The Press MONDAY, JUNE 18, 1973. Race relations and the Conciliator

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33254, 18 June 1973, Page 12

The Press MONDAY, JUNE 18, 1973. Race relations and the Conciliator

The first annual report of the Race Relations Conciliator indicates either that deliberate racialism is almost unknown in New Zealand or that its victims are reluctant to complain to the appropriate authority. Sir Guy Powles reports that deliberate racial prejudice is very rare, except, possibly, among landlords in some limited situations; but unconscious prejudice does exist. This prejudice is not confined to the attitude of whites towards non-whites, and in nearly all of its fancied manifestations no deliberate slight was intended. At the same time, Sir Guy Powles points out that the United Kingdom Race Relations Board, after considerably more experience than the New Zealand Conciliator has had so far, has noted in its last two annual reports that “ most “ victims of racial discrimination do not complain The Race Relations Conciliator reports having acted, on numerous occasions, as a means of communication between persons, sometimes persons of the same race, who have “ fallen out ” through misunderstandings and poor communication. To this extent his work has been an extension of Sir Guy Powles’ other office of Ombudsman. Sir Guy Powles is obviously so accomplished in his work as mediator that it is a matter for deep regret that he has asked to be relieved of the duties of Conciliator so that he can give more attention to the expanding office of Ombudsman.

After rather more than a year’s operations the office of Race Relations Conciliator can be seen to have proved its worth —but not quite in the way which its advocates and legislators might have intended. The Conciliator has been able to take the heat out of a number of situations where race was a possible factor; he has also had to spend time investigating mischievous allegations from people whose general behaviour hardly inspires confidence. Some effective “ filter ” for complaints is clearly needed; too many of the complaints investigated by Sir Guy Powles end with a note that the complainant had left town or could not be found when some redress was being contemplated. Perhaps the most important suggestion Sir Guy Powles has offered his successor is the need to expand activities which promote racial harmony rather than those which deal with complaints after racial prejudice has appeared to be exercised. While this goes beyond the powers of the original Race Relations Act, which was designed to provide a means of redress where discrimination occurred, it must be implicit in any attempt to improve racial harmony. Dealing with prejudice when it occurs can act as a deterrent; forestalling prejudice by education also prevents incidents which might never be brought to the attention of the Conciliator. Sir Guy Powles and the very small staff he has had available have obviously attempted this already, especially in Auckland. This work should be expanded, if necessary with legislative backing. It should do much more to promote racial harmony than the pursuit of the detail of trivial incidents and misunderstandings which seems to have occupied much of his time in the first full year of operation.