Māori Housing Trends 2009 - Housing New Zealand

Māori Housing Trends 2009Author: Franziska Pfitzner, Michael Flynn, SherryCarneHousing New Zealand CorporationJune 2009

This report was prepared byHousing New Zealand Corporation.Contact for further details:Franziska PfitznerSenior AnalystResearch, Evaluation, and Data Analysis TeamDDI: 04 439 3208Franziska.pfitzner@hnzc.co.nz

ContentsExecutive summary.............................................................................................. 1Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3Purpose........................................................................................................................ 3Structure of the report .................................................................................................. 3Māori conceptions of housing....................................................................................... 3Technical notes and definitions .................................................................................... 4The Māori Population........................................................................................... 8Introduction .................................................................................................................. 8Population growth ........................................................................................................ 8Household composition ...............................................................................................11Geographical distribution.............................................................................................11Māori mobility ..............................................................................................................12Socio-economic outcomes ..........................................................................................16Source: HNZC (March 2006) and Census data (2006) ................................................21Summary.....................................................................................................................22Housing Supply ...................................................................................................24Introduction .................................................................................................................24Māori housing needs ...................................................................................................24Crowding.....................................................................................................................24Summary.....................................................................................................................27Assistance and Affordability ..............................................................................29Introduction .................................................................................................................29Affordability .................................................................................................................29Accommodation Supplement.......................................................................................30Social housing.............................................................................................................33Corporation housing....................................................................................................34Summary.....................................................................................................................43Home Ownership.................................................................................................45Introduction .................................................................................................................45Decline in home ownership .........................................................................................45Reasons for disparities in home ownership .................................................................50Summary.....................................................................................................................52Rental Sector .......................................................................................................53Introduction .................................................................................................................53Growth in the rental sector ..........................................................................................53Reasons for disparities in rental tenure .......................................................................56

Provided free .............................................................................................................. 58Comparison between people living in owner occupied and rented homes................... 59Summary .................................................................................................................... 59Housing Quality .................................................................................................. 61Introduction................................................................................................................. 61Housing quality in rural areas...................................................................................... 61Housing quality in urban areas.................................................................................... 62Housing quality in Corporation housing....................................................................... 62Future information sources ......................................................................................... 62Future Māori Population .................................................................................... 63Introduction................................................................................................................. 63Growth of the Māori population ................................................................................... 63Changing age structure of the Māori population.......................................................... 63Projections of housing demand for the elderly............................................................. 64Regional growth in the Māori population ..................................................................... 65Summary .................................................................................................................... 67Implications for Housing Policy ........................................................................ 68Housing supply ........................................................................................................... 68Affordability and assistance ........................................................................................ 68Rental tenure .............................................................................................................. 70Home ownership......................................................................................................... 71Appendix: A ........................................................................................................ 73References .......................................................................................................... 75TablesTable 1 Growth in the Māori ethnic group and descent populations 1991-2006............ 8Table 2 Ten largest iwi 2006......................................................................................... 9Table 3 Life expectancy at birth for the Māori and non-Māori population 1995-97, 2000-02, and 2005-07 .............................................................................................................. 10Table 4 Māori by regional council area 2001 and 2006............................................... 12Table 5 Main reason for moving from previous usual residence ................................. 16Table 6 Main reason for moving to current usual residence........................................ 16Table 7 Main reason for not moving from usual residence.......................................... 16Table 8 The proportion of the population living in Corporation housing, by selectedethnicity (2006)................................................................................................................ 21Table 9 Accommodation Supplement recipients, by selected ethnicity (March 2005-2009) 32Table 10 Māori Accommodation Supplement recipients by tenure (March 2005-2009)33Table 11 Māori Accommodation Supplement recipients, by income type (March 2005-2009) 33Table 12 Number of Māori and non-Māori households in social housing 1981-2001. 34

Figure 21 Age distribution of Accommodation Supplement recipients by selectedethnicity (March 2009)..................................................................................................... 31Figure 22 Accommodation Supplement recipients by family status and selectedethnicity (March 2009)..................................................................................................... 32Figure 23 Number of occupants, by selected ethnicity (March 2006-2009) ................ 36Figure 24 Occupants by age and selected ethnicity (March 2009) ............................. 36Figure 25 Primary tenants by household type and selected ethnicity (March 2009).... 37Figure 26 Primary tenants, by Corporation region and selected ethnicity (March 2009)38Figure 27 Total number of applicants, by selected ethnicity (March 2006-2009) ........ 40Figure 28 Total applicants, by age and selected ethnicity (March 2009)..................... 40Figure 29 Primary applicants, by household type and selected ethnicity (March 2009)41Figure 30 Primary applicants, by Corporation region and selected ethnicity (March2009) 42Figure 31 Total number of applicants, by priority and selected ethnicity (March 2009)43Figure 32 Proportion of households living in owner-occupied homes, by selectedethnicity (1926-2006)....................................................................................................... 46Figure 33 Proportion of the population living in owner occupied homes, by selectedethnicity (1991, 1996, 2001, 2006) .................................................................................. 47Figure 34 Proportion of the Māori population living in owner-occupied homes in ruraland urban areas (1991, 1996,2001, 2006) ...................................................................... 48Figure 35 Proportion of the Māori population living in owner-occupied homes in theAuckland Local Authorities, (1991, 1996, 2001, 2006)..................................................... 49Figure 36 Proportion of the population living in owner occupied homes by RegionalCouncil, and by selected ethnicity (2006) ........................................................................ 50Figure 37 Proportion of the population living in owner-occupied homes, by income, andselected ethnicity (2006).................................................................................................. 51Figure 38 Proportion of the population living in owner-occupied homes, by age (inyears), and selected ethnicity (2006)............................................................................... 51Figure 39 Proportion of the population living in rented homes, by selected ethnicity(1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006) .......................................................................................... 53Figure 40 Proportion of the Māori population living in rented homes, by rural/urbanlocation (1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006). ............................................................................ 54Figure 41 Proportion of the Māori population living in rented homes in the AucklandLocal Authorities, (1991,1996,2001,2006) ....................................................................... 55Figure 42 Proportion of the population living in rented homes, by selected ethnicity,and regional council ........................................................................................................ 56Figure 43 Proportion of the population living in rented homes, by income, and selectedethnicity (2006)................................................................................................................ 57Figure 44 Proportion of the population living in rented homes, by age (in years), andselected ethnicity (2006).................................................................................................. 57Figure 45 Proportion of the Māori population living in homes that were provided free,by rural/urban location (1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006) ...................................................... 58Figure 46 Proportion of the Māori population living in owner occupied and rentedhomes, by age (2006) ..................................................................................................... 59Figure 47 Projected regional growth in the Māori population 2006 (base)- 2016 ........ 66

Executive summary1 The purpose of this report is to provide an evidence base to inform the developmentof Māori housing policy. This report:• provides an overview of Māori population dynamics• examines current housing trends and outcomes for Māori• discusses the implications of likely population change for future Māori housingneeds• updates the 2008 Māori Housing Trends report.2 The Māori population continues to grow, making up approximately 15 percent of thetotal New Zealand population in 2006. The majority of Māori live in urban areas withalmost one quarter of Māori living in Auckland.3 In 2008, Māori had a relatively high fertility rate when compared with the totalpopulation. On average, Māori mothers give birth at a younger age than eitherEuropean, or Pacific mothers. The gap in life expectancy between Māori and non-Māori has slightly narrowed since 1997. However, in 2007, Māori life expectancy isstill approximately eight-nine years shorter than non-Māori.4 The Māori population is characterised by relatively high rates of mobility. Māori (andPacific Peoples) most commonly identify social reasons as the main reason formoving, or not moving. Economic and housing reasons were the next most commonmotivations for Māori (and Pacific Peoples) to move. This contrasts with theEuropean experience, where economic reasons tend to be the most importantconsideration, followed by social, and environmental reasons.5 There have been discernible improvements regarding the educational status ofMāori between the 2001 and 2006 Census. Increasing proportions of the Māoripopulation have obtained higher educational qualifications. However, some 40percent of the Māori population still do not hold a formal qualification, a higherproportion than for European or Pacific Peoples.6 Between the 2001 and 2006 Census, the median income for Māori increased byapproximately 41 percent, which was higher than increases for European, or PacificPeoples. Yet, in 2006 the median income for Māori is only $20,900 which is similarto Pacific Peoples, but less compared to Europeans.7 The current economic recession has seen a higher proportion of Māori (and PacificPeoples) become unemployed than Europeans. The Māori unemployment rate hasrisen by 2.3 percent to 11.2 percent between the March 2008 and 2009 quarter,which was more than twice the rise in the European rate, but less than the rise in thePacific rate.8 In 2006, about 12 percent of the Māori population resided in Housing New ZealandCorporation (Corporation) housing. This compares to 2 percent of the Europeanpopulation, and 26 percent of the Pacific population.9 In 2006, about 13 percent of all Māori households were overcrowded,accommodating about 23 percent of the Māori population. The overall trend incrowding for Māori over the past two decades shows a decline, and has done so ata greater rate than for Pacific households. However, the disparity between thecrowding level of Europeans and Māori is still the same. In 2006, four times as manyMāori as European households were crowded. However, nearly six times as manyMāori as European people lived in crowded households.1

10 Over the past two decades housing has become less affordable for Māori. In 1988,eight percent of Māori households were paying more than 30 percent of their incomein housing costs, and by 2007 this figure was 29 percent. In 2004, housingaffordability was similar for Māori, European, and Pacific households for the firsttime. However by 2007, housing affordability for Māori households had decreased ata greater rate than that for European households, and at a similar rate to that forPacific households.11 In 2009, Māori account for 27 percent of all Accommodation Supplement (AS)recipients. When compared with European, and Pacific AS recipients, the proportionof Māori AS recipients who own their home is smallest, and the proportion of singleparents is highest. The number of people receiving the AS significantly increasedbetween 2008 and 2009, increasing the most for Māori (by 15 percent) whencompared with European (by 12 percent), or Pacific Peoples (by 11 percent).12 In March 2009, Māori were the Corporation’s largest tenant group (75,255occupants). Māori were less likely to reside in Corporation housing when above theage of 65 compared to Pacific and European tenants. More than half of all Māoritenants were children under the age of 20 living with their families. This was alsotrue for Pacific tenants, but compares to only 38 percent of European tenants. Beinga single parent is the most common household type for Māori tenants, accountingfor 47 percent. Especially European but also Pacific tenants have a considerablylower proportion of single parents.13 In March 2009, Māori were the second largest group of applicants for Corporationhousing (9,056 total applicants) next to Pacific Peoples. The majority of all Māoriapplicants were in severe housing need (A and B priority), which was also true forPacific but not for European applicants.14 Between 1991 and 2006, home ownership rates declined, and the number of peopleliving in rented homes increased conversely. While this is true for all ethnic groups,home ownership rates have been declining at a greater rate for Māori (by 13.4percent) than for Europeans (by 9 percent), but similar to Pacific Peoples (by 14.5percent). Furthermore in 2006, regardless of geographical location, age or income,less Māori (and Pacific Peoples) than Europeans were living in owner-occupiedhomes. Conversely more Māori (and Pacific Peoples) were living in rented homes.15 In 1991, Māori were most likely to live in homes provided for free when comparedwith European or Pacific Peoples. However by 2006, Pacific Peoples were mostlikely to live in homes provided for free.16 In 2006, Māori children under the age of 10 were more likely to live in rented thanowner-occupied homes. Māori adults were more likely to live in rented homes underthe age of 40, and more likely to live in owner-occupied homes over the age of 40.The equivalent age for European was 30, and for Pacific Peoples 50.17 By 2026, the Māori population is expected to have grown by 31 percent (from 2006).Considering higher levels of fertility, the Māori population is expected to grow at afaster rate than the European population. The median age of the Māori population isprojected to increase by 1.7 years between 2006 and 2021. However, even twodecades on, the Māori population will still have a younger age structure than theEuropean population. At the regional level, growth will occur across all regions andbe most pronounced in Auckland, Waikato and the Canterbury regions.2

