5. Recommendations to improve social cohesion and New Zealand’s response to our increasingly diverse population

5.1 Overview

1

Societies that are polarised around political, social, cultural, environmental, economic, ethnic or religious differences provide conditions in which radicalising ideologies develop and flourish. Social cohesion is desirable for many reasons, one of which is that it is critical to preventing the development of harmful radicalising ideologies and downstream violent extremism. We have given much thought to this. Improvements in the approach of Public sector agencies towards promoting social cohesion will make a significant contribution to the prevention of extremism and thus violent extremism.

2

In a COVID-19 Recovery environment there will be increased stress and an economic downturn, potentially increased inequalities and heightened vulnerabilities. Our recommendations are designed to assist with building a New Zealand where all people feel recognised, respected and accepted, free from prejudice and discrimination and have the resources, skills and knowledge to meaningfully participate in decision-making processes.

3

New Zealand has seen considerable social change in recent decades. Successive governments have recognised Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a founding document of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. The Waitangi Tribunal established in 1975 provides an avenue for historical and contemporary claims under Te Tiriti o Waitangi to be considered. Specific laws include recognition of the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Case law has also provided recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in decision-making processes. Te Arawhiti, a departmental agency of the Ministry of Justice, was established to ensure that the Crown meets its Tiriti o Waitangi settlement commitments. The Public Service Act recognises the role of the Public sector to support the Crown in its relationships with Māori under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The next step will be to see government action that focuses on upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

4

Government leadership is now also required to drive a social shift to see New Zealand society embrace the opportunities that social cohesion and New Zealand’s changing demographics bring.

5.2 Strong government leadership and direction are required

5

Coherent leadership at both ministerial and departmental levels is required. It was not clear before 15 March 2019 which minister or Public sector agency provided oversight. In September 2019 Cabinet identified that the minister for social development and the Ministry of Social Development were best placed to coordinate and lead government action on social inclusion.

6

In November 2020 a new ministerial portfolio (outside Cabinet) was created for diversity, inclusion and ethnic communities. However, we see the issues of social cohesion, social inclusion and diversity as involving all New Zealanders not just its ethnic communities. Strong policy support will be required to deliver on these initiatives. As outlined we do not see the Office of Ethnic Communities, as presently organised and funded, having the capability required to support a policy work programme relating to social cohesion and inclusion.

7

While there is much government activity, there is a need for a purposeful and overarching strategy that can define what government is trying to achieve, identify what actions are being undertaken and areas for improvement. A draft framework has been developed to bring a common understanding, vision and outcomes for social inclusion across government. A monitoring and evaluation regime is being scoped. Public discussion about the draft framework with a targeted group of stakeholders is planned.

8

Missing from these positive developments are the voices of communities, civil society, local government and the private sector. We recommend a national dialogue on social cohesion, including social inclusion, to inform the development of a framework and monitoring and evaluation regime. We expect the government to collaborate with communities, civil society, local government and the private sector in developing its overarching framework and monitoring and evaluation regime and to have an ongoing role in this area of work.

9

The Office of Ethnic Communities is the government’s principal advisor on ethnic communities in New Zealand. In that role, it must look forward and provide advice about future challenges and opportunities New Zealand faces. We would expect to see a high performing Office of Ethnic Communities excelling in not only providing support and services to ethnic communities, but also acting as an influencer within the Public sector by demonstrating an ability to help shape well-informed policies that recognise the needs of ethnic communities.

10

The Office of Ethnic Communities has been unable to effectively fulfil these functions, and has been repeatedly recognised as underperforming. Despite being restructured in 2014, and again in 2016, its effectiveness has been significantly hampered by its limited resources. Its influence, visibility and standing in the Public sector were limited. The current organisational form is impacting on its effectiveness and should be changed.

11

We considered recommending that the Office of Ethnic Communities should be replaced by a new Public service department. The government may wish to consider this option, along with other machinery of government options as provided for in the Public Service Act 2020. Deciding the optimal organisational form would be best worked through by Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission in conjunction with relevant Public sector agencies. We do not therefore offer a prescriptive recommendation. We focus our recommendations on the capability required for an agency focused on ethnic communities and multiculturalism to be effective rather than its form.

12

The responsible Public sector agency needs to be able to achieve excellence in:

1. promoting the wellbeing of ethnic communities by providing advice to the Public sector and the government about challenges and priorities, including strategic advice that relates to medium to long term trends in factors that affect wellbeing in ethnic communities;
2. collating and using data to analyse, monitor and evaluate where Public sector efforts could increase the wellbeing of ethnic communities, what those efforts should look like, and how they should be prioritised; and
3. leading the development and dissemination of an evaluation framework that incorporates performance indicators to monitor and evaluate the impact and effectiveness of government policies and programmes on the wellbeing of ethnic communities.

