Te Pā Harakeke: Māori housing and wellbeing 2021

Tuia te Rangi e tū iho nei,
Tuia te Papa e takoto nei,
Tuia te moana e whakamārie nei,
Tuia tātou ki a tātou anō
Tihei mauri ora!

Te Pā Harakeke: Māori housing and wellbeing 2021 is a supplementary report to Housing in Aotearoa: 2020. It provides an overview of the intersections between housing and wellbeing for the Māori population of Aotearoa New Zealand.

The analysis focuses on the connections and associations between various housing measures and Māori wellbeing outcomes from Te Kupenga, Tatauranga Aotearoa Stats NZ’s dedicated survey of Māori wellbeing. This report includes data on wellbeing from Te Kupenga and the General Social Survey, as well as housing data from the Census of Population and Dwellings.

For Māori, housing is about more than economic outcomes and material security. Housing cuts across many aspects of Māori wellbeing, such as whānau health, acquisition and use of te reo Māori, care of whenua and the environment, the ability to provide sustenance and hospitality for themselves and others, and many other aspects of wellbeing unique to Māori culture. A 2010 Housing New Zealand Corporation report, Māori Housing Trends, argued that there was a clear cultural basis for the needs of Māori around housing. It noted that Māori views of land and housing were strongly associated with whakapapa and guardianship which recognise social, spiritual, emotional, and intergenerational values. Currently, little quantitative analysis exists on the relationship between housing on the one hand, and values and wellbeing outcomes for Māori on the other. This report attempts to address that gap by presenting data that may provoke further thought and discussion in this area.

The report is arranged in two parts. The first part provides a brief situational overview of housing for the Māori population across Aotearoa New Zealand. The second part presents data on the relationship between housing and Māori wellbeing. Download the tables below for data on these topics.

Contents

• Overview of housing for the Māori population
• Housing and Māori wellbeing
• Conclusion
• Key concepts and terms used in this report
• References 

Overview of housing for the Māori population

Housing tenure and tenure security

In Aotearoa New Zealand, there is a clear difference in housing habitability and security of tenure between owner-occupied and rental housing (Stats NZ, 2020). Therefore, much of the analysis in this report looks at different aspects of housing by tenure. Information on tenure is available from the census for both households and for individuals. Most of the analysis here uses tenure of household (whether someone in the household owns the dwelling they live in). We have also provided some information about individual home ownership (whether individuals personally own the dwelling in which they live).

Māori had the highest home ownership rates in the 1930s

While in recent years home ownership rates for Māori have been lower than for the total population, this was not always the case. In the 1930s, census data showed that Māori dwellings were much more likely to be owner-occupied (at 70.5 percent) than all dwellings, but rates have fallen since then, particularly as many Māori migrated to cities (Stats NZ, 2016). By the time national homeownership rates reached their peak in the 1990s, the rates for Māori had fallen well below that of people with European ethnicity.

Nationally, home ownership rates peaked in the early 1990s, at 73.8 percent, then began to fall. However, the subsequent fall in home ownership did not occur uniformly across the population and declined at a faster rate for Māori than for European people.

Figure 1

Home ownership rates are associated with age. People who are older are more likely to own or partly own their home than people in younger age groups (for example, people in their early twenties).

The Māori population is generally younger than the European population. In 2018, around half of the Māori population were aged under 25 years, compared with a third of those with European ethnicity. As people in their early twenties are often the least likely to live in an owner-occupied home, having a younger population structure is likely to result in lower home ownership rates.

However, the younger age structure of the Māori population does not in itself explain the differences in home ownership rates. Figure 2 shows that disparities in home ownership rates between Māori and Europeans remain for all age groups.

Figure 2

In 2018, differences between the proportions of Māori and the proportions of Europeans who lived in owner-occupied homes ranged from around 9 percentage points for those aged 20 to 24 years to as high as 24 percentage points for those aged 10 to 14.

Māori tamariki aged between 0 and 14 years were significantly less likely to live in an owner-occupied home than European children of the same age, with 43 percent of Māori children and 66 percent of European children living in a home owned by a member of their household.

Individual home ownership

Individual home ownership has been collected in census since 2001. This data allows a better understanding of individual characteristics of people who own the home they live in than household tenure data provides.

Consistent with patterns around household tenure, individual home ownership data shows that home ownership rates for Māori are well below those of people with European ethnicity, even when accounting for the differences in age structures of the populations.

Figure 3

Figure 4 shows that while young people are the least likely to own a home, and there is very little difference between ethnic groups at this age, the gap begins to widen as people age. Although home ownership rates peak for both Māori and Europeans aged in their late 60s and early 70s, there was a more than 20-percentage point gap between these groups in 2018.