IntroductionPurpose18 The purpose of this report is to provide an evidence base to inform the developmentof Māori housing policy. This report:• provides an overview of Māori population dynamics• examines current housing trends and outcomes for Māori• considers the implications of likely population change for future Māori housingneeds.Structure of the report19 The New Zealand Housing Strategy (the Housing Strategy) provides a usefulframework within which to explore Māori housing trends. This paper is structuredaround the six key action areas in the Housing Strategy: housing supply; assistanceand affordability, home ownership, rental tenure and housing quality.20 The report begins with an overview of key Māori population dynamics. It provides aninsight into growth in the Māori population, the geographical distribution of the Māoripopulation, Māori fertility patterns and life expectancy, Māori mobility, and a range ofsocial-economic outcomes.21 The section on housing supply focuses specifically on the issue of householdcrowding as an indication of housing supply stress. It illustrates the prevalence ofcrowded households and the proportion of the population that lives in crowdedhouseholds. It then lists key factors associated with household crowding.22 The assistance and affordability section shows an analysis of trends in affordabilityover the past two decades and considers housing assistance to Māori through theAccommodation Supplement. This section also provides a profile of Māori tenantsand applicants for Corporation housing.23 The next two sections examine trends in home ownership and rental tenure,respectively. Both sections provide an overview of trends and explore the impact ofage, income and geography on housing tenure.24 The section which follows focuses on the quality of housing occupied by Māori.Because of the scarcity of quantitative data on the quality of Māori housing, thissection draws on the findings of qualitative research on housing quality.25 The final section of this report sets out future scenarios for the Māori populationbeginning with an overview of population projections out to 2026. It then outlines thelikely changes in the demographic profile of the Māori population. It draws onprojections for Māori housing which provide an indication of likely Māori demand inthe future.Māori conceptions of housing26 In a literature review carried out as part of a study on Māori housing experiences 1 , itwas noted that the meaning that an individual holds about housing will shape their1 Waldegrave et al. (2006: 19-23)3

housing experiences. The report contrasts the predominant Western view of housingprimarily as a material resource, with the Māori view of land ownership whichrecognises a social, spiritual and emotional value associated with land. Further, thereport identifies the importance of the concept of guardianship in relation to Māoriland. The Māori relationship with the land is depicted as a bond that has little to dowith ownership, but instead has more to do with guardianship to be handed on tofuture generations.27 Furthermore, the review 2 also stated that conceptions of land and housing held byindividual Māori whānau ranged widely from traditional views to viewing housing asa resource. Traditionally Māori associate strongly with whakapapa and tribal land. Incontrast those viewing housing as a resource regard it as meeting certain security,status and economic needs without being linked to ancestry. The study stressed theneed for policy models to take into account Māori views, conceptions and valuesabout housing and land.28 In addition, the authors 3 argued that a clear cultural basis for the different housingneeds of Māori was revealed in respondents’ references to the purpose served bytheir homes, e.g. accommodating visiting whānau during events such as tangi,attachment to the land, and the view of the house as an inter-generational asset.Technical notes and definitions29 This report updates the 2008 Māori Housing Trends report where updated data isavailable.Definition of Māori30 The Census uses two ways to report on Māori:• through ethnicity - referred to as the Māori ethnic group• through descent - sometimes referred to as Māori ancestry.31 Māori ethnicity and Māori descent are different concepts – the former refers tocultural affiliation, while the latter refers to ancestry. In 2006, there were 565,329people who identified with the Māori ethnic group, and 643,977 people whorecorded that they were of Māori descent. With the exception of iwi statistics, alldata presented in this report is based on the Māori ethnic group.Ethnicity 2005 Standard32 There have been changes to the way in which government agencies are required toreport on ethnicity data. Before Statistics New Zealand (Stats NZ) introduced the2005 Ethnicity Standard, individuals who identified with more than one ethnic grouphad only one response reported and this was referred to as the New ZealandStandard Classification of Ethnicity 4 . The 2005 Ethnicity Standard requires reportingof every ethnic group a person identified with. This standard way of reporting onethnicity data is referred to as ‘total response data’. The standard (Level 1) ethnicitycategories are: European, Māori, Pacific Peoples, Asian, MELAA (Middle Eastern,2 Waldegrave et al. (2006: 19-23)3 Waldegrave et al. (2006: 104-105)4 Under this system, Māori had priority coding, followed by Pacific peoples, then Asian, other ethnicgroups besides European, followed by ‘Other European’ and, finally, New Zealand European.4

Latin American, African), Other Ethnicity (includes ‘New Zealander’), and ResidualCategories (e.g. includes not stated).33 The 2005 Ethnicity Standard means that individuals who have reported more thanone ethnic group will be counted once in each group they identify with. Therefore,the sum of responses for all ethnic groups will be greater than the sum of peoplewho stated their ethnicities (and will therefore add to more than 100 percent).34 For this report this means that when we talk about the Māori population, or Māori ingeneral, we refer to anybody who identified either only with the Māori ethnicity, orwith the Māori ethnicity as one of multiple ethnicities.35 Data about the Corporation’s customers (extracted from RENTEL - theCorporation’s administrative database) and data reported by Stats NZ (e.g. Census)are based on total responses. As a result, there is now greater comparabilitybetween the data sets from both sources. The Accommodation Supplement dataprovided by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has not been adapted yet toreflect the 2005 Ethnicity Standard. This data is still based on the New ZealandStandard Classification of Ethnicity, and for that reason is not directly comparablewith either Corporation data, or Stats NZ data.Comparative Analysis36 Comparative analysis is needed in order to establish whether a trend in Māorihousing develops at a similar rate as for other ethnic groups. We would assume thata similar trend is due to global factors (e.g. the economy) affecting different ethnicgroups in a similar way. If Māori housing trends develop at a different rate to otherethnic groups then this finding provides a starting point to exploring why that is, andhow different housing outcomes can be addressed. Therefore, high level trends arealso reported for the two other major ethnic groups in Corporation housing:European, and Pacific Peoples. Figure 1 shows the ethnic breakdown of theCorporation’s occupants. Including all other Level 1 ethnicity categories forcomparative purposes detracts from the readability of the report, and therefore thosewere excluded.Figure 1 Proportion of Corporation’s occupants identifying with each ethnicity (March 2009)2.9%3.9%37.7%27.2%2.7%0.4%38.0%Asian European MELAA Mäori Other Ethnicity Pacific Peoples Residual CategoriesSource: HNZC, 31 March 20095

Household ethnicity37 In the past, ethnicity for households was usually based on the reference person (theperson who fills out the dwelling form at the time of the Census, or the primarytenant for Corporation housing) of the household. However, the concept of anethnicity for a household is a highly debated topic. In fact, today there is no cleardefinition of what constitutes a Māori household. Stats NZ have mostly stoppedreporting of households by ethnicity, and replaced it with reporting on all occupants(i.e. the total population). Table and graph headings throughout this report indicateclearly whether data is reported for all occupants/total population or households.Usually resident population38 The Census data presented in this report is on a usually resident population countbasis. It excludes New Zealand residents who were temporarily overseas on Censusnight.Data consistency39 The 2008 Māori Housing Trends report omitted any 1996 Census data due to a lackof comparability regarding ethnicity responses of the 1996 to the 1991, 2001, and2006 Censuses. There were some significant changes in response in 1996 thatcould be attributed to the wording of the question rather than changes in thepopulation. This resulted in:• inconsistent data for the European ethnic groups• Māori ethnic group data maybe being inconsistent• data for all other ethnic groups (e.g. Pacific Peoples) being reasonablyconsistent 5 .40 Stats NZ are not planning 6 to revise the 1996 Census data to impose consistencywith the 1991, 2001, and 2006 Censuses. The 1996 Census data was omitted fromthe 2008 Māori Housing Trends report with the idea that it could be included in afuture report once Stats NZ had revised the 1996 Census data. Because that is notgoing to happen, this year’s report includes the 1996 Census data. The reader isadvised to interpret the 1996 Census data cautiously with regard to the likelychanges to the data outlined in the list above.41 The reader might notice that some Corporation data in this report is slightlyinconsistent with Corporation data reported in the 2008 report. This is due to tworeasons.• The implementation of the 2005 Ethnicity Standard had not been fullycompleted by the time the data for the 2008 report was produced.• The 2008 report used data from June whereas this report uses more recentdata from March, due to seasonality effects results can differ.42 The implementation of the 2005 Ethnicity Standard for Corporation data has beenfully completed now, and we would not expect any further inconsistencies in futurereports. Changing the reference month from June to March and takinginconsistencies into account is justified by the fact that when this report is published5 http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2001-census-data/change-in-ethnicity-question.htm6 http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2001-census-data/change-in-ethnicity-question.htm6

Corporation data will be much more up-to-date (3 months old as opposed to 1 yearold).Calculation of percentages43 Percentages can be calculated in two different ways, either by excluding the numberof people that have not stated a valid response from the denominator (from hereonreferred to as ‘zero-basing’), or by including them. Stats NZ always publishespercentages that are zero-based. However, for the purposes of this report,percentages were calculated including the total number of people in thedenominator. Yet, some sections in this report cite percentages published by StatsNZ that were zero-based. It is clearly referenced throughout the report wherepercentages are not zero-based.44 The difference in the way percentages were calculated does not impact on theability to observe trends over a time period in this report because percentages werecomputed consistently during the time period for a particular data set (e.g. homeownership rates).45 The advantage to including all people rather than all people that gave validresponses in the denominator is that for example home ownership rates are notover-estimated. Using the example of home ownership rates in 2006, about fourpercent of the Māori population did not give a valid response to the tenure question.Zero-basing effectively means that for these four percent their tenure type will beimputed using the same proportions of tenure types of people that gave a validresponse. For example, the home ownership rate calculated using all Māori as thedenominator is 43.3 percent, zero-basing increases the home ownership rate by 2percent to 45.2 percent. However, it might not be justified to assume that all peoplewho did not give a valid response have the same living circumstances as peoplethat did respond validly. This is especially true when considering that the Censusconsistently undercounts people living in state housing 7 .7 CHRANZ (2004: 339-340)7

The Māori PopulationIntroduction46 This section presents an overview of the socio-demographic profile of the Māoripopulation, providing a context for the consideration of trends in Māori housing. Itbegins by reviewing growth in the Māori population, including patterns of Māorifertility and life expectancy, and the changing age structure of the Māori population.It then outlines the household composition, and geographic distribution of the Māoripopulation. The next section provides an overview of patterns of Māori mobility,including a profile of Māori who recently moved and Māori who did not, followed byan analysis of Māori motivations for migration. The final section in this chapterprovides an overview of recent changes in Māori socio-economic outcomes, with aparticular focus on recent changes in the education, employment, and income statusof the Māori population. This section also introduces two new 8 indicators, theproportion of the Māori population that lives in Corporation housing, and the Māorioccupancy rate.Population growth47 Over the past four Censuses, the Māori population living in New Zealand hasincreased by 30 percent, from 434,847 in 1991 to 565,329 in 2006 (see Table 1).Despite immigration of other ethnic groups and emigration of Māori, Māori continueto make up a growing proportion of the New Zealand population, accounting for 14.6percent of the total population in 2006 (accounted for just under 13 percent in 1991)In comparison, the European population accounted for 67.6 percent, and the Pacificpopulation for 6.8 percent of the total New Zealand population in 2006.Table 1 Growth in the Māori ethnic group and descent populations 1991-2006Census year Māori ethnic group 1 Māori descent 21991 434,847 511,2781996 523,371 579,7142001 526,281 604,1102006 565,329 643,977Source: Statistics New Zealand, Quick Stats about Māori (March 2007 revised)1 Includes people who stated Māori as their sole ethnic group or one of several ethnic groups.2 Includes those people that identify they are of Māori ancestry48 Regarding the diversity of the Māori population in 2006, just under half (47.2percent) identified with more than one ethnicity. Of those, just under 90 percentidentified with European ethnic groups, and just under 15 percent identified withPacific ethnic groups as one of their ethnic groups.49 In line with the growth in the Māori population, the number of people who claimMāori ancestry in 2006 has increased by around 26 percent since 1991. In 2006,643,977 people identified as having Māori ancestry accounting for nearly 18 percentof the total New Zealand population.50 Table 2 shows the 10 largest iwi with which Māori affiliate. With the exception ofWaikato, the number of people identifying with each of the 10 largest iwi has grownin the five years between the 2001 and 2006 Census.8 Have not been in previous Maori Housing Trends reports.8

Table 2 Ten largest iwi 2006Iwi 2001 1 2006 2 PercentagegrowthNgāpuhi 102,984 122,211 18.7Ngāti Porou 61,701 71,910 16.5Ngāti Kahungunu 51,552 59,946 16.2Ngai Tahu/Kai Tahu 39,180 49,185 25.5Te Arawa 39,165 42,159 7.6Ngati Tuwharetoa 29,298 34,674 18.3Ngati Maniapoto 27,168 33,627 23.2Waikato 35,781 33,429 -6.6Tuhoe 29,256 32,670 11.7Ngati Awa 13,044 15,258 17.0Source: 1Statistics New Zealand, Quick Stats about Māori (March 2007 revised)2 Statistics New Zealand, 2001 Census: Iwi Statistics, Table 1 (Nov 2002)Māori fertility patterns 951 The total fertility rate 10 for Māori women in 2008 was 2.95 births per woman, up from2.94 in 2007 and 2.56 ten years ago (1998). The rate for the total population was2.18 births per woman. In 2008, Māori gained 18,840 babies, this compares withEuropean 44,530 babies, and Pacific Peoples 10,120 babies. Māori women givingbirth tend to be younger, with a median age of 26. The median age for Pacific, andEuropean women was 27, and 31 years, respectively.Māori life expectancy 1152 Among Māori, life expectancy at birth increased by 1.4 years for males and by 1.9years for females between 2000–02 and 2005–07. These gains were due largely tothe reduction in death rates among late working ages (50–64 years) and retirementages (65–79 years). Small increases in death rates were observed at some youngerages.53 Māori experience higher death rates than non-Māori 12 at all ages. Māori die at morethan double the rate of non-Māori among males aged 2–6 and 28–72 years, andfemales aged 2–4, 12–17 and 25–75 years.54 As a result of differences in death rates, life expectancy at birth for non-Māoriexceeded that of Māori by 8.6 years for males and by 7.9 years for females in 2005–07. For males, three quarters of these differences in life expectancy are due tohigher Māori death rates at ages 40–79 years. For females, three-quarters of thesedifferences in life expectancy are due to higher Māori death rates at ages 50–84years.9 This section is based on: Statistics New Zealand. Births and Deaths: December 2008 quarter. (Feb 2009)10 The total fertility rate is the average number of live births that a woman would have during her lifeif she experienced the age-specific fertility rates of a given period (usually a year). It excludes theeffect of mortality.11 This section is based on two reports by Statistics New Zealand. New Zealand Life Period Tables:2005-07 . (Nov 2008). Births and Deaths: December 2008 quarter. (Feb 2009).12 Statistics NZ is currently not producing life tables for other ethnic groups such as Asian andPacific because of the relatively small size of these ethnic populations, relatively few deathregistrations, and uncertainty associated with ethnic identification and measurement. That is whythe analysis in this section is limited to a Māori/Non-Māori comparison.9

