholarship programme in terms of future tribal development. Inorder to fulfil these purposes, information about the students had to be collected, collated andanalysed.

��

� Collecting Information on the Scholarship Recipients

When the collection of information on Scholarship recipients first began, the numbers involvedwere relatively small. All the calculations were done manually and information was collectedfrom the application forms submitted by recipients, together with the information held on theTrust Board’s beneficiary roll. Specifically, the Trust Board collected information on age, gender,full/part time status of study, programme of study (certificate, bachelors, masters), area of study( arts, humanities, science), institution of study (university, polytechnic, w�nanga), year of study(first, second, third) and also tribal information such as hap��and marae affiliations.

� Processes - The Application Form

The Tainui M�ori Trust Board has a Scholarship Committee whose functions are to draw up theterms and conditions for the application form, decide what sort of information should be askedfor on these forms, process, sort and approve the applications and the amount of money to bereceived. The Scholarship Committee is made up of professionals and representatives from thedifferent tertiary institutions, as well as Trust Board members and staff who assist in the process.Before confirmation can be given to recipients, they must be approved at a full Trust Boardmeeting.

Over the years, the application form itself has evolved from an informal document to thecurrent forms which display terms and conditions and strict criteria as to the types ofinformation required. The evolutionary nature of the application forms has resulted due to theincreased amounts of funding, larger numbers applying for scholarships and the need foraccountability - to both the Trust Board and it’s beneficiaries. Since 1993, when 177 recipientsreceived a total of $102,000, the numbers have increased immensely to the point in 1996 wherethere were 408 recipients with a total budget of just under $500,000.

Despite the many changes within the application forms, there has been little change in the waythe forms are processed. All applications are processed, verified and sorted by hand by theScholarship Committee. So too is the information that is collected from the application forms.At present, the Trust Board does not have a database in place where a computer can do all thenumber crunching. Staff have to sift through each application form, sort the information intotheir relevant areas and then collate the information into a report which is then presented to theTrust Board. The problems with this process are obvious: duplication of information; humanerror in accounting; and difficulty in deciphering accurate information from application forms.At present, the Trust Board is investigating alternative methods in the collection of thisinformation.

� Processes - The Privacy Act 1993

When the Privacy Act was introduced in 1993, access to information and how the informationcollected was going to be used were issues faced by the Scholarship Committee. Legal opinionwas sought so as to avoid complications and to clarify the Board’s position in it’s collection ofinformation on it’s beneficiaries and scholarship recipients. In 1995, a letter of consent wasattached as part of the application form. This letter required the student’s consent for the TrustBoard to access information about them from the various institutions at which they werestudying. Assurances were also contained in this letter that the Trust Board acknowledge theconditions of the Privacy Act, one requirement being that informed consent was sought beforeproceeding with the collection of information. The issue of informed consent was one that theTrust Board took very seriously and they consulted with legal authorities so as to clarify theposition of both the Board and it’s beneficiaries. Other issues relating to the Privacy Act which

��

the Trust Board also had to confront included the handling and storage of information oncecollected. These issues have since been resolved.

� Processes - Reasons for Collecting Information

The purpose of accessing student records, seen by some as an invasion of privacy, is to enablethe Board to better serve it’s beneficiaries who are the recipients of such financial initiatives asthe scholarships. One reason why the Trust Board wanted to access academic records of it’sscholarship recipients was to identify students who had not reapplied for funding inconsecutive years. Student progress is an important issue for the Trust Board in light of therestrictions being placed on students with rising fees and reduced income allowances. Inaccessing student academic records directly from the institution, the Trust Board has been ableto establish more accurately which students have graduated, which students have re-enrolledfor study but not reapplied for financial assistance, and more importantly, which students haveleft university without completing their courses. It also enables the Trust Board to identify areasof study which may need more assistance in attracting students, such as Science, Computersand Mathematical Science, and postgraduate study. The Trust Board feels that this is animportant component in trying to ascertain student movement so that policies and the structureof the scholarships reflect these changes.

� Processes - An Example of Collecting Information

The Trust Board was interested to know the reasons why some students who received aScholarship one year did not apply the year following. After identifying these students, theTrust Board made contact and asked them to complete a questionnaire outlining their reasonsfor not reapplying and their current status, that is, were they continuing with their studies, hadthey graduated, or had they dropped out? As a result of this questionnaire, several wereidentified as having graduated and were either working or studying for another qualification.For those students who had not continued with their studies, financial difficulties was cited asthe main reason for students effectively “dropping out” of tertiary study without completingtheir studies. The information provided from this questionnaire enabled the Trust Board tofurther understand the financial position of it’s scholarship recipients, and with the settlementof Raupatu, provisions to further assist students studying at tertiary institutions has been made.

� Concluding Remarks

The Tainui M�ori Trust Board has recognised the importance of being part of the newinformation highway, investing in technology and initiatives which will in turn enable it tobetter serve it’s beneficiaries. The changes made in it’s approaches toward the collection ofstatistics and statistical information has proved beneficial to the Board across most of it’sactivities, especially in the area of education.

The Tainui M�ori Trust Board has used statistics to inform it’s beneficiaries of the need for thetribe to move away from it’s poor demographic profile and develop initiatives that will propelthe tribe forward into the 21 st century and beyond. One way in which the Trust Board isachieving this is through education. By collecting information on it’s scholarship recipients, theTrust Board is able to track the changes that are occurring within it’s tertiary student populationand provide for such changes. The settlement of Raupatu has further enhanced the TrustBoard’s ability to provide for it’s tertiary students, who it sees as being the future leaders of thetribe. In acknowledging the importance of using statistics and collecting information forplanning and development of future tribal needs, I feel that the Trust Board has already movedforward and is more than ready to meet the new millennium.

��

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Tainui M�ori Trust Board, 1993, Annual Report

Tainui M�ori Trust Board, 1995, Annual Report

��

����� ��

�������

� � � � � � � �

����

Injury Prevention Needs Assessment Surveyfor the Tai Rawhiti Community Injury Prevention Project

Presentation by Molly Pardoe and Marilyn Brewin

Community Injury Prevention Programme

Molly PardoeMolly Pardoe has a background in health as a Community Health Worker and a Health Promoter ofM�ori Health prior to her new role as Coordinator in the Community Injury Prevention Programme.

Marilyn BrewinMarilyn Brewin is the Maori member of the External Evaluation team purchased by the RHA’s toevaluate three pilot CIPP’s. Marilyn is the Evaluation Team Leader for the Tai Rawhiti Project. Initiallybased at Unitec, Marilyn is now a Private Consultant working part-time with the Injury PreventionResearch Unit, at the Auckland Medical School.

AbstractThis presentation provides a brief background about the partners and the CIAP programme in its firstyear. It includes:

• development of the questionnaire for the community survey;• methods of collecting data;• iwi validation process;• strategies from outcomes; and• strengths and weaknesses within the programme.

The programme is the first indigenous Injury Prevention programme in New Zealand and is based onworking with whanau, hap� and iwi.

� Background

The Community Injury Prevention Programme (CIPP) is a pilot programme purchased by theRHAs as a joint venture between Te Runanga o Turanganui-a-Kiwa (TROTAK), Te Runanga oNgati Porou (TRONP) and Tai Rawhiti Healthcare. As a pilot programme the purchasers areinterested in the added-value provided by an iwi-based programme and the ability to compareand transfer information to other projects in the future. In order to assess the development andimplementation of this project the RHAs purchased an external evaluation component which isled by the Injury Prevention Research Unit based at the University of Auckland.

The CIPP is managed by the Project Management Group (PMG) which is made up ofrepresentatives from Ngati Porou, Turanganui-a-Kiwa, CHE and community members. Theday-to-day operations are carried out by the project co-ordinators. Molly Pardoe has been theproject coordinator since the inception of the project. Molly initially co-ordinated the totalproject but now co-ordinates the Turanganui-a-Kiwa project. The Ngati Porou project isco-ordinated by Dawn Williams.

��

The Evaluation Team is led for this project by Marilyn Brewin and the project manager isDr Carol Coggan.

The CIPP and the Evaluation Team have developed a solid working relationship. Thispartnership is based upon a continuous improvement model which allows a high level ofsupport between both groups.

The main aim of the Community Injury Prevention Pilot is to develop and implement strategiesto reduce the rate and severity of injury in the rohe with particular reference to M�ori in ruralcommunities. The programme also aims to develop an effective injury prevention model whichcan be applied elsewhere to reduce the incidence of injury.

Prior to the commencement of the CIPP pilot, data available showed that M�ori suffered frominjury at higher rates than non-M�ori. For example, between April 1992 and March 1994, M�orimake up 48.3 percent of total injury related discharges from the Tai Rawhiti hospital.

� The Survey

Aim

The aim of the injury prevention needs assessment survey for M�ori in Tai Rawhiti weretwofold. The PMG wanted to conduct a needs assessment of people in their rohe. TheEvaluation Team needed to conduct a survey to collect baseline information on self-reportedinjuries, knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about injuries and awareness of the Tai Rawhiti CIPP.

Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire was initially designed by the Evaluation Team in consultation with the CIPPteam, PMG, community representatives and then pretested with small sectors of the community.This enabled an effective and user friendly survey questionnaire which was easily read andunderstood by participants. Changes included adjustments to language, format and size.

Recruitment and Training

Because of the need to ensure a degree of ownership and involvement in the design anddelivery of the survey, the PMG and the Evaluation Team utilised this exercise to provideresearch training experience to community workers. The input of these people was an essentialcomponent in the final format of the survey.

Training workshops were provided by the Evaluation Team for 25 community workers whocarried out the survey under the direction of the PMG. The survey was conducted in February1996. The whole survey was carried out over a two week period and initial results were fedback to the community within one month.

Sampling

A non-random sampling technique was used to collect data. Community workersapproached respondents, face to face, to complete the survey questionnaire. This approachhas a number of shortcomings related to validity and accuracy. A similar survey hasbeen completed with Te Runanga o Te Rarawa. Once the data has been analysed it will bepossible to make comparisons which, it is hoped, will support the results from Tai Rawhiti.Te Runanga o Te Rarawa was chosen as the comparative community because of the similarpopulation numbers and similar locational and distribution factors.

��

Iwi Validation

The development of hui for early feedback of the initial survey findings has been a uniquefactor of the survey methodology. In this manner, iwi have validated the data as beingrepresentative and accurate. The results have been used to enable the CIPP to set their prioritiesand develop their operational plans for the implementation of their project. The lack of iwi-specific statistical data relating to injury makes it difficult to determine priorities for prevention.The data from the survey has enabled that to occur so that the CIPP can realistically address theinjury problems in their rohe.

� Summary of Results

(i) Study Participants

1 The total number of people surveyed was 510. Of these, 50.2 percent were Turanganui aKiwa, and 49.8 percent were Ngati Porou.

2 The respondents ranged in aged from 14-83 years, of which 60 percent were aged between17-47 years.

3 Ethnicity - 95 percent of the respondents were of M�ori ethnic origin.

4 Gender - 63 percent of respondents were female, and 37 percent male.

5 The income range of respondents was $0-$30,000pa, of which 17 percent of respondentsearned less than $10,000 pa.

(ii) Needs Assessment

1 The priority areas identified by the study were:• child abuse/violence 89 percent• partner abuse 82 percent• car accidents 79 percent• back injury 77 percent• suicide 74 percent

2 The priority age groups identified by the study were:• tamariki < 5 years• tamariki 5 - 14 years• rangatahi 15 - 24 years• pakeke 25-65 years• kaumatua > 65 years

3 Effective forums for implementing new programmes are:

• Te Kohanga Reo• Schools and sports days• Polytechnics and clubs• Clubs and whanau hui• Whanau hui and marae

��

(iii) Baseline Information

1 Results show that 41 percent of respondents identified injury as the leading cause of deathfor people aged 45 years and below.

2 Fifty percent of respondents believed that less than half of injuries were preventable.

3 A large number of people were unaware of the project - 84 percent.

4 Results also show that 20 percent of respondents sustained injury in the last 12 months, ofwhich 50 percent sought treatment.

� Conclusion

One of the strengths of the programme has been the desire to implement programmes that lookat the total person by addressing issues from an holistic viewpoint. In addressing the concernsevident in the survey was the need to ensure programme strategies were going to beappropriate for M�ori and were going to deal with the major injury problems. As a result, theCIPP has chosen to focus on the areas identified by the survey as priority areas:

1. Family violence2. Road safety3. Alcohol abuse4. Environmental hazards

For the Evaluation Team, the baseline information will be compared with data which will becollected in February 1998, to test any changes in knowledge, attitudes and beliefs related toinjury and injury awareness in Tai Rawhiti, and thus determine the actual impact of the CIPP.

�

����� ��

�������

� � � � � � � �

����

Male M�ori Adolescent Health Programme

Florence Campbell, Manager Tuturu Tangata o Nga Tai Tamariki

Te Runanga o Te Rarawa

He mihi poto kia koutou ara kia tatou katoaKia kore ai te tahi e mahueE nga maata waka tangataE nga maata waka Wairua,Tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou katoa

E mihi ana ki o tatou mate mahaMai i te rerenga WairuaWhiti atu ki wharewhare kauriTe hunga kua hoki haere koutou, haere koutou

� Background

I am a representative of Te Runanga o Te Rarawa, one of the five tribes of the far north. Thereare approximately 15 rural communities within this rohe and 24 marae, each has tworepresentatives that form the Runanga.

Te Rarawa population statistics show a steady growth since the 1991 figures which wereapproximately 5,900. Present figures show an increase of 900. However, only 3100 now residein the rohe.

Like many other areas throughout the country our people have chosen to reside in the cities togain proper employment opportunities. It should also be noted that a number of our urban-based iwi still identify with Ngapuhi Nui Tonu as a whole rather than Te Rarawa separately.

In addition, some of our families residing in Te Rarawa have chosen to send their children out ofthe takiw� for a better education. A great number of these children prefer the urban lifestyleand have decided to make a life for themselves never to return home.

Many of our M�ori youth have very low self-esteem. The distinction of mana is enormous andhas enormous ramifications for uplifting oneself in every aspect of life. For without thatassurance there is only deprivation and anguish and, as a consequence, they become powerlessand humiliated, creating the ideal recipe to the demands of temptation and deceit.

With this in mind, Te Rarawa decided that a survey focussing on our young male M�ori wouldprovide a starting point for improving male attitudes of responsibility towards parenting, sex,education and child health.

� Target Group

This survey involved three secondary schools within Te Rarawa - Panguru Area School, KaitaiaCollege and Broadwood Area School.

The population in Panguru is 340 and predominantly M�ori. The school caters for new entrantsthrough to Form 7. Around 200 pupils attend, of whom 98 percent are M�ori.

�

Broadwood Area School has a roll of approximately 280, of whom 80 percent are M�ori. LikePanguru Area School, it takes pupils from new entrants through to Form 7. Pupils from newentrants to Standard 4 have the option of learning in a Kura Kaupapa M�ori environment withteaching largely in M�ori. At Form 1, all students return to the mainstream Englishenvironment.

Kaitaia College has a roll of around 880 students of whom 70 percent are M�ori. It takesstudents from Form 3 to Form 7.

Two Health Project Co-ordinators were employed to carry out the research and facilitateddiscussions with these young men to assist in the development of a questionnaire. The surveyconsisted of over 80 questions and was used to survey those in the target group.

School staff were humbly requested that these young men remain on the programme with thetwo Health Co-ordinators so that they could be given the opportunity to speak freely andfrankly about their health needs.

� Needs Identified

The report found that these young mens’ perception of their health needs went beyond certainissues like sexuality and drug abuse. They wanted to understand more about responsibilitiesgenerally and socially, about life skills in making the transition from a whanau and schoolenvironment to independent living, to moving into an urban setting to obtain some form ofemployment.

� Relationships and Sexuality

The young men felt most health education programmes were appropriate for schools but felt thePeer Sexuality programme did not really meet their needs. They wanted more emotionalmaterial on how they should respond in intimate relationships, how to respect and understandeach other, as well as the facts about the biological aspects of sex.

In respect of these concerns, it was very important that the people whom these young mencould confide in had their trust and respect, and an understanding and empathy with tikangaM�ori. Many felt strong peer pressure to have a serious relationship with girls. Panguru andBroadwood Area Schools participants felt that whanaungatanga connections prohibited seriousrelationships with girls, and they were faced with the prospect of finding a girl that they werenot related to.

Some had difficulty expressing their feelings because of what they perceived was expected ofthem as M�ori males and preferred to speak with an adult they could trust and respect. In somecases their knowledge of sexuality came from pornographic magazines and videos which lackedthe understanding of appropriate relationships and feelings.

Others felt that the use of drugs and alcohol would give them the courage to approach girls. Butat the same time they were aware that this time out would only create further problems forthemselves and their whanau.

��

� Education

The desire for greater involvement in decision making within the school systems wereexpressed by survey respondents. School administration need to consider allowing students toprovide direct input into school systems.

� Employment

Young men in the rural areas expressed a concern that job opportunities were non-existent andthey would probably go on an unemployment benefit if they choose to remain in thecommunity after completing their studies. Others were inclined not go give their full attentionto education as they too saw no future. However, some had whanau living in urban areas thatwere prepared to set up employment and assist these young men.

� Recreation

Respondents wanted proper community sports facilities especially in the rural settings ratherthan travelling out of these areas to receive any recognition on how they performed in sport.Being active in sporting activities was an incentive to prevent them from drug and alcoholabuse.

� Self-esteem

Strong support was shown for more school health programmes centred towards youth inrestoring and building self-confidence and awareness. At present this document has allowedme to operate such a programme funded by the Regional Health Authorities and to enter allprimary and secondary schools of the Far North.

� Methods of Delivery

Various opinions were expressed from these young men but there appeared to be a generalconsensus that health education should be promoted in the intermediate section of the schools,and that specific sex education should begin at Form 1 or 2 levels. This would assist indeveloping male student opinions and attitudes towards females, and progress onto the morebiological aspects in the senior classes.

This group felt that the ideal setting to really get the messages across to young men should bedelivered in schools. Marae settings were considered to be too restrictive for this type ofdiscussion.

��

� Summary

This report focused on the health needs of our young men in the Far North, although thespecific findings were centred within the Te Rarawa takiw�. It will allow us to make futurerecommendations to provide services aimed at recognising the need for programmes for youngmen to be delivered by M�ori programmes that are flexible and to be more aware that existingagencies within the system are failing to meet the standard requirements of this particular targetgroup.

Whanau, hap� and iwi need to be more informed, resourced and responsible towards thisgroup, whether individually or selectively. Appropriate people are needed to deliver theprogrammes and understand and establish good rapport with the target group. These issues areso important not only to Te Rarawa but also to other iwi and policy makers in general.

No reira, I hope this report will motivate us as iwi people to take charge of our own healthneeds and lead our iwi away from the temptations of abuse from poverty, inadequate housing,low education achievements and low self-esteem, to a future of prosperity and fulfilment.

The time is now, the intrinsic values. Youth health needs to be addressed, enhanced andrestored. We must gather together with complacency and patience. We who have been taughtthe ancient teachings of our Tupuna.

No reira, tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou katoa.

��

����� ��

�������

� � � � � � � �

����

Iwi Statistics:The development of resource allocation and service provision models

Matiu Ihaka

Ngati Porou

Ko te wa kaengaKo Hikurangi te maungaKo Waiapu te awaKo Ngati Porou te iwi

As described in our pepeha “Mai Potikirua ki te Toka-a-Taiau” the Ngati Porou rohe extendsfrom Lottin point northwest of Hicks Bay to the rock situated in the Turanganui-a-Kiwa river,Gisborne. The predominant economies of the area are rural based. The public services withinthe area are limited to one bank, Westpac Ruatoria; one hospital, Te Puia; four police stations,Te Araroa, Ruatoria, Tolaga Bay; Kaiti, four fire stations, Te Araroa, Ruatoria, Te Puia, TolagaBay; and several stores situated throughout the Coast. These service a population ofapproximately 11,000 Ngati Porou people covering a distance by road of 220km and an area ofapproximately 420,000 hectares.

Ngati Porou represent over 80 percent of the population within the rohe. Seventy percent of theNgati Porou population within the rohe are drawing a benefit. The median total annual incomefor Ngati Porou aged fifteen years and over was $11,516. This was slightly lower than the figureof $11,736 recorded for all M�ori. Ngati Porou living outside Gisborne received substantiallyhigher incomes than Ngati Porou living inside the rohe. The data screams that unemployment isa critical issue. But where should we be targeting, and how best should the Runanga address theneed?

Statistical data provided by Statistics New Zealand has provided the base information that wehave cross-tabulated the previous conclusions from. This data allows the assessment of theneeds of the Ngati Porou community in a general sense however, because the units upon whichmost of the data is based is of too large a size (usually the data can only be provided in AreaUnits) the needs of specific communities within Ngati Porou are almost impossible to identifyfrom the coarse data provided.

The following is a brief summary of the Runanga and its activities and how it has utilised and iscurrently utilising statistics to formulate policy and implement services.

