At the time of the 2001 Census, 231,801 people in New Zealand were of Pacific ethnicity, making Pacific peoples 6.2% of the country’s population. Of this group, almost half were Samoan (115,017). The next largest groups were Cook Island Māori (52,569), Tongan (40,716), Niuean (20,148), Fijian (7,014), Tokelauan (6,204), and Tuvalu Islander (1,965).[i] Like the Māori population, the population of Pacific peoples is relatively youthful. In 2001, the median age of people of Pacific ethnicity was 21 years, compared with the median age for the nation of 35 years.[ii] Pacific peoples will become an increasingly large portion of the New Zealand labour force in the future. Currently, they represent 5.0% of the labour force.[iii]

 

Labour Force Participation

Labour force participation rate for Pacific peoples is 62.1%. This figure represents the proportion of Pacific peoples of working age who are able and willing to work for pay. This overall participation rate for people of Pacific ethnicity has fluctuated somewhat over the past decade or so. In June 1990, the rate was close to the present rate, standing at 63.0%. However, it dropped several points to just below 60.0% in the mid-1990s before progressively moving upwards since then.

For Pacific men, the current participation rate is 69.9%. This represents a considerable decline from the early 1990s. For example, in June 1990, the participation rate for Pacific men stood at 75.5%. This decline is specific to Pacific men and it can be explained by changes that occurred in the manufacturing sector in the mid-1990s. In contrast, the participation rate for Pacific women has not experienced major fluctuations over time. It presently stands at 54.5%. Overall, the current participation rates for people of Pacific ethnicity are relatively low. Across all men in New Zealand regardless of ethnicity, the participation rate is 74.1%. Across all women, it is 59.0%.[iv] Compared with other ethnic groups, Pacific peoples are also less likely to participate in part-time work. In June 2003, among all people earning income from salary and wages, 25.4% were in part-time employment. However, among Pacific peoples in employment, only 15.7% were employed in this way.[v] This difference in part-time employment is consistent with the generally lower participation rate among Pacific women compared with other women. As we noted earlier, women comprise 72.4% of New Zealand’s part-time labour force.

In seeking to explain the tendency for Pacific peoples – and Pacific women in particular – to participate in the labour force at relatively low levels, we offer two explanations. Both concern engagement in unpaid work in the household. First, Pacific people tend to have more children than do others. In 2001, 33.0% of Pacific children were living in families that included four or more dependent children. In contrast, across the nation, 16.0% of children were living in such families. Further, for both cultural and economic reasons, people of Pacific ethnicity tend to live in households that include members of the extended family. In 2001, 28.0% of Pacific peoples were living in households that had seven or more usual residents, while only 5.0% of the total New Zealand population were living in households of that size.[vi] The tendency for Pacific households to be large and to include extended family members results in a greater proportion of adult time being spent raising children and looking after ill, elderly, or disabled family members. In 2001, 38.0% of adults of Pacific ethnicity compared with 30.0% of all New Zealand adults reported spending time looking after a child in their household. In addition, 12.0% of Pacific adults reported caring for an ill or disabled person at home, compared with 7.0% of adults in the whole New Zealand population.[vii] Therefore, while members of households in any culture must determine the trade-off to be made between paid work in the labour force and unpaid work in the household, for Pacific peoples, the needs of the household often dominate. Judging by labour force participation rates, it is clear that these trade-offs have resulted in a tendency for people of Pacific ethnicity, and especially Pacific women, to be under-represented in the paid labour force.

Like Māori, Pacific peoples experience much higher unemployment than do Europeans/Pakeha. In June 2003, the unemployment rate across the whole of New Zealand’s working-age population stood at 5.0%. But for people of Pacific ethnicity, the rate was 8.2% – over twice the rate of 3.7% for Europeans/Pakeha. Again, like Māori, Pacific peoples experienced much higher rates of unemployment in the early 1990s, when the economy was going through a period of restructuring. In June 1992, the rate for people of Pacific ethnicity was 28.0%, higher than the rate of 25.9% for Māori at that time. For Pacific men, the rate then was 30.1%, while for Pacific women it was 25.2%. The rate for the whole country at that time was 10.6%. Since 1992, the unemployment rate for Pacific peoples has progressively fallen. But, again like Māori, people of Pacific ethnicity are more susceptible than other groups to adverse economic conditions because of their over-representation within low-skilled occupations.