55 The gap between Māori and non-Māori life expectancy has narrowed over the past10 years. In 1995–97, it stood at 9.1 years (average of male and female). By 2000–02 it had dropped to about 8.5 years. In 2005–07, the gap was 8.2 years. Thus, therate at which this gap is narrowing seems to be decreasing.56 The gap for males between Māori and non-Māori life expectancy has fluctuated,dropping from 8.8 years in 1995–97 to 8.2 years in 2000–02, but increasing to 8.6years in 2005–07. In contrast, the gap for females between Māori and non-Māori lifeexpectancy has consistently dropped from 9.3 years in 1995–97 to 8.8 years in2000–02 to 7.9 years in 2005–07. Table 3 illustrates this.Table 3 Life expectancy at birth for the Māori and non-Māori population 1995-97, 2000-02, and 2005-07Māori populationNon-Māori populationDifference in lifeexpectancy (years)Year 95-97 00-02 05-07 95-97 00-02 05-07 95-97 00-02 05-07Females 71.3 73.2 75.1 80.6 82.0 83.0 9.3 8.8 7.9Males 66.6 69.0 70.4 75.4 77.2 79.0 8.8 8.2 8.6Source: Statistics New Zealand, New Zealand Period Life Tables: 2005-07 (Nov 2008)57 The gap between Māori and non-Māori life expectancy partly reflects different ratesof diabetes and smoking, as well as socio-economic differences. The latest causeof-deathstatistics show age-standardised death rates from diabetes were nearly sixtimes higher for Māori than non-Māori in 2004. The 2006 Census reported that 42percent of Māori aged 15 years and over were regular smokers, compared with 18percent of non-Māori.Changing age structure of the Māori population 1358 The Māori population is characterised by a youthful age structure. In 2006, morethan a third (about 34 percent) of the Māori population was under the age of 15years. However, a gradual ageing of the Māori population is occurring. In 2006, themedian age of the Māori population increased to 22.9 years (up from 22.1 years in2001).59 The largest increase in the Māori population since 2001 can be attributed to theworking-age population (15-64 years) accounting for approximately 87 percent ofthe increase in the Māori population. The proportion of Māori aged 65 years andover has increased from about 3 percent in 2001 to about 4 percent in 2006.13 This section is based on: Statistics New Zealand. National Ethnic Population Projections – 2006(base)-2026.10

Household composition 1460 The most common living arrangements for Māori households are one familyhouseholds with children led by a couple or a single parent, reflecting the youngerdemographic of the Māori population (see Figure 2). However, Māori sole parenthouseholds are more than double the rate of other households. Māori householdsare more likely than other households to have a family composition that includedmore than one nuclear family, or one nuclear family plus other people, althoughthese are a small proportion of all households.Figure 2 Distribution of household composition types by selected ethnicity (2001)Source: Waldegrave et al. (2006, p. 152)Geographical distribution61 A key feature of the Māori demographic transition in the 1960s was the rapid rural tourban migration. In 1956, nearly two thirds of Māori lived in rural areas 15 . Themajority of Māori today live in urban areas. In 2006, almost one quarter of the Māoripopulation live in Auckland. The Waikato, Bay of Plenty and Wellington regionalcouncils have the next three largest proportions of the Māori population. Table 4shows that the rate of Māori population growth has been greatest in some of theSouth Island regions (Otago, Canterbury, West Coast, Nelson). However, betweenthe 2001 and 2006 Census, the proportion of the Māori population living in the SouthIsland only increased from 12.3 to 13.0 percent. Overall, the geographicaldistribution of the Māori population has changed little over that period.14 This section cites information from Waldegrave et al. (2006) that is based on 2001 Censusresults. A Māori household is defined as a household that has at least one member identifyingwith Māori ethnicity. ‘Other’ households are all households that do not have a single memberidentifying with Māori ethnicity.15 Thorns & Sedgwick (1997).11

Table 4 Māori by regional council area 2001 and 2006Regional councilPercent of the MāoriNumber of Māoripopulation2001 2006 2001 2006Percent change2001-2006Northland 40,734 43,527 7.7 7.7 6.9Auckland 127,626 137,136 24.3 24.3 7.5Waikato 72,822 76,572 13.8 13.5 5.1Bay of Plenty 63,654 67,662 12.1 12.0 6.3Gisborne 19,362 17,758 3.7 3.5 2.0Hawke's Bay 32,088 33,555 6.1 5.9 4.6Taranaki 14,562 15,801 2.8 2.8 8.5Manawatu-Wanganui 39,267 42,288 7.5 7.5 7.7Wellington 51,120 55,434 9.7 9.8 8.4North Island 461,235 491,733 87.6 87.0 6.6Tasman 2,778 3,063 0.5 0.5 10.3Nelson 3,219 3,615 0.6 0.6 12.3Marlborough 3,894 4,275 0.7 0.8 9.8West Coast 2,547 2,916 0.5 0.5 14.5Canterbury 31,632 36,669 6.0 6.5 15.9Otago 10,542 12,270 2.0 2.2 16.4Southland 10,038 10,422 1.9 1.8 3.8South Island 64,650 73,230 12.3 13.0 13.3Area Outside Region 393 366 0.1 0.1 -6.9New Zealand 526,281 565,329 100.0 100.0 7.4Source: Statistics New Zealand, Quick Stats about Māori (March 2007 revised)Māori mobility62 The Māori population is characterised by relatively high rates of mobility. In 2006,people identifying as Māori were most likely to have lived somewhere else in NewZealand five years earlier 16 .63 In 2006 on average (using the median 17 ), Māori had lived at their usual residence for2.9 years. When compared with the same measure in 1996 (3.0 years), Māori havebecome slightly more mobile since then.64 Through 1996 to 2006, Māori have consistently lived the shortest average time attheir current residence when compared with European (3.9 years in 1996, 5 years in2001, and 3.8 years in 2006), or Pacific (3.1 years in 1996, 3.1 in 2001, 3.2 in 2006).Figure 3 shows this.16 Statistics New Zealand. Quick Stats about Population Mobility – 2006 Census, (Feb 2007: 3).17 The median means that half of the population lived longer, and half shorter at their usualresidence than this number.12

Figure 3 Median years at usual residence for households, by selected ethnicity 18 (1996,2001, 2006)65432101996 2001 2006Mäori European Pacific PeoplesSource: Statistics New Zealand, Census 1996, 2001, 200665 In 2006, Māori living in the Gisborne and Northland regions lived on average thelongest at their usual residence with 3.6 years, and 3.5 years respectively. Māoriliving in the Otago and Nelson regions on the other hand lived on average theshortest (2.3 years) at their usual residence (see Figure 4).Figure 4(2006)Regional distribution of median years at usual residence for Māori householdsGisborneNorthlandBay of PlentyHawke's BaySouthlandWest CoastTaranakiAucklandMarlboroughTasmanWellingtonManawatu-WanganuiWaikatoCanterburyNelsonOtago0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.018 Households are reported in each ethnicity category that at least one person in the householdidentifies with.13

Source: Statistics New Zealand, Census 2006Profile of Māori movers and non-movers66 A recent survey by Stats NZ 19 found that more than one third (35.8 percent) of Māorihad moved within the previous two years. This compares to 26.5 percent ofEuropean, and 33.5 percent of Pacific Peoples having moved within the previoustwo years.67 Māori movers 20 were more youthful than their European counterparts, but lessyouthful when compared with Pacific Peoples. Figure 5 shows that young Māoriadults (under the age of 29 years 21 ) accounted for the majority (56.1 percent) ofmovers. This compares to 41.7 percent for European, and 60.5 percent for PacificPeoples.Figure 5 Age distribution of movers by selected ethnicity (2007)50%45%40%35%30%25%20%15%10%5%0%Less than2020–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70 and overEuropean Māori Pacific peoplesSource: Statistics New Zealand, Survey of Dynamics and Motivations for Migration in New Zealand (Oct 2007), customiseddata for HNZC68 Conversely, Figure 6 shows that the age distribution of Māori non-movers peaks forthe 40-49 age group. The majority of Māori non-movers (52.1 percent) were over theage of 40, which compares to 70.2 percent for European non-movers, and only 39.8percent for Pacific non-movers.19 Statistics New Zealand. Survey of Dynamics and Motivation for Migration in New Zealand. (Oct2007). The population in the sample of this survey is aged 15 years and over.20 Movers are defined as people who moved in the previous two-year period.21 Combines the ‘less than 20’ and ’20-29’ year categories from Figure 5.14

Figure 6 Age distribution of the non-movers by selected ethnicity (2007)40%35%30%25%20%15%10%5%0%Less than2020–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70 and overEuropean Māori Pacific peoplesSource: Statistics New Zealand, Survey of Dynamics and Motivations for Migration in New Zealand (Oct 2007), customiseddata for HNZCMotivations for Migration 2269 Māori most commonly identified social reasons 23 as the main reason for moving(either from their previous residence or to their current residence), or for not movingwithin the previous two years (see Figure 7). Economic 24 and housing 25 reasonswere the next most common motivations for Māori to move.Figure 7 Main reasons for Māori moving or not moving (March 2007)Source: Statistics New Zealand, Survey of Dynamics and Motivations for Migration in New Zealand (Oct 2007)Main reason for moving from previous usual residence70 For Māori, social reasons were the main motivation (29.4 percent) for moving fromtheir previous residence. This was closely followed by economic (27.5 percent), andhousing reasons (19.5 percent). Table 5 shows how this compares to European,and Pacific Peoples.22 This sections is based on results from the Statistics New Zealand Survey of Dynamics andMotivation for Migration in New Zealand (October 2007).23 E.g. wanting/needing to live with or close to family.24 E.g notice given by landlord, purchased/built a dwelling.25 E.g. Dwelling was too small.15

Table 5Main reason for moving from previous usual residenceEthnicGroup Social Education Employment Economic Housing Environment OtherMāori 29.4% 3.4% 10.1% 27.5% 19.5% 6.8% 3.3%European 22.0% 4.3% 12.2% 32.8% 16.6% 8.9% 3.3%Pacific 31.9% N/A 5.7% 30.1% 21.2% 6.6% N/ASource: Statistics New Zealand, Survey of Dynamics and Motivations for Migration in New Zealand (Oct 2007)Main reason for moving to current usual residence71 Again for Māori, social reasons (29.9 percent), followed by economic (17.5 percent),and housing reasons (16.0 percent) were the main motivators for moving to theircurrent usual residence. Table 6 shows how this compares to European, and PacificPeoples.Table 6Main reason for moving to current usual residenceEthnicGroup Social Education Employment Economic Housing Environment OtherMāori 29.9% 8.2% 12.3% 17.5% 16.0% 12.8% 3.2%European 20.7% 7.4% 14.3% 17.7% 14.7% 22.7% 2.5%Pacific 32.9% 6.3% 7.1% 21.1% 14.9% 16.4% N/ASource: Statistics New Zealand, Survey of Dynamics and Motivations for Migration in New Zealand (Oct 2007)Main reason for not moving from usual residence72 For Māori, social reasons (29.4 percent) followed by economic (19.6 percent), andenvironmental reasons (17.7 percent) were the main motivators for not moving fromtheir usual residence. Table 7 shows how this compares to European, and PacificPeoples.Table 7Main reason for not moving from usual residenceEthnicGroup Social Education Employment Economic Housing Environment OtherMāori 29.4% 7.0% 13.1% 19.6% 2.9% 17.7% 10.3%European 17.9% 4.6% 14.7% 14.4% 6.8% 28.2% 13.3%Pacific 32.0% 9.8% 11.8% 18.4% 3.4% 17.7% 6.9%Source: Statistics New Zealand, Survey of Dynamics and Motivations for Migration in New Zealand (Oct 2007)Socio-economic outcomesEducational status73 Between 2001 and 2006 there was a gradual improvement in the educational statusof the Māori population (see Figure 8). There has been a shift for Māori towardshigher educational qualifications. However, in 2006, some 40 percent of the Māoripopulation still did not hold a formal qualification. This compares to 35 percent ofPacific Peoples, and 25 percent of European.16

Figure 8 Educational qualifications of the Māori population 2001 and 2006Source: Statistics New Zealand, Quick Stats about Māori (March 2007 revised)Employment status74 Recent unemployment figures from the Household Labour Force Survey (HLFS) 26show that in 2008, the Māori unemployment rate was on average 8.3 percent. Thiscompares to 3.4 percent for European, and 7.4 percent for Pacific Peoples (seeFigure 9). The disparity between the Māori and European unemployment rate hasslightly decreased since 2007 27 but persists with the Māori unemployment rate beingmore than twice that of the European rate in 2008.75 Between the 2008 and 2009 March quarter, the unemployment rate in New Zealandhas risen by 1.3 percent to 5.6 percent (see Figure 9). This can be attributed to thedownturn in the New Zealand economy. In the March 2009 quarter the Māoriunemployment rate was sitting at 11.2 percent. The rise in the unemployment ratethe 2008 and 2009 March quarter for Māori (by 2.3 percent) was more than twicethe rise for European (by 1.1 percent), and less than for Pacific Peoples (by 4.9percent). In the March 2009 quarter, the Māori unemployment rate is again nearlytwo and a half times that of the European rate (similar to 2007).26 The population in the sample of this survey is aged 15 years and over.27 Housing New Zealand Corporation. Māori Housing Trends Report 2008, p. 17.17