� Te Runanga O Ngati Porou

As a consequence of several large hui held in mid 1984, on 1 September 1987 Te Runanga ONgati Porou was established under its own Act of Parliament to assist in the development of“nga uri o nga hap� o Ngati Porou mai Potikirua ki Te Toka a Taiau” (the descendants of thehap� from Potikirua to Te Toka-a-Taiau of Ngati Porou). The Runanga seeks to promote thesovereignty of Ngati Porou within its spirituality, people and physical resources.

The Runanga currently operates a number of activities ranging from agriculture to health andsocial service provision. Data analysis allows the formulation of possible solutions that may beimplemented to alleviate and hopefully reduce areas of severe need. The quality of the datainputted allows for a greater degree of certainty as to the successful implementation.

��

� The Runanga’s Register

The Runanga has maintained a software Iwi register since 1993. There are 8,500 peopleregistered with the Runanga to date. The Runanga currently utilises the register as a means tocontact the iwi when elections and other important matters arise. The Register is a simpleMicrosoft Access Database into which are entered general details such as Name, Age, VotingRohe, Hap� and Marae affiliations. It is possible to import the register into the GeographicInformation System this would allow the Runanga to target certain areas for promotion of theregister and will also allow for the greater identification of whanau in need. However, theRunanga is seriously considering this matter as the privacy of individuals has to be maintained.

General queries as to age of members per rohe and hap� affiliations can be ascertained quickly,however detailed statistics need an iwi or a hap� centric survey.

� Ngati Porou Housing Survey

In 1993 a committee of the Runanga was established to analyse the needs of Ngati Porou withinthe rohe and greater Gisborne area with respect to housing. The committee was composed ofone or two delegates from each community within Ngati Porou. The Committee’s objective wasto gather data from their respective communities on the numbers of:

1. Homeless people or people living in temporary shelters.

2. People living in substandard accommodation.

3. People living in overcrowded accommodation.

4. People requiring emergency accommodation.

From analysis of the above data the Committee was to formulate a strategic plan which wouldprovide Ngati Porou with a choice of appropriate housing options and resources to meet theirhousing needs.

Monthly hui, media broadcasts, public meetings and panui ensured Ngati Porou communityinvolvement.

The committee forwarded a proposal (outlining the statistics) to the Minister of Housing in1994. The result of this proposal was the implementation of a joint Runanga GovernmentHousing scheme. The Runanga educates potential home loan applicants as to how a loan can bestructured, serviced, and what the requirements are for sufficient housing to address the needsof the individual whanau. This education (workshop) process is now into its third round. Onehundred and thirty whanau enrolled of which 114 have completed the course and 106 of thesesatisfied all of the course requirements. The second course had 95 attendees with 80 completingand 72 meeting the certificate requirements. To date 15 whanau have received mortgages forhousing requirements through this scheme. We are unable to verify how many are still innegotiation with Housing Corporation of New Zealand (HCNZ). The Runanga requires greatercommunication between HCNZ and itself so efficient tracking and management of the wholescheme is facilitated.

� The Runanga and the Community Funding Agency (CFA)

This year the Runanga is to implement a database developed by CFA. This allows for theanalysis of data that has been collected by the Runanga’s Whanau support workers. TheMonitoring and Evaluation System (MES) provides insight into:

��

1. those receiving assistance through the Family/Whanau Development programme;

2. the services being provided; and

3. the outcomes or achievements.

These will allow the Runanga to assess the services that it is currently providing and isolateareas where provision can be improved. The MES has encouraged the Runanga to database thedata that employees are collecting which will lead to improved efficiency. However, the MESdoes not allow iwi to analyse the data without the data being processed by CFA first unless theiwi has the expertise to modify the design. Analysis of the data independent of CFA is seen bythe Runanga to be advantageous for the following reasons:

1. Cost efficiency - the delay from the time the data is sent away to the return of the dataanalysed could be weeks which delays the implementation of necessary modifications toprogrammes; and

2. Information is power - the data that the Runanga collects is utilised for the procuring offunding. We don’t want CFA using our own data against us by comparison or competitionfor funds with other providers.

The Runanga is considering creating its own spatial units for Ngati Porou community areas intowhich the MES and other Ngati Porou specific data sets can be imported so as to allow detailedanalysis via a geographic information system.

� Other Statistical Data

The Runanga collects statistics from a variety of sources such as the New Zealand EmploymentService, Te Whare Tu Wahine, NZCYPS, and NZISS. In addition to this data retrieval theRunanga also collects data from its Corporate Services staff and the time they allocate toprovision of services in the following areas:

1. Information/advice;

2. Advice/ assistance to providers; and

3. All others.

The data is divided under these categories into sets of how many hours each service takes, howmany inquiries are made, and general client information. This data is utilised in the policy andprogramme formulation of the Runanga’s social service arm and justifies the funding sought toaddress the needs.

� GIS gives clearer meaning to some data sets

A Geographic Information System is a computer assisted system for the acquisition, storage,analysis and display of geographic data. Simply defined a GIS is a database with a cartographicdisplay system; and a lot of data with a mapping interface. The database is essentially of twoforms, a spatial listing describing the geography (shape and position) of earth surface features,and an attribute list describing the characteristics, or qualities of those features.

For example, the meshblocks and area units that Statistics New Zealand defines for the Censusrepresent the spatial data, the statistics gathered during the Census relevant to that block or areaunit are the attribute data.

��

Te Runanga O Ngati Porou employs a Geographic Information System known as MapInfo topresent a graphical interpretation of the statistical data it has accumulated in conjunction withthe geophysical data it has purchased. Spatial representation of the data allows for a quickappraisal of the areas that require attention.

� What about Ngati Porou abroad?

Although there are 11,000 Ngati Porou who reside within the Ngati Porou rohe this onlyaccounts for less than 25 percent of Ngati Porou resident in Aotearoa. Larger numbers ofNgati Porou reside in Auckland, Wellington and other centres such as Rotorua.

Also prominent from 1991 Census statistics is the high number of M�ori who failed to state theiriwi. Approximately 35,350 of these persons were resident in the greater Auckland area andanother 11,500 were living in greater Wellington. Analysis entered into by Fulcrum Research &Information Services on behalf of Te Runanga O Ngati Porou has attempted to identify thelocation of the large numbers of Ngati Porou, their level of education, their socio-economicgrouping and other such data which would enable the Runanga to better target the needs of allof our people.

� Statistics cost

In the United States, census and spatial data can be grabbed off the Internet for no fee. Such isnot the case in New Zealand, the privatisation of certain government departments and agencieshas lead to competitive pricing for the products that these, once public, companies provide.

Statistics New Zealand data for rural areas such as the Ngati Porou rohe can only provide a verygeneral and rough analysis of iwi specific data to maintain census confidentiality. The cost ofthis limited data for rural based iwi authorities and providers can be prohibitive.

Statistics improve in value as you gather and analyse better qualitative data in as great aquantity as possible. Collection of data over different periods is also of great assistance to iwi toforecast trends and developments. The proviso is that the data that you are collecting is relevantto the objective that you are trying to achieve.

The generality of the data provided by Statistics New Zealand allows for the maintenance ofconfidentiality. However, the level of detail that iwi authorities can acquire through the servicesthat they provide can be analysed in such a way as to compromise that integrity. So iwi statisticshave to be secure and generalised when used outside of the environment in which they wereoriginally created.

The data that we receive is a taste of the potential and when we have developed this into abuffet we don’t want a boar coming in plundering.

Kia ora tatou.

��

ADDENDUM

Ngati Porou are currently undertaking a comprehensive population analysis of their iwi toascertain the socio economic status of those who reside within the traditional tribal rohe andthose who now reside in urban localities. Census data for 1991 and 1996 has been purchased.The Runanga wishes to express its gratitude to Professor Ian Pool, Department of PopulationStudies, Waikato University, Statistics New Zealand, the New Zealand Health InformationService, the Health and Disabilities Unit, Midland Health and various other agencies.

This project has been funded by Midland Regional Health to assist in the implementation ofa health knowledge base as part of a four-phased project. The project seeks to evaluate thecurrent health information and analytical systems to allow Ngati Porou and the local healthproviders to monitor and evaluate wellbeing indicators. The data is to be owned and controlledby Ngati Porou.

We are happy to provide any clarification of the issues within this document or any otherassistance, please contact us at:

Te Runanga O Ngati PorouPO Box 394GISBORNE

Phone: 06-867-9960Fax: 06-867-5335Email: krk@bpc.co.nz

�

����� ��

�������

� � � � � � � �

����

Whaihua TatauA Representative Sampling Method for M����� Populations

E.D. Fitzgerald, M.H. Durie, T.E. Black, A.E. Durie, I.S. Christensen, J.T. Taiapa

Department of M�ori Studies, Massey University

Julia TaiapaNgati PorouLecturer, Department of M�ori Studies, Massey UniversityPrinciple interests are M�ori development, Mana wahine, M�ori household income and expenditure.

Eljon FitzgeraldRangitane, Ngati RaukawaResearcher, Department of M�ori Studies, Massey UniversityProgramme Manager of Te Hoe Nuku Roa Project, a longitudinal study of M�ori households. Principleinterests are: M�ori development, quantitative research design and methodology, M�ori housing.

Whakarapopoto

Ko ng� m�hiotanga ka hua i ng� mahi rangahau i ng� �huatanga e p� ana ki te iwiM�ori, hei t��papa m� te ahu whakamua. Ko wai m� te iwi M�ori, tokohia ng�M�ori, he aha ng� �huatanga ohanga, ng� �huatanga noho, me ng� �huatangaahurea. Koianei ng� p�tai me m�tua whakautu i mua i te whakat� kaupapa e ahuwhakamua ai te iwi M�ori.

Ahakoa te nui o te p�rongo kua kohia mai m� te iwi M�ori, kei te uaua tonu tewhakaatu t�tika i te iwi M�ori. He matatini ng� �huatanga o te iwi M�ori ar�, �r�tou w�hi noho, te tuakiri ahurea, ng� �hutanga-a-noho, a-ohanga hoki, katoa �neika p� atu ki te whakat� i t�tahi anga t�pako m� te iwi M�ori.

I konei, ka �ta tirohia �tahi o ng� tikanga kua mahia k�tia hei huarahi t�pako i te iwiM�ori, me te t�tika o aua tikanga. K�tahi ka whakaatuhia te ‘Whaihua Tatau’,t�tahi tikanga t�pako hou, me t�na whakamahinga i roto i te kaupapa rangahauwh�roa i ng� k�inga M�ori, a Te Hoe Nuku Roa.

�

� Abstract

Policies for M�ori advancement require reliable information based on actual M�ori experience.Who is M�ori, what are their economic, social and cultural characteristics, what are the range ofaspirations, are questions which need to be answered before policies and programmes designedto address M�ori needs can be adequately developed.

Although much information has been collated about M�ori there are continuing difficulties inreporting on representative M�ori samples. M�ori diversity, in terms of geography, culturalidentity, socio-economic circumstances and lifestyles are key considerations which must betaken into account in the construction of sampling frames for M�ori. This paper considers someof the approaches that have been adopted for sampling M�ori populations and examines issuesof efficiency and representivity. A new sampling method, Whaihua Tatau, is described and itsapplication to a longitudinal study of M�ori households, Te Hoe Nuku Roa, is discussed.

� Introduction

M�ori development not only requires clear goals and objectives but also reliable information.Although M�ori related data has been collected by researchers over a wide variety of fields,there has been a tendency to focus on aggregated sectoral data. Iwi research holds promise for amore integrated approach to the collection of data for planning, but at both regional andnational levels, there is a relative dearth of integrated data sets which can be described as“representative” and which enable linkages to be made between economic, social and culturaldimensions at household levels. This paper is about obtaining a M�ori sample that isrepresentative of the range of geographic, economic, cultural and social circumstances of M�ori.

For M�ori, and up until 1840-1850 the concept of being M�ori was novel. Indeed prior tocolonisation, identity was based not on ethnicity so much as tribal origin, whanau (family)affiliations and area of residence. It was not until Pakeha arrived in New Zealand that the term“M�ori” became popular. Then it meant “normal” and was used by M�ori to distinguishthemselves from the new settlers who had fairer skins, distinctive physical features anddifferent cultures. Quite quickly, however, the total New Zealand population changed so thatby 1858 M�ori had already become a minority. A combination of depopulation and increasedimmigration from Europe and Australia continued the trend, the non-M�ori population growingrapidly while the M�ori population declined to 42,000 in 1896. But by 1936 or even earlier, itwas evident that another trend was in progress. Due largely to high fertility rates and improvedlife expectancy the M�ori population began to grow and at a faster rate than for non-M�ori.

Table 1: M�ori Demographic Change

Year M�ori Population Non-M�ori Population

1800 150,000 (est) -1858 56,049 59,4131896 42,113 701,1011936 82,326 1,491,4861991 434,847 2,939,082Source: NZ Official Yearbook 1996

��

Meanwhile, apart from demographic change, the price of colonisation was manifest in otherways. By the mid 20th century the effects of assimilationist policies, land disenfranchisement,urbanisation, intermarriage, a weakened economy, and monocultural social policies, had alteredthe perception which people had of themselves and their neighbours. Many M�ori had becomeseparated from those determining elements upon which the identity of their ancestors hadrested. Being M�ori had taken on new meanings, often defined by others, and often accordingto perceived shortcomings or unfavourable comparisons with non-M�ori, (Keenan 1995).

Probably it was the land march of 1975 which clearly signalled to the rest of New Zealand thatM�ori were no longer prepared to be defined in negative terms, nor from eurocentricperspectives. The M�ori Affairs Amendment Act 1974 went some way to formalising the newmood when it declared that a M�ori was “a person of the M�ori race of New Zealand; andincludes any descendant of such a person”. However, the Electoral Amendment Act 1975 addedto the 1974 definition by introducing the option of self identification. According to the ElectoralAmendment Act 1975 a M�ori “means a person of the M�ori race of New Zealand; and includesany descendant of such a person who elects to be considered as a M�ori for the purposes of theAct.” Previously, M�ori had been defined along biological lines, anyone with fifty per cent ormore “M�ori blood” being described as M�ori while others of M�ori ancestry but with less thanfifty per cent being defined European.

Wereta (1994) notes that the census definition of M�ori has changed several times over the lastone hundred years, most of the changes having taken place within the last twenty years.Kilgour and Keefe (1992) highlighted difficulties with official statistics on M�ori and M�orihealth in particular. In considering ethnic statistics they discussed the many concepts on whichdefinitions of M�ori could be based: biological, (emphasising lines of descent and the degree ofblood of different ethnic groups); cultural affiliation, (emphasising the way people definethemselves and the group to which they feel most closely related); descent, emphasising beingdescended from a M�ori regardless of degree of blood.

The situation is further compounded by the lack of consistency in collecting official statistics,some government agencies (such as the Department of Justice in its compilation of birthstatistics) continuing to use the biological approach while others (Durie 1994) such as theMinistry of Health adopt a combination of descent and cultural affiliation.

Census data since 1981 has used two measures to define M�ori : descent from a M�ori (the 1974definition) and cultural affiliation based on self identification (the 1975 Electoral AmendmentAct). These two measures are not identical and in the 1991 census there was a discrepancy ofsome 80,000. A total of 511,278 respondents said they had some M�ori ancestry while 434,847said they were M�ori in terms of ethnic identity (Department of Statistics 1994).

��

These different approaches to defining M�ori, according to biological determination or descentor ethnic affiliation, have been described by Durie (1994) and are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2: Statistical Definitions of M�ori

Definition Criteria Minimum Examples ofrequirement usage

Biological determination Constitutional Half-M�ori Justice Department(births, deaths)AdoptionsSchoolsFoetal and neo-natal

deaths

M�ori descent Whakapapa One M�ori ancestor Census enumerationIwi registers

Ethnic affiliation Self-identification Choose to identify Census enumerationas M�ori Household Labour

Force SurveyPost-secondary

educationCancer registration

Most statistical measures of M�ori, however, lack sophistication in so far as they are unable tocapture the relevant significance of choosing to identify as M�ori or having M�ori ancestry.Though when aggregated these measures assist in the development of sectoral information (inhealth, education, home ownership, etc) they are of limited value in distinguishing the range ofM�ori cultural realities and, inevitably, contribute to the development of a homogenous M�oristereotype.

Moreover, even though census data since 1991 has included iwi information, the main purposeof M�ori statistics has been to differentiate M�ori from non-M�ori and to make comparisonsbetween different ethnic groups.

This paper, however, discusses a sampling method which takes account of M�ori diversity andthe need for representivity. The purpose is not so much to enable comparisons with non-M�orias to understand contemporary M�ori situations and compare M�ori with M�ori in terms ofhuman relationships, access to Te Ao M�ori, socio-economic circumstances, and change overtime. The representative sampling method proposed has been called “ Whaihua Tatau “ toindicate its primary focus on M�ori and its M�ori centred perspective.

� Background: Te Hoe Nuku Roa - M�ori Profiles

In an effort to better understand M�ori situations at household levels and to appreciate the linksbetween cultural identity and socio-economic circumstances, the Department of M�ori Studiesat Massey University, is undertaking a longitudinal study of M�ori individuals and households.The study, known as Te Hoe Nuku Roa, aims to gather information that reflects the currentsituation of M�ori without making value judgements about preconceived virtues of being M�ori.It links a variety of cultural and ethnic measures with other indicators to obtain M�ori identityprofiles in contemporary Aotearoa.

��

In order to meet the study objectives it was necessary to develop a sampling method whichreflected the diverse realities within which M�ori live. Various options were consideredincluding random sampling based on the M�ori electoral roll, snowballing techniques, randomsamples from iwi registers and stratified random sampling. For reasons which will be discussedlater a stratified random sampling method was considered most likely to capture the full rangeof M�ori household configurations without in-built bias or preconceived notions of a “typical”M�ori. It would more predictably ensure genuine M�ori representation across the range ofcultural, social, economic and geographic variables.

� A Representative M�ori Sample

M�ori society is not static, any more than New Zealand society generally. Changingdemographic patterns, technological advancement, interaction with other cultures and nations,and variable access to resources, have been accompanied by changing cultural beliefs andpractises. In addition, throughout the human life-cycle, situations, attitudes, values andaspirations change so that M�ori individuals at different stages in life may demonstrate quitedifferent characteristics.

Far from being homogenous M�ori have a variety of cultural characteristics and live in anumber of cultural and socio-economic realities. The relevance of so-called traditional values isnot the same for all M�ori, nor can it be assumed that all M�ori will wish to define their ethnicidentity according to classical constructs. At the same time, they may well describe themselvesas M�ori, rejecting any notion that they are “less M�ori” than their more conventional peers.

M�ori belong to numerous social and cultural groupings. Sometimes ethnicity will be the mostsignificant affiliation but on other occasions ethnicity may be less important than belonging to aschool, a sports club, a socio-economic grouping or a family constellation. Balance betweenindividual and group varies over time and according to other competing claims includingcultural expectation, opportunities and personal preferences. Furthermore, social groupingsmay be seen as primarily M�ori in nature even though their origins lie elsewhere. A rugbyleague club, for example, might be described as a M�ori organisation by its members because itincorporates M�ori notions of leadership, training and hospitality (Durie et al 1995).

While a sample can never be entirely representative of the entire population, enough is knownabout contemporary M�ori to identify certain key variables which ought to be reflected in arepresentative sample. These variables cover a range of situations and conditions and include:an urban-rural dimension; socio-economic dimensions; iwi dimensions; cultural dimensions,and age groupings.

Following World War II M�ori began moving to the cities and this accelerated in the 1960s. By1981, 81 per cent of the M�ori population lived in urban centres (Department of Statistics 1994 ).The urban-rural dimension is important since there are significant differences both in lifestyleand cultural identity between M�ori who live in towns or metropolitan areas and those who livein the country (Metge 1964).

Of equal importance and likely to become more obvious, are the diverse socio-economicconditions of M�ori. Table 3 summarises some of the significant differences within M�orisociety.

�

Table 3: M�ori DifferentialsNZ M�ori Ethnic Group 15 years and Over

Income 42% had an 27% had an 19% had an 3% had an 9% did notincome of income income income of specify an

$10,000 between between over incomeor less $10,000- $20,000- $30,001

$20,000 $30,000

High School 60% had no 19% had 10% had 5% had 2% had an 4% didQualification formal school sixth form higher overseas or not

school certificate in certificate or school other school specifyqualification one or more university certificate qualification

subjects entrance in or higherone or more leavingsubjects certificate,

universitybursary orscholarship

Employment 36% were 7% were 11% were 3% were 43% were inemployed in employed in unemployed unemployed the non-full-time part-time and actively and actively labour forcelabour force labour force seeking full- seeking part-(30 hours or (1-29 hours) time work time workmore)

Source 1991 Census, NZ Population and Dwellings

Prior to 1984 the iwi dimension might have attracted less attention than it does now. However,active policies of iwi development, coupled with increasing dissatisfaction with M�ori socialand cultural structures in urban settings has led to a greater emphasis on iwi affiliations andcontacts.