Figure 4

Homeowners have greater tenure security

Researchers have found that renting in New Zealand is associated with greater residential movement (Stats NZ, 2020), and poorer health and wellbeing outcomes (Morten et al, 2020).

Data from the 2018 General Social Survey (GSS) shows that Māori were more likely to have moved frequently; 8.7 percent of Māori had moved 5 or more times in the last 5 years, compared with 5 percent of the European population. This disparity is contributed to by proportionally more Māori living in rented homes. Of people living in owner-occupied homes, 4.8 percent of Māori and 2.3 percent of Europeans had moved more than 5 times in the last 5 years.

Of Māori who had moved from a rented home in the last five years, 15 percent gave moving into an owned dwelling as their main reason for moving, compared with 22 percent of Europeans, and 21 percent of the total population. Māori were significantly less likely than the total or European population to have moved from a rental into an owner-occupied dwelling.

Figure 5

For Māori, the main reasons for moving from their rented house were because their tenancy was ended by their landlord (22 percent), followed by social reasons (17 percent), such as to live closer to family/friends or having experienced a relationship change. For Māori who owned or partly owned their home, the main reason was to move to a more suitable home.

Housing affordability

Perceptions of housing affordability can be measured directly by asking people to self-assess the affordability of their housing costs. This assessment may reflect some dimensions of affordability that are hard to include in simple comparisons of income and housing expenditure, such as wealth and the adequacy of current housing.

According to data from the 2018 GSS, Māori reported a higher rate of unaffordable housing (13 percent rated their housing affordability between 0-3) when compared with the European population (8.8 percent) and the total population (10 percent).

Figure 6

Among the Māori population, 17 percent of people living in a rented home found it very unaffordable (0-3 on a scale from 0-10), compared with 9.1 percent of people living in a home they owned or partly owned.

Housing habitability

Housing habitability can be measured using information on housing quality (dampness, mould, and cold), and on other aspects such as home heating, ventilation, repairs, and maintenance. Additional health indicators such as the number of times a person had a flu-like illness or a cold in the last 12 months, or whether they have asthma or another chronic respiratory illness provide further insight into the habitability of New Zealand homes.

Data from the 2018 Census showed that Māori were more likely to live in homes affected by dampness or mould than people with European ethnicity. Two in five Māori people lived in damp housing (40 percent), compared with 1 in 5 people of European ethnicity (21 percent), and 24 percent of the total population. (see Stats NZ, Housing in Aotearoa: 2020 for more information).

Figure 7

Data from the 2018 GSS also shows that Māori people were more likely to live in a home with dampness and mould, as well as other problems such as feeling too cold, or requiring major repairs, when compared with the European and total populations. For example, 30 percent of Māori lived in a house or flat which was always cold, compared with 21 percent of the total population, and 18 percent of the European population.

Māori were less likely than Europeans to heat their living room in winter. In the 2018 GSS, 42 percent of Māori heated their main living area every night in winter, compared with 59 percent of Europeans. Around half of both Māori and Europeans never heated their bedrooms in winter, however Māori were more likely to say that this was because of the cost. For Māori who did not heat their bedrooms regularly in winter, 22 percent said that it was unaffordable to do so, compared with 12.8 percent of Europeans.

Housing suitability and crowding

Suitability

Housing suitability refers to the ability of households to meet their housing needs – to access housing, public services and amenities, and local opportunities such as employment or schooling that is appropriate to their needs, cultural expectations, and their aspirations and preferences (Stats NZ, 2009). People with different lifestyles and those at certain stages of their life require different types of housing. A commonly used concept of suitability relates to space, particularly in relation to identifying homes that are crowded or where there is underutilisation of space.

According to data from the 2018 GSS, 84 percent of Māori said that their house was suitable or very suitable, 89 percent found the location of their house to be suitable or very suitable, and 77 percent had their own garden.

The 2018 GSS asked respondents to think about the buildings, roads, pathways, parks and green spaces where they lived and rate the attractiveness of the neighbourhood. Around two-thirds of Māori found their neighbourhood attractive (a rating of 7 or above on a scale from 0 to 10), with a mean rating of 6.6. However, this is lower than the mean rating for people with European ethnicity (7.2) and for the total population (7.1).

People were also asked to think about friendships and social interaction, and rate how strongly they felt connected with the people in their neighbourhood. For Māori, 6 out of 10 reported feeling strongly connected to their neighbourhood (a rating of 7 or above), with a mean rating of 5.6 out of 10, which was the same as for the total population.

