Annex 3: Regional and ethnic differences
Certain groups in the population are disproportionately affected by deprivation – there is a strong correlation between ethnicity and deprivation across New Zealand. Maori comprise 14.4% of the total New Zealand population and 37.9% of the most deprived neighbourhoods. Pacific peoples comprise 4.8% of the population of New Zealand and 18.7% of the most deprived neighbourhoods. By contrast, people of European descent make up 71.7% of New Zealand’s population but only 32.5% of the most deprived neighbourhoods. Not only are Maori and Pacific peoples over represented among the most deprived neighbourhoods; in absolute terms, there are more Maori in bottom decile neighbourhoods than Europeans.
We know that at the national level Maori and Pacific peoples are over represented in deprived neighbourhoods. Is it the case that regional patterns of deprivation for Maori and Pacific peoples simply reflect this national pattern, or is there something different going on at a regional level? How do the ethnic and regional patterns relate to each other?
Figure 3 illustrates, in absolute numbers, the location and ethnicity of those in the most deprived neighbourhoods. The largest concentration of Maori in deprived neighbourhoods is in Auckland, followed by Northland, Waikato and the Bay of Plenty. Pacific peoples in deprived neighbourhoods are overwhelmingly concentrated in Auckland, with a smaller concentration also in Wellington. This reflects the fact that 65% of the total Pacific Island population live in Auckland and a further 15% in Wellington. Europeans in deprived neighbourhoods are dispersed throughout New Zealand, but again Auckland hosts the greatest number.
Figure 4 gives us the proportion of a region’s ethnic group that are in the most deprived neighbourhoods nationally. For instance, the first bar indicates that 47% of Maori in Northland live in deprived neighbourhoods. If deprivation were distributed evenly across regions and ethnic groups we would see all bars line up at the 10% mark, representing the 10% of the population in the bottom 10%. What we see is disparity between regions, as well as between ethnic groups within regions. Maori and Pacific peoples fare worse than Europeans in almost every region in New Zealand. In all North Island regions there are a disproportionately high share of Maori and Pacific peoples in bottom decile neighbourhoods. In all regions but Northland there is a disproportionately low share of European New Zealanders in bottom decile neighbourhoods.
Let us look more closely at how Maori deprivation and regional deprivation interact. 26% of the total Maori population of New Zealand are in the most deprived 10% of New Zealand neighbourhoods. In some regions this figure is a lot higher: 47% of the Maori population of Northland and 42% in Gisborne are in the bottom decile. In Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty and Hawkes Bay, Maori deprivation is also above the 26% average for Maori.
In Annex 1, however, we saw that the upper North Island regions are those that contain the highest proportions of deprivation in general. Non-Maori also fare badly in Northland and Gisborne, for instance. Is it simply the case that Maori deprivation follows the same sort of regional patterns as those of the overall population? Or is there a Maori-specific regional story?
Further analysis looking at the relative risks for Maori and European across the country indicates that the likelihood of Maori being in the lowest decile ranges between 1.5 and 7 times the likelihood that their European neighbours are in the worst decile neighbourhoods, for any region. Even if there were no regional disparities, Maori would still fare worse.
Figure 4 also indicates that in many regions Pacific peoples experience poorer outcomes than Maori. Analysing the relative risk for Pacific peoples, in the same way as we did for Maori, shows similar patterns of 1.5–7 times the European risk.[25] In Auckland however, where 65% of Pacific peoples live, the risk of living in deprived neighbourhoods is 11.2 times that of the European risk, and in Wellington, where a further 15% of Pacific peoples live, the risk is 12 times. This emphasises the importance of also focusing on the particular needs and situation of the Pacific peoples’ community, if we do choose to focus on ethnicity.
Maori, regional deprivation and land ownership
Several factors are relevant to the interaction between ethnicity and location in understanding, and addressing, Maori deprivation in rural areas. The first is that the areas of relatively high deprivation coincide with ancestral communities (or turangawaewae) and their environs. Thus 44% of the population in the East Cape region are Maori, and 30% in Northland. Secondly the age structure of Maori in rural communities in these regions is strongly skewed toward the young and the elderly (e.g. 66% of people in Wairoa under 24 are Maori). Urban drift for working age Maori appears to be continuing.
Another part of the regional picture is the simple association of relatively high levels of Maori deprivation with the appropriation of productive Maori land in the 19th century, which forced Maori onto marginal land and deprived them of an economic base. “The resulting pattern of deprivation, rooted firmly in the nineteenth century, is clearly marked on the social landscape at the beginning of the twenty-first century”[26]
Similarly the on-going levels of deprivation in rural communities may be linked to the non-performance of Maori land as an asset. The relatively small area of Maori land, its poor quality and the multiple ownership institutional framework for Maori land tenure are factors that contribute to continually low levels of economic performance. Within this bleak picture there are regional variations (over 70% of Maori freehold land in the East Cape, and Northland is in the three poorest land use capability classes). The diffusion of ownership rights constrains the ability of owners to act concertedly (there are estimated to be 1.9 million individual ownership interests for the 1.5 million hectares of Maori land, and the number of ownership interests is estimated to increase by 185,000 per annum). Over 64% of all Maori land blocks (comprising about 20% of total area of Maori land) have no formalised administrative structures.
Among Maori land practitioners there is a growing view that the tenure system, despite a major overhaul resulting in the Maori Land Act 1993, has not yet achieved a balance between protecting land from further alienation and enabling it to be used as a productive commodity.
