How many precent of new zeland people discriminate chinese
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
There is no reliable statistic in the cited reporting that answers the question “what percentage of New Zealand people discriminate against Chinese” as a direct measure of perpetrators; available sources instead document experiences of discrimination against Chinese and Asian communities, historical legal discrimination, and government responses, with surveys showing sizable minorities experiencing racial bias—for example, 21% of people surveyed reported COVID-related discrimination and 17.1% of adults reported having been discriminated against generally in the past year in an earlier social survey [1] [2].
1. What the sources actually measure — victims, not perpetrators
The material assembled here documents discrimination experienced by Chinese and Asian people in New Zealand, not the share of the population who actively discriminate; for instance, research during the COVID-19 period found Chinese and other Asian respondents reported pandemic-related racialised stigma and increased complaints to the Human Rights Commission [3], and a Human Rights Commission survey cited by media reported 21% of Kiwis said they’d experienced COVID-related discrimination (with higher rates among Chinese and Māori) [1]; similarly, the 2014 New Zealand General Social Survey found 17.1% of people aged 15+ reported being discriminated against in some way in the prior 12 months [2].
2. Historical and institutional context that inflates measured harms
Longstanding structural and legal discrimination against Chinese in New Zealand’s history informs contemporary patterns and reporting: academic reviews trace explicit anti-Chinese laws from the late 19th century through mid-20th century and argue that historic Sinophobia continues to shape modern anti-Asian racism and the limits of anti-discrimination law [4] [5] [6]. These histories make it plausible that incidents and perceptions of discrimination are rooted in deep social and institutional patterns rather than solely in isolated individual acts, which complicates any attempt to translate victim-report rates into a precise percent of perpetrators [6].
3. Recent government reports and evidence of bias across domains
A 2024 Ethnic Evidence report highlighted by RNZ found bias affecting employment, sport participation and home ownership for ethnic communities, noting Asian people experienced higher lifetime unfair treatment in housing than New Zealand Europeans; the report and coverage also say Chinese immigrants sometimes avoid mainstream activities due to perceived discrimination [7]. International reviews and human-rights reporting also underscore that New Zealand’s laws prohibit racial discrimination and that authorities generally enforce those laws, even as advocates and researchers point to gaps in addressing racism’s consequences [8] [6].
4. Why a direct “what percent discriminate” figure is absent and misleading
None of the sources provide survey items that ask New Zealanders “Have you discriminated against Chinese people?” Studies typically measure self-reported victimisation, complaints received, or institutional patterns [3] [2] [1]. Self-reporting of discriminatory behaviour is subject to social desirability bias and usually undercounts real prejudice; prosecution or complaint counts capture only a tiny, report-driven subset. Therefore converting victimisation rates into a share of the population who are perpetrators would be speculative and methodologically unsound given the evidence at hand [2] [3].
5. What can be said with confidence from the reporting
The verified record in these sources is that Chinese and wider Asian communities in New Zealand report measurable levels of discrimination and stigma—heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic—and that institutional reviews and researchers document both historical and contemporary drivers of anti-Chinese sentiment [3] [1] [4] [6]. Government and human-rights bodies affirm legal protections and note ongoing challenges; media and research reports point to significant minority-level harms rather than to the prevalence of discriminatory attitudes in percentage terms of all New Zealanders [8] [7].
6. Alternative interpretations and what further data would be needed
An alternative interpretation would treat victim-reported rates (e.g., 21% pandemic-era discrimination experiences) as an indicator of the scope of the problem, but that remains asymmetric: it signals harm frequency, not the number of distinct discriminators [1]. To answer the user’s original question properly would require representative survey items asking respondents whether they have personally acted discriminatorily toward Chinese people, paired with behavioural or experimental measures to reduce bias in responses—data not present in the provided reporting [2].