Access to key public facilities such as a supermarket, park or green space, getting to a doctor, and ease of using public transport are also factors which affect housing suitability. Almost a quarter (24 percent) of Māori found it difficult/very difficult to use public transport, and over half of these said this was because no public transport was available.

Another aspect that can affect the suitability of a home or neighbourhood is how safe people feel where they live. In the 2018 GSS, people were asked about how safe they felt when walking alone in the neighbourhood after dark, being at home by themselves at night, and when using or waiting for public transport at night. More than 8 out of 10 Māori (85 percent) felt safe or very safe at home, but only half (52 percent) felt safe or very safe when waiting for public transport after dark. Sixty-two percent of Māori people felt safe or very safe when walking alone in the neighbourhood after dark. These proportions were similar to the total population.

Crowding

Household crowding relates to situations where the number of people living in a dwelling exceeds the capacity of the space to provide adequate shelter and services to its members. There are various ways to define and measure crowding. Stats NZ uses the Canadian National Occupancy Standard (CNOS) to measure household crowding in New Zealand. For details on CNOS, see Housing in Aotearoa: 2020.

In measuring household crowding for Māori, it is important to note that the housing needs of Māori can differ from other groups. For example, Māori often need to accommodate more people than people of European ethnicity or the general population (Flynn, et al., 2010). Waldegrave et al. (2006) explained that specific needs of Māori around housing are associated with larger whānau size and strong values around manaakitanga, which includes welcoming and accommodating extended whānau and other visitors to one’s home on a regular and frequent basis for short periods, or receiving other whānau members such as parents and grandparents on a more permanent basis. Note that the measure of crowding used here is only applied to the people who are usually resident in the household and does not include visitors.

Figure 8 shows that while the proportion of Māori people living in crowded households has fallen since 1986, the Māori population has consistently been more likely to experience crowding than people of European ethnicity or the total population.

Figure 8

Over the same period the average number of people per household fell slightly from 2.9 in 1986 to 2.7 in 2018 (Stats NZ, 2020). It is likely that a combination of the changing demographic makeup of the population, combined with housing affordability issues, have influenced rates of crowding in New Zealand.

At the time of the 2018 Census, around 1 in 5 Māori (21 percent) lived in a crowded household (where 1 or more additional bedrooms were needed to accommodate all residents), compared with around 1 in 9 people (10.8 percent) in the total population. Figure 9 shows that rates of severe crowding (where 2 or more bedrooms were needed) were much higher for Māori, at 7.8 percent, compared with 1.3 percent for people with European ethnicity and 3.7 percent for the total population.

Figure 9

Housing and Māori wellbeing

Te Kupenga, Stats NZ’s survey on Māori wellbeing, provides key statistics on wellbeing outcomes that are specific to Māori culture. View the latest release and key findings at Te Kupenga: 2018 (available in English and te reo Māori).

As Te Kupenga is a post-censal survey, it draws its sample from census. Housing data collected in the 2018 Census was able to be combined with the Te Kupenga dataset and analysed alongside the information collected in the survey.

This section brings together analyses to show the relationship that housing has with many aspects of Māori wellbeing. It is informed by Māori cultural concepts and values such as kaitiakitanga, whanaungatanga, manaakitanga, and rangatiratanga, among others. It also includes ahurea Māori, te reo Māori, and oranga (health and welfare).

Kaitiakitanga and housing

Kaitiakitanga is broadly defined as the exercise of rights and obligations of mana whenua (Māori with whakapapa to an area) to protect, care for, nurture, and sustain the mauri (life force) of all things within the surrounding environment, and all resources of that area. It is about the intimate relationship of people as part of te taiao. Kaitiakitanga is an essential feature of Māori wellbeing.

Survey results from Te Kupenga 2018 showed that, for the majority of the adult Māori population (aged 15 years and older), the health of the natural environment and looking after the environment were very or quite important (see Table 1 below). 

Kaitiakitanga can be expressed in different ways. For example, the survey showed that 58 percent of Māori grew their own fruits and vegetables in the last 12 months; 41 percent gathered traditional Māori food; and 17 percent gathered materials for use in traditional Māori practices. In addition, the majority (96 percent) of Māori adults said their households recycled packaging such as cans, bottles, and plastic; and, nearly a third (32 percent) said they had taken part in activities such as restoring waterways, tree planting, pest control, or beach clean-up in the previous 12 months. These activities were often done with whānau.

