We don’t need another survey to tell us what’s obvious
It might well be that Ma¯ ori are the most analysed and researched indigenous people in the world. Hardly a week goes by without a survey, report or review highlighting the miseries and disadvantages of being Ma¯ ori in Aotearoa, usually because of systemic racism, unconscious bias and colonisation.
Although each new piece of research may add a little to a clearer picture, it’s all a bit too much. I suspect most people, including Ma¯ ori, have switched off and are sick of hearing essentially the same thing.
Many of the reports describe a problem that has already been researched to death, and, apart from providing work for academics, don’t achieve much.
The time has come for researchers to turn their attention to solutions and remedies, to betterment rather than misfortune.
A case in point was a Ministry of Justice report that was treated with the usual shock and horror this week.
The 83-page Ma¯ ori Victimisation in Aotearoa New Zealand found Ma¯ ori are more likely to be victims of crime than other ethnic groups in New Zealand. I don’t think many people would have been surprised.
The report is based on the ministry’s crime and victims surveys from 2018 and 2019, in which people were asked about their brushes with crime over the previous 12 months. It entailed survey company staff having faceto-face interviews with about 8000 people in each year. About a quarter of the sample identified as Ma¯ ori.
The report tells us pretty much what we already know, ie Ma¯ ori – and let’s not get into causes just yet – are over-represented in just about every risk factor that common sense would tell you would make them more vulnerable to crime.
We already know that being Ma¯ ori means you are more likely to live in poorer, deprived areas where social problems such as unemployment, poverty, crime, addiction, violent relationships and illness are more prevalent. It makes perfect sense that more victims will exist in areas where there are more offenders.
And if you read the report carefully that is really what it says:
‘‘When controlling for both age and the level of deprivation, Ma¯ ori are three percentage points more likely to be victims of crime compared with the New Zealand average. This difference is not statistically significant. This suggests that the higher overall rates of victimisation observed for Ma¯ ori are largely due to there being higher proportions of young Ma¯ ori and higher proportions of Ma¯ ori in high deprivation areas.’’
Perhaps the only surprising thing in the report is that 38 per cent of Ma¯ ori reported being a victim of crime compared to 30 per cent across the wider population. I thought the gap would have been wider but even so, both statistics show an appalling tendency for criminal offending in this country.
The report, as it acknowledges, doesn’t add much to a report in 2006 which also showed that Ma¯ ori were significantly over-represented among those harmed by crime. That report also found that victimisation was more likely for Ma¯ ori with fewer social and economic resources.
Another problem with the most recent report is that it leaves questions begging. It provides no information about the ethnicity of perpetrators or what the victims would like done in their communities to make them feel safer. Maybe that’s too obvious, but the report does not shy away from the bleeding obvious in other respects.
Let’s look at some of the startling conclusions afforded by the research.
■ Ma¯ ori adults who owned their own home, either with or without a mortgage, were significantly less likely to experience violent interpersonal incidents and experienced significantly lower frequencies of household offences, particularly burglary.
■ Ma¯ ori adults living in households with annual incomes above
$150,000 a year were significantly less likely to experience violent interpersonal incidents, and their households experienced a significantly lower frequency of burglaries.
■ Ma¯ ori adults who could easily afford a non-essential $300 item were significantly less likely to experience interpersonal violence.
■ Ma¯ ori adults who are retired, have high household incomes, are not financially stressed and who own their own homes are significantly less likely to experience violent interpersonal offences and household offences, specifically burglary.
■ Ma¯ ori adults living in rural settlements, couple-only households and low-deprivation areas were less likely to experience household offences and burglary.
■ Compared to all Ma¯ ori adults, Ma¯ ori who had experienced multiple crimes were significantly more worried about being a victim of crime, and those who experienced any crime were significantly more worried than non-victims.
Of course, I have unfairly cherry-picked the worst examples of the self-evident from the report and the report does have some useful information. Overall, however, it is a trite piece, with the ministry providing some equally trite comment.
‘‘This means that any response to reduce victimisation of Ma¯ ori needs to take these factors into account,’’ said ministry deputy secretary Tim Hampton. ‘‘These findings are important for the Government and the community in seeking to improve support for Ma¯ ori victims of crime.’’
We all know the answers to entrenched poverty and dependence are difficult and maybe the answers are obvious and too hard to put into practice.
But going over the problem in ever more depth and repetition is not going to help and is diverting resources. Middle class researchers in their nice offices and ivory towers need to move on to looking at what works and what is achievable.
The report doesn’t add much to a report in 2006 which also showed Ma¯ori were significantly over-represented among those harmed by crime.