Introduction

Background to the report
Purposes of the report
Indicators used in the report
Organisation of the report
About the data

Return to Mapping inequalities Contents menu

Background to the Report

On 30 May 2000, the Cabinet Committee on Closing the Gaps considered the report Progress Towards Closing the Social and Economic Gaps Between Māori and Non-Māori to the Minister of Māori Affairs. That report, known as the Te Puni Kokiri report, provided information on Māori and non-Māori across a range of social and economic sectors: education, employment, health, housing, income, and criminal justice. It drew on a selection of indicators used to measure the status of Māori for each of those sectors.

While the overall disparities between Māori and non-Māori were obvious and significant, Ministers wanted clarification on whether the findings of the Te Puni Kokiri report represented the "average” experience of those two groups. In particular, did the outcomes experienced by Māori adequately reflect the typical experiences of both Māori men and Māori women?

In order to gain more clarity on the nature of the disparities between Māori and non-Māori, and the inter-relationships between Māori women, Māori men, non-Māori women, and non-Māori men, Cabinet agreed that:

the Ministry of Women's Affairs (lead), in consultation with relevant agencies, report back to the Cabinet Committee on Closing the Gaps by the end of June 2000 on a gender analysis of gaps in education, employment, health, housing and criminal justice.

A paper was developed responding to that directive. In particular, it identified that further work needed to be undertaken to provide a fuller review of the disparities that exist between Māori women, Māori men, non-Māori women, and non-Māori men across the five sectors. On 23 August 2000, the Cabinet Committee on Closing the Gaps (GAP) then directed the Ministry of Women's Affairs:

• to report back to GAP with an agreed set of gender disparity indicators for each of the five sectors by the end of September 2000; and
• to submit a gender disparity report to GAP by the end of February 2001, that reports on disparities between Māori women, Māori men, non-Māori women, and non-Māori men for the education, employment, health, housing, and criminal justice sectors [GAP (00) M 14/1 refers].

In response to the first directive, on 6 December 2000, GAP agreed to a set of indicators to be used as the basis for this report. Indicators for an additional sector, income, were included to provide greater consistency with the Te Puni Kokiri report. The selected indicators were designed to produce information which, in conjunction with analysis and research, would provide a more comprehensive picture of disparities.

This report responds to the second directive.

Back to top

Purposes of the Report

The two main purposes of the Report are to:

1. Identify the disparities that exist between Māori women, Māori men, non-Māori women, and non-Māori men across the sectors of education, employment, income, health, housing, and criminal justice, using a selection of indicators.
2. Analyse the status of Māori women and girls, both relative to other groups, and against progress towards achieving the Government's outcomes for women. As acknowledged by Cabinet on 11 December 2000, these outcomes are:
   • equity, opportunity and choice;
   • full and active participation;
   • adequate resources;
   • no discrimination; and,
   • a society that values the contribution of women.

The data and information in this report are a tool to assist agencies to undertake gender analysis as it applies to Māori women and their roles within whānau, hapū, iwi and Māori society.

In addition, the findings of the Report can act as a resource to inform further sector-specific work in each of the sectors, to consider cross-sectoral issues that exist, and to help identify the areas in each sector requiring further research. It is not intended to make recommendations for specific interventions. Rather, by presenting a broad range of indicators, data and commentary, the report provides a foundation for further work to be done.

This Report assembles existing sources of statistical and non-statistical information in order to describe the positions of all four groups in relation to the six sectors, and identify where outcomes may be improved. Data has identified where outcomes may be improved. It is intended that the data will assist other agencies to improve the effectiveness of policy advice.

The indicators used in this Report have been selected to identify the basic socio-economic disparities between the four groups, highlighting the position of Māori women. They build up a picture of the outcomes for Māori women across the six sectors, in comparison with the outcomes for Māori men, non-Māori women and non-Māori men.

The indicators and most of the associated data in this report are based on populations of individuals, rather than whānau, hapū or iwi. It also needs to be acknowledged that indicators do not necessarily show or represent the experience of the whole population of Māori, and of Māori women in particular. The use of aggregates, such as averages, medians and rates, tends to obscure the point that the experiences of Māori women are diverse, both from one another and from Māori men. Those diverse experiences are related to factors such as age, location, education and income. This can mean that the experiences of some Māori women are more like those of women of other ethnic groups who share similar socio-economic characteristics, than those of other Māori women who do not. Accordingly, policy responses need to take into account relevant variances in Māori women's experiences and needs.

