Statistics New Zealand commissioned UMR Research Limited to conduct research into a review of the Statistical Standard for Ethnicity which sought information to help inform and outline issues relating to measuring ethnicity that can be communicated to relevant stakeholders.
- The research generally supports the Statistics New Zealand definition of ethnicity. Ethnicity was often viewed as being subjective with people able to choose to be part of a particular ethnic group or could be a group conferred upon you according to how you are perceived. This supports Statistics New Zealand’s definition which specifies that ethnicity is a group(s) that people may identify with or feel they belong to. However, as discussion ensued regarding ethnicity, participants were likely to gravitate towards a definition that was more objective and based on what was perceived to be more concrete markers of ethnicity such as ancestry and race. This trend was weaker across non-European participants.
- Most participants chose a range of themes to define ethnicity, indicating that ethnicity is a complex concept and endorses Statistics New Zealand’s definition which is multi-themed. The strongest themes were ancestry and race/ genetics.
- The term ‘New Zealander’ was generally viewed as distinct from ethnicity and was not linked to any physical characteristics. It was linked to tenure in New Zealand, affinity with New Zealand, being born in New Zealand, nationality and for a few, ancestry.
- Most participants were comfortable with the government collecting ethnicity information. There were seen to be valid reasons for seeking this data such as being used for planning purposes, policy development, helping to define New Zealand and for social research. However, some reservations were voiced regarding the collection of ethnicity information, particularly among Māori and Pacific peoples.
- Most claimed to be comfortable with an ethnicity question being included in the census. The census was viewed more positively when compared to other ways government collected information which meant that most claimed to place more emphasis on providing accurate information in the census.
- A majority were satisfied with the current format and wording of the census ethnicity question.
- When asked how they responded to the ethnicity question in the 2006 Census, most claimed to respond in the manner expected by Statistics New Zealand. The term ‘national identity’ was less clear-cut for some participants. However, perceived meanings placed it more akin to definitions of ‘New Zealander’ with it relating more to affiliation with a country which was regardless of a person’s ethnicity.
- Typologies have been developed which relate how people respond to the ethnicity question and their level of care (concern and interest) regarding their own ethnicity and how the information is used by government.
- Most participants opposed the addition of a ‘New Zealander’ code in the response list for the census ethnicity question. The key concern was that it would provide inaccurate information, making the information of limited use for key functions such as planning and policy development.
- Most participants supported having a communications campaign to encourage greater participation and accuracy when answering the census.
Disclaimer
This report was commissioned by Statistics NZ to provide findings from a qualitative study on public attitudes and understandings of ethnic identity. Every effort has been taken to ensure the information in this report is accurate. The views expressed in this paper are not necessarily the views shared by Statistics New Zealand. The information provided does not replace or alter the laws of New Zealand and other official guidelines or requirements.