5.3 Engaged and accountable government decision-making

Data analysis, monitoring and evaluation

13

To build social inclusion in a rapidly diversifying society, Public sector agencies need to be able to collect the right data on New Zealand’s population to enable analysis of the implications of New Zealand’s changing ethnic and religious demographics and the development of appropriate policy responses.

14

Such data is also required to explain the benefits and impacts of these demographic changes on society. It will provide an evidence base to understand the important linkages between social cohesion, social inclusion and diversity on the one hand, and wellbeing and economic and business prosperity on the other. These linkages must inform policy decisions across the Public sector. They are complex and critical to New Zealand’s future success as a nation. This criticality is partly a result of our small population and geographic isolation. Diversity can bring the people-to-people connections within and outside New Zealand that drive innovation, trade and investment.

15

The collection and analysis of data will require people with the skills, influence and resources to shape social and economic policy across the Public sector so that it promotes policies that advance social cohesion in a rapidly diversifying society.

16

Cabinet has agreed that social inclusion will be included as a goal in the government’s planning for the post COVID-19 Recovery and a social inclusion framework is being developed. Work is also underway on exploring measures and indicators of social inclusion. This work is being undertaken alongside other existing measurement frameworks, including the Living Standards Framework. It is important that this work encompasses social cohesion indicators, is prioritised and gains and maintains momentum.

17

More evaluation of the effectiveness of government policies and programmes is necessary. New Zealand academic research points out that the lack of evaluation inhibits the adaptation of national policies as society changes. It also lays government open to the “unthinking perpetuation of policies, pushing problems on to future generations”.⁵ The problem was highlighted in a report by the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, who concluded that “the quality of assessment and evaluation of policy implementation is quite variable. The required scrutiny can be devalued by agencies that assume their primary mandate is to implement political decisions. As a result, funding for evaluation is frequently trimmed or diverted.”⁶ This systemic deficiency has been periodically recognised, but various attempts to improve the situation have come to little. The resistance to independent evaluation seems entrenched in the incentives of the public management system.

18

Independent evaluation will mean better informed decisions and ensure that the benefits of government policies and programmes can be shared equitably.⁷ In particular, Public sector agencies must also ensure that the implementation of policies and delivery of services impacting ethnic communities are monitored and evaluated. Evaluation is critical to understand the impacts of policies over the medium and long term and to improve public services.

Workforce diversity and cultural competency

19

Overall the New Zealand Public service is diversifying and this must continue to be a priority for all Public sector agencies. As at June 2019 the demographics of the total Public service largely reflected those of the New Zealand population. However, the position is different in respect of Public sector chief executives and those in senior leadership positions (first, second and third tiers) and Public sector agencies involved in the counter-terrorism effort, where workforce diversity figures are low. This should be a continuing focus for the Public Service Commissioner and the chief executives of the Public sector agencies involved in the counter-terrorism effort. The Advisory Group on Counter-terrorism would be well placed to provide advice and assistance to the chief executives.

20

The new Public Service Act provides mechanisms that will focus attention on the Public sector’s workforce capacity and capability. The Act outlines the principle that the group comprising all Public service employees should reflect the make-up of society and requires the Public Service Commissioner to work with Public sector chief executives to develop a highly capable workforce that reflects the diversity of the society it serves. It also requires the Public Service Commissioner to provide a briefing to the minister for the public service on workforce issues every three years. These briefings must be tabled in the House of Representatives. The Public Service Act also enables the Public Service Commissioner to develop advice and guidance on workforce matters that can target relevant Public sector agencies.

21

Papa Pounamu (outlined in Part 9, chapter 3) is a worthwhile venture that must continue to drive improving the Public sector’s workforce diversity. There are now mandatory requirements for Public sector agencies to plan and report on diversity including the five Papa Pounamu workforce diversity priority commitments. This will provide transparency regarding the actions the Public sector leadership is taking and help identify areas for improvement. This is a major shift and will support the Public sector workforce to have the competencies to engage with communities. While work is underway, more could be done to boost these efforts.

22

Current requirements focus on the individual agencies with a three-yearly report provided by the Public Service Commissioner to the minister. What is missing is an overarching publicly available annual report that provides a comprehensive view of progress by Public sector agencies involved in the counter-terrorism effort on the Papa Pounamu commitments. Independent annual reports that provide a comprehensive view on all Public sector agencies’ progress would be valuable too.

Diversity and education

23

New Zealand’s education system provides an opportunity to empower children and young people by providing them with skills to understand diversity, consider more inclusive approaches and self-regulate. Education can also provide young people with the skills to participate in society more effectively which contributes to social cohesion. This should remain a priority for New Zealand’s early childhood and education system.

24

For younger members of society, schooling is an important way to increase knowledge and understanding of New Zealand’s history, culture, diversity and its future opportunities. We know that our young people take new knowledge and information back into their whānau and communities and have conversations with them – as has been seen in community conversations on the use of plastics and climate change. For young and older members of whānau and communities, those previously challenging conversations are becoming more familiar.