The chosen sectors do not represent all available sectors, and the selected indicators do not represent all possible indicators. The indicators and most of the associated data are based on populations of individuals, rather than families, whānau or communities. Therefore care should be taken in interpreting this Report, particularly in terms of the limited breadth of experience it covers and it does not provide a full picture of Māori women's aspirations and successes. It is not intended to be used to represent the totality of the experience of Māori communities and Māori society. Rather, the Report has been compiled to assist government agencies to be more responsive to Māori women and to develop approaches and solutions in partnership with Māori women that support the Crown's Treaty of Waitangi principles of partnership, participation and protection. A partnership approach is also required where agencies engage with Māori women and with Māori women's initiatives that are successful.

Back to top

Indicators Used in the Report

An initial list of statistical indicators was drawn up, based on the indicators presented in the Te Puni Kokiri report. The selection process also drew on the 1999 report Māori Women in Focus, jointly produced by the Ministry of Women's Affairs and Te Puni Kokiri. Māori Women in Focus gives an overview of the key issues affecting Māori women's lives in terms of demographic trends, family formation, education and training, work, and income. It presents data based primarily on the disparities between Māori women and non-Māori women.

To ensure that the final set of indicators would help to provide a high level picture of key areas of disparity, the following selection criteria were developed:

Disaggregation	All data was available disaggregated by sex, ethnicity and, where possible, by age.
Relevance	Indicators should support government's outcomes and goals, and be a priority area of concern or importance in the relevant sector.  Measuring ability  Indicators should be able to measure the level of disparities or "gap" between Māori women/girls, Māori men/boys, non-Māori women/girls and non-Māori men/boys. If possible, they should also measure trends within the Māori population.
Clarity	Indicators should be simple, easy to use and understand and unambiguous.
Technical soundness	Data should be available, reliable, timely and, where possible, age-standardised.
Consistency	Indicators should be consistent with those used in the relevant sector and/or used internationally.

From the initial list, the Ministry of Women's Affairs, along with the lead agencies in each of the six sectors, assembled a basic set of indicators which would meet the selection criteria and would illustrate social and economic outcomes for Māori and non-Māori women and men in each sector. Officials identified additional relevant gender indicators for each sector. Part of the selection process was based on work that agencies had already done on gender issues.

For each indicator, the lead sector agency then collated the most recent data available and, where possible, time series data. The section "About the Data", below, discusses the indicators and the statistical data on which they are based in more detail. It identifies issues related to the data, such as methods of defining ethnicity, and notes where caution is required in interpreting the findings.

Back to top

Organisation of the Report

Six chapters cover the sectors of education, employment, income, health, housing and criminal justice. Each chapter:

• identifies the relevant indicators
• sets out the position of Māori women, providing a set of benchmarks for the future
• describes the disparities between Māori women, non-Māori women, Māori men and non-Māori men
• discusses the findings.

The final chapter, Conclusions, considers inter-sectoral issues, sums up the main findings for each sector, and sets out some key areas where further work is needed. The information gathered in the Report provides a strong indication that there are still considerable policy gaps needing to be addressed to overcome barriers and promote opportunities for Māori women. Innovative thinking, involving Māori women, and considering issues in an inter-sectoral context, rather than confined to one sector, is required.

Gender analysis
Analysing disparities by gender as well as by ethnicity recognises that the average experience of Māori may not fully represent the experience of different groups of Māori. A variety of benchmarks has been used to assess the extent of differences or "gaps" between Māori women and girls, and others. These include comparisons with Māori men and with non-Māori women and men, as well as with population averages or overall rates as appropriate. This approach supports the original purpose for this report, that is, to examine whether the disparities between Māori and non-Māori affect Māori women and Māori men differently.

A consequence of this approach is a greater reliance on the analytical process to provide a preliminary assessment of the extent and nature of the disparities between Māori women and girls, and others. Indicators in themselves cannot offer any explanation as to how or why the disparities come about. Supplementary data, where this is available, together with existing research and analysis, has therefore been used to build the description and analysis accompanying each set of indicators, in order to give a more detailed understanding of the experience of Māori women and girls in relation to other groups.

This is a key difference from the report Māori Women in Focus, which gave an overview of key issues affecting Māori women's lives using primarily statistical information. The use of additional information enables matters such as inter-sectoral links, any weaknesses in the set of indicators, and cultural factors to be considered. In addition, Māori Women in Focus did not compare Māori and non-Māori women with Māori and non-Māori men to provide a gender analysis.