Participation by Industry

During the peak years of Pacific labour migration to New Zealand in the 1960s and early 1970s, Pacific peoples filled labour shortages in the country’s manufacturing sector. That historical process created a sustained and prominent legacy. In 2001, 22.7% of Pacific peoples in paid employment worked in manufacturing. For Pacific men, the figure was 29.4%, for Pacific women, it was 14.9%. Overall, people of Pacific ethnicity comprised 7.9% of the work force in the manufacturing sector, even though they comprised just 5.0% of the national labour force.[viii] Looking back to 1991, we find that there was even more concentration of people of Pacific ethnicity in manufacturing at that time. Of Pacific peoples in paid employment in 1991, 36.1% were employed in manufacturing. For Pacific men, the figure was 43.6%, for Pacific women it was 26.5%.[ix] Therefore, while Pacific peoples are over-represented in manufacturing, we can see that there has been a movement over the past decade or so, whereby people of Pacific ethnicity are beginning to migrate from manufacturing work into work in other sectors of the economy.[x]

Figure 4.18 shows the representation of Pacific peoples across industrial sectors. The over-representation of people of Pacific ethnicity in manufacturing compares with slight levels of over-representation in three other sectors of the economy. These are: Communication services, where, in 2001, Pacific peoples made up 7.1% of the labour force, accommodation, cafes, and restaurants, where they comprised 5.8% of the labour force, and transport and storage, where they comprised 5.3%. Pacific peoples were most under-represented in mining (1.0% of the labour force), agriculture, forestry, and fishing (1.5%), electricity, gas, and water supply (2.4%), and education (2.8%). They were also under-represented, but to a lesser degree in such sectors as property and business services (3.6%), health and community services (3.9%), finance and insurance (4.1%), and government administration and defence (4.6%).

Occupations, Earnings, and Education

Figure 4.19 presents data from the 2001 Census concerning the representation of Pacific peoples within occupational groupings. Consistent with the evidence that Pacific peoples are concentrated in manufacturing, the figure shows that Pacific peoples, like Māori, are significantly over-represented in two occupational groupings. These are elementary occupations (9.4%) and plant and machine operators and assemblers (9.0%). Both of these are relatively low paid occupational groupings. Again, reflecting this historical pattern, people of Pacific ethnicity are under-represented in four occupational groupings. The first is agricultural and fisheries workers (1.6%). The other three are occupational groupings that tend to require high levels of education and training. They are legislators, administrators and managers (1.7%), professional (2.2%), and technicians and associate professionals (3.3%).[xi]

Figure 4.18: Pacific Peoples Proportion of Labour Force by Industry, 2001

Data Source: Authors’ calculations based on Statistics New Zealand 2001 Census, Table 27.


Comparing these figures with those for 1991, we find that as the presence of Pacific peoples in the labour force has increased, there has been a degree of diversification away from the manufacturing-related occupations. While Pacific peoples now comprise 5.0% of the labour force, in 1991 they comprised 3.1%. In the interim, the increases in the presence of people of Pacific ethnicity in other occupations have been dramatic compared with increases within the manufacturing-related occupations. Their presence among legislators, administrators and managers has increased by 82.2%, among professionals by 62.2%, and among technicians and associate professionals by over 100.0%.[xii] Of course, Pacific peoples have a long way to go before they will be represented in these professions in numbers that are proportionate to their presence in the labour force as a whole. But these observed changes are positive.

Turning to earnings, in June 2003, the average hourly pay for Pacific peoples was $13.85 an hour. This was far lower than the average for all earners of $17.82 an hour, and the average for European/Pakeha workers of $18.44 an hour. The average Pacific person in the paid workforce currently earns 75 cents for every dollar earned by the average European/Pakeha. In contrast, in June 1997, the ratio was 69 cents for every dollar earned by the average European/Pakeha.[xiii] In terms of personal income, the contrast is even greater. In June 2003, the average weekly income of Pacific people in the labour force (which includes both people who are employed and those who are unemployed) was 69.0% of the average weekly income of Europeans/Pakeha in the labour force. The equivalent figure in June 1997 was 71.0%.[xiv]


Figure 4.19: Pacific Peoples Representation in Occupational Classes, 2001

Data Source: Authors’ calculations based on Statistics New Zealand 2001 Census, Table 19.


A quick review of the comparative educational attainment of Pacific peoples in New Zealand can further help to explain their concentration in low-skilled, low-paid occupations. Census figures from 2001 indicate that 29.3% of people of Pacific ethnicity held no school qualifications, 39.0% reported that there highest qualifications were attained at high school, and 14.0% reported having tertiary qualifications. In contrast, 18.1% of Māori and 30.8% of Europeans/Pakeha reported having tertiary qualifications.[xv] Overall, people of Pacific ethnicity in New Zealand are not well educated, especially when compared with Europeans/Pakeha.