Figure 92009)Percent of unemployed by selected ethnicity (March quarter 2008 – March Quarter14%12%10%8%6%4%2%0%March Quarter2008June Quarter2008SeptemberQuarter 2008DecemberQuarter 2008March Quarter2009European Mäori Pacific Peoples Total NZSource: Statistics New Zealand, Household Labour Force Survey March 2009, customised data prepared for HNZC76 A recent NZIER report 28 forecasts the New Zealand unemployment rate to rise byanother 1.2 percent to 6.8 percent in 2009/10, the highest rate since 1998/99. Theunemployment rate is expected to remain steady in 2010/11 at 6.7 percent. Thecurrent rise in the unemployment rate saw a higher proportion of Māori and PacificPeoples becoming unemployed in comparison to the New Zealand rate. Witheconomists forecasting future increases in the New Zealand unemployment rateover the next year, we can expect a greater increase in the Māori rate in comparisonto the New Zealand rate.77 The highest unemployment rate for Māori was recorded for Northland (15.7percent), while the lowest unemployment rate for Māori was recorded for theCanterbury, and Manawatu-Wanganui regions (7.8 percent). Figure 10 shows theregional variation in the Māori unemployment rate in March 2009.28 NZIER (New Zealand Institute of Economic Research) – Consensus Forecasts March 2009, p. 2.18

Figure 10 Percent of Māori unemployed by region 29 (March 2009 quarter)NorthlandGisborne/Hawkes BayAucklandBay of PlentyWaikatoWellingtonCanterburyManawatu-Wanganui0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%Source: Statistics New Zealand, Household Labour Force Survey March 2009, customised data prepared for HNZC78 From the March 2008 to the March 2009 quarter, the Northland, Auckland andWaikato regions showed the three largest increases in the Māori unemployment rate(by 7.3, 5.1, and 4.2 percent, respectively).Income status 3079 Between the 2001 and 2006 Census, a shift occurred in the income distribution ofMāori 31 . This shift was greatest for the Māori whose median income increased by41.2 percent from $14,800 in 2001 to $20,900 in 2006. This increase in medianincome was greater for Māori than for European (by 28.3 percent), or PacificPeoples (by 38.5 percent). Despite this positive trend, the actual median income forMāori in 2006 was only $20,900, which compares to $25,400 for European, and$20,500 for Pacific Peoples.Figure 11 Total personal income of the Māori population (2001 and 2006)Source: Statistics New Zealand, Quick Stats about Māori (March 2007 revised)29 Stats NZ suppressed estimates less than 1000 due to high sampling errors. This resulted in noestimates for: Otago, Southland, Taranaki, and Tasman/Nelson/Marlborough/West Coast.30 This section is based on: Statistics New Zealand. Quick Stats about Incomes. (June 2007) andStatistics New Zealand. Quick Stats about Māori. (March 2007).31 The Census records personal income from all sources for people aged 15+ years.19

80 In 2008, the median weekly income for Māori was $500 up 39 percent from 2002.Māori aged between 25-44 had the highest median weekly income of all agebrackets. Their weekly income rose from $468 to $638 between 2002 and 2008, a36 percent increase.81 The weekly median income for the total New Zealand 32 population rose from $385 to$537 up 40 percent between 2002 and 2008 . Those aged between 25-44 and 45–64 had the highest median weekly income of all age brackets. Their weekly incomesrose from $540 to $720 (33 percent increase) for 25-44 year olds and $508 to $710(40 percent increase) for the 45-64 year olds between 2002 and 2008.82 Though in 2008, the median weekly income for Māori aged between 25-44 waslower than the total New Zealand population, the increase for Māori wasproportionately greater between 2002 and 2008. Figure 12 shows the change inmedian income levels for Māori by age brackets.Figure 12 Median weekly income for Māori by age groups 2002 – 2008$700$600$500$400$300$200$100$02002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 200815 - 24 Years 25 - 44 Years 45 - 64 Years 65 Years and overSource: Statistics New Zealand, New Zealand Income Survey 2002 – 200883 In 2008, Māori with a post school qualification (with or without a school qualification)had a higher medium weekly income than those with only a school qualification orwithout a qualification. The medium weekly income for Māori with a post school andschool qualification rose from $545 to $722 (a 33 percent increase) between 2002and 2008.84 The weekly income for the total New Zealand population with a post school andschool qualification increased from $580 to $765 (a 32 percent increase) between2002 and 2008.85 The median weekly income levels for Māori are higher than the total New Zealandpopulation for people with no qualification, school qualifications, and post school butno school qualifications. Yet the median weekly income for Māori is lower than thetotal New Zealand population for people with post school and school qualifications,32 Note the total New Zealand population is inclusive of the Māori population.20

and overall. Figure 13 shows the change in the median weekly income for Māori byqualification levels.Figure 13 Median weekly income for Māori by highest qualification 2002 – 2008$800$700$600$500$400$300$200$100$02002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008No qualificationPost school but no school qualificationsSchool qualificationsPost school and school qualificationsSource: Statistics New Zealand, New Zealand Income Survey 2002 – 2008Living in Corporation housing86 The proportion of the population that is living in Corporation housing can be viewedas a social-economic outcome. Overall, about five percent of the total New Zealandpopulation lives in Corporation housing. In 2006, about 12 percent of the Māoripopulation lived in Corporation housing. This compares to 2 percent of theEuropean, and 26 percent of the Pacific population (see Table 8). At the moment itis impossible to derive a time series for this indicator, because the Corporation doesnot hold reliable and comparable ethnicity data for the same time as the pastCensuses (e.g. 2001, 1996, 1991). However, results from the 2011 Census willprovide the opportunity to do so.Table 8 The proportion of the population living in Corporation housing, by selectedethnicity (2006)Māori European Pacific PeoplesHNZC 69,393 51,145 69,304Total NZ Population 565,329 2,609,592 265,974Proportion ofpopulation living in12.3% 2.0% 26.1%HNZC housingSource: HNZC (March 2006) and Census data (2006)Occupancy Rate 3387 The occupancy rate for Māori has been consistently decreasing from 1996 to 2006.This decrease can also be observed for the European population, but is reversed forPacific People (see Figure 14). While Pacific Peoples have the highest occupancyrates in 1996, 2001, and 2006, Māori have the second highest in 2006 and 2001.33 The occupancy rate is the average no of usual residents per household in private occupied dwellings.21

The European population showed a slightly higher occupancy rate than Māori in1996. However this observation may be explained by the deviation of the recordingof ethnicity in the 1996 Census which mostly affected the figures for European (referto technical notes section on page 6).Figure 14 Occupancy rate by selected ethnicity (2006)3.33.12.92.72.52.32.11.91.71.51996 2001 2006Source: Statistics New Zealand, Census 2006Mäori European Pacific PeoplesSummary88 The Māori population continues to grow as a proportion of the total New Zealandpopulation with Māori currently making up approximately 15 percent of the totalpopulation. The majority of Māori now live in urban areas with almost one quarter ofMāori living in Auckland.89 In 2008, Māori have a relatively high fertility rate when compared with the totalpopulation. Māori mothers give birth on average at a younger age than eitherEuropean or Pacific mothers. The gap in the difference in life expectancy of theMāori and non-Māori population has slightly narrowed. However, in 2007, Māori canstill expect to live approx. 8-9 years shorter than non-Māori.90 The Māori population is characterised by relatively high rates of mobility, with Māoribeing most likely to have lived elsewhere within the previous five years. Māori (andPacific Peoples) most commonly identify social reasons as the main reason formoving (either from their previous residence or to their current residence), or for notmoving. Economic and housing reasons were the next most common motivations forMāori (and Pacific Peoples) to move. This contrasts with the European experience,where economic reasons tend to be the most important consideration, followed bysocial, and environmental reasons.91 There have been discernible improvements in the educational, and income status ofMāori between the 2001 and 2006 Census. Increasing proportions of the populationare obtaining higher educational qualifications, and the median income of Māoriincreased by about 41 percent. Notwithstanding these improvements, some 40percent of the Māori population still do not hold a formal qualification, which isgreater than for European or Pacific Peoples, and the median income for Māori isonly $20,900 which is similar to Pacific Peoples, but less than for Europeans.22

92 The current economic recession has seen a higher proportion of Māori (and PacificPeoples) become unemployed than Europeans. The Māori unemployment rate hasrisen by 2.6 percent to 11.2 percent between the March 2008 and 2009 quarter,which is two and a half times the European rate, but less than the Pacific rate.93 In 2006, about 12 percent of the Māori population resided in Corporation housing.This compares to 2 percent of the European population, and 26 percent of thePacific population.23

Housing SupplyIntroduction94 In order to consider the adequacy of housing supply for Māori, this section beginswith an overview of Māori housing need. These findings were part of a broaderstudy into Māori housing experiences 34 and were based on qualitative fieldwork withMāori householders and key informants in six localities throughout New Zealand.The section then focuses on trends in Māori household and population crowding asa key indicator of housing supply, and identifies the key factors associated withhousehold crowding.95 There are multiple ways to define the level of crowding. Stats NZ are currentlyundertaking some work around identifying which crowding measure is the mostappropriate for the New Zealand context. Pre-liminary results show that theCanadian National Occupancy Standard (CNOS 35 ) seems to be the mostappropriate. The crowding data presented in this section is based on this standard.Next year’s Māori Housing Trends report will present an updated profile of crowdedMāori households (e.g. tenure type, income type, household type) using 2006Census data based on the work currently undertaken by Stats NZ.Māori housing needs96 Based on qualitative fieldwork, it was found 36 that there was overall agreement thatthe housing needs of Māori differed from those of others, to the extent that Māoritended to need to accommodate a larger number of people than was usually thecase with the general population. This was usually associated with larger family sizeand the practice of receiving and accommodating visiting whānau and other visitorson a relatively frequent basis for short periods, for example for tangihanga, andother whānau gatherings. All respondents unequivocally stated that being able toaccommodate guests was important.97 In addition, many participants in this research identified the desirability of being ableto accommodate another whānau member or members, usually a parent (s) orgrandparent(s) on a permanent basis. This sentiment was expressed by rural andurban respondents.Crowding98 This section explores crowding in two ways. Firstly, crowding prevalence ispresented at a household level, secondly at a population level. This is to provide acomplete picture of the extent of crowding for Māori. The numbers derived in bothways can differ quite significantly due to the household make-up and young agestructure of the Māori population.34 Waldegrave et al. (2006).35 The standard sets the bedroom requirements of a household according to the followingcomposition criteria: there should be no more than two people per bedroom; parents or couplesshare a bedroom; children under five years, either of same or opposite sex, may reasonablyshare a bedroom; children under 18 years of the same sex may reasonably share a bedroom; achild aged five to 17 years should not share a bedroom with one under five of the opposite sex;single adults 18 years and over and any unpaired children require a separate bedroom.36 Waldegrave et al. (2006: 104).24

Household crowding99 In 2006, 28,100 or 12.9 percent of Māori households 37 required at least one extrabedroom to adequately accommodate household members.100 Between 1986 and 2006, the proportion of Māori households living in crowdedhousing has steadily declined (see Figure 15). In 1986, 22.4 percent of Māorihouseholds where overcrowded. This percentage consistently decreased to 15.1percent in 1996, and continued decreasing at a slower rate to 2006’s level of 12.9percent.101 In 1986, levels of overcrowding were four times higher for Māori households than forEuropean households, and lower than for Pacific households. Despite the decline inovercrowding of Māori households, in 2006 this disparity is still the same. Comparedwith Pacific households, in 2006, Māori households have half the level of crowding.While over time the percentage of overcrowded Pacific households has decreased,Māori rates have decreased at a proportionately higher rate.40%35%30%25%20%15%10%5%0%Figure 15 Percentage of crowded households (requiring at least one extra bedroom), byethnicity (1986-2006)1986 1991 1996 2001 2006European Mäori Pacific Peoples Total, New ZealandSource: Statistics New Zealand, Census 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006, customised data prepared for HNZC102 Figure 16 shows the severity of crowded households by ethnicity in 2006. Fourpercent of Māori households were severely crowded (requiring two or morebedrooms), and nine percent were in need of one extra bedroom (crowded). Māorirates of severe household crowding were four times higher than for Europeanhouseholds, but less than half when compared with Pacific households. Māori ratesof household crowding (one more bedroom required) were four and a half timeshigher than for European households, and nearly half the rate of Pacific households.37 Māori households are defined as households with at least 1 Māori household member (usualresident).25

Figure 16 Percentage of crowded and non-crowded households, by selected ethnicity (2006)45%40%35%30%25%20%15%10%5%0%Severely crowded(two or morebedroomsrequired)Crowded (onemore bedroomrequired)No bedroomsspare and nonerequiredOne bedroomspareTwo or morebedrooms spareMäori European Pacific PeoplesSource: Statistics New Zealand, Census 2006, customised data prepared for HNZCPopulation crowding103 The proportion of the Māori population living in crowded housing steadily declinedfrom 35 percent in 1986 to 23 percent in 2006. Figure 17 shows the trend for theMāori population in comparison to the European and Pacific population.Figure 17 Proportion of population living in crowded households, by ethnicity (1986-2006)Source: MSD, Social Report 2008, p. 66104 Figure 18 shows the severity of crowded households by ethnicity in 2006. Eightpercent of the Māori population lived in severely crowded households, and 14percent lived in households in need of one extra bedroom (crowded). The rate of theMāori population living in severely crowded households was eight times higher thanfor the European population, but more than half when compared with the Pacificpopulation. The rate of the Māori population living in crowded households (one morebedroom required) was three and a half times higher than for the Europeanpopulation, and nearly half the rate of Pacific households.26