About the data

General issues
Ethnicity
Population
Rates
Age standardisation
Income disparities

General issues
This report uses a combination of indicators, supporting table data, and existing documented research and analysis to present a picture about Māori women and where they stand in relation to Māori men, non-Māori women and non-Māori men.

The data and supporting table data for each indicator has been created from a mixture of administrative and survey data supplied by Statistics New Zealand (SNZ) and sector agencies such as the Ministry of Justice, Department for Courts, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Education. Additional data was also supplied by the National Collective of Independent Women's Refuges and by Environmental Science and Research Ltd.

As the first part of the Introduction explains, indicators for each sector were selected by developing a set of selection criteria, and in conjunction with relevant sector agencies, applying this to an initial set of indicators. The criteria adopted for selecting the indicators were that the data should be able to be disaggregated, be relevant, measurable, clear and unambiguous, technically sound, and consistent. However, it was found that in practice there were cases where indicators could not meet all these criteria. As a result, the initial list of indicators agreed to by the Cabinet Committee on Closing the Gaps has had to be modified in some cases.

Furthermore, in the process of collating the information, it became clear that the existence of high quality, readily available, and reliable information disaggregated by sex and ethnicity varied considerably across each of the six sectors and subsequently across the set of proposed indicators. Data disaggregated to this level increases the risk of "statistical noise" associated with small sample sizes, which may affect the reliability of the data. These factors made it difficult in some cases to go far beyond the average experience for each of the four groups in order to analysis disparities by, for example, age group or location.

Wherever possible, time series data have been used in order to discern trends over time. Using time series also avoids the situation where data from one period may not be representative of the typical situation (for example, due to sample or non-sample error). Use of time series data for the Health chapter was limited by a change to the way ethnic information is collected. Caution should be exercised when interpreting the information from this chapter, as results may reflect atypical situations rather than the norm or trend.

Many of the indicators used rely on data that is based on individuals only, and do not take account of differing family, household and whānau circumstances. For example, over 50% of all Māori women aged 16 and over have dependent children, compared with only 28% of non-Māori women. One in three live in a shared household, compared with fewer than one in six non-Māori women. These issues are addressed in each chapter and in the Conclusions.

Back to top

Ethnicity
Ethnicity refers to the ethnic group(s) people identify with. SNZ defines an ethnic group as a social group whose members:

• Share a sense of common origins
• Claim a common and distinctive history and destiny
• Possess one or more dimensions of collective cultural individuality; and
• Feel a sense of unique collective solidarity.

The general principle is that ethnicity should be self-defined. In reality, however, this standard is not always applied. This is particularly an issue for administrative data, where issues include the relevance of the concepts, incomplete coverage of the populations of policy interest, inconsistencies in the data over time, duplication of records, non-response, and difficulties in accessing the data.

This report mainly uses ethnic data categorised according to the Standard Classification of Ethnicity. See Statistics New Zealand, New Zealand Standard Classification of Ethnicity 1993, Statistics NZ, 1993. It should be noted that Statistics New Zealand is currently reviewing this standard classification. This means that individuals may choose up to three (or more) ethnic groups. For output purposes, the three choices are generally priority grouped as follows: those choosing Māori and any other ethnic group(s) are output to "Māori", those choosing Pacific and any other ethnic group(s) other than Māori are output to "Pacific Peoples", and so on. The group defined as Māori therefore includes all those who chose Māori as one of their three ethnic groups. The main alternative to outputting in this manner is to output accordingly to the groupings supplied by respondents. For example, Māori, Māori and Pacific, Māori Pacific and European/Pakeha. Use of the priority system may deflate the disparities found in comparison to use of the sole Māori grouping.

For consistency with the Te Puni Kokiri report, data regarding Pacific peoples has generally been incorporated in the "non-Māori" group. However, it is important to note that the inclusion of data relating to Pacific peoples in the non-Māori population may also deflate the size of disparities found between Māori and non-Māori. This is generally because the experiences of Pacific peoples are often more similar to the experiences of Māori than to those of other non-Māori. However, given that Pacific peoples form a relatively small proportion of the non-Māori population, the extent to which disparities between Māori and non-Māori may be deflated is relatively small.

Back to top

Population
The 1996 Census gave the total usually resident New Zealand population aged 15 and over as 2,786,220. Māori women were 6.4% of this population (based on those who specified an ethnicity), and Māori men were 5.9%. Māori women were 12.3% of all women aged 15 and over. Māori men were 12.2% of all men aged 15 and over.