25

As New Zealand looks ahead there is an opportunity to build and enhance our social infrastructure and resilience in the same way that physical infrastructure is being invested in. There is a strong case for increased focus on teaching the benefits of diversity and social inclusion.

5.4 We all have a role in making New Zealand safe and inclusive

Conversations about ethnic and religious diversity

26

Public conversations about embracing diversity and encouraging social cohesion should be led by political leaders and the government. There should be transparent conversations where information is available to everyone. These conversations need to include all communities – across the length and breadth of the country, both rural and urban. Enduring change will take time and investment, so these conversations will need to be ongoing.

Improved community engagement across the Public sector

27

Building social cohesion and social inclusion requires ongoing collaboration. Public sector agencies developing social cohesion and social inclusion policies and programmes should collaborate with communities in developing these policies and programmes. Communities play a pivotal role in building and maintaining social cohesion. This is especially true of community leaders, as they build a sense of identity and validate people’s collective understanding of shared social norms and experiences. We recommend greater focus on empowering communities to participate in central and local government decision-making processes.

28

Public sector agencies need to increase their engagement capability and ensure that all communities have opportunities to contribute to the development of services, policies and practices that affect them. There needs to be a shift from simply communicating with communities to genuinely engaging in an open, inclusive and transparent way. The default Public sector agencies’ practice for community engagement needs to shift away from the inform and consult end of the International Association for Public Participation IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum, to more of a focus on involved, collaborative and empowering engagement. This is consistent with the commitments New Zealand has made to have “a government that is open, inclusive and responsive and citizens who willingly get involved in issues that are important to them.”⁸

29

This will require greater upfront time and resources from Public sector agencies but will lead to sustainable solutions that better meet the needs of and serve communities. These approaches to engagement will also help to build communities’ trust and confidence in Public sector agencies, as their success relies on relationships being built and maintained, rather than one-off, transactional engagement.

30

It is important that Public sector agencies are able to communicate why the level of engagement they are undertaking is appropriate in the circumstances. This will improve the quality of community engagement and policy decisions to be taken, help communities to understand the degree of influence they have in a decision-making process, and provide the transparency needed to build trust and confidence.

5.5 Fit for purpose laws and policies

31

An inclusive society must act against behaviours that are harmful and divisive. This requires unacceptable behaviour to be called out and, in certain circumstances, criminalised.

32

New Zealand’s legal system does not adequately deal with hate crime and hate speech. The current laws do not appropriately recognise the culpability of hate-motivated offending, nor do they provide a workable mechanism to deal with hate speech. Change is required to both the law and New Zealand Police practice (Part 9, chapter 4).

33

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (United Kingdom) provides a useful example of legislation that sees hate-motivated offences result in much higher penalties than for the underlying offences and ensures the appropriate recording of these offences.

34

This could be achieved in New Zealand by amending sections 4 (offensive behaviour or language), 9 and 10 (assault), 11 (wilful damage) and 21 (intimidation) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 and sections 188–194, 196–197 and 202C (assaults), 267 (arson) and 269 (intentional damage) of the Crimes Act 1961 to reflect the additional culpability of hate-motivated offending.

35

Section 131 of the Human Rights Act 1993, which criminalises certain types of hate speech, is not fit for purpose. The section as written unacceptably impinges on the right of freedom of expression. The words “excite hostility against or bring into contempt” set a low liability threshold. Accordingly it has invited rewriting by the courts, but in a way that has resulted in considerable uncertainty. More generally it does not provide a credible foundation for prosecution.

36

We propose a reframed offence that more accurately targets behaviour warranting criminal prosecution and that encompasses hate speech directed at religious affiliation.

37

This offence should be included in the Crimes Act, rather than the Human Rights Act, to reflect the seriousness of the offence and increase the resulting penalty. It should be reframed to focus on stirring up or provoking hatred against a group of persons defined by protected characteristics, which should include religious affiliation.

38

Sharpening the focus of the section 131 offence would mean that the offence would not discharge New Zealand’s obligations under article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Substantial compliance could be achieved if the definition of “objectionable” in section 3 of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 was amended to include racial superiority, racial hatred and racial discrimination. 

39

In our discussions with communities we heard many stories of the lack of data about hate-motivated offences and harmful behaviour.

40

Over the last two years, New Zealand Police have made progress in improving their records in relation to hate-motivated offending and work on this is continuing. There are, however, still some shortcomings that could be addressed by further improvements to recording systems and additional training.

----------

_{5. New Zealand National Integrity System Assessment – 2018 update page 166 https://www.transparency.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/National-Integrity-System-Assessment-2018-update-full-report.pdf.}

_{6. Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee The role of evidence in policy formation and implementation (September 2013) https://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/The-role-of-evidence-in-policy-formation-and-implementation-report.pdf.}

_{7. RF Inglehart and P Norris Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural backlash (2016).}

_{8. Open Government Partnership New Zealand National Action Plan 2018-2020 (2018).}