10 H U M A N R I G H T S COMMISSION | A FAIR GO FOR ALL? Since its establishment 15 years earlier, the department that institutional racism was far more pervasive and subtle had been concerned with high numbers of Mäori in the than personal racism. To address it, national, system-wide welfare system. The department was concerned that programmes were needed. The report also recommended poor educational and economic outcomes for Mäori led affirmative action to make structures multi-cultural in their to increased crime rates, poor life expectancy and high policies and practices. unemployment. Reviewing the Royal Commission’s impact twenty years later, The advisory committee travelled to marae around the researchers Jo Barnes and Paul Harris found it difficult to country and public service offices, meeting thousands identify direct affects on policy and practice of government of people. It concluded that the service Mäori required departments, because the scope of the reports was so broad from the Department of Social Welfare was relevant to and the recommendations were insufficiently emphasised. all government departments. Its report, Püao-te-ata-tü They concluded, however, that there had been changes in (Daybreak) was one of the first in legislation, policy and practice since the New Zealand to define what it called release of the reports that aligned with the this constant negativity around things Mäori became “institutional racism” as distinct from a barrier in itself, but also personal racism. One of the Committee’s fundamentally failed to overarching comments was that acknowledge Mäori as an “institutional racism exists within the important part of New department as it does generally through Zealand’s success.35 our national institutional structures.” The committee described the effects of institutional racism within the department as mono-cultural laws and administration of social services, whether or not intended, that give rise to practices that discriminate against Mäori. The committee recommended that the Government adopt the following objective: To attack all forms of cultural racism in New Zealand that result in the values and lifestyle of the dominant group being regarded as superior to those of other groups, especially Mäori, by: a) Providing leadership and programmes which help report’s ideals.34 In 1998, the Waitangi Tribunal reviewed the response to Püao-te-ata-tü in the Whänau o Waipareira Report. The tribunal found that although Püao-te-ata-tü recommendations were accepted by the minister of the day, the department’s commitment to their implementation had waned by the time of its restructuring in 1992. The tribunal also commented that the restructured department lacked informed commitment to Püao-te-ata-tü during its establishment phase and in its operations. Staff appreciation of the report’s meaning for their work was neither required nor encouraged.35 Persistent ethnic inequalities were again the focus of government research in 1999. The Closing the Gaps report gave an analysis of social and economic outcomes for Mäori as compared with other New Zealanders. Closing the Gaps develop a society in which the values of all groups are was adopted by the incoming Labour Government in 1999 of central importance to its enhancement; and as a policy to provide special measure social programmes for b) Incorporating the values, cultures and beliefs of the Mäori people in all policies developed for the future of New Zealand.33 Mäori and Pacific peoples. Labour’s adoption of the policy, however, faced a backlash against targeted measures to address ethnic disparities. Political backlash against Closing the Gaps was epitomised by New Zealand First leader In 1986, the Government established a Royal Commission on ,Winston Peters’, comments about the 2000 Budget. He Social Policy. The Royal Commission published an “interim” claimed that the Closing the Gaps programme “will create report in 1988 known as The April Report, following serious racial divisions – it is social apartheid”.36 The Chief extensive consultation with a wide range of communities. Executive of Te Puni Kökiri described the impact of the The scope of the report was broad, but included backlash, saying “this constant negativity around things consideration of “institutional racism”, incorporating Mäori became a barrier in itself, but also fundamentally failed definitions from Püao-te-ata-tü. The April Report found to acknowledge Mäori as an important part of New Zealand’s success.”37