Looking to the future, Pacific peoples are unlikely to improve their comparative educational attainment in the medium-term. In 2002, secondary school students of Pacific ethnicity did not perform well on average. Results from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority show that, in that year, just 56.6% of Pacific students achieved the qualifications they sought. The comparative figure for Māori students was 58.4%; for Europeans/Pakeha it was 71.6%. In 2001, Pacific peoples made up just 3.9% of students at public tertiary institutions and 3.8% of those receiving tertiary qualifications.[xvi]

Pacific Peoples in Management

Pacific peoples are under-represented in all fields of management. In light of the foregoing analysis, this finding is not surprising, but it is very disappointing. Across the whole economy, Pacific peoples make up less than 1.0% of chief executives or managing directors of companies. Although we noted earlier that Pacific peoples are over-represented in manufacturing, comprising 7.9% of employees in that sector in 2001, they are under-represented even among managers in that sector, accounting for only 2.1% of production managers at that time. In the education sector, Pacific peoples make up 2.8% of the work force, but just 1.1% of senior education managers, although they comprise 3.3% of education advisers. They are also under-represented among teachers, comprising 2.4% of primary school teachers, and 1.7% of secondary school teachers. They are slightly over-represented among early education teachers, making up 5.3% of such teachers. These teachers are, of course, the lowest paid in the teaching profession. Similar patterns can be found in the health sector. Just as we reported disappointing findings for Māori, were we to report them, our findings for Pacific peoples would be at least as poor. Even while people of Pacific ethnicity make up a relatively small proportion of the New Zealand population, they are almost invisible in positions of decision-making power across the public, private, and community sectors.

The Public Service

Since the initial development of equal employment opportunity policies in the public service, Pacific peoples have been recognised as one of the groups most adversely affected in employment in New Zealand. Therefore, a range of efforts have been made over the years to establish the public service as a positive and supportive working environment for people of Pacific ethnicity.[xvii] These efforts have included the provision of scholarships for selected Pacific university students, career development training programmes, and support of networks for Pacific employees.[xviii] More recently, the initiatives associated with the Public Service’s EEO Policy to 2010 were prompted, in part, by a desire to “realise a diverse Public Service which reflects the community it serves….”[xix] Given demographic trends that will see people of Pacific ethnicity becoming a more visible presence in New Zealand society, it is recognised that the public service needs a cadre of Pacific people located throughout its ranks.[xx]

In 2002, Pacific peoples made up 6.8% of public service employees, which means that they were over-represented there given their presence in the labour force as a whole. In 1992, people of Pacific ethnicity comprised just 2.6% of public service staff. Since then, their numbers have increased. However, most Pacific people in the public service are employed in frontline and clerical jobs, rather than in management or policy-making positions. Pacific peoples made up just 1.6% of senior managers in the public service in 2002, a fact confirming that Pacific employees tend to be concentrated in lower-ranked positions. This can be partially explained by the relative youth of Pacific peoples compared with others in the public service, and the generally lower level of educational attainment among people of Pacific ethnicity. In addition, in a survey conducted in 2000, 55.0% of Pacific staff reported having care-giving responsibilities at home compared with 41.0% of non-Pacific staff.[xxi] Such responsibilities could reduce individual motivations to seek promotion to management positions, or move to obtain more senior positions.

In accordance with the Government’s EEO Policy to 2010, published in 1997, public service departments were required to set their own targets for the overall representation of Pacific peoples as a percentage of staff. As of June 2003, out of the 40 government departments, three were yet to set targets for 2010 or milestones for 2005. Of the remaining 37, 29 reported that they had reached their targets or believed that they where achievable. Therefore, 72.5% of government departments appeared to be taking seriously the issue of the representation of Pacific peoples among their staff. However, 8 departments reported little or no progress against their targets. Therefore, 11 out of 40 departments, or 27.5%, indicated that, having had six years to set targets and begin achieving them, they had failed in the task. The EEO Policy to 2010 also required government departments to set target figures for the proportion of their senior managers who would be of Pacific ethnicity. We would expect this to be an especially important matter, given the very limited representation of Pacific people in senior ranks in the public service. But the matter has not been treated seriously. As of June 2003, seven out of 40 departments – that is, 17.5% – had set no targets for themselves. A total of 19 – or 47.5% – had not set milestones for 2005. The good news is that two departments reported having met their 2010 targets already and seven reported that their 2010 targets were achievable. Nonetheless, 17 departments reported having made little or no progress towards their targets. This means that, in total, 24 departments – or fully 60.0% – reported failing to set targets or failing to make serious progress towards the targets they had set. We understand that in 2004 the State Services Commissions annual survey of EEO progress will highlight the employment conditions of Pacific peoples in the public service.

Summary

Pacific peoples participate in the labour force at lower rates than do other groups. Among those who are in the labour force, rates of unemployment are high. An industry and occupational analysis reveals that people of Pacific ethnicity tend to be concentrated in the manufacturing sector. But despite their over-representation here, they are poorly represented within management. During the years since 1990, Pacific peoples have begun to exhibit more presence than was previously the case in several occupations. However, overall, Pacific peoples are not well represented in many parts of the New Zealand labour force. Poor educational outcomes, combined with heavy domestic demands, offer important reasons for why we find these disappointing labour force outcomes for Pacific peoples. Beyond this, EEO initiatives in the public service have done little to raise the profile of Pacific peoples in government departments.

---