In the 1991 Census (Department of Statistics 1994), iwi affiliation was recorded and resultssuggested that there were some quite large iwi with populations exceeding 40,000 while othersappeared to be much smaller with populations less than 3,000.

Cultural identity is a further variable. Not all M�ori subscribe to the same cultural values nordoes “being” M�ori carry the same implications for everyone. A recent survey by Te TauraWhiri i te Reo M�ori (1995) showed that although sixty percent of the M�ori population 16 yearsor over speak some M�ori, there is a wide range of language ability. The survey was able toconfirm that the migration of M�ori people from country to city had considerable impact on thestate of M�ori language, levels of fluency remaining higher in rural areas. Durie (1993) hasdescribed three broad groupings based on cultural and lifestyle patterns. People belonging to aconservative M�ori group are more likely to speak M�ori, attend marae functions, enrol theirchildren in kohanga reo and register on the M�ori electoral roll. “Mainstream M�ori”, however,may lead lives which are indistinguishable from their Pakeha neighbours though continue todescribe themselves as M�ori, while a third group “alienated M�ori” do not participateeffectively in either M�ori society or mainstream Pakeha society.

The current M�ori population composition shows distinctive trends. Although one third of thepopulation is under the age of 15 years it is likely the ratio will change. M�ori are projected tomake up fifteen percent of the total population by 2031. A consequence of reduced fertility ratesand increased life expectancy will lead to a higher proportion of older M�ori people so that by2031 the proportion of elderly in the M�ori population will have trebled to nine percent

�

(Department of Statistics 1994). Douglas (1995) reports that already, twenty seven percent of theM�ori population do not know their tribe. Either they don’t know their tribal name, or theydon’t know what their tribal connections are. Allied to this are major changes in domestic,household and family arrangements. He notes that the most rapidly growing type of M�oriheaded household over the past decade was the single parent (usually the mother) and herdependent children, and that over the same period of time the most rapidly growing source ofincome for M�ori males was Department of Social Welfare benefits, (mainly unemployment,sickness and disability benefits).

� M�ori Sampling Methods

Various approaches have been used to obtain a M�ori sample. Although none is entirelyrepresentative (of the M�ori population), each has validity in terms of the intended purpose.

The Rapuora Study, conducted by the M�ori Women’s Welfare League 1983-84, used asnowballing technique to recruit women into a survey that would focus on role, status andopportunities for M�ori women. Originally intended to be a nationwide survey, fundingrealities forced it into a series of regional studies. The composite study involved 1177 interviewswith M�ori women and recorded a response rate of over 99 percent. The sampling was in fourstages: the selection of three regions; random sampling of 24 meshblocks within each region;household enumeration; random sampling from the names of M�ori women supplied bymeshblock householders, (the snowball sample). Though appropriate for the Rapuora study thesample was primarily focused on recruiting women only based on highly focused units withincertain communities. The sampling method was not considered sufficiently robust for Te HoeNuku Roa mainly because meshblocks contain too few households to enable a morerepresentative selection of household configurations at local levels. Moreover the snowballingtechnique presented opportunities for high selectivity based on social acquaintances andcontacts.

Since 1984 many iwi have compiled extensive registers of their affiliates. Proportionate samplesfrom each iwi would enable the compilation of a regional or even national M�ori sample.However iwi registers do not as a rule contain the names of M�ori individuals and whanau whodo not exercise any iwi links. In addition while many iwi registers are incomplete, many M�oriare listed on more than one iwi register. Iwi registers are likely to contain M�ori who havesimilar cultural characteristics and aspirations. They are unlikely to reflect a sufficiently broadrange of contemporary M�ori to enable the recruitment of a representative sample.

A survey of kaum�tua (M�ori aged 60 years and over) currently being undertaken byTe Pumanawa Hauora (1996) has used an iwi networking sampling method. Reliance has beenplaced on iwi groups being able to identify a sample of kaum�tua in their own areas. Thoughsubject to over representation, a large number of respondents has been recruited to compensatefor some of the high selectivity which occurs in networking samples. However the method isprobably not sufficiently reliable to guarantee the wide range of M�ori households proposed forTe Hoe Nuku Roa.

The M�ori electoral roll has also been used to obtain M�ori samples. It has the advantage ofbeing relatively easy to use, is readily available and is updated every three years prior to eachgeneral election. However, the Waitangi Tribunal (1994) has shown that the M�ori electoral roll,far from being representative of M�ori contains fewer than fifty percent of eligible M�ori voters.In addition voters who enrol on the M�ori electoral roll as opposed the General roll are deemedlikely to hold certain cultural values and beliefs which distinguish them from other M�ori.

�

Statistics New Zealand periodically conducts Household Labour Force Surveys (HLFS) andHousehold Economic Surveys (HES) with samples of households from across the country. Thesample is derived by dividing the country into a set of 18,800 geographically-defined areas(called Primary Sampling Units: PSUs). Each PSU contains about 70 dwellings. PSUs withsimilar attributes are combined into a smaller number of geographically related groups calledstrata. When a HLFS or HES is undertaken two stages of sampling are used. First, PSUs arerandomly selected, separately from each stratum. Then the selected PSUs are enumerated(ie each dwelling inside a PSU is listed) and random selections of the listed dwellings arecontacted, to provide respondents for the survey. The frame gives a scientifically sound andcost-efficient way of obtaining a cross-section of households, but not necessarily for M�ori(Doherty and Templeton, 1994).

This brief review of sampling methods used in M�ori populations suggests three sets of criteriaagainst which research appropriateness can be measured. Table 4 combines these criteria into apurpose, efficiency and representivity framework. The Rapuora method for example wasappropriate for the M�ori Womens Health Survey, was efficient in terms of funding andavailability of fieldworkers but did not yield a sample which was truly representative atregional or national levels.

Table 4: M�ori Sampling Methods

Purpose of Study Efficiency Representivity(aims, objectives) (fieldwork, data (regional, national)

management, costs)

Meshblock Sampling(e.g. Rapuora)

Iwi Registers

Iwi Networking(e.g. kaum�tua study)

Household Labour Force

M�ori Electoral Roll

� Whaihua Tatau Method

In order to obtain a representative sample for Te Hoe Nuku Roa, a new sampling method wasdeveloped and successfully piloted together with a pilot questionnaire. Known as “WhaihuaTatau” it is essentially a random stratified sampling method with the five key characteristicsshown in table 5.

Table 5: Whaihua Tatau: Key Characteristics

• Representative M�ori Sampling Method• M�ori Household focus• Regional Selectivity• Stratified Sampling• Representivity Weightings

�

� Household and Regional Focus

Whaihua Tatau is focused on households. For the purposes of Te Hoe Nuku Roa a M�orihousehold has been defined as “a household where one or more M�ori are living”. Thehousehold focus was preferred to a family/whanau focus in order to include M�ori not living ina family situation or in conventional family homes. Because of high costs it was not possible tosample M�ori households in every region; instead key regions which were distinctive in termsof M�ori populations were selected. This method was favoured for three specific reasons. First,a strategic approach can be adopted with a systematic surveying of regions as they can bereasonably managed and in order to maximise cost efficiency. Second, by utilising existinginformation about each region it is possible to develop a frame from which a sample reasonablyrepresentative of M�ori from the regional population can be drawn. Third, it provides anopportunity to compare one region with another in terms of M�ori households.

Four regions were chosen for a baseline survey. The Manawatu-Wanganui, Gisborne, Wellingtonand Auckland regions were proposed on the basis that the contrasts between all four wouldprovide an extensive range of contemporary M�ori household realities, incorporating rural,urban and metropolitan variations and including a range of M�ori population densities andcultural and socio-economic circumstances.

The Manawatu-Wanganui region was selected as the first region to be surveyed. This regioncomprises a “good mix” of M�ori household situations. Cities such as Palmerston North andWanganui contain a range of urban household configurations, smaller rural towns such asFeilding, Marton, Foxton, Levin, Ohakune and Raetihi present a good representation ofsecondary urban centres, and rural situations are captured from the Norsewood - Herbertville(Central Hawkes Bay), Raurimu (National Park) and Ngapuke (Taumarunui District) areas.

The region was also selected because it could be conveniently coordinated from MasseyUniversity. The Manawatu-Wanganui regional survey was undertaken in 1994 -95 and wasfollowed by Gisborne and Wellington in 1995 -96. The Auckland survey will occur in 1996 -97.

� Stratified Sampling

Since the number of M�ori within each PSU is known, based on census data, it is possible tosample more heavily the strata with higher M�ori populations. To maintain the accuracy ofestimates covering the total M�ori population from which the sample is drawn, reasonably sizedsamples still need to be drawn from the low M�ori strata.

The sample from each region has been selected using a differential sampling approach based oninformation from past censuses, HES and HLFS surveys conducted by Statistics New Zealand.Based on the stratifications within each region and in relation to M�ori population densitywithin each stratum, selections of PSUs can be selected for each survey. An enumeration phaseinvolving a door to door survey within each PSU can then be undertaken to establish whichhouseholds are eligible for inclusion in the study (ie which households are M�ori by definition).For consistency each PSU is surveyed three times or until each dwelling has been contacted andcanvassed in relation to a structured interview. Repeat surveys are conducted at different timesof the day and on different days of the week so as to increase the chances of contactinghouseholds. Later, eligible households are selected randomly to achieve predetermined totals(which allow for non-participation and no-contact), in line with the population stratumproportions. Where less than 12 eligible households are situated in any one PSU all are includedin the study, otherwise a systematic random sampling process is applied as shown in table 5.

�

Table 6 : Whaihua Tatau: The Systematic Random Sampling Process

1. sum the eligible households from the low-M�ori PSUs

2. subtract this total from the desired number of survey households

3. divide by the number of PSUs remaining and round to the nearest integer =D(the result tells you how many dwellings to select from each PSU)

4. calculate the sampling interval Sampint = Psusize/D

5. generate a random number between 0 and Sampint =S

6. repeat for i = 0 to (D-1)dwelling selected = round(S+Sampint x i)

7. this indicates the dwelling to be selected from the eligible list

(Templeton, 1995)

� Representivity Weightings

Weightings are applied to the data using the formula, shown in table 6 which is based on PSUcharacteristics and a response factor.

Table 7: Whaihua Tatau: The Weightings Formula

weight =number PSUs in strata x number of eligible dwellings in PSU x response factor

number of PSUs selected number of dwellings selected from PSU

response factor =enumerated dwellings x eligible dwellings selected x number of eligible residents

screened dwellings eligible dwellings responding number of eligible respondents

� Conclusion

Sampling methods for M�ori populations have for the most part been devised for specificpurposes. However, a sample which is to be representative of M�ori either at local or nationallevels, needs to take into account M�ori heterogeneity, otherwise there is the risk of bias andskewed results. Underlying this assumption is the demonstration that although M�ori peoplehave certain cultural, social and economic characteristics in common, there is also diversitywhich is not yet well documented.

Whaihua Tatau, unlike other published sampling methods for M�ori, provides a method whichdoes not make assumptions about cultural identity, lifestyle preferences, locality or socialaffiliations. For these reasons it is an appropriate method for the longitudinal study of M�orihouseholds, Te Hoe Nuku Roa. It identifies ‘households’ from which information on householddynamics and relationships as well as information from individual M�ori within the householdcan be collected over time. As individuals with an on-going relationship to the household willbe able to be tracked over time, comparisons with the results of other sampling methods will beable to be made in order to compare broad representivity issues. So far, Whaihua Tatau has beenable to provide a systematic and reliable approach to the regional selection of potentialrespondents, and the identification and enumeration of M�ori households. In that sense it has

provided an instrument to meet the purpose of the study (the development of representativeM�ori profiles). It has also been an effective tool, within the management constraintssurrounding the study: the budgetary limitations on recruitment, and the complexities of datahandling. Because the method provides some rigour in the selection of respondents from therange of household circumstances, and weights them accordingly, it is able to satisfyrepresentivity requirements, at least for the purposes of this study.

Whaihua Tatau may not be suitable for all M�ori population research however, althoughcomparatively resource intensive and subject to the difficulties of other door-knocking exercises,does enable a range of M�ori experience to be sampled without the sampling methodintroducing some of the value-based biases of other methods.

� Te Hoe Nuku Roa Research Framework

For those who are interested, a paper describing the Te Hoe Nuku Roa research framework isavailable from:

Eljon FitzgeraldDepartment of Maori StudiesMassey UniversityPrivate Bag 11222PALMERSTON NORTH

The framework provides an instrument which aids in the conceptualism of the current positionof respondents and their households, and provides a substrate upon which the philosophicaland methodological aspects of the Te Hoe Nuku Roa study have been grafted.

REFERENCES

Department of Statistics (1994), New Zealand Now M�ori, Wellington: New Zealand Departmentof Statistics

Doherty M J and Templeton R (1994), Sample Frames for Surveys of M�ori, A discussion paperproduced for Statistics New Zealand, unpublished, Wellington: New Zealand Department ofStatistics

Douglas E M K (1994), Demographic Changes and Their Social Consequences for M�ori, Kia PumauTonu: Proceedings of the Hui Whakapumau M�ori Development Conference, Department ofM�ori Studies, Massey University, Palmerston North

Durie MH (1993) ‘Kaupapa Hauora M�ori: Policies for M�ori Health,’ Proceedings of the Hui AraAhu Whakamu, Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington

Durie MH (1994), Whaiora M�ori Health Development, Oxford University Press, Auckland

Durie MH et al (1995), Te Hoe Nuku Roa Framework A M�ori Identity Measure, Journal of thePolynesian Society, vol.104, No.4

Hughes O, Fenton S and Hine CE (1995), Strategies for Sampling Black and Ethnic MinorityPopulations, Journal of Public Health Medicine, Vol.17, No.2

Keenan D (1995), Incontrovertible Fact, Notwithstanding Estimtes. Passing Impressions to ResoundingExpectations: M�ori People Obsreved in the Early Contact Period, He Pukenga Korero, Koanga(Spring), Vol.1, No.1

Kilgour R and Keefe V (1992), Kia Piki te Ora, Department of Health, Wellington

Metge JA (1964), A New M�ori Migration: Rural and Urban Relations in Northern New Zealand.London, Athole and Melbourne University Presses

Murchie E (1984), Rapuora: Health and M�ori Women, M�ori Women’s Welfare League, Wellington

New Zealand Official Yearbook (1994), Wellington: New Zealand Department of Statistics

Taura Whiri i te Reo M�ori (1995), Ae Ranei, He Taonga Tuku Iho ? National M�ori LanguageSurvey 1995, Provisional Findings

Te Pumanawa Hauora (1996), Oranga Kaumatua, a report for the Ministries of Health and M�oriDevelopment, Department of M�ori Studies, Massey University

Templeton R (1995), Te Hoe Nuku Roa - M�ori Profiles Survey in Manawatu-Wanganui, A paperproduced for the Te Hoe Nuku Roa - M�ori Profiles Research Team, unpublished, Wellington:New Zealand Department of Statistics

Waitangi Tribunal (1994), Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the M�ori Electoral Option Claim(Wai 413), Wellington: Department of Justice

Wereta W (1994), M�ori Demographic Trends, Kia Pumau Tonu: Proceedings of the HuiWhakapumau M�ori Development Conference, Department of M�ori Studies, MasseyUniversity, Palmerston North

�

����� ��

�������

� � � � � � � �

����

Treaty Implications forCrown information, collection, dissemination and ownership

Paper presented by Hekia Parata

Gardiner & Parata Ltd

This paper is a personal analysis provided by Hekia Parata of Gardiner and Parata. It wascommissioned by Statistics New Zealand as part of a project they were undertaking for Te PuniKokiri entitled Designing a Survey Which Meets M�ori Information Needs. The intention of thepaper was to provide a starting point for discussing the wider ownership and managementcontext for M�ori statistics.

The project is still in progress and so this paper must be treated as a draft analysis at this stage.Since the paper is still in draught form we suggest that it is only used as a discussion document.The paper should not be considered the views of Te Puni Kokiri and should not be reprinted ordistributed without the permission of Statistics New Zealand and Te Puni Kokiri.

� Introduction

This paper discusses the relationships and arrangements set up by the Treaty of Waitangi; itcovers both current government policy on these relationships and the views of iwi, hapu, andM�ori themselves. Underlying principles of the Treaty with respect to these relationships aredrawn out and applied to the activities of government information gathering, paying particularattention to the Household Labour Force Survey and information collected from M�orirespondents and some practical implications for Statistics New Zealand as the Government’sprincipal information manager.

This paper discusses issues relating to ownership of information provided by M�ori to StatisticsNew Zealand for statistical purposes.

Finally, the paper discusses the obligations of Statistics New Zealand in respect of providinginformation to M�ori respondents to statistical surveys, and the Household Labour ForceSurvey, in particular. Issues considered include how and why particular respondents werechosen, who owns the information provided, how the information collected relates to the widerTreaty relationship between the Crown and M�ori, and how the information is to be used.

Hekia ParataGardiner & Parata Ltd

Hekia Parata is Ngati Porou and Ngai Tahu. She is a founding partner and director ofGardiner and Parata Limited which ws established in 1996. Her company specialises inthe provision of policy advice, relationship management and negotiations, andinteractions between the Government, private, and indigenous sectors. Hekia has beenparticularly interested in the development of the Treaty of Waitangi as an analyticalframework and in how to give operational effect to the Treaty in ways that are future-oriented. Prior to 1996 Heki held a number of senior management positions in the state

sector. Hekia lives and works in Wellington and Ruatoria with her husband and partner, Wira Gardiner.They have two daughters, Rakaitemania and Mihi-Maraea.

�

� Conclusion

Shared Sovereignty

This paper accepts the argument for a concept of shared sovereignty between iwi and hapu, andthe Government, arising out of a qualification of Article I, by Article II, of the Treaty of Waitangi.In doing so, the paper concludes that the governing parties to the Treaty (albeit with differentlevels of governance) are the Government on behalf of the Crown, and iwi and hapu on behalfof tangata whenua. Other beneficial parties to the Treaty are New Zealand citizens, both M�oriand non-M�ori.

Iwi and Hapu Constitutional Entities

Insofar as any particular provisions might be required in respect of the definition, collection,analysis, and dissemination of information, Statistics New Zealand should consider iwi andhapu, as the Treaty Partners, to be the appropriate entities to whom such provisions should beextended, and with whom, they should be discussed. The nature and purpose of thisrelationship is based upon a constitutional arrangement that recognises the needs andimperatives of self-government by iwi and hapu. Therefore, the type of information collected,its use and dissemination, might differ quite markedly from that which is collected for theoverall management of the state, by the Government.

M�ori Individuals, Groups, and Communities

M�ori, as individual citizens created by Article III of the Treaty, are entitled to expect the samerights and obligations that accrue to all New Zealand citizens. Any separate or specialprovisions extended by Statistics New Zealand to M�ori individuals or aggregates of M�oriindividuals, should be driven by good public policy imperatives and not by any extraordinaryTreaty right. Such imperatives might recognise that the quality of information gathered fromM�ori individuals is affected by different influences than those experienced by non-M�ori, andgathering techniques and modes might therefore, be different. Clearly, these differences wouldbe driven by the need for quality and not by any particular Treaty obligation.

The nature and purpose of the relationship between Statistics New Zealand and M�oriindividuals or communities would be defined and constrained by the ordinary parameters ofthe state’s relationship with its citizens, and vice versa. The only qualifications to themanagement of this relationship would be those that related to the achievement of efficiencyand effectiveness, and quality.

Rights of Ownership

Accordingly, any rights of ownership, possession, or custody of data and information by iwiand hapu will need to be negotiated between iwi and hapu and Statistics New Zealand. Inrespect of M�ori individuals, groups, or communities, there are the same rights as those enjoyedby all New Zealand citizens.

Household Labour Force Survey

In respect of the Household Labour Force Survey, at present the respondents are M�oriindividuals. Accordingly, in the sharing of information as to selection, purpose, use, anddissemination relating to M�ori respondents in the Household Labour Force Survey, StatisticsNew Zealand should make decisions about these matters based on its interests in the pursuit ofquality. The recent study of M�ori experiences with the Household Labour Force Survey wouldlead Statistics New Zealand to the conclusion that there is much that can be done to improve thequality of participation by M�ori respondents simply by adopting a more open and consultativestyle, and by selecting interviewers who have a respect and empathy for the differences thatcharacterise M�ori culturally from non-M�ori.

�

� The Treaty of Waitangi : An Analysis

The Treaty of Waitangi was signed on 6 February 1840. The parties to the Treaty were the BritishCrown and iwi nations of Aotearoa, represented by over 500 signatories at hapu and iwi level.The Treaty formed the basis of the modern state of New Zealand, and the framework of thatstate is set out in the Articles to the Treaty. Constitutionally, the Treaty in engaging thesignatories, accommodates all the socio-political structures and systems of the Treaty parties.Any difficulties of accommodation, borne of the distinctly different cultural systems, must relyon the underpinning relationships for their resolution.

The Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement that recognised both existing circumstances and thepotential for mutually beneficial outcomes. It was a forward looking arrangement thatanticipated constructive and productive relationships, that protected the rights of the parties tobe different while acknowledging the need to work together on issues of overall nationhood.Contemporary challenges to achieve this kind of positive and dynamic outcome are no differentto those faced in 1840, except that there is now some considerable rebuilding of the relationshipsthat must go on to bridge the dishonouring of the agreement in the past.

Public policy is a singularly powerful force with which to respond to this challenge; and themanagement of information has the potential to be a critically effective tool in empowering allthe parties to the Treaty to work both together and separately for the betterment of NewZealand.

� Contemporary Views

There have been continually evolving understandings of what the Treaty was intended toachieve, how it should be interpreted, and what its practical implications are and have been,generation by generation. Today there are ongoing differences of interpretation arising mainlyout of the differences between the M�ori and English texts (both of which were signed, althoughthe M�ori text was signed by the substantial majority of signatories). The main differencerelates to the degree of sovereignty ceded to the British Crown by the iwi nations.

Many commentators, mainly iwi and academics, argue that some form of limited sovereigntywas ceded by iwi and hapu to the Crown, and that a notion of shared sovereignty was implicitin the balancing of Articles I and II. Others, mainly the Government, unambiguously contendthat full sovereignty was ceded and that the Government, as the delegated authority of theCrown, exercises total powers of government.

This debate is still in evolution and is exemplified by arguments as to the applicability anddesirability of self-determination, both at international law and as a matter of practice in NewZealand; by the testing of the legal and justice systems in New Zealand as to their relevance andauthority in respect of M�ori; and by the role and status accorded iwi and M�ori communities,by statute, in various local, regional, and national administrative realms in New Zealand.

Whatever the final answer - if there is to be such a conclusive outcome - the present situation isthat the Treaty has status, if somewhat ill-defined; it is part of domestic law in specific statutes;it is a policy imperative across the full range of government business; it is of social and politicalsignificance as evidenced by political party policies; and it is gaining increasing significance ineconomic considerations due to the determination and assignment of property rights to a rangeof the nation’s resources.

�

The Government View

The Government takes the view that sovereignty was ceded by iwi and hapu; the Governmentgoverns completely, and exclusively, on behalf of the Crown. Iwi and hapu interests, wherethey are recognised as legitimate by the Government, must be accommodated within thenational legislative framework, and government policy parameters. Following strongindications by various court judgements, the Government has become more amenable toincorporating iwi and hapu views at an earlier stage of its deliberations, and the risk of judicialreview hanging over important government decisions has given greater imperative to the needfor sound and fair consultation processes with iwi and hapu.

Although there has been improving clarity over the distinctions between consulting with iwiand hapu as Treaty parties, and consultation with M�ori individuals, groups, and communitiesas beneficial interests of the Treaty relationship, this has not been consistent. It has led toconfusion not only within government itself but within iwi and hapu and M�ori communities.The unnecessary confusion and cost that this has spawned can best be reflected in the SealordsDeal and the resultant court cases and lack of progress over the past four years. The rootproblem of this issue has been that an iwi property right was vested in individual New Zealandcitizens and this has been compounded by the decision of a court system representing oneculture over another culture.

The Government’s view of the Treaty relationships is inherently influenced by its commitmentto the philosophy and practice of democracy. In particular, the emphasis that is placed on theindividual, the one person one vote principle. This principle is often placed in directcontradiction to the collective principle upon which iwi and hapu nationhood is founded.While the two principles do not necessarily have to be contradictory, the making of governmentpolicy, almost without exception, sets up this disconsonance.

In practice, this results in the rights of the individual being placed ahead of the rights of thecollective; of the argument being characterised as one of iwi and hapu versus M�ori groups andcommunities. Very little, and often no recognition is given to the different status these entitieshave and the different provisions that this demands of the Government.

Iwi and Hapu ViewsIt is not possible to represent iwi, hapu, and M�ori as having one collective, consensual view. Ingeneral terms though, it is possible to characterise iwi and hapu views as being similar in theirassertion of their right to tino rangatiratanga. Iwi and hapu would maintain that they have theright of self-determination, or self-government; that they have constitutional status as collectiveentities; and that they are the Treaty partners.

There are likely to be differences amongst and between iwi and hapu as to the degree ofadherence they should show to a national governmental framework. Some would argue thatthey are not constrained in any way at all; while others would accept the parameters of the law.Even the latter would, however, argue for a role in the design and development of thelegislative framework by which they are to be bound.

Iwi and hapu consider themselves representative of the tangata whenua. They are therepository of the traditions and belief systems that have distinguished them culturally fromwhat is now the majority mainstream culture and population. They are characterised by theircommon whakapapa, their descent from a common ancestor, by their rohe and its tohu whenua,their terrritorially defined area with its significant land and water marks; by their reo andtikanga, their dialect and cultural practices; by their marae and whanau, their physical andfamilial institutions; and by the recognition and respect they are paid by other iwi and hapu.

�

M�ori ViewsM�ori is an ethnic identification. M�ori are a creation of the Treaty. Prior to the signing of theTreaty, there were no individuals within indigenous society with the same rights and status thatBritish citizenship bestowed under Article III. M�ori individuals, M�ori groups, M�oricommunities, and the M�ori population are all manifestations of the citizenship right of ArticleIII, and representative of the democratic principle in practice. M�ori individuals and theiraggregates are part of the total New Zealand population with the same rights and benefits,responsibilities and obligations as non-M�ori citizens.

A range of organisations, often urban, and often sectoral, represent the interests of M�oriindividuals, groups, and communities. These organisations are legitimate and appropriaterepresentatives of their constituents and their particular interests. The problem arises whenthey are treated as if they were the same as iwi and hapu when clearly they are not. They do notshare the same characteristics of iwi and hapu and they do not have the same accountabilityrequirements; they do not have the same foundation, and they do not have the same Treatystatus. This does not make them less or more than iwi and hapu; it makes them different.

M�ori organisations do not necessarily share this view. Their effectiveness in whatever theirsphere of operation is usually directly related to their status in terms of government policy.Because government policy has not always been very clear as to why it is treating with M�oriorganisations and/or iwi and hapu, and about what, ill-defined policy has led to aninappropriate competitive environment being instituted whereby iwi and hapu are forced tocompete with M�ori organisations, and vice versa. The recent Whanau o Waipareira casebrought before the Waitangi Tribunal against the Community Funding Agency is a goodexample of this.

M�ori organisations, representing M�ori interests, should be allowed to operate in terms ofgovernment policy untrammelled by comparisons with iwi and hapu. The appropriatecomparison is other organisations competing to provide the same or similar services to the sametarget audience. In these circumstances the decisions should be based on the outcomes soughtand the usual efficiency and effectiveness criteria that govern any contract considerations.

The lack of clarity within government as to the differences between M�ori organisations andtheir representation of M�ori individuals, and iwi and hapu and their responsibility for tangatawhenua, creates difficulties between these institutions and within government itself. TheGovernment needs to make the separation identified above, and deal with each Treatyrelationship in its appropriate context.

Iwi and Hapu �� The Government

� �� �

Tangata whenua M�ori�(organisations)�individuals / groups / communities

�

� Underlying Principles

A number of principles have been identified by the Courts, the Waitangi Tribunal, theGovernment itself. Some of these principles relate to specific cases, while others have moregeneral application. The following principles are of a generic nature, and are accepted asrelevant to government policy making.

Article I : Kawanatanga

Article I, the kawanatanga article, provides for an overall, national, framework of government.Its underlying principle is the provision of good government. How that is defined and applieddiffers over time in accordance with what is acceptable and appropriate to the circumstances,expectations, and demands of society. A review of the profile and significance of the Treatysince its signing in 1840 provides ample testimony to societal changes; the weight of the Treatyin government considerations has waxed and waned substantially from having no importshortly after its signing to enjoying the full force of individual statutory power in the pastdecade.

The principle of good government in the 1990s has come to mean a recognition of a Treatyimperative. Although this remains somewhat ill-defined and unclear, with increasing practice,government policy making in respect of the Treaty is becoming more consistent, and moresophisticated. In terms of managing the relationships that are set up by the Treaty, and inseeking to apply the principle of good government, guidance is also provided by principles ofgood faith in the management of relationships, consultation in the design, development, anddelivery of government policy, and recognition of a fiduciary duty by the Government towardsiwi and hapu.

Threaded throughout, and adding a nod to practicability, is the principle of reasonableness. Theparties to the Treaty, under the umbrella of kawanatanga, owe reciprocal obligations to eachother to act in ways that maximise the best interests of all, limit negative outcomes as much aspossible, and which protect the integrity of the respective governance structures.

Article II : Tino Rangatiratanga

Article II, the tino rangatiratanga article, provides for the principle of iwi and hapu control overthemselves. There is significant variance over what this means. Iwi and hapu assert full self-determination, while current government policy hovers around a somewhat weaker term ofself-management. At the policy level this debate is being largely driven by foreign policyconcerns in the context of the United Nations Indigenous Peoples Declaration.

Domestic Treaty interests are foundering on definitions at international law. In fact,developments in New Zealand in respect of the Treaty, and the practice of self-determination asopposed to the theory of it, far outstrip many of the countries who have felt able to sign up tothe concept of self-determination. These include Australia, Canada, and the United States ofAmerica.

Whatever the final terminology, the fundamental principle of this Article, is that iwi and hapu,as quasi-constitutional entities, have the right to make decisions about themselves, theirresources, their property rights, their governance structures. Insofar as there are any constraintsupon these rights, there is the requirement to act within the national structure of government,including the legislative framework of the state. As noted above, there are a range of viewsamongst iwi and hapu as to the degree of compliance they should be subject to.

�

Article III : Oritetanga

Article III provides for the rights of individual citizenship. The key principle of this Article isthat of the democratic commitment to one person one vote. It is through this Article that all NewZealanders enjoy the principle of equality, and more currently, a principle of equity also. Mostgovernment policy is based on this Article. The notion of disparity between M�ori and non-M�ori finds its focus in this Article, and policy interventions aimed at redressing the parity gapare based on this Article.

� Application of Principles to Government Information Gathering

Kawanatanga

The principle of good government should be interpreted in the same way as it is for non-M�oriactivity; that is, it is about designing and applying policy in an open, fair, consistent, equitableway. The Treaty challenge to the principle of good government is of course the requirement todeal with the two different relationship dimensions; iwi and hapu on the partnership level, andM�ori on the general relationship level.

In respect of iwi and hapu partnerships there is much to learn by both parties about what doesand does not work. In the development of better and more fruitful outcomes for thesepartnerships, it would seem appropriate to open dialogue with iwi and hapu at bilateral andmultilateral levels, and determine what the information interests are and how they might bemet. This would allow for Statistics New Zealand to engage in appropriate consultation,making clear from the outset what if any constraints there might be on the process and thusdemonstrating good faith in its approach to this matter.

Similarly, in the development of the more general relationship with M�ori and groups of M�ori,Statistics New Zealand might consider the level and nature of consultation it would wish toengage in. Its purpose would be clearly spelt out as being a commitment to achieving qualityparticipation by M�ori, quality information from M�ori, and quality information sharing as aresult of the interaction.

Both consultation processes could be timetabled as part of the annual planning cycle ofgovernment thus allowing for increased knowledge by the Treaty parties of the processes ofgovernment, while establishing a routine for input and clear points of engagement between iwiand hapu and Statistics New Zealand ; M�ori and Statistics New Zealand .

The principle of owing a fiduciary duty would see Statistics New Zealand planning for thefunding of this consultation, participation, and implementation of any agreed outcomes.

Tino Rangatiratanga

The principle of self-determination, and the recognition of a concept of shared sovereignty,would lead to a recognition that iwi and hapu are likely to have information needs that relate totheir governance systems, their management and decision-making processes, and their plansand future directions. While many iwi and hapu aspirations might be similar in general intentas those of the Government, the socio-political demands of iwi and hapu might lead to theirpursuit along different and separate paths. However these aspirations are pursued iwi andhapu will have information needs that they have neither the resources nor the expertise to fulfil.Statistics New Zealand have both. Negotiation between iwi and hapu and Statistics NewZealand might lead to mutually beneficial outcomes. The consultation suggested earlier shouldprovide for opportunities to learn of the ways that the Treaty partners might be able tocomplement or reciprocate respective interests and contributions.

�

Oritetanga

Government agencies and departments have had the greatest experience, exposure, and practicewith this principle of individual citizenship. In respect of government information gathering,the lessons that became evident in the recent study of the Household Labour Force Survey, arepertinent. Quality M�ori participation is dependent upon an understanding and respect for aculturally different world view, and a personal interaction between the collector of theinformation and the respondent that ensures that the M�ori respondent feels in control,respected, and knowledgeable about his or her participation.

As noted earlier, the principle of oritetanga is equally applicable to M�ori and non-M�ori NewZealand citizens. The success of application relies however, on an understanding that ethnicallydifferent groups will respond differently. Accordingly, the quality of participation andinformation collected will directly relate to the efforts made by Statistics New Zealand to ensurethat its processes and people are attuned to the particular needs of the target group.

What works for Pakeha New Zealanders does not generally work for M�ori New Zealanders.Statistics New Zealand’s own information over the years will testify to this sad circumstance.Despite this empirical information, however, M�ori continue to be treated as if they were thesame as non-M�ori with the result that we are no closer to understanding and thus closing thedisparity gap between the two populations. This can only be to the detriment of the total NewZealand society. Real efforts must be made to align the information gathering process with theneeds of M�ori as an ethnically different group before improvement in the quality ofparticipation and information collected is likely to become possible or evident.

� Ownership

In accordance with the argument made in this paper for the two dimensional Treaty relationshipbetween iwi and hapu and the Government, and M�ori and the Government, notions ofownership would apply in the Treaty partnership as might be negotiated bilaterally ormultilaterally with individual or a grouping of iwi and hapu, either generally or on sectorspecific information collection and dissemination exercises.

In respect of M�ori individuals who are participants in an information gathering anddissemination exercise as part of their citizenship obligations, any concepts of ownership thatlegislatively apply, or which are practiced as part of policy convention would obtain here. Thereis no extraordinary Treaty right that would provide M�ori individuals with any form ofownership over and above those enjoyed by non-M�ori citizens. Thus, Statistics New Zealandwould be subject in its management of information collected from M�ori respondents only tothe same requirements as it must observe for non-M�ori citizens.

� Obligations of Statistics New Zealand to M�ori respondents

The recent study of the Household Labour Force Survey concluded that there were a variety ofways that that survey in particular, and Statistics New Zealand surveys in general, could beimproved to increase the quality of M�ori participation and the quality of the informationgathered from M�ori respondents. These improvements pivoted around the people chosen tointeract directly with the M�ori respondents, the interviewers. Specifically, M�ori respondentsreported a positive or negative overall interview experience based on the attitude theyperceived their interviewer to have towards them. If they did not feel respected, valued,empowered, they reciprocated in the same vein by providing curt, superficial, and sometimestruculent responses.

M�ori respondents reported that apart from the interviewer, they considered that the experiencemade them mere pawns of the state in that they were compulsorily required to participate yetdid not understand how they came to be selected or what the purpose of their participation was.They were not able to see or have demonstrated to them how their participation had anypractical utility for themselves, their whanau, or any one in their wider group of contacts.Accordingly, they did not value the experience or the information imparted, and perhaps morelong term, they discounted the value of their own participation in surveys and the point of thestate conducting them at all.

None of the respondents differentiated between the various agencies of the state and theinformation collected by them respectively. Therefore, Statistics New Zealand surveys weresuspect instruments of cross-referencing for Income Support Services for instance. The lack ofexplanation as to the wider context in which Statistics New Zealand information gatheringoccurs left Statistics New Zealand vulnerable to the perception that they were merelyrepresentative of the imagined coercive powers of the state. This in turn is likely to lead toincreasingly poor responses from M�ori respondents. Clearly, such an outcome has implicationsfor a poor Treaty relationship between M�ori citizens and the Government.

In the interests of implementing the principle of good government, and of achieving theprinciple of equity of outcomes, Statistics New Zealand should review both the people its usesto interact with M�ori respondents and the processes by which M�ori respondents are providedwith an understanding of why, how and to what end they are participating. Such as approach isnot derived exclusively from the Treaty of Waitangi, but rather from the notion of what makesfor good relationships which is what, in the beginning, and in the end, the Treaty was designedand signed, to achieve.

� Conclusion

Shared Sovereignty

This paper accepts the argument for a concept of shared sovereignty between iwi and hapu, andthe Government, arising out of a qualification of Article I, by Article II, of the Treaty of Waitangi.In doing so, the paper concludes that the governing parties to the Treaty (albeit with differentlevels of governance) are the Government on behalf of the Crown, and iwi and hapu on behalfof tangata whenua. Other beneficial parties to the Treaty are New Zealand citizens, both M�oriand non-M�ori.

Iwi and Hapu Constitutional Entities

Insofar as any particular provisions might be required in respect of the definition, collection,analysis, and dissemination of information, Statistics New Zealand should consider iwi andhapu, as the Treaty Partners, to be the appropriate entities to whom such provisions should beextended, and with whom, they should be discussed. The nature and purpose of thisrelationship is based upon a constitutional arrangement that recognises the needs andimperatives of self-government by iwi and hapu. Therefore, the type of information collected,its use and dissemination, might differ quite markedly from that which is collected for theoverall management of the state, by the Government.

M�ori Individuals, Groups, and Communities

M�ori, as individual citizens created by Article III of the Treaty, are entitled to expect the samerights and obligations that accrue to all New Zealand citizens. Any separate or specialprovisions extended by Statistics New Zealand to M�ori individuals or aggregates of M�oriindividuals, should be driven by good public policy imperatives and not by any extraordinary

Treaty right. Such imperatives might recognise that the quality of information gathered fromM�ori individuals is affected by different influences than those experienced by non-M�ori, andgathering techniques and modes might therefore, be different. Clearly, these differences wouldbe driven by the need for quality and not by any particular Treaty obligation.

The nature and purpose of the relationship between Statistics New Zealand and M�oriindividuals or communities would be defined and constrained by the ordinary parameters ofthe state’s relationship with its citizens, and vice versa. The only qualifications to themanagement of this relationship would be those that related to the achievement of efficiencyand effectiveness, and quality.

Rights of Ownership

Accordingly, any rights of ownership, possession, or custody of data and information by iwiand hapu will need to be negotiated between iwi and hapu and Statistics New Zealand. Inrespect of M�ori individuals, groups, or communities, there are the same rights as those enjoyedby all New Zealand citizens.

Household Labour Force Survey

In respect of the Household Labour Force Survey, at present the respondents are M�oriindividuals. Accordingly, in the sharing of information as to selection, purpose, use, anddissemination relating to M�ori respondents in the Household Labour Force Survey, StatisticsNew Zealand should make decisions about these matters based on its interests in the pursuit ofquality. The recent study of M�ori experiences with the Household Labour Force Survey wouldlead Statistics New Zealand to the conclusion that there is much that can be done to improve thequality of participation by M�ori respondents simply by adopting a more open and consultativestyle, and by selecting interviewers who have a respect and empathy for the differences thatcharacterise M�ori culturally from non-M�ori.

�

����� ��

�������

� � � � � � � �

����

Official Statistics and Statistics on M�ori

Len Cook and Cyril Mako

Statistics New Zealand

� Introduction

This paper looks at how statistical policy and practice is evolving with our understanding ofand commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi in contemporary New Zealand. Official statisticsshape our identity, and they give strength to, or belie the myths and ideas of our society. In anation with two peoples, official statistics can play a significant role in advancing or limiting theunderstanding of each other.

� What official statistics are shaped by in a modern democracy

Governments want information to inform public policy and promote efficiency in businessmarkets, commodities, finance and labour. To enable information gathering for public policyneeds, statistical offices exist in virtually all countries, providing integration of information,through effective co-ordination of statistical standards, concepts and definitions. The efficientuses of existing information resources of government through administrative records, taxation,health, welfare and justice, provide critical efficiencies, and add to the information collectedwith the relevant survey methodology, technology and other components that comprise aneffective statistical system. Statistics produced by government are based on surveys designedfirstly for government needs. Because these uses evolve, the statistical designs need highresponse rates to enable uses to be met that go beyond initial objectives. The purpose isinevitably the relevance to public policy.

Len CookGovernment Statistician, Statistics New ZealandLen Cook joined the Department of Statistics in 1971, and has been appointed variously as AssistantGovernment Statistician in 1982, Deputy Government Statistician in 1986, and Government Statisticianin January 1992. He was also a member of the Royal Commission on Social Policy in New Zealand in1987/88.

Len Cook has been involved in a wide range of statistical and managerial issues in bringing statistics tobear in business, government and community decision-making. He has a particular interest in socialpolicy, superannuation, taxation, demography, statistical methodology, marketing, and the application ofinformation technology to information issues. He is keenly interested in the promotion of researchmethodology in public policy analysis and private and public decision-making.