Figure 18 Percentage of people living in crowded and non-crowded households, byethnicity (2006)40%35%30%25%20%15%10%5%0%Severelycrowded (two ormore bedroomsrequired)Crowded (onemore bedroomrequired)No bedroomsspare and nonerequiredOne bedroomspareTwo or morebedroomsspareMāori European Pacific PeoplesSource: Statistics New Zealand, Census 2006, customised data prepared for HNZCFactors associated with crowding105 According to Stats NZ, crowding is concentrated disproportionately among someethnic groups, is associated with low income, high numbers of dependent children,two or more families living in a household, one-parent families (living with others)and extended family living 38 .106 According to the 2008 Social Report (p. 67), cultural attitudes, and economicconditions primarily account for the extreme variation in crowding levels betweenethnic groups. Secondly, the young age structure of the Māori and Pacific populationalso accounts for the high crowding levels.107 In terms of cultural attitudes, research 39 also suggests that the hosting andaccommodating of visitors and the accommodation of whānau members incombination with standard house design is likely to contribute to crowding. Thisresearch also identified that overcrowding in rural areas, like Northland and the EastCoast, was the result of migration of whānau back to hometown communities, and alack of housing to accommodate them. The availability of housing in those areaswas described as limited, which required families to live in overcrowdedenvironments in order to live in the desired areas they were returning to. In addition,the demand for larger houses, by some Māori families, did not match the availablehousing in rural areas.Summary108 The overall trend in Māori crowding over the past two decades shows a decline.This is true whether crowding is analysed by the number of crowded households orthe number of people living in crowded households. However, in 2006, about 1338 Statistics New Zealand (2003: 1-2)39 Waldegrave et al. (2006: 105, 114)27

percent of all Māori households are overcrowded, accommodating about 23 percentof the Māori population.109 Even though the level of crowding for Māori has steadily declined between 1986 and2006, and has done so at a greater rate than for Pacific households, the disparitybetween the crowding level of Europeans and Māori is still the same. In 2006, fourtimes as many Māori households as European households were crowded. However,nearly six times as many Māori as European people live in crowded households.28

Assistance and AffordabilityIntroduction110 The Corporation’s 2009/10 Statement of Intent (SOI) recognises that housing isstrongly linked to the health, educational performance, personal security and wealthof people. The Government outcome regarding housing is that New Zealandershave access to affordable, good quality housing appropriate to their needs.111 There are three key measures of assistance and affordability reported in thissection:• the proportion of low income households paying more than 30 percent of theirincome in housing costs• the number of Accommodation Supplement recipients• the number of Corporation households receiving Income Related Rent.112 The section begins with an overview of trends in affordability over the past twodecades. It then identifies the number of Māori who are accessing housingassistance through the Accommodation Supplement (AS). A profile of AS recipientsis presented and potential reasons for the recent increase in the number of Māorireceiving the AS are suggested. The focus then moves on to Māori access toCorporation housing where a profile of Māori tenants and applicants is presented.The supply of state housing by the Corporation is one of the Government’s keyhousing assistance strategies.Affordability 40113 Housing for Māori has become less affordable over the last 20 years. This is in linewith the trend for other ethnic groups. In 1988, only 8 percent of households with atleast one Māori adult (referred to as Māori households from hereon) were payingmore than 30 percent of their income in housing costs. Ten years later, this figurehad increased to 32 percent, falling to 21 percent in 2004, then rising to 29 percentin 2007, close to the 2001 level of 31 percent.114 Figure 19 shows that in 2004 housing affordability for Māori households wascomparable to that for households with at least one European or Pacific adult(referred to as European, and Pacific households from hereon). Since 2004 housingaffordability for Māori households has decreased at a greater rate than that forEuropean households, and at a similar rate to that for Pacific households. For Māori,housing affordability remains an issue with nearly 1 in 3 Māori households recordinghousing costs in excess of 30 percent of income in 2007.40 The data presented in this section cites the Ministry of Social Development 2008 Social Report.That data has been derived from Statistics New Zealand’s Household Economic Survey (1988–2007).29

Figure 19 Proportion of households with housing cost outgoings-to-income ratio greater than30 percent, by ethnic group (1988–2007)Source: Derived from Statistics New Zealand’s Household Economic Survey (1988–2004), by the Ministry of SocialDevelopment, Social Report 2008, p. 65.Accommodation Supplement115 In 1993, the AS was introduced to supplement housing costs for low to modestincome earners in the private sector. The AS is a non-taxable income and assettestedsupplement that provides assistance towards accommodation costs,including rent, board and the cost of owner-occupied homes. Recipients do not haveto be receiving a benefit to qualify.Profile of AS recipients116 In March 2009, the number of Māori people receiving the AS was 74,335,accounting for 27 percent of all AS recipients. This compares to 125,805 European,and 18,799 Pacific AS recipients, accounting for 45.8 percent, and 6.8 percent,respectively. These numbers show that Māori are highly over-represented amongAS recipients accounting for 27 percent, yet only making up 15 percent of the totalNew Zealand population.117 The most striking difference between the profile of Māori AS recipients, andEuropean AS recipients is the higher proportion of Māori who are boarding. Figure20 shows in March 2009, the proportion of Māori recipients (31 percent) who wereboarding was nearly twice that of European recipients (16 percent), although stilllower than for Pacific Peoples (39 percent).118 By comparison with European and Pacific Peoples, the proportion of Māorirecipients who own their own home is the smallest. Taking into account that theMāori homeownership rate is higher than for Pacific Peoples (see Figure 33), thismay signal low levels of awareness among Māori homeowners about their potentialeligibility for the AS.30

Figure 20 Distribution of Accommodation Supplement recipients, by tenure and selectedethnicity (March 2009)100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%Mäori NZ European Pacific PeoplesRenting Boarding Own HomeSource: MSD Administrative data, Extracted by HNZC, April 2009119 Consistent with the Māori demographic profile, Māori AS recipients have a youngerage profile than either European or Pacific Peoples (see Figure 21).Figure 21 Age distribution of Accommodation Supplement recipients by selected ethnicity(March 2009)50%45%40%35%30%25%20%15%10%5%0%

Peoples have the highest proportion of recipients that are married with children (seeFigure 22). Interestingly, consistent across all three ethnic groups, single recipientswithout children are the most common family type of all AS recipients, followed bysingle parents. However for Māori, the proportion of singles without children andsingle parents is virtually identical (46 percent and 45 percent respectively). Thisindicates that in general single households with or without children are most in needof the AS.Figure 22 Accommodation Supplement recipients by family status and selected ethnicity(March 2009)60%50%40%30%20%10%0%Single No Children Single with Children Married no Children Married with ChildrenMäori European Pacific PeoplesSource: MSD Administrative data, Extracted by HNZC, April 2009Increase in the number of Māori AS recipients121 Between March 2005 and 2009, there has been an increase (by 16.1 percent) in thenumber of AS recipients. Table 9 shows that the number of Māori AS recipientsincreased at a slower rate (by 12.9 percent) than the number of European andPacific recipients. It is unclear why, but again this may signal lower awareness aboutthe AS among Māori.Table 9 Accommodation Supplement recipients, by selected ethnicity (March 2005-2009)Year Māori European Pacific Total2005 65,814 109,661 15,182 236,4712006 67,238 114,431 16,092 245,5732007 65,502 115,117 15,923 245,3712008 64,560 112,524 15,782 241,8762009 74,335 125,805 18,799 274,620Percentagechange 2005-2009 12.9% 14.7% 23.8% 16.1%Source: MSD Administrative data, Extracted by HNZC, April 2009122 Table 9 also shows that the greatest increase in the number of AS recipients for thelast five years occurred during the last year. Between March 2008 and 2009 thenumber of AS recipients increased the most for Māori (by 15 percent), when32

compared to European (11.8 percent), and Pacific Peoples (11.1 percent). Again,this can most likely be attributed to the current economic climate, and peoplebecoming unemployed.123 For Māori, close to 80 percent of the increase in AS recipients is caused by anincrease in the number of private renters (see Table10). With New Zealand’seconomy being in a recession, a weakening labour market could be affecting privaterenters’ ability to find employment thus decreasing their incomes to a level wherethey are eligible for the AS.Table 10 Māori Accommodation Supplement recipients by tenure (March 2005-2009)Tenure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Change(05-09)Boarders 20,902 21,149 19,552 18,827 22,881 +9.5%Home Owners 5,331 5,366 5,192 4,875 5,156 -3.3%Private Renters 39,071 40,146 40,156 40,270 45,688 +16.9%Council Renters 499 564 599 582 608 +21.8%Unknown 11 13 3 6 2 -81.8%Total 65,814 67,238 65,502 64,560 74,335 8,521Source: MSD Administrative data, Extracted by HNZC, April 2009124 Regarding the trend in income support type of Māori AS recipients, Table 11 showsan increase in the number of Māori receiving the sickness, or invalids benefit.However, the greatest increase occurred for non-beneficiaries, whose numbersnearly doubled.Table 11 Māori Accommodation Supplement recipients, by income type (March 2005-2009)Income Type 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Change(05-09)Unemployment Related 41 14,286 12,522 8,901 6,991 11,945 -16.4%DPB Related 42 27,283 27,111 25,684 25,743 28,188 +3.3%Widows Benefit 706 662 600 574 584 -17.3%Independent Youth Benefit, EmergencyBenefit1,575 1,631 1,468 1,477 1,830 +16.2%NZ Superannuation & Veterans Pension 2,137 2,419 2,651 2,770 2,961 +38.5%Invalids Benefit 7,691 8,246 8,608 9,274 9,867 +28.3%Sickness Benefit 7,458 8,217 9,009 8,897 10,229 +37.2%Non-beneficiaries 4,678 6,430 8,581 8,834 8,731 +86.6%Total 65,814 67,238 65,502 64,560 74,335 8,521Source: MSD Administrative data, Extracted by Housing New Zealand Corporation, April 2009Social housing125 Table 12 shows the number of Māori and non-Māori in Corporation housing andLocal Authority housing between 1981 and 2001. It shows that over the years,around 9 percent of Māori in social housing have been housed through local41 Includes - Unemployment Benefit Hardship, Unemployment Benefit, Unemployment HardshipStudent and Unemployment Benefit Training.42 Includes - Domestic Purposes Benefit, Domestic Purpose Benefit Woman only, DomesticPurpose Benefit-Single Parent and Domestic Purpose Benefit for the Care at Home of the Sick orInfirm.33

authorities compared to around 25 percent for non-Māori. This could reflect theyounger age structure of the Māori population with much of local authority housingdesigned for pensioners.MāoriTable 12 Number of Māori and non-Māori households in social housing 1981-2001 431981 1986 1991 1996 2001HNZC 12,522 14,520 18,324 16,632 15,216Local Authority 1,254 1,491 1,446 1,605 1,581Total Social Housing 13,776 16,011 19,770 18,237 16,797Māori in local authorityhousing as a percent of totalsocial housingNon-Māori9.1 9.3 7.3 8.8 9.4HNZC 44,457 41,478 45,156 35,889 36,534Local Authority 14,907 15,144 13,968 13,164 12,495Total Social Housing 59,364 56,622 59,124 49,053 49,029Māori in local authorityhousing as a percent of totalsocial housing 25.1 26.7 23.6 26.8 25.5Source: CHRANZ (2004) Changes in the Structure of the New Zealand Housing Market Vol 1, pp 339-340Corporation housingDefinitions126 When interpreting the data presented in this section, readers should note that tenantand applicant numbers are counted in two ways: as the primary tenant/applicant andas total occupants/applicants. The concept of a primary tenant/applicant of aCorporation tenancy/application is similar to Stats NZ’s reference person for ahousehold. The primary tenant is a signatory to the tenancy agreement, but therecan be more than one signatory in a household. The term totaloccupants/applicants, refers to the total number of household members.The Corporation’s tenants127 In 2009, Māori represented the largest occupant group with a total of 75,255 Māorioccupants accounting for 38 percent of all people living in houses provided by theCorporation (see Table 13). Pacific Peoples were the second largest occupantgroup accounting for 37.7 percent, and were European the third largest occupantgroup, accounting for 27.2 percent of all Corporation occupants.43Readers should note that these figures are derived from the Census which consistently undercount people in social housing.34

Table 13 Number of tenants in Corporation housing by selected ethnicity 44 (March 2009)PrimaryTenantsOccupantsMāori 23130 75255European 25042 53825Pacific Peoples 17137 74616Source: HNZC, Administrative Data 31 March 2009Note: Please note that this is total response data, so the sum of counts of people across all ethnic groups will begreater than the sum of tenants/occupants.128 Regarding only the number of primary tenants, the pattern described abovereverses. European are the largest primary tenant group (37.8 percent), followed byMāori (34.9 percent) and Pacific Peoples (25.9 percent). This reversal can beexplained by the younger age structure and the differences in householdcomposition of both Māori and Pacific tenants when compared with European tenanthouseholds. Māori and Pacific tenants live in larger households that include morechildren than European tenants (see Figure 24 and 25).129 Regarding one of the key measures for assistance and affordability, Table 14 showsthe proportion of Māori households 45 that receive Income Related Rent incomparison to European and Pacific households.Table 14 Proportion of primary tenants receiving Income Related Rent, by selectedethnicity (April 2009)PrimarytenantsMāori 92.4%European 92.9%Pacific Peoples 89.2%Source: HNZC, Administrative Data 30 April 2009Changes over time130 Between 2006 and 2009, the total number of Māori occupants has consistentlyincreased (see Figure 23). This is also true for European, and Pacific occupants.However, the Māori occupant group showed the greatest increase (by 8.5 percent)over that time period when compared to the European (by 5.2 percent), or Pacific(7.7 percent) occupant group.44 Please note that this is total response data and some people identify with more than one ethnicgroup so that the sum of the numbers in each ethnic group will be greater than the sum of alltenants/occupants.45 The ethnicity of the primary tenant is used as a proxy for the ethnicity of the household.35