Housing factors, such as household tenure, crowding, dwelling type, and proximity of residence to ancestral marae, were strongly correlated with a number of key kaitiakitanga measures. For example:

• Māori who did not live in owner-occupied homes were significantly less likely to grow their own fruits and vegetables (48 percent), compared with Māori who lived in owner-occupied homes (65 percent) or held their homes in a family trust (69 percent).
• Māori who lived in a standalone house were more likely to grow their own fruits and vegetables, gather traditional Māori food, and take care of Māori sites of importance, compared with Māori who lived in a joined dwelling (attached dwelling such as a flat, townhouse, or apartment). Some urban-rural differences impact this as standalone houses are more common in rural areas, and among people who own their house or hold it in a family trust. A slightly higher proportion of Māori in rural areas lived in a standalone house (94 percent), when compared with those in urban areas (89 percent).

Figure 10

• Māori who lived in a crowded home (1 or more additional bedrooms needed) were also less likely to grow their own fruits and vegetables. However, they were more likely to gather traditional Māori food, as well as materials for use in traditional practices such as raranga and rongoa Māori, and to take care of Māori sites of importance, compared with Māori who lived in a home with one or more spare bedrooms.

Figure 11

Living in close proximity to marae tipuna (ancestral marae) had a significant impact on levels of activities around kaitiakitanga. Two-thirds (66 percent) of Māori aged 15 and over knew their marae tipuna. Of these, Māori who lived within 30 minutes’ drive of their ancestral marae were more likely to gather traditional Māori food, or materials for use in traditional practices such as raranga and rongoa. They were also more likely to take care of Māori sites of importance, and the health of the natural environment, compared with those who lived further away.

Figure 12

Ahurea Māori and housing

Ahurea Māori refers to knowledge of, and connection to, things to do with Māori culture. The measures for ahurea Māori include various aspects of tikanga tūturu tūrangawaewae (long-standing or well-established cultural practices) and tikanga hou (more recent cultural practices).

Table 1 shows that in 2018, 9 out of 10 Māori adults (aged 15 years and older) said that it was at least a little important for them to be involved in things to do with Māori culture. However, differences in cultural connection can be seen based on household tenure and crowding. For example:

• Māori who did not live in an owner-occupied home were more likely to be culturally connected and engaged than those who did. They were more likely to say that being engaged in Māori culture was very important, and to know their pepeha very well (i.e., know their iwi, hapū, maunga, awa/moana, waka, tipuna/tupuna), when compared with Māori who lived in an owner-occupied home.

Figure 13

• Māori who lived in crowded households (1 or more bedrooms needed) were also more likely to be culturally connected and engaged than Māori who lived in households that had one or more spare bedrooms. They were more likely to have been to a marae in the last 12 months, to know their marae tipuna, and to have been to their marae tipuna (if known) at some time in the previous 12 months, compared with those who lived in a house with 1 or more spare bedrooms. They were also more likely to know their pepeha very well.

Figure 14

Intergenerational transmission of cultural knowledge and practices can often happen within the context of whānau and whenua (Mead, 2019). Further analyses reveal significant correlations between whānau size and views around the importance of being engaged in Māori culture; and between living within proximity to marae tipuna and being engaged and connected to Māori culture. More specifically:

• Māori who belonged to larger whānau were more likely to say that being engaged in Māori culture was very or quite important, compared with those who belonged to smaller whānau.

Figure 15

• Among Māori who knew their marae tipuna, those who lived within 30 minutes’ drive of their ancestral marae were more likely to say that being engaged in Māori culture is very important (45 percent), compared with those who lived further away (34 percent). They were also more likely to know their pepeha very well (79 percent), compared with those who lived more than 30 minutes’ drive away (64 percent).
• Māori who lived in urban areas were more likely to say that they would like to have been to their marae tipuna (if known) more often in the last 12 months (66 percent), compared with those who lived in rural areas (56 percent).

Te reo Māori and housing

Data from Te Kupenga 2018 showed that 73 percent of Māori adults (aged 15 years and older) said that their use of te reo Māori in daily life was of at least some importance. Nearly 6 out of 10 Māori adults could understand, and almost half (48 percent) could speak more than a few words or phrases.

The four most common ways of learning te reo Māori were: listening and speaking with relatives, friends, and neighbours (68 percent); going to hui, and listening to te reo Māori being spoken (63 percent); teaching yourself (62 percent); and listening and speaking to parents or other people living at home (59 percent).

There were significant differences in language use and proficiency between Māori who lived in an owner-occupied home and those who did not; and, between those who lived in a crowded house and those who lived in a house with one or more spare bedrooms. The differences were consistent across a range of te reo Māori measures. For example:

• Māori who did not live in an owner-occupied home were more likely to say that using te reo Māori in daily life is very important (19 percent), compared with Māori who did (14 percent). They were also more likely to say that te reo Māori is the first language they learned and still understood, and to use te reo Māori regularly at home.

