The Act in Practice

Te Ao Hou, 1973, Page 33

The Act in Practice The principle of this Act is that it is unlawful to discriminate against any person by reason of his colour, race, or ethnic or national origins. That means to say that nobody must make a decision for these particular reasons which operates to the disadvantage of anyone else. The Act applies to four specific areas. The first is access by the public to places, vehicles, and facilities. No one can, on the ground of any person's race or colour, refuse to allow that person to use any place or vehicle which members of the public are allowed to use. Similarly, no one may, on this ground, refuse to supply goods, facilities, or services to any person: no one may. on this ground, refuse to employ any person: no one, on this ground, may dismiss him. Finally, in the area of the land, housing and other accommodation, no one may, on this ground, refuse to lease or let any land, house or shop, or to do so on less favourable conditions than he would be prepared to offer to people of another race. Then there are two extra provisions: the first makes it unlawful to advertise or to say that you are going to do any of these forbidden things: the second makes an agent just as liable for the actions of his principal as if he were doing them on his own behalf. Finally, there is the over-riding provision that nothing in the Act prevents anything being done if it is for the assistance or the advantage of particular racial groups. This, you will realise, is a particularly important provision, because it protects that wide range of the law to which I have already referred, making special provision for the preservation and advancement of various Maori institutions. The Act covers a wide range of human activity and, as you will see, is purely negative in form. It merely says ‘Thou shalt not do these sorts of things’. It cannot, however, be administered without a positive attitude. This is recognised in England, where the corresponding Race Relations Act has been in force now for several years, and where the Act makes special provisions for the establishment and encouragement of harmonious community relations. I can assure you that in the administration of our own Act in New Zealand I shall try to have appropriate regard to these positive aspects. However, going back to practical matter, let us take the question of housing. Is there any racial discrimination in housing matters in New Zealand? I think you will agree with me that there probably is. In some areas in New Zealand the housing market is characterised by serious and persistent shortages in residential accommodation. For the victim of racial discrimination this is the equivalent of high unemployment in the labour market. Housing shortage creates powerful financial incentive for property owners to practise racial discrimination. Are, in fact, landlords in New Zealand refusing to let flats to Polynesians without further enquiries as to the qualifications, suitability, and reputation of the tenants? Yes, they are. I know of several cases, not only in Auckland but also in Wellington, and a few days ago I heard of a case in Invercargill. Now we must be very clear and definite about this. The law says you must not do this thing. The law also says to the agent that you must not be involved in this thing on behalf of the principal. If you do, you are equally liable. Take the case where a Polynesian comes to a land agent and asks for a suitable furnished flat. The agent sends him to two flats which he finds have already been let to other people but the agent fails

to give him the addresses of two other flats because their owners have specifically stated ‘No Polynesians’. The agent also fails to give him the address of a third flat because he assumes that the owner would not want a non-Pakeha tenant. This agent is committing an unlawful act within the meaning of the Race Relations Act and he is liable accordingly. I said he is liable accordingly—well a great and perhaps new legal concept in the Act is that it provides for conciliation, and that is why the administrator of the Act is called a Conciliator. Now conciliation tries to do two things. It has to remove the public wrong of discrimination, which is an offence against the well-being of the community, and it has to remedy the private wrong done to the victim of discrimination. Conciliation, in spite of the nice soft flavour of the word, is not in the long run necessarily soft—it is itself a method of law-enforcement. The first object is to proceed quietly and gently to settle the trouble—in other words to bring about the situation which would have occurred if there had been no unlawful discrimination—for example to get the Polynesian tenant into the flat, willingly accepted by the landlord who now realises his legal duty: in the employment field, to get the job for the qualified complainant. Then there are other desirable things. One is to obtain an apology from the offending party and a statement promising his future compliance with the law. Another could be perhaps the payment of some moderate compensation or expenses if that seemed appropriate. If this conciliation approach is not successful, then the Conciliator will report to the Attorney-General who, in an appropriate case, will take proceedings in the court against the offending party. In these proceedings the court may make all necessary orders and also award damages where suitable. Here is the iron fist, which the velvet glove has been concealing. May I say, here in Auckland, that these provisions are serious and they are meant seriously. And I would like to bring them particularly to the serious attention of landlords and land agents, because I can assure these people that these provisions will be firmly enforced. If anyone feels that he is the victim of racial discrimination in any of the areas I have mentioned, he should communicate either with my Auckland office or my Wellington office with an explanation of the details.