He has been a long-standing member of the New Zealand Statistical Association, Association ofEconomists, Institute of Public Administration, and the New Zealand Population Association. He is alsoa member of the International Association of Survey Statisticians (IASS), and the InternationalAssociation of Official Statisticians (IAOS).

AbstractThis presentation describes the role of Statistics New Zealand and initiatives undertaken to improve therelevance of official statistics to M�ori.

�

Acts of governance are carried out not only by central government but also within communitiesand local government. Our electoral processes need to be of sufficient integrity so that peoplecan have confidence in the systems that elect governments and allow them to determine thenature of future political change in the country. It is critical for social cohesion and economicand social stability, that there is trust in the integrity of government in its policing, taxation, thesystem of justice, and in the social processes which frame the practices and conventions ofsociety. This also includes having a widespread and common understanding of the variety ofcultural, social and economic processes of the country. Fundamental to this is the trust in thecollection of public information, and equity of access to information by all in the community. Inpractice, that trust may vary across the diverse peoples in the community.

Official statistics are relevant to many things which ultimately determine the effectiveness ofgovernment. A particular government will want better statistics where it perceives thatalternative sources of information could lead to uncertainty and instability. Governmentsupport for public access enables statistical releases such as the Yearbook and a public enquirysystem. It may also choose to subsidise particular services that would otherwise be too costly topurchase in the market for some groups. In that respect, community organisations have accessto statistical information, and government gets advantages in the long run from enablingeducation processes that increase the informed understanding of New Zealand through goodstatistical data. Public confidence depends on the spread of access to information that is trustedby the public.

By the very nature of their use, official statistics can be intensely political. To protect theintegrity of methods and release practices of official statistics from being captured by anyparticular political interest, the independence of the official statistician is protected in law, andstatistical practice is open to any form of scrutiny. Official statistics are required to be presentedimpartially, and information obtained for official statistics can not be used anywhere else, andare not able to be used even on direction of the court.

As well as the processes, language and practices of official statistics, the selection of the statisticsin which M�ori are specifically identified, the statistical definition of M�ori, the recognition ofiwi, the extent of access to statistics and results of research, affect confidence by M�ori in thewhole official statistical system, and may limit trust in government itself. Government attentionto M�ori statistics follows its perceived need for such information. The Right ReverendManuhuia Bennett, in a presentation entitled “Quo Vadis?”, noted that ..

“..... It would not therefore be entirely speculative to assume that most of the neglect ofthings M�ori by those who developed the basis for our modern-day New Zealandsystem and by history was based on the earlier belief that the M�ori would ultimatelydisappear as an entity. .... Today, M�ori resurgence is impacting upon the nation in away that the nation never ever dreamed it would or could and, suddenly faced by thisreality, the nation does not quite know how to deal with it or how to manage it.”

Bishop Bennett particularly noted the starkness of M�ori population change over the last 150years. M�ori have faced several dramatic transitions over that time, from the day in 1840 whenM�ori were about 40 times more prevalent than the then 2,000 odd Pakeha, to reaching equalnumbers (estimated at 59,000 M�ori) in just a short twenty years later. The following period ofsome sixty years saw M�ori numbers first fall further, then they grew again to reverse this loss.But the M�ori population share had by then changed dramatically, from equal in number in1860, to there being sixteen Pakeha for every M�ori (population of 64,000) in 1926. Immigration,and higher Pakeha life expectancy had contributed to this. Then from early this century webegan a prolonged period when high M�ori fertility and increased M�ori life expectancy, and

�

diminished immigration of Pakeha, have contributed to M�ori population growth far exceedingthat of Pakeha, such that the New Zealand population today comprises one M�ori for every fivePakeha, while M�ori are one in every four births. The post-war period saw a dramaticurbanisation of the M�ori population, reversing the dominance of rural living by M�ori. M�oriare now a significant urban economic force, as employees, consumers and investors. Withrecent electoral reform, we have seen a significant shift in the capacity of M�ori to influencenational politics in New Zealand.

Table 1 : Size and Growth of the Population of New Zealand, 1840-1986

M�ori Non-M�ori Total

1840 70,000-90,000 2,000 70,000-90,0001857/60 59,000 59,000 118,0001896 43,000 701,000 743,0001926 64,000 1,344,000 1,408,0001956 137,000 2,037,000 2,174,0001986 405,000 2,902,000 3,307,000Source: 1840, and M�ori 1857 estimates in Pool, 1991a; Censuses, various years

� How we identify information needs and decide what to collect

Producing official statistics involves a pragmatic match between information needs and thecapacity to collect information, balanced by cost, quality and timeliness.

The knowledge that government and M�ori need to have of M�ori as a distinct people in NewZealand with a complex set of needs, should shape M�ori statistics. If we were to have a M�oristatistical information framework, it would come from being able to crystallise what we knowabout the information needs that exist. Such a framework could not be a rigid prescription, butrather a distillation of the variety of interests. The beginnings have come through work recentlydone by Whetu Wereta for the M�ori Statistics Forum. Whatarangi Winiata earlier presented aview on information needed for iwi and hapu management, published by the RoyalCommission on Social Policy (“Hapu and Iwi Resources and Their Quantification” in the Reportof the Royal Commission on Social Policy (Wellington: Government Printer, 1988) Vol III, PartTwo, pp. 791-803).

The beginnings of public sector dissatisfaction with ethnic statistics stimulated theestablishment in 1984 of a statutory review of Ethnic Statistics, under section 7 of the StatisticsAct 1975. As well as government departments, the review committee included the WellingtonEducation Multicultural Resource Centre, Auckland Ethnic Council, Wellington Ethnic AffairsCouncil, Pacific Islands Educational Resource Centre, New Zealand Planning Council, the Officeof the Race Relations Conciliator and Wellington Social Services Council.

The Review Committee’s report was released in 1988. It recommended action on:• definitions (M�ori ethnic group, sole M�ori ethnic group, M�ori ancestry);• collection methods (self-identification versus interviewer determination);• question type (one ethnic group response versus multiple response); and• classification (sole M�ori versus M�ori ethnic group).

This report presented changed thinking on ethnic statistics, and M�ori statistics. It wasprepared over a four year period, at a time of immense uncertainty about the value ofconventional understanding of long used concepts of race and ethnicity. The report’s

��

conclusions seemed progressive for their time, but now need further review. The reportstrongly recommended recognition of the importance of identifying iwi, and directly influencedthe 1991 Population Census and its introduction of the iwi question.

This report recognised that defining the M�ori population was a complex and ambiguousprocess, that would not be satisfied by using just one measure. M�ori ancestry is perhaps aconcept more important to constitutional issues, while M�ori ethnic identification more relevantto comparisons of well-being.

In 1995, the State Services Commission, Te Puni K�kiri and Statistics New Zealand produced areport on measuring M�ori outcomes from public policy , that recommended a strong shift inincreasing the explicit information on M�ori in official statistics. Cabinet agreed thatgovernment agencies, in consultation with Te Puni K�kiri, should try to apply the followinggeneral principles to enable the monitoring of the social, economic and cultural position ofM�ori:

• routinely collect ethnicity data, where appropriate, as part of administrative data collections;

• use the standards developed by Statistics New Zealand for the collection and classification ofethnic information to improve the integration of data between agencies;

• supplement information from administrative data sources with other information sources,such as snapshot or longitudinal (linked over time) surveys, and ensure that the design ofthese provides high quality information on M�ori;

• develop appropriate statistical measures for M�ori in high priority policy areas; and

• analyse M�ori statistics for both trends within the M�ori population and disparities betweenM�ori and non-M�ori.

Other reviews that influence our understanding of what M�ori statistics should contain includethe Hui Taumata. Susan Reedy of Statistics New Zealand has reviewed the reports of a range oflandmark M�ori hui and other reports, and extracted the key themes that have an impact on thenature of statistics.

� Leadership in the direction of M�ori statistics

We have knowledge from some early M�ori statistical endeavours. The Ngai Tahu census of1848 is one initiative, as is the population register of that tribe that was set up from 1925. M�orihave traditionally summarised their experience with climate, seasons and resource use inagriculture and fishing, by distilling patterns out of the experiences of generations, through oralrecording processes, careful knowledge transfer, and comprehensive training of selected agents.This knowledge has taken the form of practices, customs and treatments. More informationgathering occurred with the work of Maui Pomare and Peter Buck, in improving M�ori publichealth.

Official M�ori statistics have rarely, if ever, been the result of any specific public initiative tocollect information about M�ori. Rather they are usually measures derived from a generalpopulation census or survey, or administrative record. Official statisticians need some depth totheir understanding, whether it be on matters economic, environmental, social, demographic,cultural or political. In the case of M�ori statistics, official statisticians have tended to mirror theunderstanding of the society of their time in determining M�ori information needs. Thestatistics we now have about M�ori report significantly on M�ori in health and offending, andlittle on the processes of advancement and contribution. Our skills of analysis are not advanced.

��

Summarising information needs will give us a clear focus on information gaps. For M�ori, along-standing gap has existed between the divergent nature, interests and significantinstitutions and moves of M�ori, and the adequacy of the official statistics that might recognisethe distinctiveness of M�ori. Progress in recent years, has been made in responding to chronicdifficulties, rather than advance an innovative role. Perhaps the twin-language census form in1996 is a positive exception to this, as it lifts the frontier of what is possible across publicinformation gathering from M�ori.

To shift from being reactive, to advancing a well conceived strategy, must involve a willing andcompetent partnership between Statistics New Zealand and M�ori. At this stage, three stepshave shaped thinking on new directions in Statistics New Zealand:

- M�ori Statistics Unit;- M�ori Statistics Forum; and- M�ori responsiveness strategy.

Perhaps the M�ori Users of Statistics conference will become the fourth, along with the workbeing carried out on the M�ori statistics framework, and a M�ori language policy.

� M�ori Statistics Unit

The M�ori Statistics Unit was opened in June 1991. The purpose of the Unit is to facilitate theprovision of high quality statistical information and services to M�ori.

That is:

• statistical information which is accurate, reliable and relevant to the needs of M�oridevelopment; and

• services which are responsive to the needs of M�ori users of statistical data.

The Unit’s primary function is to provide policy advice to Statistics New Zealand managementon strategic, policy and operational issues. It also proposes initiatives and developments thatwill enhance the responsiveness of the official statistical system and the agency’s services toM�ori clients. Substantive development work is generally undertaken by the appropriateDivisions within Statistics New Zealand. However, the Unit may be required to undertakespecific projects on a short-term to longer-term basis.

� M�ori Statistics Forum

This is an advisory group initiated by the Government Statistician to provide a long-term focusfor the work of the department in the area of M�ori responsiveness. Members of the Forum areinvited on the basis of their experience in the use of statistics in policy formulation. They arenot representative of iwi, and consultation with the Forum is not a substitute for iwiconsultation. The role of the M�ori Statistics Forum is to assist the Government Statistician inmeeting the obligations of the Treaty of Waitangi and to develop and maintain a bi-culturalframework for official statistics in New Zealand. The M�ori Statistics Unit providesadministrative support to the M�ori Statistics Forum.

(The names of the current members, terms of reference and a progress report are included in theappendices.)

��

� Responsiveness initiatives

The Responsiveness Plan is our Statistics New Zealand plan for recognising the constitutionalposition and distinctiveness of M�ori in New Zealand in the statistical measures, processes andpractices of official statistics in New Zealand, and in the way in which Statistics New Zealand ismanaged and held accountable for this.

Official statistics help paint the identity of M�ori as a social, economic and cultural group inNew Zealand, and they inform constitutional processes, political imperatives and communitythoughts.

M�ori need information about themselves and their economic, social, cultural and politicalorganisation to allow them to plan effectively and participate fully in New Zealand society.

Our plan focuses on 10 key areas:1. Statistics New Zealand staff

2. Increasing statistical skills of M�ori

3. M�ori language and culture

4. Framework for M�ori statistics

5. Concepts and measures

6. Legislation

7. Support statistical interest about M�ori

8. Communication and consultation

9. Support for government agencies working specifically with M�ori

10. Review processes to maintain achievement in these areas

� Use of the M�ori language in surveysA clear strategy for the use of M�ori language in the survey process and in reports is beingdrafted by Statistics New Zealand. It involves an initial step of recognising a spectrum ofresponses, and the need to fit all information gathering into this strategy, across the State. It willinclude an obligation to have core population and household information asked of most surveysavailable in both languages, where the full survey questionnaire is not. This builds on theprecedent established by the bilingual population census form, and asserts the need for criticalinformation often used in classifying people, in forms they apply to themselves, to be in thelanguage that belongs to them.

For household surveys administered by interviewers, a comprehensive policy will have inM�ori the full range of survey support documents seen by the respondent. Interviewers will beselected and trained for their capacity to empathise with M�ori, and we need to place M�orimore significantly in all positions within Statistics New Zealand. Communication must involvea M�ori presence in characterisation, portraits and design. The M�ori Statistics Forum isadvising on this policy.

These are not sufficient moves in themselves, but they could signal the emergence of somepartnership between M�ori and Statistics New Zealand in giving leadership to official statisticsin New Zealand and understanding the statistical needs of New Zealand’s two peoples.

��

� Statistics as a modern science and its impact on M�oriMeasurement of populations has been practised for millennia, in Egypt and Babylonian times.M�ori had systems of summarising experience. Statistical sampling is a modern (20th century)science and its attributes can be compared with how societies have traditionally understoodwhat they have needed to know to make good decisions. ‘Statistical methods are one way ofmeasuring significant phenomena, and support observation and experience, anecdote, myth,superstition, speculation or intuition, in most situations.’

One of the first to successfully apply statistical analysis to influence public policy was FlorenceNightingale. She was also a correspondent of New Zealand’s Governor, Sir George Grey, some130 years ago. She wrote to him about the likely impact of infectious diseases on M�ori that shepredicted would follow the rapidly increasing shift to living in European settlements.

As has been the experience of indigenous peoples in many parts of the world, M�ori in NewZealand have usually had to fit in with public policy initiatives, rather than direct or inspiretheir form. The statistical measurement of M�ori society, its demography, culture, well-beingand economic development has been limited to statistics derived from practices and institutionsthat have recognised the existence of M�ori but not their institution, customs and distinctcharacteristics.

What we measure even still about M�ori draws heavily on the five-yearly census. M�ori wereenumerated with the same questionnaires as Pakeha since 1926. Our other significantinformation sources are those of transactions with public institutions and registration processes.Births and deaths registration is now as much a statistical process, as a civil obligation.Administrative records in the health and justice areas have long identified the race of those theydeal with. In the justice area, an historical emphasis on identification long preceded recentmoves to a socially driven measure, particularly for police statistics of offenders.

Originally some of New Zealand’s statistics tended to exclude M�ori from affecting themeasures of those who came from pioneer stock, perhaps so they could be compared with thosefrom the home country and other colonies. The records set by the life expectancy statistics ofwhite New Zealand of the 19th Century did not show the indigenous population, when theyrecorded the highest ever life expectancies. Race based foundations of public administrationbecame less realistic as the distinct dichotomy of M�ori/non-M�ori of the early 1800’s evolvedover 150 years into the broad spectrum of M�ori-ness and M�ori descent of the late 20thCentury.

Our base of M�ori statistics has been founded on the maintaining of records about M�ori,generally, as long as doing so would not change the measurement process, and where notidentifying M�ori would prevent the European population from being accurately comparedwith the same British stock in other colonies.

This historical rigidity in thinking has been difficult to break away from, because of thelimitations of our statistical practice. Key rigidities have been the inflexibility of statisticalinformation gathering methods and systems, and the very high costs of identifying themembers of small populations. The language and concepts of statistical communication areinvariably English, and they often fail to recognise differences in how M�ori think or relate toothers. It has taken one-third of a century of computerisation to enable sufficient flexibility ofinformation management and access across government to make the study of small populationseconomically viable. In 1996, we had one of our first nation-wide surveys of a small population,people with disabilities.

��

To do better, we need to confirm where our information priorities lie. As an example, someargue that we should aim to provide those measures we need now for the whole population, forM�ori as well, with some comparable measure of accuracy. The response burden on M�oriwould become impossible to sustain. Alternatively we might recognise that each informationprocess should provide regular, but not frequent measures that can compare M�ori with others,with sufficient accuracy that M�ori can be studied to find influential characteristics that apply toM�ori, as is done more regularly with the total population. This would increase the responseburden on M�ori somewhat, but the most significant change would occur in the statisticalprocesses managed by government. A good example would be the Household Labour ForceSurvey, where we might have a less reliable national measure of employment andunemployment every quarter, and a more substantial sample once a year that explains andanalyses differences in employment for M�ori between years.

M�ori management of M�ori resources, communities and organisations involves M�ori in agood deal of information gathering, the content and scope of which is not a matter ofaccountability to government. Statistics New Zealand is our national resource in skills, method,practice and tools for the effective gathering of information by sound statistical methods.Increasing the capacity of M�ori organisations to manage their own information resources, isanother dimension to M�ori statistics of current significance.

� What should shape information about M�ori?

From questions that we know exist in M�ori society today, the purposes of statistics about M�orias a distinct population would include:

• To measure M�ori as a distinct population among New Zealand’s peoples.

• To understand the dynamics of the population and social change of M�ori, in iwi and othercommunities.

• To measure and compare the economic, social, cultural and political well-being of M�ori.

• To measure the protection of those things in New Zealand particularly important to M�oriincluding protection of land, forests and sea.

• To measure and demonstrate equity in economic and social processes, markets, public policyand programmes in New Zealand.

• To understand the nature of economic benefits obtained from business based on culturalassets.

• To facilitate M�ori statistical activities, in iwi and other organisations

To be relevant, official statistics about M�ori need to encapsulate the history of M�ori in somemeasure, and to inform or respond to those that shape the future. For example, the urban shiftof M�ori during the 1950’s was one of the most dramatic recorded by any people, and its effecton community structures was profound. There are issues we wish to analyse today that need todraw on that history. One example is the impact on industrial injury rates for M�ori men, afterthey moved into jobs involving dangerous machinery, in forestry, freezing works andmanufacturing. We need to ensure that an exacting M�ori analysis is possible in anycontemporary measures of people with disabilities, given the high probability that thisexperience of over 3 decades ago will have resulted in a higher number of older M�ori mensuffering disability in retirement, with a consequential interest in the nature of policy ondisability.

�

As a start to identifying the key elements distinct to M�ori that official statistics must recognisein measuring M�ori, we might base them on :

• culture and values (Land, Language, Environment and Nature, Ancestry andWhakapapa, Adaptability, Reciprocity, Spirituality),

• inheritance (Culture, Land, Sea, Treaty Rights, Access, Education Base),

• constitutional (Electoral Representation, Treaty settlements, Participation ingovernment processes, Recognition of M�ori institutions, Use of language, Applicationof M�ori law and institutions, Able to meet obligations of autonomy, M�oriparticipation in statutory processes that decide for M�ori).

The particular enabling mechanisms that are critical to M�ori come from the community (Marae,Iwi, Manaakitanga, Whanaungatanga, Church, Volunteering), markets (Labour, Tourism),government (Education, Health, Housing, Employment, Justice, Laws, Taxation, Partnership,Protection, Representation), and the wider world (Indigenous peoples movement,International expectations).

� What experiences have we had?

The Te Hoe Nuku Roa project, being conducted by the M�ori Studies Department at MasseyUniversity, is applying statistical research methods in a M�ori context, to provide a quantitativeand generalisable understanding of the nature and variety of M�ori life in New Zealand. As theresearchers test the original conceptual model on which its research design and informationgathering is based, new conclusions and ways of summarising the variety of M�ori life can bedeveloped, to advance or challenge thinking based on less rigorous information processes. Thecare of the researchers, and the adaptive processes used in the study will limit the extent towhich statistical measures lose the richness of individual contribution, in presenting summarycharacteristics.

Statistics New Zealand assisted in developing the survey design used by the project team, andin turn the Te Hoe Nuku Roa team have advanced an understanding of better practice insurveying M�ori, benefiting the 1996 Census, the Te Taura Whiri i te Reo M�ori survey, and thedisability survey. Statistics New Zealand worked in partnership with Te Taura Whiri i te ReoM�ori and Te Puni K�kiri to develop a bilingual census form for the 1996 Census. The sameorganisations worked as a partnership in the Te Taura Whiri i te Reo M�ori survey of M�orilanguage.

Each of these surveys and the 1996 population census advance our knowledge of the needs ofpractical survey design and survey operations as they affect M�ori involvement. Each projecthas seen a willing sharing of experience, and advanced the confidence we all have in our owncontribution and collaboration.

We have now collected information about iwi, in both the 1991 and 1996 population censuses.The 1991 census showed that there were difficulties in getting the right question, and becausethe question for 1991 represented the now defunct interests of the Iwi Rununga Act, rather thaniwi, its quality was limited. The way people describe their iwi in the census varies markedly,depending on the iwi, and there were special influences on the way iwi were reported thatinfluenced the reliability of the numbers of each iwi. The 1996 census was preceded by a morecomprehensive testing programme, and the problems of the 1991 census were key objects ofthis.