Figure 23 Number of occupants, by selected ethnicity (March 2006-2009)80,00075,00070,00065,00060,00055,00050,00045,00040,0002006 2007 2008 2009Source: HNZC, Administrative Data 31 March 2009European Mäori Pacific PeoplesAge profile131 In 2009, nearly 55.7 percent of all Māori occupants were under the age of 20. Thisfigure is virtually identical for Pacific occupants, and with 38.3 percent much smallerfor European occupants (see Figure 24). Taking the age distribution of primarytenants presented in Table 15 into account, leads to the conclusion that most of theoccupants aged under 20 are children living in their parent’s or guardian’shousehold.132 Occupants aged 65 years or older account for the smallest proportion of Māorioccupants with only 3.7 percent (see Figure 24). This figure compares to a muchlarger 15 percent for European occupants, and 4.5 percent for Pacific occupants.Figure 24 Occupants by age and selected ethnicity (March 2009)65+50-6435-4920-34under 200% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%Mäori European Pacific PeoplesSource: HNZC, Administrative Data 31 March 200936

133 Table 15 shows that across all ethnic group there is a minimal number of primarytenants in the under 20 age group, indicating that the Corporation does notcommonly house younger tenants. When compared with European and Pacificprimary tenants, Māori are much more youthful with a greater proportion being in the20 to 34 age group, and a much smaller proportion being in the 65+ age group.Table 15 Percent of primary tenants by age and selected ethnicity (March 2009)Age Māori European Pacific Islandunder 20 0.6% 0.4% 0.5%20-34 24.3% 19.9% 17.2%35-49 41.9% 41.3% 35.1%50-64 23.0% 24.8% 25.9%65+ 9.6% 12.8% 20.3%Source: HNZC, Administrative Data 31 March 2009Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.Household Type134 Being a single parent is the most common household type for Māori tenants,accounting for 47.2 percent. This proportion is nearly twice as high as for Europeantenants (24.5 percent), and still considerably higher than for Pacific tenants (34.8percent). Furthermore, the proportion of Māori single parents with two children (30.6percent) is nearly double the proportion of Māori single parents with one child (16.6percent).Figure 25 Primary tenants by household type 46 and selected ethnicity (March 2009)60%50%40%30%20%10%0%Couple withoutchildrenCouple withchildrenSingleSingle parentwith 1 childSingle parent2+ childrenSource: HNZC, Administrative Data 31 March 2009Mäori European Pacific Peoples135 The next most common household type for Māori tenants is a single household(31.9 percent). With 14.9 percent, couples with or without children make up thesmallest proportion of Māori tenants’ household types.46 The household type presented here refers to the Corporation’s Income Related Rent householdtype used to calculate tenants’ rent.37

Gender profile136 Māori have the greatest proportion of female primary tenants when compared witheither European, or Pacific primary tenants (see Table 16). This could most likely beexplained by the great number of single parent families among Māori primarytenants, and by the fact that most single parent families are headed by females.Table 16 Percent of primary tenants, by gender and selected ethnicity (March 2009)Ethnic group Females MalesMāori 75.1% 24.3%Pacific 67.6% 32.0%European 66.3% 32.8%Source: HNZC, Administrative Data 31 March 2009Geographical distribution 47137 The largest proportion of Māori tenant households is located in South Auckland.About a third of all Māori tenant households live in Auckland (South Auckland, West& North Auckland, and Central Auckland regions taken together). The smallestproportion of Māori tenant households is located in the Southern region. Figure 26shows how the regional distribution of Māori tenant households compares toEuropean and Pacific tenant households.Figure 26 Primary tenants, by Corporation region and selected ethnicity (March 2009)West & North AucklandWellington/Hutt ValleyWaikato/CoromandelSouthernSouth AucklandNorthlandManawatu/TaranakiEast Cape/Hawkes BayChch/Nelson/MarlboroughCentral AucklandBay of Plenty0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000Maori European Pacific PeoplesSource: HNZC, Administrative Data 31 March 2009138 In the Northland, Bay of Plenty, East Cape/Hawkes Bay, and Waikato/Coromandelregions, the majority (more than half) of tenant households are Māori (see Table17). This has service delivery implications for the Corporation. Even though theproportion of Māori among all households in these regions is high, taken togetherthe four regions only accommodate just under 40 percent of all Māori households.47 Because the primary tenant is a reference person for a household, the regional analysis refers tothe location of tenant households. Māori primary tenants will be used as a proxy for a Māoritenant household.38

Table 17 Māori primary tenants by Corporation region (March 2009)RegionPercentage of allMāori primarytenantsMāori as apercentage of allprimary tenantsBay of Plenty 8.7% 68.6%Central Auckland 8.3% 20.4%Chch/Nelson/Marlborough 6.4% 21.3%East Cape/Hawkes Bay 12.0% 63.7%Manawatu/Taranaki 7.3% 40.4%Northland 7.4% 79.4%South Auckland 18.6% 31.1%Southern 2.1% 15.9%Waikato/Coromandel 10.7% 56.5%Wellington/Hutt Valley 11.8% 31.8%West & North Auckland 6.7% 24.6%Total 100.0% 34.9%Source: HNZC, Administrative Data 31 March 2009The Corporation’s applicants139 In 2009, Māori represented the second largest applicant group with a total of 9056Māori applicants accounting for 32.1 percent of all people on the Corporation waitinglist (see Table 18). Pacific Peoples were the largest applicant group accounting for34.4 percent, and European were the third largest applicant group, accounting for24.9 percent of all people on the Corporation waiting list.Table 18 Number of applicants for Corporation housing by selected ethnicity (March 2009)ApplicantsPrimaryTotalMāori 2871 9056European 3349 7038Pacific Peoples 2222 9704Source: HNZC, Administrative Data 31 March 2009140 Regarding only the number of primary applicants, the pattern described abovechanges. European are the largest primary applicant group (33.7 percent), followedby Māori (28.9 percent) and Pacific Peoples (22.4 percent). Again, this change canbe explained by the younger age structure and the differences in householdcomposition of both Māori and Pacific applicants when compared with Europeanapplicants. Māori and Pacific applicants live in larger households that include morechildren than European applicant households (see Figure 26 and 27).Changes over time141 Between 2006 and 2009, the total number of Māori applicants has consistentlydecreased (see Figure 27). This is also true for European, but not for Pacificapplicants whose numbers have recently increased. It is unclear why the number ofMāori occupants showed the greatest increase over the same period of time (seeFigure 23) while the number of applicants is decreasing. The most likely explanationis that Māori applicants are in greater need than Pacific or European applicants so39

that they are more likely to be housed, thus increasing the number of occupants(see Figure 31 for support of this explanation).Figure 27 Total number of applicants, by selected ethnicity (March 2006-2009)1200010000800060004000200002006 2007 2008 2009Mäori European Pacific PeoplesSource: HNZC, Administrative Data 31 March 2009Age profile142 The age profile for applicants follows the profile for tenants quite closely, except thatoverall the age distribution for applicants is even further skewed towards theyounger ages.Figure 28 Total applicants, by age and selected ethnicity (March 2009)65+50-6435-4920-34under 200% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%Source: HNZC, Administrative Data 31 March 2009Māori European Pacific Peoples40

Household type143 For Māori applicants the distribution of household types mirrors very closely that fortenants (e.g. 47.3 and 47.2 percent of single parent households for applicants andtenants respectively). Figure 29 shows this in comparison to European and Pacificapplicant households.Figure 29 Primary applicants, by household type and selected ethnicity (March 2009)50%45%40%35%30%25%20%15%10%5%0%Couple withoutchildrenCouple withchildrenSingleSingle parentwith 1 childSingle parent2+ childrenSource: HNZC, Administrative Data 31 March 2009Maori European Pacific PeoplesGender profile144 The gender distribution of Māori primary applicants is virtually identical to that ofMāori primary tenants. Table 19 shows that this is also true for Pacific, andEuropean primary applicants.Table 19 Percent of primary tenants, by gender and selected ethnicity (March 2009)Ethnic group Females MalesMāori 75.3% 24.6%Pacific 68.5% 31.3%European 65.2% 34.8%Source: HNZC, Administrative Data 31 March 2009Geographical distribution145 Regarding regional distribution of applicants and tenant households, the proportionof applicant households in the Wellington/Hutt Valley (5.4 percent) region is only halfthe proportion of tenants in the same region (11.8 percent). The Wellington/HuttValley region accommodates the third largest proportion of Māori tenant householdsbut only registers the second smallest proportion of applicant households. Figure 30shows the regional distribution of Māori applicant households in comparison toEuropean and Pacific applicant households.41

Figure 30 Primary applicants, by Corporation region and selected ethnicity (March 2009)West & North AucklandWellington/Hutt ValleyWaikato/CoromandelSouthernSouth AucklandNorthlandManawatu/TaranakiEast Cape/Hawkes BayChch/Nelson/MarlboroughCentral AucklandBay of Plenty0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500Māori European Pacific PeoplesSource: HNZC, Administrative Data 31 March 2009146 Table 20 shows that nearly 42 percent of Māori applicant households live inAuckland, which compares to only a third of tenant households (refer Figure 26).This might indicate that demand for Corporation housing in Auckland is higher thansupply.Table 20 Māori primary applicants by region (March 2009)HNZC regionPercentProportion of Māoriapplicants by regionBay of Plenty 9.6% 57.0%Central Auckland 9.8% 16.7%Chch/Nelson/Marlborough 7.4% 20.2%East Cape/Hawkes Bay 7.5% 57.3%Manawatu/Taranaki 6.4% 34.9%Northland 10.9% 66.9%South Auckland 21.4% 27.3%Southern 2.0% 15.5%Waikato/Coromandel 8.9% 46.4%Wellington/Hutt Valley 5.4% 24.4%West & North Auckland 10.6% 19.8%Total 100.0% 28.9%Source: HNZC, Administrative Data 31 March 2009Priority of housing need147 Applicants for Corporation housing are assessed according to their level of housingneed. The Social Allocation System is used to assess applicants’ eligibility andpriority for Corporation housing as displayed in Table 21 below.42

Table 21 Description of housing need and assigned priorityPriority Type of need Description of needA At riskHouseholds with a severe and persistent housingneed that must be addressed immediatelyB Serious housing need Household with a significant and persistent needC Moderate need Households with a moderate housing needD Low level need Low level of housing needSource: HNZC148 Māori applicants represent the greatest proportion of at risk priority applicants (seeFigure 31). The majority of all Māori applicants (52.7 percent) are high priority (Aand B combined) applicants, this is also true for Pacific applicants (56.5 percent),but not for European applicants (39 percent).Figure 31 Total number of applicants, by priority and selected ethnicity (March 2009)6,0005,0004,0003,0002,0001,0000At risk Serious need Moderate need Low level needSource: HNZC, Administrative Data 31 March 2009Māori European Pacific PeoplesSummary149 Over the past two decades housing has become less affordable for Māori. In 1988,only 8 percent of Māori households were paying more than 30 percent of theirincome in housing costs. In 2007, this figure has increased to 29 percent. While forthe first time in 2004, housing affordability was comparable for Māori, European, andPacific households, by 2007 housing affordability for Māori households hasdecreased at a greater rate than that for European households, and at a similar rateto that for Pacific households.150 In 2009, Māori are highly over-represented among Accommodation Supplement(AS) recipients, accounting for 27 percent of all AS recipients. When compared withEuropean, and Pacific AS recipients, the proportion of Māori AS recipients who owntheir home is smallest, and the proportion of single parents is highest. The number43

of people receiving the AS significantly increased between 2008 and 2009,increasing the most for Māori (by 15 percent) when compared with European (by 12percent), or Pacific Peoples (by 11 percent).151 Māori make up the largest proportion of the Corporation’s tenant base. In March2009, Māori were the Corporation’s largest occupant group (75,255 occupants).Māori were less likely to reside in Corporation housing when above the age of 65compared to Pacific and European occupants. More than half of all Māori occupantswere children under the age of 20 living with their families, which was also true forPacific occupants, but compares to only 38 percent of European occupants. Being asingle parent is the most common household type for Māori tenants, accounting for47 percent. Especially European but also Pacific tenants have a considerably lowerproportion of single parents.152 In March 2009, Māori were the second largest group of applicants for state housing(9,056 total applicants) next to Pacific Peoples. The majority of all Māori applicantswere in severe housing need (A and B priority), which was also true for Pacific butnot for European applicants.44

Home OwnershipIntroduction153 Across New Zealand the number of people living in owner-occupied homes hasdecreased, while the number of those living in privately rented homes has increasedsince 1991. Home ownership rates have decreased for all levels of income, acrossall ethnic groups and most dramatically for the 25-34 year old age group 48 .154 A number of factors may have contributed to the decline in home ownership rates.Changing social dynamics with more fluid family arrangements, later familyformation, women deferring having children, the increased uptake of tertiaryeducation and student loans have all contributed to the changes. There arechanging patterns in the labour market with people’s experience of job securitydisappearing, and moving between different location to improve their employmentopportunities. Within the housing market there is increased competition between firsttime home buyers and those wanting to purchase rental properties, house priceshave been rising faster than household incomes, and the housing market hasceased to cater for the entry-level home buyer, as was the situation in earlierdecades.155 Improving access to home ownership is one of the Corporation’s objectives, with theCorporation being charged with developing and implementing the Gateway initiative.This initiative involves the development of public land for homebuyers, and statehouse sales to tenants.156 This section begins with an overview of the key trends in the proportion of Māoriliving in owner-occupied homes over the 1991 to 2006 period 49 . The section thenexplores regional differences in home ownership, and looks at the disparities inhome ownership between Māori, Pacific Peoples and Europeans by income andage.Decline in home ownership157 The following figure shows the trend in the proportion of Māori households living inowner-occupied homes from 1936 to 2006 50 . The figure shows that over the past 30years, homeownership rates of Māori peaked in 1991. For Māori between 1926 and1945 the home ownership rate was higher than for Europeans. However, Māorihome ownership at this stage was mostly tribal and rural. When Māori migrated tothe cities in the 1950s and 60s to take up work in the urban economy, the rate ofownership decreased and Māori became incorporated into the cities largely asrenters 51 .48 DTZ (2007: 26)49 In 2006 changes were made to the tenure classification. Family Trust was included into owneroccupiedcategory.50 The definition and classification of Maori has changed over the period 1936-2006. The datarelate to those were contemporaneously identified as Maori.51 Thorns & Sedgwick (1997: 148)45