Population figures for census and inter-censal years are prepared by SNZ using information from births and deaths registrations, migration cards, and the Post-Enumeration Survey. The Post-Enumeration Survey attempts to account for those who were not counted in the main Population Census. Typically, those not counted in the main survey are younger males (because they are more mobile). This factor particularly affects the Māori population, because of their younger age structure. However, migration cards do not capture information on the ethnicity of those leaving or arriving in the country. This means it is problematic to prepare inter-censal estimates of the population by ethnic group, specifically, the Māori ethnic group.

At the time of the 1996 Census, the Māori population appeared to increase by 20%, whereas SNZ estimated an inter-censal increase of 15-16% (taking the Post-Enumeration Survey results into account). This meant that 4-5% of the inter-censal growth in the Māori population was unaccounted for. Two reasons have been suggested for this discrepancy:

• Changes to the question format for the 1996 Census, which may have encouraged more people to answer the question according to descent rather than ethnicity.
• There may have been a general shift in response whereby people are more inclined to identify with the Māori ethnic group.

SNZ have produced population estimates based solely on the 1996 Census and back-cast to 1991, using birth and death registrations, migration cards, and Post-Enumeration Survey results. This series has also been forward-cast to 1999, using "best estimates" of migration. SNZ recommend using this series (available on the SNZ web site) for inter-censal population estimates of Māori, non-Māori and total population. This is the series that has been used for population denominators, wherever required, in this report.

The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health are averse to using SNZ inter-censal population estimates, because of the discrepancies outlined above. However, the series based solely on the 1996 Census results appear to answer these criticisms, and the advantages were deemed to outweigh the disadvantages for the purposes of this report.

Back to top

Rates
Most of the measures for the indicators in this report use either within survey population figures or population figures from the series based on the 1996 Census for denominators, in order to create rates. This approach enables the extent of over-representation or under-representation of Māori women to be known. It also avoids situations where an indicator measure appears to increase (or decrease) simply because the underlying population has increased (or decreased).

In applying this methodology to administrative data, it has been assumed that the numerator ethnic data is collected and categorised according to the Standard Classification of Ethnicity and output according to the priority system outlined previously (ie is the same as the denominator). In practice, administrative ethnic data may not be collected through self identification or only one ethnic group may be collected. Mis-matches between the numerator and the denominator can affect the validity of the rates.

Back to top

Age standardisation
The Māori population is much younger than the non-Māori population. The median age for Māori females is 22.2, compared with 35 for non-Māori females. This can affect comparisons between Māori and other population groups. For example, young people are more likely to be unemployed, and if relatively more of the Māori population is younger, then Māori unemployment rates could appear to be higher than otherwise might be the case, simply because of their younger age structure.

To offset the effects of the differing age structures, the indicator measures are based, where possible, on data that is either age standardised, or disaggregated by age. Both means have been used in this report where appropriate and where standardised data is available or able to be calculated. It should be noted that age standardisation is necessary only where prevalence is strongly related to age.

There is no one "correct" methodology for age standardising data. The principle used in this report has been to age standardise to the denominator population of the rate. Other standardisation issues relating to specific chapters are as follows:

• Employment data has been standardised to the within survey total population. The age groupings are; 15-24, 25-44, 45-64, 65+.
• Personal income and earnings data has been standardised as for employment data.
• Household income data has been equivalised using Luxembourg Income Study methodology The square root of the number of people in the household is used as the equivalence scale.
• Health data has been standardised to the world adult population using Segi's international formulae for the standardisation of health data.
• Housing data has not been age-standardised because the housing indicators relate to a house rather than an individual.
• Criminal justice data has been standardised to the inter-censal total population estimates. The age groupings are; 15-24, 24-44, 45+.
  

Back to top

Income disparities
Like the differing age structures of the Māori and non-Māori populations, there are also consistent disparities in Māori and non-Māori income structures that need to be taken into account in order to understand differences between the two populations. For example, a low income can affect a Māori individual's or Māori family's ability to enter home ownership or access health services.

In this Report, the indicators do not systematically control for income levels in presenting disparity data. In many instances, such analysis is not possible, because of lack of available income data or problems of reliability associated with disaggregated data by ethnicity, sex and income levels.

However, one chapter in the Report focuses on income and also considers the inter-relationship between income, education and employment. The Health chapter references Ministry of Health research using the NZDEP96 index of deprivation, which has been used as a proxy for socioeconomic status, and notes that this explains some but not all, of the differences between Māori and non-Māori in terms of health. In addition, one of the indicators in the housing chapter relating to housing affordability provides some information on the effects of income on housing.

Back to top

[ Previous | Contents | Next ]