�

These experiences all involve complex nation-wide statistical surveys that have a major impacton policy on M�ori. Many survey initiatives take place in just one part of New Zealand and areoften undertaken by community organisations. These provide an opportunity to develop astronger understanding of information gathering in a M�ori context. Technology has advancedso that survey processing tools for community initiatives can be provided at an affordable price.Strong interest exists to upgrade survey taking skills in these organisations, to reduce the riskthat poor survey practice could undermine the value of fresh initiatives, that achieve advantagesin relevance and respondent trust over more anonymous ventures.

� The Importance of Analysis

Good design and measurement is part of the statistical processes, while analysis andpresentation is another.

Stark comparisons between M�ori and Pakeha on many measures of well-being are obvious.Less obvious are differences in social and economic processes of change, and how to comparethese. We know, for example, that differences between M�ori and Pakeha are greater for thosewho identify as M�ori only, than for those who are of M�ori descent, but do not identify asM�ori. Statistical information needs to result from informed analysis, by those that can balancethe technical skills and insight needed to place statistical measures in the context of experiencesand qualities of those being analysed.

Studying disparities between M�ori and others is not simply about comparing levels or rates,but change and response.

An example which demonstrates this is shown in the following table. A quick look at the firstline of this table reveals that M�ori females aged 15-19 years are much better off than others ofthe same age in terms of income. However, these figures do not reveal the reasons this hasoccurred or what the implications may be for the future.

A look at other tables will show that many M�ori females in this age group have left school andhave not gone on to further study. Their income comes from income support or from lowpaying jobs.

Median Annual Income for M�ori and Total Population, aged 15-19 and 20-24 years(1991 Population Census)

M�ori Total

Age Male Female Male Female

15-19 years $5707 $6177 $4223 $4129

20-24 years $12450 $12091 $16572 $14479

We know that the mix of things we now measure about M�ori leads to glib analysis, andreporting focused on a pathology of failure, while planned research can provide understandingof the dynamics of change, and record the advances and failures of M�ori in a way whichprovides understanding. A pathology of failure results in statistics being a very limited windowon M�ori society, and leads to confidence in statistics being contradicted by the everydayexperiences of the majority of people whose distinct contribution lies summarised in a broadermore comprehensive mass of other information.

��

� Conclusion

The confidence we often place in statistics makes them too important to ignore, as they are partof the evidence of our identity, and they shape the view of what we are typified as, by ourfellow people. Public policy affects people, with both planned and unintended impacts, thatM�ori statistics have been neglected in official statistical thinking and practice, is simliar togovernment understanding of other things M�ori. Good statistics should improve the qualityof government, and this paper asserts the need for advancing thinking on what M�ori statisticsshould include. The paper presents ways that allow and guide the practical evolution in officialstatistics that two of the most vital contemporary forces of change, technology and betterunderstanding, make possible.

REFERENCES

Keith, Jocelyn - Florence Nightingale : Statistician and Consultant Epidemiologist, InterntionalNurses Review, Volume 35, 1988

Bennett, Right Reverend Manuhuia Quo Vadis? - Te Ao Marama, Volume 2, He Whakaatanga o TeAo (The Reality), 1993

APPENDIX - M�ORI STATISTICS FORUM

� Background

In 1993, the Government Statistician established the M�ori Statistics Forum to provide assistanceto himself and the Department of Statistics to enhance the relevance and quality of official M�oristatistics.

The members of the committee were selected by the Government Statistician because of thetechnical skills and knowledge that they possess. The views of the Forum are the views of theindividual members and do not represent the views of iwi. The department recognises thathaving the Forum is not a substitute for consultation with Iwi. The Forum has made it quiteclear that direct consultation with Iwi is still necessary.

Terms of Reference

The role of the M�ori Statistics Forum is to assist the Government Statistician in meeting theobligations of the Treaty of Waitangi and to develop and maintain a bicultural framework forofficial statistics in New Zealand by:

• advising on the cultural and ethical issues involved in the collection and use of statisticaldata;

• advising on consultations with iwi;

• assisting with the identification of statistical projects that are of particular concern to M�ori,including improvement and development of data collected by all other Governmentdepartments relating to matters concerning M�ori interests;

• advising on the priority to be given to projects aimed at improving the relevance of officialstatistics to M�ori;

• advising on ways in which Statistics New Zealand and iwi might cooperate to meet theneeds of iwi for information;

• raising with the Government Statistician issues of concern to M�ori relating to the collection,analysis, usage and dissemination of statistical data.

��

Forum Members

The Forum is chaired by Bishop Manuhuia Bennett and the current members areMr Ted Douglas, Prof. Mason Durie, Dr Maarire Goodall, Mr Joe Malcolm, Ms Hekia Parata,Dr Papaarangi Reid, Mrs Whetu Wereta, Rev Tom Whittaker and Mr Tu Williams. In addition,Te Taura Whiri i te Reo M�ori, Te Puni K�kiri and Te Ohu Whakatupu are also represented.

The administrative requirements are provided by the M�ori Statistics Unit at Statistics NewZealand.

Issues covered

The M�ori Statistics Forum has been asked to consider a number of key statistical issues since itsinception. The main issues have focused on the 1996 Census of Population and Dwellings,M�ori in official statistics and responsiveness issues relating to Statistics New Zealand. TheForum is also assisting in the preparation of a Conference for M�ori Users of Statistics.

1 1996 Census of Population and Dwellings

A large part of the work of the M�ori Statistics Forum to date has revolved around the1996 Census.

1.1 Bilingual Questionnaire

In particular, the Forum supported the suggestion that the questionnaire be availablein a bilingual (M�ori-English) format

1.2 Questionnaire content

The Forum provided comments on the content of parts of the questionnaire,particularly the Cultural Affiliation, M�ori Ancestry and Iwi questions. There wasconsiderable debate about the need for a question on Iwi affiliation to be included inthe Census. The Forum felt that iwi statistics are of importance to iwi and that iwifound the Profiles from the 1991 Census extremely valuable, although it was felt thatmany iwi did not have personnel skilled enough to realise the potential of thestatistics.

1.3 M�ori Staff

The Forum was very keen on having greater M�ori involvement in the Census. TheForum supported the idea of having a Senior M�ori Liaison Officer and a team of 16M�ori Liaison Officers for the Census. The Senior M�ori Liaison Officer met with asub-committee of the Forum on a regular basis and also provided reports tomeetings of the Forum. The M�ori liaison staff were responsible for bothencouraging M�ori to apply for Census jobs and for promoting the benefits of theCensus to M�ori.

2 Conference of M�ori Users of Statistics

The Forum has identified that, generally, there is a lack of statistical skills and knowledgeamongst M�ori. It was felt that having a conference for M�ori users and potential users ofstatistics would be an ideal way to begin the upskilling process and provide these peoplewith an opportunity to raise issues relating to the collection, analysis and dissemination ofstatistical information about themselves.

The Forum has established a sub-committee to organise this conference, which is to beheld at Waikato University on 20 and 21 November 1996.

��

The conference will provide participants with:• a description of the relationship between statistics and M�ori development;• an overview of the range and availability of official statistics (those collected by

government agencies), and examples of these being used;• examples of M�ori and iwi models of statistics collection and usage; and• an opportunity to raise other issues relating to the collection, analysis and availability

of statistical data.

3 M�ori in Official Statistics

Official statistics are those collected by government agencies. The information includedwithin this can come from administrative records or surveys.

3.1 Review of Ethnic Statistics

In 1988, a Review of Ethnic Statistics, set up by the Government Statisticianconcluded. Included within the recommendations were a number that relateddirectly to the collection of M�ori statistics. The Forum was asked to consider theappropriateness of these recommendations in the context of the current social andpolitical climate.

3.1.1 Birth and Death Registration Forms

A recommendation from the Review of Ethnic Statistics wanted ethnicityquestions retained in any revision of these forms. The forms were revised in1995. Information derived from these forms becomes registered informationand is therefore available publicly. The Forum recommended that an Iwiquestion should not be included on the Birth and Death registration forms.

3.2 M�ori Cultural Statistics Framework

In 1994, Statistics New Zealand and the Ministry of Cultural Affairs were involvedin a joint project to develop a Cultural Statistics Framework. Input was sought fromthe Forum for the M�ori dimension of this framework. The Cultural StatisticsFramework was published in 1995.

3.3 M�ori Economic Statistics

This is an area where very little statistical information is available. A sub-committeeof the Forum was established to look at the classification and definition of M�oriBusiness. Only a small amount of work has been done in this area.

3.4 M�ori Statistics Framework

The Forum has noted that existing M�ori statistics are normally collected as part ofmore general collections and reflect Government rather than M�ori values, concernsand priorities and has called for the development of a fresh framework for officialM�ori statistics. The framework should be a M�ori framework and focus only onM�ori rather than being tagged onto something else. Preliminary work on this isunderway.

3.5 Health

The Forum has been given briefings on the Disability Survey, Health Survey andFertility Survey and asked to provide comments on aspects they relate to M�oriparticipation.

��

4 Statistics New Zealand

4.1 Cultural Advice

Members of the M�ori Statistics Forum have provided Statistics New Zealand with arange of M�ori cultural advice. This has included participation in the powhiri forconferences and book launches, provision of a basic level course in te reo M�ori anddiscussions relating to the relevance of the Treaty of Waitangi.

4.2 M�ori Responsiveness

Statistics New Zealand has prepared a framework for their M�ori ResponsivenessPlan. Members of the Forum are assisting in the development of aspects of the plan.

4.3 M�ori Scholarship

The idea for the establishment of a scholarship for M�ori studying for a mathematicsor statistics undergraduate degree was endorsed by the Forum in 1994. A member ofthe Forum is involved on the management committee and selection panel for thisscholarship.

4.4 New Zealand Now - M�ori

This is an analytical report on the M�ori population prepared by Statistics NewZealand, using 1991 Census data. The report is available in both English and M�ori.The M�ori Statistics Forum, in association with Statistics New Zealand, launchedboth of these publications.

4.5 Statistics NZ Logo

In 1995, the name the department was known by, changed from the Department ofStatistics to Statistics New Zealand. The M�ori name was not changed (Te TariTatau). The department is now taking the opportunity to update the organisationslogo and has asked the Forum to comment on the proposed logo and suggested newM�ori name.

��

����� ��

�������

� � � � � � � �

����

Data and Services Available from theNew Zealand Health Information Service

Sharon Moreham

New Zealand Health Information Service

Ministry of Health

Sharon MorehamNew Zealand Health Information Service

Sharon works as the Senior Analyst in the Information Services section of theNew Zealand Health Information Service, a group within the Ministry of Health.She is the leader of the Statistical Information Team within the section. This teamis responsible for co-ordinating and responding to requests for data and informationmade to the New Zealand Health Information Service.

He MihiWhakarongo ake ai auKi te tangi a te manu neia te M�-tui, T�-i, tu-i, tui-tuiaTuia i runga, tuia i raroTuia i waho, tuia i rotoTuia i te here-tangataKa rongo te ao, ka rongo te poTuia i te muka tangataI takea mai i Hawaiki-nuiHawaiki-roa, Hawaiki-pamamaoTe Hono ki Wairuaki te whai-ao, ki to ao-maramaTihei Mauriora

E nga waka, e nga mana, e nga reoTena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutouTena koutou i te ahuatanga ki o tatou aitua kua ngaro nei ki te poKua mihia, kua tangihia, kua huri ratou ki tua o te paeOti ra, kua oti atu ki te poKati ra, tena ano tatou katoa

��

A GreetingAs I hearken to the cry of this birdOutside here, the bell-voiced Tui birdWho cries unite, unite, let unity prevailUnite the heavenly realm with the earthly realmUnite the outermost extents of the UniverseWith the innermost recesses of men’s heartsUnite with the bond of kinshipThat the day can hear, but only the night can seeUnite with the fibre of brotherhood that was transposedFrom the great Hawaiki, the extensive HawaikiThe far distant Hawaiki, unto the portals of that realm of immortalityThe congressional halls of departed soulsUnto this world of form, unto this world of lightBehold! there is life.

The descendants of our canoes, the pillars of society, the voices of authoritygreetings, greetings, greetings. Greetings to you whilst reflecting upon our deceasedwho have passed on into the world of darkness. Respects have been paid, theyhave been mourned. They have travelled beyond the horizon. Indeed, they havepassed on to eternity. So be it. Greetings all.

� The New Zealand Health Information Service (NZHIS)

The New Zealand Health Information Services (NZHIS) is a group within the Ministry ofHealth responsible for the collection and dissemination of health-related information. TheNZHIS has as its foundation the goal of making accurate information readily available andaccessible in a timely manner throughout the health sector. The vision of NZHIS is to supportthe health sector’s ongoing effort to improve the health status of New Zealanders. Effective andtimely use of information is crucial to achieving this vision.

The NZHIS has responsibility for:• the collection, processing, maintenance, and dissemination of health data, health statistics

and health information;• the continuing maintenance and development of the national health and disability

information systems;• the provision of appropriate databases, systems and information products;• the development and provision of health and disability information standards and quality

audit programmes for data;• co-ordination of ongoing national health and disability information collections and proposals

for the development; and• analysis of health information and advice on the use of information obtained from NZHIS.

� Information Collected by the NZHIS

There are three major information systems currently supported by the NZHIS, the NationalHealth Index (NHI), the Medical Warning System (MWS), and the National Minimum Dataset(NMDS). These databases contain information for secondary and tertiary health events fromCrown Health Enterprises (CHEs). However, plans are in place to expand the existinginformation base to include primary care information. In addition to these, the NZHIS alsocollects health workforce information.

��

The National Health Index (NHI)

The NHI provides a mechanism to uniquely identify healthcare users. It was developed to helpprotect personally identifying health data, particularly data held on computer systems, and toenable linkage between different information systems whilst still protecting privacy.

Access to the NHI is restricted to authorised users, and is permitted by the Health InformationPrivacy Code of Practice under the Privacy Act 1993. The use of the NHI ensures that whenhealth information is communicated between healthcare facilities within the health sector, easilyrecognisable identifying details such as name and address can be removed.

The NHI database does not contain any clinical information and its availability for researchpurposes tends to be limited chiefly to a peripheral role in cohort studies and clinical trials.

Details of the information contained on the NHI are available in the current version of the Guideto Data Requirements, which is published annually by the NZHIS.

The Medical Warning System (MWS)

The MWS is designed to warn healthcare providers of the presence of any known risk factorsthat may be important in making clinical decisions about individual patient care.

The responsibility for maintaining the content of the MWS rests primarily with its users, thehealthcare providers. Under the Health Information Privacy Code 1994, healthcare users mustbe advised that information may be entered on the MWS and that they have the right to refusepermission for this to be entered. Access to the MWS features is dependent upon a valid uniqueidentifier (NHI) for the healthcare user always being provided.

The MWS comprises the following features:Medical warnings - incorporating adverse medical reactions and significant medical conditions.Event summaries - incorporating identification of the facility where a patient’s medical record islocated.Donor information - incorporating donor summaries and healthcare user contact details.

The MWS database is not available for research purposes. Details of the information containedon the MWS are available in the current version of the Guide to Data Requirements.

The National Minimum Dataset (NMDS)

The NMDS is a single integrated collection of secondary and tertiary health data, developed inconsultation with health sector representatives, required at national level for:

• policy formulation;• monitoring and evaluation of policy implementation;• performance monitoring and evaluation;• health status measurement; and• meeting international reporting requirements.

To ensure that health-event data provided to the NMDS is anonymous, each record is identifiedwith the healthcare user’s NHI number in encrypted form only. No personally identifyinginformation is kept on the NMDS.

Full details of the information contained on the NMDS are available in the current version of theGuide to Data Requirements.

��

Information about the various types of data available from the NMDS is briefly summarisedbelow.

INPATIENTS AND DAY PATIENTS FROM PUBLICLY FUNDED HOSPITALS

Information about all daypatients and inpatients discharged from public hospitals is supplieddirectly to the NMDS by hospital-based computer systems. The data collected includesinformation on diagnoses, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, as well as demographicinformation about the patient/healthcare user (eg, ethnicity, age, sex, domicile).

INPATIENTS AND DAYPATIENTS DISCHARGED FROM PRIVATE HOSPITALS

Day patient and inpatient data collected includes information on diagnoses, diagnostic ortherapeutic procedures, as well as demographic information about the patient/health user (eg,age, sex domicile).

CANCER DATA (NZ CANCER REGISTRY)The NZ Cancer Register has operated since 1948 and is a population-based tumour register of allprimary malignant disease, except basal-cell and other ‘simple’ skin cancers.

The major sources of new registrations are copies of laboratory reports, post-discharge reportsfrom Crown Health Enterprises, death certificates and autopsy reports, and discharge reportsfrom private hospitals.

The data collected includes information on the site, stage and pathology of the cancer, as well asdemographic information (eg, ethnicity, age, sex, domicile).

MENTAL HEALTH DATA

The mental health system is a register of all psychiatric patients currently in hospitals, togetherwith all admissions and discharges since 1974. The different types of records received are:

• admissions of hospital;• discharges;• changes of legal status;• transfers; and• advice of death in hospital.

The data collected includes information on diagnoses, legal status, and demographicinformation about the patient/healthcare user (eg, ethnicity, age, sex, domicile).

MORTALITY DATA (CAUSE OF DEATH)Cause-of-death data is based on the legal death certificate or Coroner’s report, together withautopsy reports.

The data collected includes information on the underlying cause of death, and demographicinformation about the deceased (eg, ethnicity, age, sex, domicile).

Health Workforce Information

The Health Workforce Data Collection consists of 13 stand-alone databases of annual surveyinformation for each of New Zealand’s registered health professions; doctors, nurses, dentists,chiropractors, medical laboratory technologists, medical radiation technologists, optometrists,dispensing opticians, psychologists, occupational therapists, dieticians, podiatrists, andphysiotherapists.

�

Core workforce information collected for each profession includes:• demographic information of age, sex and ethnicity;• geographic information about where they work;• professional information concerning their qualifications and registrations; and• work-related information about the type of work they are doing, the hours they work and

their employer.

In addition to this, information relating to the specific profession (including sub-specialisation,training being undertaken, reasons if not practising) is also available.

� Obtaining Access to Information

Data published by the NZHIS

The NZHIS publishes annual reports of statistics based on data from the NMDS. Thesepublications are:

• Public Hospital Morbidity Data;• Private Hospital Morbidity Data;• Mental Health Data;• Cancer Data;• Mortality and Demographic Data; and• Foetal and Infant Deaths.

Health workforce information is also published, but at greater than annual intervals at present.

These publications are available from the Information services section of NZHIS. In addition, ifonly a small extract of data is required, photocopies of relevant pages can also be provided.

Data not previously published

Specific information, not normally available within NZHIS publications, can also be provided.These requests are categorised as ‘customised’ requests that require additional data from theNZHIS databases.

Cost

Most requests incur a charge. Details of this charge can be obtained by contacting theInformation Services section of NZHIS, with the specification of the information required.

� Other Services

Assistance with interpretation of results of analyses

On occasions, the analysis of time-series or other data produces unexpected results. Weencourage clients to contact us in these instances to discuss possible explanations. Unexpectedresults can often be explained by changes in classification or collection procedures. InformationServices staff are available to canvass the accumulated knowledge of the NZHIS and othergroups within the Ministry to seek explanations.

�

Consultancy and advice

The staff of NZHIS are also available to work with and assist clients in the process ofinterpreting and analysing their data, through to providing assistance with the development ofinformation systems. As an example, we can provide assistance in the monitoring of M�orimental-health inpatient admissions, or the development of an information system to managehealth data for iwi and hapu.

� How to Contact Us

The contact point for clients requiring publications, seeking information held in the NZHISdatabases, or wishing to discuss their needs for consultancy and advice is the InformationServices section. The contact telephone number is (04) 801 2700, fax (04) 801 2769. We alsowelcome general enquiries about information and services offered by NZHIS.

World Wide Web

We invite you to visit our Web site at www.health.govt.NZ/NZHIS. Our site is constantlygrowing, and contains a variety of health information and links to related sites.

��

����� ��

�������

� � � � � � � �

����

Fisheries Allocation and Iwi Demographics

Tony Sole

Te Ohu Kaimoana

� Introduction

“Allocate to Iwi.” Those portentous three words have unleashed a complex process in thesearch for a means of vesting alienated fisheries assets back to their original owners. Most ofyou will be aware that Te Ohu Kai Moana was created by statute to facilitate the entry of M�oriinto, and the development by M�ori of, the business and activity of fishing. The fisheriesresources that we have responsibility for are commonly known as Pre-Settlement and Post-Settlement Assets, the combined value of which exceeds $500 million.

The Commission agrees that benefits of the fisheries settlement are for all M�ori, and hasdetermined that the Pre-Settlement Assets will be allocated to M�ori via properly mandatedorganisations representing Iwi.