Figure 32 Proportion of households living in owner-occupied homes, by selected ethnicity(1926-2006)90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%1926 1936 1945 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006MäoriEuropeanSource: Census 1936-2006 52158 Between 1991 and 2006, there have been fewer Māori living in owner-occupiedhomes. Figure 33 shows that the decline in home ownership rates has occurred forall ethnic groups in New Zealand. This decline has generally been attributed to lowerlevels of income, higher levels of unemployment, the younger age structure of theMāori population, and the number of Māori living in urban and metropolitan areas.159 Māori continue to have much lower rates of home ownership than Europeans. In2006 less than half (43.3 percent) of Māori lived in owner-occupied homescompared to 69.7 percent of Europeans (see Figure 33).160 The proportion of people living in owner-occupied homes between 1991 and 2006decreased faster for Māori (by 13.4 percent) when compared with Europeans (by 9percent), but decreased similarly to Pacific Peoples (14.5 percent).52 1926-1986 data is sourced from Thorns & Sedgwick (1997: 148).46

Figure 33 Proportion of the population 53 living in owner occupied homes, by selectedethnicity (1991, 1996, 2001, 2006)90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%1991 1996 2001 2006Maori European Pacific PeoplesSource: Census 1991, 1996, 2001, and 2006, customised data prepared for HNZC161 As Māori are moving from living in owner-occupied homes to living in homes theyrent, intergenerational repercussions result. For example, there is less transfer ofwealth between generations from the sale of homes, also having more childrenmeans each child gets a smaller share of the wealth 54 .162 In the 1980s, research 55 associated the migration of Māori to urban centres with amove to rental tenure. However, in 2006 the decline in home ownership cannot beattributed so easily to a move from rural to urban areas, as the decline in theproportion of people living in owner-occupied homes has also occurred in minorurban areas, rural centres as well as in other rural areas 56 . Figure 34 shows theproportion of Māori living in rural and urban areas in 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006.53 Denominator is the total Māori, European, and Pacific Peoples population, respectively.54 Waldegrave et al. (2006: 122)55 Bathgate (1986: 4-6)56 Main urban area have populations of 30,000 or more. Secondary urban areas have populationsbetween 10,000 and 29,999. Minor urban area have populations of 1,000 or more not alreadyclassified as urban. Rural centre have populations of 300 to 999. Rural and other areas are thoseArea units that are not already included in an urban area or rural centre. It includes inlets, inlandand oceanic waters.47

Figure 34 Proportion of the Māori population 57 living in owner-occupied homes in rural andurban areas (1991, 1996,2001, 2006)70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%Main urban areaSecondaryurban areaMinor urbanareaRural centreOther rural1991 1996 2001 2006Source: Census 1991, 1996, 2001, and 2006, customised data prepared for HNZC163 The proportion of Māori living in owner-occupied homes in the main urban areasreached 54.1 percent in 1991, but decreased to 42.1 percent in 2001 and 40.4percent in 2006. However, the decline in the proportion of Māori living in owneroccupiedhomes in the secondary and minor urban areas was nearly 20 percentover the period 1991 to 2006, (from 63.1 percent in 1991 to 48.1 and 47.1 percentrespectively in 2001, and to 4.9 and 43.9 percent, respectively in 2006).164 Home ownership in the other rural areas moved from 55.5 percent in 1991 to 59.5percent in 2001, and back to 54.2 percent in 2006. However, while rates of homeownership are higher in rural than in urban areas, a range of research 58 hasidentified concerns about the quality of Māori owned homes in rural areas.165 Research 59 identified that the rural sector faced particular problems in terms of thequality and availability of houses for either purchase or rental by Māori. In additionthe number of Māori living on, or wanting to live on land that is under multiple-titlewas restricted. This was due to the inability to source finance from private banks orcompanies to purchase or build housing.166 Research 60 also identified that in urban areas the key issue faced by prospectivebuyers was the increase in houses prices. Within the Auckland region (where nearlya quarter of the Māori population reside) the following figure shows the variation inthe proportion of Māori living in owner-occupied homes across the local authorities.With the exception of Auckland City, each of the local authorities had the highestproportions of Māori living in owner-occupied homes in 1991, which decreased by1996, and further decreased by 2001.57 Denominator is the total Māori population.58 Bathgate 1999: 4-5; Douglas 1986:13, 15, 19, 21-22.59 Waldegrave et al. (2006: 122)60 Waldegrave et al. (2006: 84)48

Figure 35 Proportion of the Māori population 61 living in owner-occupied homes in theAuckland Local Authorities, (1991, 1996, 2001, 2006)70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%RodneyDistrictNorth ShoreCityWaitakereCityAuckland City Manukau CityPapakuraDistrictFranklinDistrict1991 1996 2001 2006Source: Census 1991, 1996, 2001, and 2006, customised data prepared for HNZC167 In North Shore City was the only Auckland local authority where the proportion ofMāori living in owner-occupied homes remarkably increased between 2001 and2006 from 46.7 percent to 48.9 percent. In Auckland City, 35 percent of Māori wereliving in owner-occupied homes in 1991, and this proportion remained remarkablyconsistent being 34.8 percent in 2001, and 35 percent in 2006. This stable trenddeviated in 1996 with an increase to 37.4 percent. Between 1991 and 2006, theproportion of Māori living in owner-occupied homes in Rodney District decreased by12.5 percent and in Franklin District by 10.1 percent. In Waitakere City andManukau City decreases were more significant at 21.6 percent and 18.9 percentrespectively. In Papakura District the decrease was 17.5 percent.168 Figure 36 shows that across the regions there is great variation in the proportion ofMāori living in owner-occupied homes, the figure also highlights the differencesbetween Māori, European and Pacific Peoples at a regional level.61 Denominator is the total Māori population.49

Figure 36 Proportion of the population 62 living in owner occupied homes by RegionalCouncil, and by selected ethnicity (2006)NorthlandAucklandWaikatoBay of PlentyGisborneHawkes BayTaranakiManawatu-WanganuiWellingtonTasmanNelsonMarlboroughWest CoastCanterburyOtagoSouthland0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%Mäori European Pacific PeoplesSource: Census 2006, customised data prepared for HNZC169 Across regions the proportion of Māori living in owner-occupied homes ranges from39.8 to 55.6 percent, which compares to a range from 67.1 to 75.9 percent forEuropean, and 29.6 to 47.6 percent for Pacific Peoples.Reasons for disparities in home ownership170 Māori continue to have a much lower proportion of people living in owner-occupiedhomes than Europeans. The reasons for the disparities may be attributed to anumber of factors including: urbanisation and living in high cost areas such as theAuckland region, the younger age structure, larger households, lower levels ofemployment and income, intergenerational experience of owning a home, andeducational achievement, or the wish to reside near whanau 63 .171 However, the next two figures suggest that the lower rates are not just a function oflower incomes, or the younger age structure.172 Figure 37 shows that even when income is considered Māori home ownership ratesare lower than European rates across all income levels. For example, for Māori onan income in the $50k to $70k bracket, only 49.6 percent lived in owner-occupiedhomes compared to 71.7 percent of Europeans. For Māori on incomes in the$70,001 to $100,000 range, 59.1 percent lived in owner-occupied homes, while theproportion for Europeans was 76.6 percent.62 Denominator is the total Māori, European, and Pacific Peoples population, respectively.63 Douglas 1986: 11, 13,15,19, 21, 22, 63. Waldegrave et al. 2006: 124-125, 129, 131.50

Figure 37 Proportion of the population 64 living in owner-occupied homes, by income, andselected ethnicity (2006)90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%Los sZ ero Inc om e$1-$5k$5k -$10k$10k -$15k$15k - $20k$20k -$25k$25k -$30k$30k -$35k$35k -$40k$40k -$50k$50k -$70k$70k -$100k$100k orM oreMäori European Pacific PeoplesSource: Census 2006, customised data prepared for HNZC173 Similarly Figure 38 suggests that the younger age structure of the Māori populationdoes not in itself account for the disparities between the proportions of Māori andEuropeans living in owner-occupied homes. The figure shows that when age isconsidered the proportion of Māori in owner-occupied homes, remains lower acrossall ages than that for Europeans.Figure 38 Proportion of the population 65 living in owner-occupied homes, by age (in years),and selected ethnicity (2006)90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%0-45-910-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-7980-8485 plusMäori European Pacific PeoplesSource: Census 2006, customised data prepared for HNZC64 Denominator is the total Māori, European, and Pacific Peoples population, respectively.65 Denominator is the total Māori, European, and Pacific Peoples population, respectively.51

174 For adults the proportion living in owner-occupied homes range from 30.8 percent ofMāori aged 20 to 24 years, to approx. 57-60 percent for those aged from 55 to 85years or older. For Europeans, this proportion ranges from 41.3 percent for thoseaged between 20 and 24 years, peaking at 83.8 percent for those aged between 60and 64 years, to 69.3 percent for the 85 plus age group. Interestingly, while theproportion of people aged over 79 living in owner-occupied homes increases forMāori, it decreases for Europeans. This might reflect different cultural practicesregarding living arrangements for the elderly. Elderly Europeans might be less likelyto live with (extended) family whereas kaumatua living with whanau could be morecommon.175 For children the proportion who live in owner-occupier homes is 35.4 percent forchildren aged up to 4 years, 39.5 percent for those aged between 5 and 9 years,and 44.3 percent for those between 10 and 14 years of age. The proportions forEuropean children are much higher at 62 percent, 67 percent and 71 percent,respectively.Summary176 Between 1991 and 2006, home ownership rates have been declining. While this istrue for all ethnic groups, home ownership rates have been declining at a greaterrate for Māori than Europeans. Furthermore, in 2006, regardless of geographicallocation, age or income, less Māori than Europeans live in owner-occupied homes 66 .66 The ‘implications for policy’ sections offers some insights as to what reasons can explain thisobservation.52

Rental SectorIntroduction177 The characteristics and circumstances of people who rent their homes changedbetween 1991 and 2006 67 . Across all age groups more people rent their homes thanin 1991, and proportionately more families with children now rent.178 This section highlights key trends in the characteristics of Māori who are living inrented homes. The most striking change is the increase in the proportion of Māoriwho rent, particularly between 1991 and 2001. A much smaller change occurredbetween 2001 and 2006. The following sections explore the changes in rental tenurefor Māori by location, age and income.Growth in the rental sector179 In 2006, Māori were nearly twice as likely as Europeans (48.1 percent compared to24.3 percent), and less likely than Pacific Peoples (54.0 percent), to live in rentedhomes. Figure 39 shows the disparity between Māori and Europeans has beenslightly increasing over the last four Censuses (from 20.6 percent in 2001 to 23.8percent in 2006).Figure 39 Proportion of the population 68 living in rented homes 69 , by selected ethnicity (1991,1996, 2001 and 2006)60%50%40%30%20%10%0%1991 1996 2001 2006Maori European Pacific PeoplesSource: Census 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006, customised data prepared for HNZC180 On a day to day basis, renters within the residential market in New Zealand can facea number of challenges including: competition for limited housing stock, a lack ofsecurity of tenure (creating instability for families) affordability and quality of rentalstock. In the long term, Māori who are reliant on the rental housing market will not67 DTZ (2007: 65-84)68 Denominator is the total Māori, European, and Pacific Peoples population, respectively.69 This follows Stats NZ classifications according to which ‘rented’ includes the tenure category ‘payrent’.53

have the same opportunities to increase personal equity, financial wealth andsecurity compared to home owners.181 Figure 40 shows that between 1991 and 2006, the proportion of Māori living inrented homes increased across urban and rural areas between 1991 and 2001, butremained remarkably stable between 2001 and 2006.Figure 40 Proportion of the Māori population 70 living in rented homes, by rural/urban location(1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006).60%50%40%30%20%10%0%Main urban areaSecondaryurban areaMinor urbanareaRural centreOther rural1991 1996 2001 2006Source: Census 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006, customised data prepared for HNZC182 Research 71 has found that in rural areas, demand for rental accommodation faroutstrips supply. For many, rental accommodation is the only affordable housingoption but often rural communities have few, if any, properties available to rent.Recently, research 72 found that rural renters experienced properties in poorcondition with low levels of maintenance, and with fewer choices, and higher rentsthan urban dwellers. Some tenants considered that rural landlords did not show thesame level of care as those in urban areas, while tenants often did not complain forfear that the landlord might evict them. The lack of alternative housing options inrural areas is one likely reason for the poor standard of rural rental housing. In thisenvironment, landlords have a captive market where they do not have to competefor tenants as their urban counterparts do. Also the relative isolation might make itmore difficult for rural tenants to lodge complaints with the Tenancy Tribunal. Thesefactors result in landlords having little motivation for improving their houses.183 In Auckland, research 73 found that types of tenure were concentrated in certaingeographic locations. From the Censuses of 1986, 1991 and 1996 they found thatlower levels of home ownership for example in Mangere and Otara, were associatedwith high levels of private and/or state owned rentals. Furthermore, private rental70 Denominator is the total Māori population.71Report of the Social Services Committee (1991: p.4).72 Waldegrave et al. (2006: 124, 83-85).73 Friesen et al. (2000: 40-44).54

