[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] New Zealand Law Commission

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help]

• Overview
• Consultation
• Targeted Assistance

14. Immigrant groups

OVERVIEW

846 THE FAMILY COURT and its conciliation services have clear difficulties responding appropriately to cultural groups other than those from mainstream Päkehä backgrounds.

847 Census data on ethnic origin provide an idea of New Zealand’s cultural and ethnic diversity.[232]

848 Most ethnic Europeans come from English-speaking countries. Of the thousands with non-English speaking backgrounds, the largest group is German.[233] Some recent immigrants will have language difficulties and find our Family Court system bewildering.

849 Pacific and Asian immigrants often have even greater difficulties with language and cultural difference.

850 It would not be unreasonable to target assistance to Pacific peoples with big enough populations; for example, the census identifies 115 117 Samoans resident in New Zealand, 76 581 of whom are in the Auckland region and 19 881 in the Wellington region. There are also 51 486 Cook Island Mäori, 31 074 of them in Auckland, and 40 716 Tongans, 32 541 of them in Auckland.

851 We do not know how many people identifying with one of these ethnic groups are immigrants and how many have been in New Zealand for several generations.

852 Some 100 680 Asian people identify as Chinese, and 60 213 as Indians, without specifying further. Some of these will be fourth and fifth generation New Zealanders with good English skills, but some may be recent immigrants who would experience language and cultural difficulties in the Court system. It is likely that the 19 026 Koreans, 5265 Cambodians, and 3462 Vietnamese are more recent arrivals.

853 Third and fourth generation immigrants are unlikely to have serious difficulties using the Family Court. Difficulties are more likely to arise for first and second generation immigrants, who may have trouble with language as well as culture.

CONSULTATION

854 In July 2002 the Law Commission held two fono with Auckland Pacific Island community representatives, one at the Freeman’s Bay Community Centre and one at the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs office in Manukau.

855 Relevant concerns expressed at those meetings include:

• a need for better information in an accessible form;

• availability of information in community venues that targeted groups are likely to visit;

• availability of information in different languages;

• avoidance of Court jargon and provision of explanations of terminology where possible;

• directions to sources of further information and answers to questions;

• the need for Court processes to accommodate various family styles by, for instance, allowing children and elders to be present where appropriate;

• the need for available independent interpreters who understand the Court system;

• the need for the Court to take account of cultural values so that, for instance, cultural concepts like shame are understood, and decision makers appreciate how it can affect Court process and outcomes.

TARGETED ASSISTANCE

856 We recommend Family Court information be disseminated via pamphlets and websites, in as many immigrant languages as possible. We note that, according to the last census, 45.5 per cent of ethnic European households have access to the Internet, as do 20.4 per cent of Pacific households, and 61.6 per cent of Asian households.[234]

857 Some immigrant groups are represented well enough in various court catchments to justify targeted services. There are, for example, 76 581 Samoans in the Auckland region – a large enough number to make Samoan language conciliation services such as counselling and mediation possible, and in accordance with Samoan custom. We envisage these being developed in consultation with relevant communities, to take into account custom and language, in much the same way as we have recommended developing Mäori conciliation services.[235]

858 Manukau Court catchment has counselling services for its Pacific Islands peoples population, and Pacific Islands lawyers, including some who act as counsel for the child.

859 Some groups, however, will always be too small for conciliation services to be provided from within their own community. It may be possible to train one or two counsellors from such a group through the auspices of organisations like Relationship Services, but there may be general reluctance to use a counsellor who is likely to know everyone else in the community. Different communities will raise different concerns, which will need to be met by the conciliation service.

860 Consultation in Manukau has made us aware of problems in the use of interpreters in some Family Courts; parties have been reluctant to divulge personal information before an interpreter from the same community. There have also been instances of translations that have “censored” information for reasons of cultural sensitivity. The Family Court and its services must be sensitive to such issues.

861 It could be a responsibility of the Family Court co-ordinator to liaise with immigrant communities in the Court catchment to find ways of providing access to the conciliation services the group needs. Elders or others of standing within each community may be able to help find interpreters and give cultural advice, working with families alongside accredited counsellors.

Recommendations

Pamphlets and websites should be available in several languages.

Conciliation services should be developed for any immigrant group with sufficient local numbers.

Consideration should be given to training counsellors from smaller immigrant groups within existing organisations such as Relationship Services.

Family Court co-ordinators should liaise with immigrant groups in each Court catchment to find ways of providing access to conciliation services, possibly by having a representative work alongside existing accredited providers.