Figure 16

• Māori who did not live in an owner-occupied home were also more likely to be proficient in te reo Māori. A higher proportion could write, read, understand, and speak te reo Māori well or very well, compared with those who lived in an owner-occupied home.

Figure 17

• Māori who lived in a crowded house (1 or more bedrooms needed) were twice as likely to say that using te reo Māori in daily life is very important (26 percent), compared with Māori who lived in households that had one or more spare bedrooms (13 percent). They were also more likely to say that te reo Māori is the first language they learned and still understood, and to use te reo Māori regularly at home.

Figure 18

• Māori who lived in crowded households (1 or more bedrooms needed) were also more likely to be proficient in te reo Māori and were more likely to write, read, understand, and speak the language well or very well, compared to those who lived in households that had one or more spare bedrooms.

Figure 19

Significantly, the data also shows that living within close proximity to one’s ancestral marae was positively associated with the use of, and proficiency in, te reo Māori. For example:

• Among Māori who knew their marae tipuna, those who lived within 30 minutes’ drive of their ancestral marae were more likely to say that te reo Māori is the first language they learned and still understood, and to use te reo Māori regularly at home, compared with those who lived further away.

Figure 20

• Among Māori who knew their marae tipuna, those who lived within 30 minutes’ drive of their ancestral marae were also more likely to be proficient in te reo Māori, and more likely to speak, understand, read, and write te reo Māori well or very well, than those who lived more than a 30-minute drive away.

Figure 21

Oranga and housing

Data from Te Kupenga 2018 showed that around half (52 percent) of Māori adults (15 years and older) said their general health status was very good or excellent. They also generally felt satisfied with, and in control of, their lives. On a scale from 0 to 10, where 10 is the highest, they reported a mean overall life satisfaction rating of 7.8, and a mean rating of 7.9 for their sense of control over life events.

General health status, overall life satisfaction, and sense of control over life events were correlated with a number of housing measures, including household tenure, crowding, and dwelling type. For example:

• More than half of Māori adults who lived in an owner-occupied home said their general health status was very good or excellent (56 percent), compared with 45 percent of those who did not live in an owner-occupied home. In addition, on the World Health Organisation-5 Wellbeing Index (WHO-5), which measures self-reported mental wellbeing, they tended to experience better mental wellbeing (16.2 mean score out of 25) than those who did not live in an owner-occupied home (15.2 mean score out of 25).
• On a scale from 0 to 10 where 10 is the highest, Māori who lived in an owner-occupied home rated their overall life satisfaction higher on average (8.0 out of 10), than Māori who did not live in an owner-occupied home (7.6).
• Māori adults who lived in a house with one or more spare bedrooms tended to rate their overall life satisfaction more highly, with a mean rating of 8.0 compared to those who lived in a crowded house (7.6).
• Māori who lived in a standalone house tended to rate their sense of control over their lives more highly (8.0 mean rating) than those who lived in a joined or attached dwelling, such as a flat, townhouse, or apartment (7.6). 

Whanaungatanga and housing

Whanaungatanga refers to kinship, family connections, and relationships through shared experiences that provide people with a sense of comfort and belonging.

Te Kupenga 2018 data showed that 74 percent of Māori adults (aged 15 years and older) rated the wellbeing of their whānau highly (at 7 or above on a scale from 0 to 10), with a mean rating of 7.4. A third (34 percent) said their whānau were doing better than they were 12 months ago.

Home ownership and household crowding had an impact on how well whānau were doing. For example:

• Māori who did not live in an owner-occupied home were more likely to rate the wellbeing of their whānau poorly (0 to 6 on a scale from 0 to 10), compared with those who lived in an owner-occupied home. 

• They were also more likely to say that they were lonely at least some of the time in the last 4 weeks (23 percent), compared with Māori who lived in an owner-occupied home (16 percent).
• Māori who lived in a crowded house (1 or more additional bedrooms needed) were also more likely to rate the wellbeing of their whānau poorly (0 to 6), when compared with Māori who lived in a house with 1 or more spare bedrooms.
• There is a close association between household crowding, and houses with damp and mould; dampness generally increases with the number of people in a household. Māori who lived in homes that were always damp or always had mould over A4 in size were more likely to rate the wellbeing of their whānau poorly (0 to 6) compared with those who lived in homes that were dry and did not have mould over A4-size.

Figure 22

• Among Māori who knew their marae tipuna, those who lived within 30 minutes’ drive of their ancestral marae were more likely to live in owner-occupied homes; however, they were also more likely to live in a crowded household (1 or more additional bedrooms needed), compared with those who lived further away.

Figure 23