One employer offered a way forward for recognising Pacific talent: I think you’d work on it at lots of levels. We run something in [company name] … which is a campaign that says difference is good and encourages people to talk about their difference and encourages people to talk about themselves, the bits of themselves that they don’t often talk about. So I can imagine that’s there’s a lot of people who are potentially showing leadership in other situations, maybe in their churches, that may not be shared normally, but if we create an environment that people can talk about their differences then in a positive way – this is what I do and this is how I do it … You just have to work more on training managers to get to know their people better and try to work out what their real strengths are … I guess it’s just improving the way because the processes sit there for people to go through these things, talk to employees, understand their potential but you’ve got to train them how to be better at them. complaints processes in place – the issue, rather, was in encouraging their use. One organisation did admit they did not yet have a policy for raising concerns but did note that people raised concerns about pay during their annual performance reviews. Another employer said that, if their workers had concerns, they were “encouraged to speak to their line managers or HR if there was an issue. Some companies have an independent telephone number that can be accessed anonymously where unethical behaviours, suspected frauds, harassment and bullying and other problematic behaviour can be reported. One organisation said that HR business partners sat with their departmental leads in different areas – the person we interviewed said: My hope would be that the person would feel comfortable raising it with their leader, then the leader had the confidence to speak with their leader, and their HR lead and working through it. Otherwise, another leader. Complaints processes were not the focus of most of our engagements with employers. Most had Pressures securing adequate funding Pacific organisations, in particular, noted the pressures they face securing adequate funding to pay their staff on par with industry norms. In health, this is attributed to the more labour-intensive and holistic approach to delivering health and care services that are culturally appropriate along with the numerous overlapping problems a Pacific client may have ( such as housing issues and food security). As the following employer working in the health sector explains, the current government funding models do not provide any additional money for cultural competency and the ability to successfully deliver services in a culturally appropriate way: It takes 12 months to get the average Pacific client well due to needing to build trust, relationships, break down cultural barriers. Takes three months to get average non-Pacific person well. But the funding for both services is the same. Furthermore, smaller organisations are obliged to take on smaller-sized contracts that may require 94 a high degree of overhead in order to meet the compliance requirements despite being of relatively low value: Small organisations have to pick up all contracts offered due to lack of funding but there is high compliance cost for each contract. This issue was raised in relation to government funding for healthcare provision. It was also raised in relation to subcontracting of construction work: We need to be focusing on government procurement of contracts and the flow-on effects to subcontractors and their workers … [large construction company] – big capitalism companies – blue collar have to squeeze every dollar out of subcontractors who are Māori and Pasifika owned companies. Māori and Pacific companies have Māori and Pasifika workers.