The first question to arise is, “Who are the Iwi?” After a lengthy and often contentious processTe Ohu Kai Moana identified the Iwi recognised for matters relating to fisheries, and publishedthat list in February 1996 (see Appendix One). That list received extensive publicity andwidespread approval from within the M�ori community.

Some voices suggest that allocation should be to hapu. Even developing a process to allocate toover 50 Iwi is proving to be an extremely difficult task. The logistical and administrativenightmare associated with identifying, and then allocating, Pre-Settlement Assets to well over1000 hapu does not bear thinking about. Perhaps you could keep in mind that Iwi are, in effect,confederations of hapu. In deciding to allocate to Iwi, Te Ohu Kai Moana fully expects each Iwito make its own decisions as to how resource ownership, management, and use will be sharedbetween their constituent hapu.

The second question, “Who represents those Iwi?” is crucial to the allocation process. TheCommission is currently working through a process of identifying the organisations which holdthe mandate to represent their respective Iwi for matters relating to fisheries. It may be obviousthat we can only recognise one representative organisation for each Iwi. Therefore it must bequite clear that the recognised Iwi organisation does indeed reflect the wider voice of its Iwimembers. To that effect organisations need to show, through their rules or constitution, aprovision for full and open participation by Iwi members in a regular electoral process.

Tony SoleTe Ohu Kai MoanaTony Sole (Ngati Ruanui) is a policy analyst specialising in Article II Treaty of Waitangi issues. He hasworked at Manatu M�ori/Te Puni Kokiri and Maruwhenua, the M�ori Secretariat of the Ministry for theEnvironment. For the last four years he has worked on Iwi governance issues at Te Ohu Kai Moana. Inthe near future he hopes to complete a history of Ngati Ruanui which has consumed much of his “spare”time over the last five years.

��

� The Optimum Allocation Model

For those of you unfamiliar with the fisheries settlement agenda, the model used to determinethe quantum of each tribe’s share of Pre-Settlement Assets [PRESA] will almost certainly containtwo essential elements: length of an Iwi coastline and Iwi populations. Sounds simple!

Iwi claims for coastline length almost invariably overlap with their neighbours. Thus we mustresolve those differences before individual Iwi coastline can be factored into the equation. Inmost - we hope all - cases Iwi should be able to meet on a bilateral basis and agree oncompromise boundaries for the purposes of calculating their PRESA entitlements.

The second probable component in the PRESA optimum model, Iwi populations, is why I amaddressing you today; and I will now concentrate upon issues and difficulties associated withthis seemingly simple task.

PRESA is a “fish cake” of finite size which must be cut into a number of “slices” correspondingto the number of Iwi organisations recognised by Te Ohu Kai Moana as holding the mandate torepresent their Iwi on matters relating to fisheries. The slices will vary considerably dependentupon Iwi coastline and population. However, in the case of population, the relative size of Iwi,rather than absolute size, is the most important demographic factor used to determine the sizeof each tribe’s slice of the allocation cake.

� The 1991 Census: Ethnicity and M�ori Ancestry

The prime source of data which Te Ohu Kai Moana uses for this issue is the 1991 Census. Thekey data which has significance for fisheries allocation is that for ethnicity and tribal affiliations.You may recall that respondents were asked to identify the ethnic group to which theybelonged, including “M�ori”. A follow-up question asked “Have you any M�ori ancestry?” towhich about 511,000 persons replied in the affirmative. Based on currently accepted thinking allof those persons can be defined as M�ori for a number of purposes, including electoral rightsand fisheries allocation.

Most persons who acknowledged M�ori ancestry also claimed M�ori ethnicity, but a minority(23.10%) claimed non-M�ori, that is Pakeha, ethnicity: I shall call these persons “Pakeha whoacknowledge a M�ori ancestor”.

An interesting point which emerges from this data is that of the 145,131 persons who did notidentify an Iwi, 76,338 of them are Pakeha who acknowledge a M�ori ancestor. Only 68,793 of

M�ori Ethnic group(393,102)

“Pakeha”Ethnic Group

(118,176)

M�ori ancestry(511,278)

��

the 393,102 ethnic M�ori did not identify an Iwi. That is, only 17.5 percent of the ethnicM�ori population, compared to 64.5 percent of Pakeha who acknowledge a M�ori ancestor.

I believe the Commission is increasingly inclined towards the view that many, if not most,Pakeha who acknowledge a M�ori ancestor, by their very response, have demonstrated thatthey do not identify as M�ori.

� Iwi Populations

Those 511,000 were also asked to identify their main Iwi - singular. That is, respondents couldnot enter more than one main Iwi. Anecdotal feedback suggests that a number of M�ori tookoffence at this question on the grounds that they were being asked to rank Iwi to which they feltan equal affiliation; often this implied stating the Iwi of one parent at the expense of the other. Itis possible that a number of these persons passively resisted this dilemma by not answering orstating that they did not know, or did not belong to an Iwi.

The matter was further compounded by the next question which asked for persons to state up totwo secondary Iwi; “What other Iwi (tribes) do you have strong ties with?”. Thus there are twodifferent Iwi totals. About 356,000 of the 511,000 persons of M�ori descent identified a main Iwi,but the “All affiliates” total was about 491,00, an increase by a multiplier of 1.38.

The “all affiliates” total involves double or triple counting of some respondents. If the allaffiliates multiplier is constant across Iwi then we do not have a problem. The multiplier rangesfrom 1.23 to 1.37 in the five biggest Iwi who comprise 51.90 percent of total Iwi populations. Itis in the smallest Iwi that the multiplier is greatest; perhaps a result of the very small samples.For example the multiplier in the five smallest Iwi ranges from 1.57 to 2.62 but those five Iwionly have 0.25 percent of total Iwi populations.

Given the large number of wards in the Census we can roughly identify the rohe, or populationcatchment area, of each Iwi, and what percentage of Iwi members still live in the vicinity of therohe. Thus we can get a fairly accurate idea of how each Iwi is distributed. Some iwi, such asNgaiterangi, have 67 percent of their people living in the vicinity of their rohe. Ngati Porou,on the other hand have only 29 percent of their Iwi population living near their rohe, withanother 30 percent in Auckland and Wellington combined.

Ethnicity of those of Maori Ancestry who did not identify an Iwi

Pakeha53%

Maori47%

��

This type of information may help us to assess just how realistic it may be to expect an Iwi toconduct such matters as Iwi elections at hui-a-iwi, because hui may not be the most effectivemeans of maximising participation if most of their people now live far away. This data may alsobe useful in enabling Iwi to plan distribution of services to members.

We can also see at a glance how tribes are distributed in any given area on a ward by ward basis.Thus we know with some measure of precision the relative size of tribes within any given area.This may be particularly useful in large urban areas and provide considerable assistance to Iwias they plan elections and their mode of benefit distribution.

� Iwi Not Identified

The large number of M�ori ancestry respondents who did not identify an Iwi have beenclassified into three groups:

• those who said they did not know their Iwi• those who said they did not belong to an Iwi• those who did not respond to the question.

The Commission must keep in mind that the data provided by Statistics New Zealand is merelya tool to help us share out the fisheries resource. How we use that data is entirely up to us.Consequently it is pointless to be drawn into arguments as to why people responded as theydid. The “why?” question, although of significant socio-political academic interest, will notmove us one millimetre along the path towards allocation of fisheries assets. What we mustconcentrate on is the information, or lack of it, that they have provided.

“Do not Know Iwi” by ethnicity

M�ori ethnic group 53,346Pakeha ethnic group who acknowledge a M�ori ancestor 60,033

113,379

“Do not belong to Iwi / no response to question

M�ori ethnic group 15,447Pakeha ethnic group who acknowledge a M�ori ancestor 16,305

31,752

Total Iwi Not Identified

M�ori ethnic group 68,793Pakeha ethnic group who acknowledge a M�ori ancestor 76,338

145,131

Much has been made out of those M�ori who did not identify an Iwi, but it is entirely up toeach individual to take steps to discover their Iwi. Nobody can force them to do so, and many,for whatever reason, will not choose to do so.

Incidentally you may be aware of the Iwi Helpline project- Te Waea Rapu Iwi - which has beenrunning since 11 November. By ringing 0800 16 00 88 applicants can receive assistance toidentify the Iwi to which they are affiliated. This programme, which is being phased in overthis month, will run at least until the end of February 1997, when we will appraise itseffectiveness.

��

� Urban Ethnic M�ori and those who did not identify an iwi

Certain myths have been allowed to circulate regarding the relationship between M�ori whodid not identify an Iwi and urban M�ori, and the time has come to lay them to rest. Inparticular it has been implied, without evidence of any substance, that urban M�ori tend to beignorant about their Iwi. This is demonstrably untrue. I should make it quite clear that,contrary to oft-repeated assertions, most ethnic M�ori who live in urban areas do know theirIwi. Of 228,000 ethnic M�ori living in the 15 large urban areas only 39,000, or 17 percent didnot identify an Iwi. This figure of 17 percent, incidentally, is less than the national average.Note that in this case I am talking about ethnic M�ori, that is, persons who positively identify asM�ori. On the other hand, as we might expect the “did not identify” figure is greater for Pakehawho acknowledge a M�ori ancestor.

The other 30,000 ethnic M�ori who did not identify an Iwi are scattered throughout the smalltowns and rural areas. The only TLA in Greater Auckland which is above the national averageis North Shore City, with 17.4 percent. The general trend is that the further south and west yougo, the greater the percentage of ethnic M�ori who did not identify their Iwi. The onlyexception is Greater Wellington where it falls below the national average at 15.9 percent. Someexamples to show this trend:

Urban Ethnic M�ori: Percent who did not identify Iwi

Of course there are larger numbers of these people in the big cities than elsewhere. There arealso larger numbers of M�ori who know their Iwi in the large cities. A point which has usuallybeen missed, for example, is that of 93,000 ethnic M�ori in Greater Auckland, 77,000 do knowtheir Iwi. In Wellington the figures are 33,000 and 28,000 respectively.

� Reconciling Commission Iwi with Census Iwi

The number of Iwi recorded in the 1991 Census is greater than the Iwi recognised by Te Ohu KaiMoana. However, all groups counted in the Census can be fitted into one of the Iwi formallyrecognised by Te Ohu Kai Moana for matters relating to fisheries. The ranked Iwi demonstratehow more than half of the Iwi population is comprised of only five iwi.

WhangareiAucklandHamilton

TaurangaGisborne

NapierHastings

New PlymouthWanganui

Palmerston NorthWellington

Nelson

ChristchurchDunedin

Invercargill

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Percent

��

Iwi Rank A: Main % B: Total % B/AAffiliates Affiliates

Ngapuhi 1 75,315 21.13% 92,973 18.92% 1.23Ngati Porou 2 36,198 10.15% 48,525 9.87% 1.34Ngati Kahungunu 3 33,771 9.47% 43,614 8.87% 1.29Te Arawa (+ Waitaha Bay of Plenty) 4 22,308 6.26% 30,579 6.22% 1.37Ngai Tahu (+ Ngati Mamoe, + Waitaha) 5 17,373 4.87% 21,438 4.36% 1.23Tuwharetoa 6 16,899 4.74% 24,069 4.90% 1.42Tuhoe 7 16,812 4.72% 24,522 4.99% 1.46Ngati Maniapoto 8 15,531 4.36% 21,936 4.46% 1.41Waikato (+ Ngati Haua) 9 14,484 4.06% 22,815 4.64% 1.58Ngati Raukawa 10 13,128 3.68% 17,943 3.65% 1.37Tainui (iwi not specified) 11 10,386 2.91% 15,399 3.13% 1.48Te Atiawa 12 8,865 2.49% 11,271 2.29% 1.27Ngati Awa 13 7,062 1.98% 9,795 1.99% 1.39Ngati Whatua 14 6,078 1.71% 9,357 1.90% 1.54Ngati Haua - area not specified 15 4,926 1.38% 6,417 1.31% 1.30Ngaiterangi 16 4,404 1.24% 6,321 1.29% 1.44Te Whanau a Apanui 17 4,242 1.19% 7,182 1.46% 1.69Whakatohea 18 3,636 1.02% 5,640 1.15% 1.55Te Rarawa 19 3,462 0.97% 5,916 1.20% 1.71Te Aupouri 20 3,459 0.97% 6,720 1.37% 1.94Te Atihaunui a Paparangi

(+ N Haua Taumarunui) 21 3,375 0.95% 4,599 0.94% 1.36Ngati Ranginui 22 2,988 0.84% 4,476 0.91% 1.50Hauraki (+ Marutuahu) 23 2,673 0.75% 4,266 0.87% 1.60Ngati Toa 24 2,601 0.73% 3,480 0.71% 1.34Ngati Kahu 25 2,466 0.69% 4,272 0.87% 1.73Ngati Maru - area not specified 26 2,337 0.66% 3,288 0.67% 1.41Taranaki 27 2,274 0.64% 4,275 0.87% 1.88Rangitane 28 2,244 0.63% 3,531 0.72% 1.57Ngati Ruanui 29 2,229 0.63% 3,303 0.67% 1.48Ngati Wai 30 1,914 0.54% 3,009 0.61% 1.57Te Aitanga a Mahaki 31 1,836 0.52% 2,739 0.56% 1.49Ngarauru 32 1,458 0.41% 2,187 0.44% 1.50Rongowhakaata 33 1,269 0.36% 2,361 0.48% 1.86Ngati Mutunga 34 1,119 0.31% 1,353 0.28% 1.21Ngati Apa 35 1,068 0.30% 1,698 0.35% 1.59Muaupoko 36 963 0.27% 1,407 0.29% 1.46Ngai Takoto [87] + Ngati Kuri [765] 37 900 0.25% 1,581 0.32% 1.76Ngai Tai 38 738 0.21% 1,155 0.24% 1.57Nga Ruahine 39 771 0.22% 1,140 0.23% 1.48Ngati Manawa - Ngati Whare 40 522 0.15% 873 0.18% 1.67Ngati Tama 41 489 0.14% 669 0.14% 1.37Ngati Pukenga 42 372 0.10% 576 0.12% 1.55Ngati Kuia 43 327 0.09% 522 0.11% 1.60Ngai Tamanuhiri 44 318 0.09% 546 0.11% 1.72Whaingaroa

[iwi status not recognised by TOKM] 45 288 0.08% 453 0.09% 1.57Waitaha - area not specified 46 210 0.06% 477 0.10% 2.27Ngati Koata 47 198 0.06% 387 0.08% 1.95Ngati Rarua 48 153 0.04% 312 0.06% 2.04Moriori 49 39 0.01% 102 0.02% 2.62TOTAL 356,478 100.00% 491,469 100.00% 1.38

��

� Iwi with More than One Rohe

Some Iwi are recognised by Te Ohu Kai Moana as having mana whenua in more than onegeographical location; for example Te Ati Awa, Rangitane and Ngati Raukawa have more thanone rohe, each with its own Iwi organisation. Administrative common sense dictates the needfor an Iwi organisation at each rohe rather than some unwieldy long-distance administration.

Of course each of those Iwi has only one national total population. How do we divide each Iwiup demographically between the different rohe? In most of these cases respondents did notindicate which rohe they were immediately affiliated to. Thus a Te Ati Awa woman living inHastings who did not specify her rohe could be directly affiliated to Taranaki, Waikanae,Wellington or Nelson-Marlborough, and indirectly affiliated to all four. This is a problem whichwe have yet to work through in consultation with the Iwi concerned. For example, out-migration from one rohe may have been much greater than from another, but how can wedetermine this?

� Other Methods of Measuring Iwi Size

There have been calls for some other method of measuring Iwi populations, such as use of Iwiregisters, or a separate M�ori Census. As you know many Iwi keep registers of their members,but there is no consistent register methodology. For example some Iwi organisations mayinclude spouses of Iwi members, and others certainly do not. Unless the register is constantlymaintained, at some considerable expense, then births, deaths and migrations soon distort theaccuracy of the data. In one recent example, an Iwi organisation sent out 500 panui using theirregister; 250 came back “Return to sender”. We would also anticipate that many Iwi mightchallenge what they consider to be the inflated figures of other Iwi.

Statistics New Zealand is better placed than Te Ohu Kai Moana to comment upon the relativemargin of error should an attempt be made to conduct a separate M�ori Census. The first twodifficulties are apparent: first, how do we identify M�ori households? second, how do we ensurethat all M�ori respond?

While we recognise that the Census process is not perfect, the hard fact is that there is no bettersource of data on Iwi populations than that provided in the 1991 Census. The 1996 Censusmay improve on that.

� The 1996 Census: New Problems?

The most significant change in the 1996 Census is the Iwi question, which asked respondents toname up to six Iwi to which they were affiliated. In this case there is no explicit ranking of thelisted Iwi. Apart from the possible, but non-verifiable, implicit ranking from top to bottom onthe Census form, there is no way of telling the relative importance of any one Iwi. Did arespondent who entered three Iwi consider them to be equal or was one more important? If so,was it the first one entered? Or are they entered in descending order of importance? For thepurposes of determining allocation shares does each of these three Iwi get one third of a personeach, or do each of them get a whole person? Of course many M�ori have an active relationshipwith more than one Iwi, so it would be valid to count them twice. These are the questions wewill need to confront when the 1996 data is available.

��

� Problems in 1996: A Summary

1. We can anticipate that there will still be a large number of persons who do not identifytheir Iwi. Whether the number is significantly smaller than in 1991 remains to be seen.

2. We can also assume that some Iwi will contest the Census figures for their Iwi on thecertain basis that they have been under-estimated. As we have noted, different registermethodologies are such that the use of registers is not feasible.

3. What will the 1996 multiplier be? If most M�ori enter only one Iwi then a problem willnot exist. However some respondents will have entered several Iwi. We will have to waitfor the data and use a trial run of three different ways of counting these people before afinal method of measuring Iwi populations can be decided.

4. The 1996 Census provided for respondents to enter the region of their Iwi. In this case wehope that the multi-rohe Iwi populations will be more precise. Nevertheless there willcertainly be a large number who we cannot place.

5. Talkback radio and letters to the editor suggest that some people entered “NewZealander” in the Ethnic response. You may be familiar with the New Zealanderargument which essentially is an attempt to deny cultural identities, other than “Pakeha”having a place in this country. These “New Zealanders” tend to be Pakeha but if asignificant number of M�ori respond in this way, then the Iwi demographic waters will befurther muddied. It is not likely, however, that such people will identify their Iwi.

� Conclusions

This paper has arisen through the unlikely path of settlement of Treaty fisheries rights. As wehave tried to work towards an allocation model the relative size of Iwi has assumed unexpectedimportance. Although the 1991 Census raised a few intractable problems we hope that theexperiences gained from that Census, and the modified 1996 Census, will enable a more preciseestimate of Iwi populations and their distribution.

�

APPENDIX 1

1 February 1996

TTTTTO O O O O ALL IWI:ALL IWI:ALL IWI:ALL IWI:ALL IWI: List of Recognised Iwi for Matters Relating to Fisheries

Tena Koutou

Te Ohu Kai Moana has completed the process of identifying Iwi for the purposes ofallocation of Pre-Settlement Fisheries Assets (PRESA). In determining this list of Iwi theCommission has applied the following essential characteristics of Iwi, established in 1992:

* shared descent from tipuna* hapu* marae* belonged historically to a takiwa* an existence traditionally acknowledged by other Iwi.

Te Ohu Kai Moana is confident that a thorough and transparent process has been used toidentify Iwi for matters relating to the fisheries resources held by Te Ohu Kai Moana.Details of those Iwi are noted below in Appendix One and Appendix Two.

Kia ora

Robin HapiChief ExChief ExChief ExChief ExChief Executiecutiecutiecutiecutivvvvve Ofe Ofe Ofe Ofe Offfffficericericericericer

AAAAAppendix One:ppendix One:ppendix One:ppendix One:ppendix One: Iwi Reco Iwi Reco Iwi Reco Iwi Reco Iwi Recognised bgnised bgnised bgnised bgnised by y y y y TTTTTe Ohu Kai Moana in Fe Ohu Kai Moana in Fe Ohu Kai Moana in Fe Ohu Kai Moana in Fe Ohu Kai Moana in Four Reour Reour Reour Reour Regggggionsionsionsionsions

Note: this list was published in our panui to Iwi on 12 July 1995.

NorthlandNorthlandNorthlandNorthlandNorthland TTTTTarararararanakianakianakianakianaki South IslandSouth IslandSouth IslandSouth IslandSouth Island

Te Aupouri Ngati Tama Ngati ToarangatiraNgaitakoto Ngati Maru Ngati ApaNgati Kuri Ngati Mutunga RangitaneNgati Kahu Te Ati Awa Ngati KuiaTe Rarawa Ngaruahine Ngati KoataNgati Wai Ngati Ruanui Ngati TamaNgati Whatua Ngarauru Te Ati Awa

Ngai Tahu

ChathamsChathamsChathamsChathamsChathams

MorioriNgati Mutunga

�

HaurakiHaurakiHaurakiHaurakiHauraki WWWWWaikaaikaaikaaikaaikatototototo TTTTTe e e e e ArArArArAraaaaawwwwwa/Ta/Ta/Ta/Ta/Taupoaupoaupoaupoaupo

Ngati Hako Waikato* Ngati PikiaoNgati Hei Ngati Maniapoto Ngati RangiteaorereNgati Marutuahu Ngati Raukawa Ngati RangitihiNgati Paoa Ngati RangiwewehiPatukirikiri TapuikaNgati Porou ki Harataunga, ki Mataora TarawhaiNgati Pukenga ki Waiau TuhourangiNgati Rahiri Tumutumu Uenuku-Kopako / Ngati WhakaueNgai Tai WaitahaNgati Tamatera Ngati TahuNgati Tara Tokanui Tuwharetoa**Ngati Whanaunga

Bay of PlentyBay of PlentyBay of PlentyBay of PlentyBay of Plenty East Coast/HaEast Coast/HaEast Coast/HaEast Coast/HaEast Coast/Hawkwkwkwkwkes Baes Baes Baes Baes Bayyyyy WWWWWanganganganganganananananui/Manaui/Manaui/Manaui/Manaui/ManawwwwwaaaaatututututuWWWWWairairairairairarararararaaaaapapapapapa

Ngati Pukenga Ngati Porou Te Ati Haunui-a-PaparangiNgaiterangi Te Aitanga-a-Mahaki Ngati ApaNgati Ranginui Rongowhakaata RangitaneNgati Awa Ngai Tamanuhiri Ngati HauitiNgati Manawa Ngati Kahungunu Ngati RaukawaNgati Whare RangitaneNgai Tai HorHorHorHorHorooooowwwwwhenhenhenhenhenua/Wua/Wua/Wua/Wua/WellingtonellingtonellingtonellingtonellingtonTuhoeWhakatohea Te AtiawaWhanau a Apanui Ngati Toa

MuaupokoNgati Raukawa

* Waikato is constituted of the following 33 hapu:

Ngaitai Ngaati Tamaoho Ngaati KoherikiNgaati Te Ata Ta Aakitai Ngaati ParetauaaNgaati Tiipaa Ngaati Amaru Ngaati NahoNgaati Hine Ngaati Taratikitiki Ngaati PouNgaati Ruru Ngaati Werokoko Ngaati ParetekawaNgaati Ngutu Ngaati Hikairo Ngaati PuhiaweNgaati Mahuta Ngaati Te Wehi Ngaati WhaawhaakiaNgati Kuiaarangi Ngaati Tai Ngaati MaahangaNgaati Tamainupoo Ngaati Wairere Ngaati MakirangiNgaati Korokii Ngaati Raukawa ki Panehakua Tainui-a-WhiroNgaati Tahinga Ngaati Apakura Ngaati Hauaa

** Te Ohu Kai Moana recognition of the Iwi status of Tuwharetoa is on theunderstanding that Tuwharetoa have stated that they will not participate in matters relating tomarine fisheries, including PRESA and POSA.

��

Ngapuhi

Ngati Porou

Kahungunu

Te Arawa

Ngai TahuTuwharetoa

Tuhoe

Maniapoto

Waikato

Raukawa

Tainui

Te Atiawa

Ngati Awa

Ngati Whatua

Ngati Haua

NgaiterangiApanui

Whakatohea

Other iwi

Iwi Populations: %

��

��

����� ��

�������

� � � � � � � �

����

What Are We Counting? And Why?

Some Lingering Methodological Issues

Marilyn E. Lashley

Brookings Institution

Let me begin by thanking the M�ori Statistics Forum and Statistics New Zealand for thegenerous invitation to present some findings from research in progress. Indeed, I am delightedto participate in the “M�ori Users of Statistics Conference” because it provides an invaluableopportunity not only to present preliminary findings from my comparative research for reviewand critique but also because it provides the sorely needed occasion to seek advice andassistance on several problems encountered in analyzing the New Zealand data. Therefore,instead of presenting a formal paper, today I will describe the scope of the New Zealandresearch, identify some of the data and methodological problems and offer a few suggestions toaddress these problems.

First, let me briefly describe my research and, at the same time, address the obvious question:Why is a policy scholar from the United States participating in the M�ori Users of StatisticsConference?

For more than a decade, my research has focused on comparative racial and ethnic inequality.The current research project was initiated in 1994 under a Fulbright grant with the AlexanderTurnbull Library in Wellington, “Te Kotahitanga and Black Nationalism, Te M�ori and AfricanAmericans: A Comparative Analysis of the Parallel Development of Public Policy for Resolving‘the Minority Problem’ in Postwar New Zealand and the United States.(1)

(1) The concepts of Te Kotahitanga (M�ori unity and empowerment) and Black Nationalism (African American unity andempowerment) are on-going minority rights movements in their respective societies that arise in the nineteenth century andextend into the present.

Marilyn E LashleyBrookings InstitutionMarilyn is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in PublicAdministration/Public Policy and International Relations. She is also a Guest Scholar in theGovernmental Studies Division at the Brookings Institution, where she is writing several journal articlesand a book length manuscript base on a Fulbright Senior Research award for a comparative study of racialand ethnic inequality in New Zealand and the United States. Ms Lashley earned a PhD in behaviouralscience from the University of Chicago with the dissertion “Predilection for Predictability: An analysis ofdecision making in government-financed organisations.” She holds MA degrees in public policy andeducational psychology from the University of Chicago and a BA in psychology and philosophy fromMillikin University. Her teaching and research interests include comparative public policy, public policyanalysis and public management and broadcasting policy. Ms Lashley has published African Americansand the New Policy Consensus: Retreat of the Liberal State and Public Television: Panacea, PorkBarrel or Public Trust (Greenwood Press, 1994 and 1992) and several journal articles, including“Balanced Budgets, Social Policy Reforms, and Unbalanced Costs” forthcoming, “Reclaiming the State:Representative Government and Public Policy Access in the Western Journal of Black Studies (Fall1994) and “Even in Public Television, Ownership Changes Matter” in Communication Research(December 1992).

���

In the New Zealand research, I set out to answer the following questions: What strategies doM�ori people use to attain full citizenship rights and empower themselves? What are the policyconsequences of these actions, ie, policy implements and outcomes? Who benefits from thesepolicies and who pays? In the long term, my goal is to provide a comparative analysis of theimpact of policies targeted at incorporating M�ori people and African Americans into themainstream of their respective societies and, thereby, reducing inequality and improvingeconomic and social well-being.

� Why Compare the Relative Position of M�ori people and African Americans?

The current social, economic and political position of M�ori people is similar to AfricanAmericans as well as Native Americans in the United States. As the tangata whenua (firstpeoples) and like Native Americans after British contact, M�ori people were systematicallydispossessed of their lands, fisheries and forests and reduced to near extinction by colonizationand abrogated treaty rights. However, since World War II African Americans and M�ori peoplehold similar social and economic positions. Like African Americans, M�ori people account fornearly thirteen percent of the population; have the highest and most disproportionate rates ofunemployment, poverty, crime and incarceration; and are identified as the “problem” minority.Like African Americans, M�ori people experience greater income inequality and lower levels ofsocial well-being than other population subgroups.

Although indigenous rights are at the heart of resolving disputes over breached treaties, thecontemporary situation of M�ori is not exclusively a problem of abrogated treaty rights andsovereignty. Rather, as statistical data on incomes, earnings, benefit receipt and labour forceparticipation over the last two decades show, increasingly the subordinate status of M�oripeople also is a consequence of deindustrialization, economic restructuring and “urbanunderclass” dynamics.

� The New Zealand Research

In the New Zealand research, the working assumption is that the “true” impact and incidence ofpublic policy on a specific group is ascertained most accurately by comparing differences(disparities), changes and trends in social and economic well-being over time among allmeasurable population subgroups as well as one-to-one comparisons between the dominantgroup and a particular minority group. If the goals of targeted policies are achieved and/orsocieties are fair and equitable, we expect, if not true parity, then certainly a meaningfulconvergence of pakeha and minorities on key economic and social indicators over time,particularly indicators reflecting gains to human and physical capital. Therefore, we examinechanges in incomes, earnings, labour force participation, unemployment, and benefit receipt forM�ori since the 1970s and compare these data with those for Europeans, Pacific Islanders andAsians. Data on earnings and educational attainment also are presented in order to assess thereturns to schooling.

In this study, aggregate level statistical data of the entire population, comparable to US data,were collected on economic and social indicators by ethnicity and gender from 1971-1996.Labour force participation, incomes, earnings and demographic data were obtained fromStatistics New Zealand as special computer releases of the Census of Population, HouseholdLabour Force Survey, and Household Income and Expenditure Survey. Data on welfare benefitsand education were provided by the Social Welfare Agency and Department of Educationrespectively. Equally important, government and other archival documents were examined and

���

primary and secondary sources were analysed in order to describe the historical context andidentify relevant social policy issues, initiatives and outcomes. Seventy interviews wereconducted with Ministers of Parliament, government officials and staff, policy analysts,academics and business, church and community leaders.

� More Data at Lower Cost + Better Statistical Methods = Better Analyses

Now that primary data collection and preliminary analyses are completed, two fundamentalproblems inhibit the progress of this work; data costs and statistical methods, specifically, theneed for better measures and better statistical analyses. As many of you know, conductingresearch using New Zealand Census, and household and labour force data is an expensiveenterprise. And for those of us who use multiple measures and indicators to minimizemeasurement error and bias, the costs of empirical policy research are prohibitive. I will notbelabour this issue here because many conference participants and other users of statisticscontinue to press the issue with Statistics New Zealand. Rather, I simply make note of the costconstraint because it seriously impedes empirical research and I sign on to the growing list ofacademics and analysts advocating the elimination of user fees for obtaining data fromStatistics New Zealand.

Instead, let us turn our attention to statistical methodology, in particular, problems ofmeasurement and statistical analysis, problems that are more manageable and under ourcontrol. Foremost, as users of statistics, we must be more careful and more rigorous in ouranalyses of the data. As methodologists and policy analysts, we must be mindful of the datalimitations and make certain that we satisfy “all” the assumptions of the statistical methods weemploy in our analyses. In order to render accurate, valid and reliable analyses, we mustconsistently measure, with utmost precision, the very factors (variables) we intend to measure.In short, it is essential that we know not only what we are measuring (counting) but also knowwhy we are measuring (counting) particular attributes, responses and events at each point intime.

For example, in my current New Zealand research, the objective is to analyse changes inindicators of social and economic well-being. Generally, social and economic well-being is“measured” by the following set of statistical indicators; including but not limited to rates oflabour force participation, unemployment, poverty and benefit receipt as well as employmentby occupations, income and wages, educational attainment (schooling) and returns toschooling—The returns to schooling is a factor used in valuing human capital. Human capitaltheory is one of several paradigms used to explain earnings inequality. Accordingly, humancapital is acquired by means of a process of self-investment through personal choices to attainadditional education, training and experience, and, thereby determines occupations, earningsand, ultimately, wealth. Human capital theory presumes that better-paying jobs are thoserequiring more skilled, that is, better endowed employees (Darity 1982:78-79).

Te Puni Kokiri and Statistics New Zealand greatly facilitated this work and generously providedassistance in gathering data on these measures. Statisticians and analysts from both unitsidentified and discussed measurement problems and inconsistencies in collecting the data overtime. Even after taking the measurement inconsistencies and data limitations into account, stillother methodological problems persist. Although several problems are evident in somegovernment-sponsored statistical analyses, for this short presentation, only measurement anddisaggregation errors are discussed here and examples are limited to the analyses of “decliningschool leaving rates” (school retention) and analyses of incomes data.

���

� Measurement Errors

Figure 1 shows trends in school retention rates; the now familiar finding of “declining andconverging rates for M�ori and non-M�ori school leavers without qualifications” from 1966-1991. Although this result is acknowledged widely, seldom are the following caveats specified:First, the minimum age of compulsory education was changed over this period; to 14 years ofage in 1985, 15 in 1989 and to 17 years of age in 1991. Secondly, the criteria for “passing”qualifications were redefined and lowered. Prior to 1985, school leaving without qualificationswas measured as “passing fewer than three papers with total scores less than 250.” In 1985,passing was measured as “passing a single paper.” Third, embedded in these data is thedramatic drop in birth rates for both groups but most significantly M�ori births. Each of thesechanges in measurement alters the numerical values for rates of retention and, thereby, shifts thedistribution.

Thus, we effectively bias the analyses and findings by repeatedly changing the operationaldefinition of the “retention measure” (retention as the minimum age of compulsory education)and how retention is measured (counted as the number of passes and the passing score). We notonly change what is measured but how it is measured and counted. Consequently, theincreased retention rates in Figure 1 actually describe to some degree—and perhaps a significantdegree—shifts in the distributions for M�ori and non-M�ori school leavers withoutqualifications. Given these measurement errors, we cannot conclude with certainty andconfidence that retention rates have improved or narrowed substantially.

Alternatively, it would be more accurate and informative to calculate retention rates by takinginto account prior operational definition as well as the current one and by utilizing a weightedmeasure for age, number of passes and score and by controlling for birth rates.

� Aggregation Errors: Pooling and Averaging versus Disaggregating Data

Similarly, some reports and analyses of incomes data also are flawed by measurement andaggregation errors. Many reports on incomes do not eliminate or minimize biases introducedby specific measures of central tendency, the aggregation of data (pooling versus partitioning

Figure 1: M�ori and Non-M�ori School Leavers Without Qualifications: 1966-19911

Source: Ministry of Education.

1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 19910

20

40

60

80

100

Maori

Non-Maori

Year

Percent

���

Figure 2: Median Personal Income in NZ Constant Dollars: 1976-19911

1 In 1993 NZ$

Source: Census of Population and Dwellings: 1976-1991, Statistics New Zealand

population subgroups) and differences in household composition (size, gender of head, numberof wage earners, age and number of dependents, etc.). In order to determine whether the socialand economic well-being of particular population subgroups is improving or worsening overtime, differences among, between and within all measurable subgroups must be disaggregatedand controlled, thereby minimizing measurement errors before data are compared andcontrasted.

For example, in many government departmental reports and analyses, the mean (average) isused as the preferred measure of central tendency. However, the mean can overstate total M�oriincomes (given small N properties and extreme values) while the mean can suppress totalEuropean incomes and all other subgroups combined as non-M�ori incomes (given large N andminimal variance properties). Related to the overuse of the mean statistic is the commonpractice of “pooling” non-M�ori subgroups into a single “non-M�ori” distribution. Given thegoal of improving the lives of M�ori people, some government units conduct analyses and issuereports that pool the data for population subgroups and compare M�ori with all othersubgroups combined as non-M�ori. However, such one-to-one comparisons afford insufficientinformation because differences and trends (variation) for other subgroups are obscured and/ordifferences between M�ori and non-M�ori are distorted because there is too much “white noise”(bias) compounded in the non-M�ori distribution (see Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 2 depicts median personal incomes in constant NZ dollars for the European, M�ori,Pacific Island and Asian population subgroups while Figure 3 depicts median personal incomesfor M�ori and non-M�ori (all other subgroups combined). Figure 2, which “pools” (combines)the median incomes for all non-M�ori groups, depicts a smaller gap between M�ori and non-M�ori incomes (a difference of NZ$ 1887). Whereas Figure 3, which decomposes ordisaggregates incomes by ethnicity, shows both the widening gap between M�ori and Europeanincomes from 1986 to 1991 and the ground Pacific Islanders loose as their incomes shift fromgreater than all other ethnic groups to less than other ethnic groups from 1976 to 1991.Although Figure 2 uses accurate data, pooling these data obscures “real” differences and

1976 1981 1986 19910

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Non-Maori

Maori

Year

Dollars

���

understates the “true” economic relativities, such that in Figure 3, median incomes and medianincomes for Pacific Islanders are $167 less than M�ori median incomes in 1991.

Figure 3: Median Personal Income by Ethnicity in NZ Constant Dollars: 1976-19911

1 In 1993 NZ$

Source: Census of Population and Dwellings: 1976-1991, Statistics New Zealand

One final remark on the “presentation” of incomes data. Many graphic representations ofincomes data do not give sufficient information about the summary statistics. For example, areincomes statistics given in constant dollars or current dollars? Do summary statistics describethe incomes of persons (individuals), families or households? The omission of such basicinformation makes it exceedingly difficult to ascertain which set of incomes summary statisticsand analyses provide “the right set of numbers.” We also observe that summary statisticsderived from the same data vary substantially across departmental reports and analyses. Is itpossible that discrepant summary incomes statistics derived from the same data may be theresult of neglecting to state whether the data are for persons, households or families andneglecting to state whether income statistics are expressed in constant or current dollars?

� Conclusions and Recommendations

In closing, I offer the following recommendations: 1) disaggregate the data; 2) use multiplemeasures and indicators; 3) control for sample and measurement differences; and 3) givedetailed information about the summary statistics. Foremost, there is a need for more crossgroup analyses and reports that are not limited to comparing M�ori and non-M�ori but insteadprovide comparisons across all groups; Europeans, M�ori, Pacific Islanders, Asians and others.Secondly, and perhaps more important, reports and studies should use multiple measures foranalyzing the data in order to overcome the specific biases of particular measures andindicators—Again, the mean is sensitive to values at the extremes of the distribution and theexclusive or over-reliance on the mean as the preferred measure of central tendency suppressesthe “true” effects. The median is a better measure of aggregate incomes data but, differences areanalysed more accurately by using both measures in tandem. (An example is given inAddendum A Table 1).

1976 1981 1986 19910

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Maori

Non-Maori

Year

Dollars

��

Equally important, we must control for sample differences (e.g., household size andcomposition) and over time changes in the operational definition of measures andmeasurements. Measurement differences are handled by using weighted measures, calculatingdiscrete distributions for each measure and transforming the data. In order to adjust fordifferences in family size and unrelated individuals within a household, we can calculate andcompare median relative incomes statistics. A measure now used by the US Bureau of theCensus, the median relative income measure is based on equivalence factors developed byPatricia Ruggles in Drawing the Line (1990 p. 67). The median relative income measure is usedto compare population subgroups on overall economic well-being and examine the extent ofincome inequality.

Briefly, this measure is derived from median family income. The distributions of median familyincomes are calculated for each population subgroup and adjusted for differences in family size.The relative income measure is the distance from the middle of the income distribution andshows the extent to which the income distribution of a person (or group of persons) divergesfrom the middle income of the entire universe of persons which is equal to 1.00 (US. Departmentof Commerce, Trends 1991: 1). At a particular point in time, median relative income shows howthe divergence pattern of one group compares with another. Over time, the measure showswhether the total extent of divergence is increasing or decreasing (whether income inequality isincreasing or decreasing). For example, a person (or group) with a relative income of .25 hasonly one-forth the income of a person (or group) in the middle of the distribution and a personwith a relative income of 2.00 has twice the income of a person in the middle. (See AddendumA for sample tables.)

Finally, a few words on data presentation: graphic representations and statistical analyses ofdata should provide detailed descriptions of the summary statistics.

In closing, I welcome your comments and critiques and, again, thank you for the invitation andopportunity to share my work.

ADDENDUM

Explanation of Table 2

When we examine income inequality by looking at the distribution of persons’ median relativeincomes by race (Table 2) we find that African Americans are not much better off in 1989 thanthey were in 1964. They retain the greatest share of low relative incomes while gaining a fewpercent at the middle and high ends. Although the proportion of African Americans with lowrelative incomes declined from 48.5 percent in 1964 to 42.6 percent in 1969, by 1989 their shareedged pass the 1969 mark to 43.9 percent. As the proportion with relative incomes just belowthe median fell from 77.4 percent in 1969 to 71.2 percent in 1989, the proportion of AfricanAmericans at or above the median rose from 17.6 percent in 1969 to 23.8 percent in 1989. Thepercentage of African Americans with high relative incomes also saw a slight increase, from2.3 percent in 1969 to 5 percent in 1989. Although data for Hispanics are not available for 1964to 1969, their pattern is similar to that of African Americans. The proportion of Hispanics withlow relative incomes increased from 34.1 percent in 1974 to 40.1 percent in 1989, the proportionwith incomes at or above the median fell from 24.9 percent to 22.9 percent, and the proportionwith high relative incomes increased from 3.6 percent to 5.2 percent by 1989. Whites with lowrelative incomes also declined from 1964 to 1969, 15.5 percent to 14.7 percent, but graduallyincreased to 18.8 percent in 1989 while those at or above the median fell from 40.9 percent to37.2 percent. Whereas whites with high relative incomes increased from 11.9 percent in 1969 to16.0 percent in 1989. Thus, trends in the percentage distribution of relative incomes depictwidening economic disparity among and between all racial groups over the past three decades.

��

Foremost, these data show that 43.9 percent of all African Americans have annual incomesfalling below .50 (low relative income) while Hispanics trail closely behind with low relativeincomes accounting for 40.1 percent of the Hispanic population. However, only 19 percent of allwhites have median relative incomes of .50 or less.