properties tended to be concentrated in distinct geographical locations away fromconcentrations of state rental properties.184 Figure 41 shows the variation in the proportion of Māori living in rented homes in theAuckland local authorities between 1991 and 2006.Figure 41 Proportion of the Māori population 74 living in rented homes in the Auckland LocalAuthorities, (1991,1996,2001,2006)70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%RodneyDistrictNorth ShoreCityWaitakereCityAucklandCityManukauCityPapakuraDistrictFranklinDistrict1991 1996 2001 2006Source: Census 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006, customised data prepared for HNZC185 The number of Māori living in rented homes in Auckland City has remained relativelystable over the last four censuses. Between 1991 and 2006, Waitakere City had thelargest an increase in the number of Māori living in rented homes (from 4,605 or31.8 percent to 10,749 or 49.3 percent). This constitutes a 133.4 percent increase.Manukau City also showed a large increase the number of Māori living in rentedhomes from 1991’s level of 14,196 (41.2 percent) to 24,309 in (54.1 percent), a 71.2percent increase.186 Research 75 has shown that proximity to whānau is extremely important for Māori inurban and rural settings. This view is supported by the recent survey of Dynamicsand Motivations for Migration which identified proximity to family as one of the mainreasons influencing decisions about whether or not to move. The same research 76also found that Māori living in cities often accepted lower grade housing to be closeto their families rather than living in better houses further away from familymembers. Furthermore, for Māori supply of rental housing fell short of thatdemanded, both in terms of the size of the houses and the number of bedrooms 77 .187 The proportion of people living in rented homes varies across regional council (seeFigure 42). For Māori, the highest proportion is in Nelson (56.1 percent) and thelowest in Southland (36.0 percent). However, only about 2.5 percent of the Māori74 Denominator is the total Māori population.75 Waldegrave et al. (2006: 83, 131).76 Waldegrave et al. (2006: 85).77 Waldegrave et al. (2006: 124).55

population lives in these regions (see Table 4). In regions with a higher proportion ofMāori residents, Auckland and Waikato, 52.9 and 49.2 percent live in rented homes,respectively.Figure 42 Proportion of the population 78 living in rented homes, by selected ethnicity, andregional councilNorthlandAucklandWaikatoBay of PlentyGisborneHawkes BayTaranakiManawatu-WanganuiWellingtonTasmanNelsonMarlboroughWest CoastCanterburyOtagoSouthland0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%Maori European PacificSource: Census 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006, customised data prepared for HNZCReasons for disparities in rental tenure188 Figure 43 shows that Māori are more likely than Europeans to live in rented homesregardless of their income. For example, 60.5 percent of Māori with incomesbetween $20,001 and $25,000 live in homes that are rented. For Europeans in thesame income bracket the comparable figure was 25.6 percent. In the higher incomebracket of $70,0001 to $100,000 the proportions were 36 percent for Māori, and19.9 percent for Europeans living in rented homes.78 Denominator is the total Māori, European, and Pacific Peoples population, respectively.56

Figure 43 Proportion of the population 79 living in rented homes, by income, and selectedethnicity (2006)80.0%70.0%60.0%50.0%40.0%30.0%20.0%10.0%0.0%LossZero Income$1-$5k$5k-$10k$10k-$15k$15k - $20k$20k-$25k$25k-$30k$30k-$35k$35k-$40k$40k-$50kMäori European Pacific Peoples$50k-$70k$70k-$100k$100k or MoreSource: Census 2006, customised data prepared for HNZC189 Figure 44 shows that Māori are more likely than Europeans to live in a rented homeregardless of their age. For example 37.1 percent of Māori aged between 45 and 49years lived in homes they rented, in comparison to 17 percent of Europeans.Figure 44 Proportion of the population 80 living in rented homes, by age (in years), andselected ethnicity (2006)70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%0-45-910-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-7980-8485 plusMäori European Pacific PeoplesSource: Census 2006, customised data prepared for HNZC79 Denominator is the total Māori, European, and Pacific Peoples population, respectively.80 Denominator is the total Māori, European, and Pacific Peoples population, respectively.57

Provided free190 Across Censuses, there is a sizeable number of people who neither live in a rentednor owner-occupied homes. The largest proportion of these people live in homesprovided for free. This section gives a brief overview of the number of people livingin homes provided for free.191 In 2006, there were 2,178 people who identified as Māori living in homes providedfor free, making up 3.8 percent of the Māori population. This percentage has notchanged significantly between 1991 and 2006.192 In 1991, Māori had the highest proportion of people living in homes provided forfree. Over the last four Censuses European have caught up, and in 2006 PacificPeoples have overtaken Māori.193 Looking at the proportion of people living in homes provided for free by income,shows a peak of 9.5 percent at zero income for Māori and then an expecteddownward trend as income rises. From age 65 onwards the proportion of Māoriliving in homes provided for free rises, peaking at 9.6 percent for the 75-79 agegroup.194 Provided free tenure is highest in the rural, especially the other rural areas (seeFigure 45). In 2006, 11.5 percent of Māori living in other rural areas were living inhomes provided for free. Across all areas, the number of Māori living in homesprovided for free decreased between 1996 and 2001, but then increased (nearlydoubled) between 2001 and 2006.Figure 45 Proportion of the Māori population 81 living in homes that were provided free, byrural/urban location (1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006)30%25%20%15%10%5%0%Main urban areaSecondaryurban areaMinor urbanareaRural centreOther rural1991 1996 2001 2006Source: Census 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006, customised data prepared for HNZC81 Denominator is the total Māori population.58

Comparison between people living in owner occupied and rentedhomes195 Figure 46 shows the proportion of Māori in owner-occupied and rented homes byage and tenure. It shows that a change-over in tenure occurs around the age of 40.For Māori younger than 40 years, the predominant tenure is rented, whereas thoseolder than 40 years are more likely to live in owner-occupied homes. For European,the equivalent age is 30, and for Pacific Peoples the equivalent age is 50.196 Māori children up to the age of 10 are more likely to live in rented homes than inowner-occupied homes. Taking into account the younger median age at which Māorimothers give birth (26 years, refer para 51), this pattern shows the reality of growingup in rental accommodation, and parents becoming more likely to move into owneroccupiedhomes roughly around ten years after their children are born.197 The figure also highlights the move between tenures of young adults. They movefrom living with families who own their home to rented accommodation around theage of 20.Figure 46 Proportion of the Māori population living in owner occupied and rented homes, byage (2006)70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%0-45-910-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-7980-8485+Owner occupiedRentedSource: Census 2006, Customised data prepared for HNZCSummary198 Between 1991 and 2006, in line with the decline in home ownership rates, thenumber of people that live in rented homes has increased. While this is true for allethnic groups, the number of people living in rented homes has been increasing at agreater rate for Māori than Europeans. Furthermore, in 2006, regardless ofgeographical location, age or income, more Māori than Europeans, and less Māorithan Pacific Peoples live in rented homes.199 While in 1991 Māori were most likely to live in homes provided for free whencompared with European or Pacific Peoples, in 2006 Pacific Peoples haveovertaken Māori.59

200 In 2006, Māori children under the age of 10 were more likely to live in rented thanowner-occupied homes. Māori adults, were more likely to live in rented homes underthe age of 40, and more likely to live in owner-occupied homes over the age of 40.60

Housing QualityIntroduction201 One of the outcomes sought by the Housing Strategy is to improve the quality ofhousing in New Zealand. The Housing Strategy identifies raising the quality of NewZealand’s new and older stock as important for Government. The currentGovernment has recently announced its commitment to this goal by introducing anew insulation and clean heating programme (‘Warm up New Zealand: HeatSmart’ 82 ) that aims to make New Zealand’s homes warmer, drier, and more energyefficient. This programme will commence on 1 July 2009 and aims to retrofit morethan 180,000 homes built before 2000 during the next four years.202 Currently the key source of information on housing quality is a housing surveyundertaken by BRANZ. Unfortunately the survey does not identify the ethnicity ofhouseholds. However a number of studies have examined the issues of housingquality for Māori. This section draws on the key findings of those studies to highlightthe key issues Māori face in terms of housing quality.Housing quality in rural areas203 This issue of substandard Māori housing in rural areas has been recognised forsome time. Many of the houses in rural areas such as the Urewera, East Cape andrural Northland were built under the guidelines established by the Department ofMāori Affairs or State Advances Corporation of New Zealand, and were wellconstructed of good-quality material. However, over the decades the low incomes ofsuccessive occupants meant that basic maintenance on these houses was deferred.During the process of urbanisation, many houses in these areas were abandoned astheir occupants sought better work opportunities in the towns.204 Since the 1980’s there has been a change in migration trends with Māori movingfrom urban settings to the country. The motivation for this shift seems to be a desireby Māori to return to their place of origin 83 . The return migration of many Māorifamilies to these rural areas and the lack of available housing led to a trend of reoccupationof the previously abandoned houses. The paucity of houses, combinedwith the inability to get planning permission to build, or acquire finance for a houseson multiple-owned land has led to the construction of makeshift dwellings and thesehouses have been occupied for long periods of time.205 Across many of these rural areas the standard of housing is further compromisedbecause of the lack of power, water and sewerage services. These substandardhouses have adverse outcomes on the health and well-being of their occupants.Households living in rural locations are often at a disadvantage due to a lack ofservices or infrastructure. Isolation, lack of skilled trades people, infrastructuredeficiencies, and poor housing stock are all issues that result in substandardhousing and make improvements to housing difficult.206 In terms of the rental market in rural areas, there are particular problems in terms ofquality and availability of housing for rent. These are: higher rental rates, the cost ofand lack of services for maintenance and development, and the reported lack ofresponsiveness and co-ordination on the part of many local and regional councils82 http://www.eeca.govt.nz/node/3107.83 Douglas (1986: 39).61

and central government agencies. Research 84 found rural renters were moreexposed to poor property conditions, lower levels of maintenance and less choice.Further, Māori with traditional roots in coastal areas felt they were disadvantaged bythe high cost of coastal properties and many were forced inland away fromtraditional areas of residence.Housing quality in urban areas207 A literature review carried out as part of a study on Māori housing experiences 85 ,has identified a number or issues concerning substandard or poor quality housing inurban areas. In the 1990s, Māori women in urban areas frequently resided inunsatisfactory housing situation. Substandard housing, lack of appropriate housing,the expense of adequate accommodation, overcrowding, and the poor quality ofstate housing were listed as issues affecting Māori women. More recently it wasnoted that Māori were more likely than non-Māori to live in housing without heatingor in housing that heated water by burning wood. Also, found that proximity towhānau was a crucial determinant of where people preferred to live in both rural andurban areas. In the cities, people often accepted lower grade housing to be close totheir families rather than better housing in a suburb further away 86 .Housing quality in Corporation housing208 The Tenant Satisfaction Monitor 87 measures and track tenants experiences with,and attitudes towards the Corporation. These satisfaction results can be seen as aproxy for Corporation housing quality.209 Telephone interviews are conducted quarterly with 500 tenants. Over the last twoyears, a key finding was that Māori tenants were less satisfied than all tenants withtheir house and property, the standard to which the Corporation maintains theirhouse, contractors’ overall performance, and the overall performance of theCorporation.210 In particular, Māori tenants were less satisfied with their closeness to facilities, thesize of rooms, paths and driveways and floor coverings, their neighbourhood being asafe place to live, their bathroom facilities, fencing and gates, painting andwallpaper, and their house being free of dampness and mould.211 Comparing overall satisfaction with the Corporation by ethnicity, Māori tenants areslightly less satisfied than European, or Pacific tenants.Future information sources212 The General Social Survey, to be implemented by Stats NZ in 2008, may provide analternative source of information on Māori satisfaction with their housing. Thehousing questions that are currently being trialled include: satisfaction with housing,problems with housing, sector of landlord, number of bedrooms and tenure ofhousehold. The first results of this survey will be available in October 2009, and willbe included in next year’s Māori Housing Trends Report.84 Waldegrave et al. (2006: 83).85 Waldegrave et al. (2006: 19-23).86 Waldegrave et al. (2006: 85).87 Annual report prepared by Colmar Brunton (May 2008 – April 2009)62

Future Māori PopulationIntroduction213 This section provides an overview of the projected growth in the Māori populationuntil 2026. It then considers likely changes to the age structure of the Māoripopulation. The final part of this section looks at the way in which population growthwill impact at a regional level.Growth of the Māori population214 Conservative projections 88 indicate that between 2006 and 2026 the Māoripopulation will increase by 31.1 percent to 818,000. By comparison, a 6.7 percentincrease, and a 59.6 percent increase is projected for the European, and the Pacificpopulation respectively (see Table 22). In terms of total numbers, the Māoripopulation shows the second greatest projected increase, the European populationthe greatest and the Pacific population the smallest increase.Table 22 Projected population growth by selected ethnicity (2006-2026)Year Māori European Pacific Island2006 (base) 624,000 3,213,000 302,0002011 676,000 3,299,000 346,0002016 727,000 3,360,000 390,0002021 773,000 3,401,000 435,0002026 818,000 3,429,000 482,000Growth in numbers 194,000 216,000 180,000Percent growth 31.1% 6.7% 59.6%Source: Statistics New Zealand, National Ethnic Population Projections: 2006 (base) - 2026215 In 2026, the share of the Māori population in the total population is projected toincrease from 15 percent in 2006 to 17 percent in 2026 (see Table 23).Changing age structure of the Māori population216 The next two decades will see a gradual aging of the Māori population. However,the Māori population will continue to be youthful with those under the age of 15accounting for 32 percent of the Māori population (down from 34 percent in 2006).Yet the gap between the proportion of those aged under 15 of the total populationand the Māori population will be closing from 10 percent in 2006 to 3 percent in2026 (see Table 23).88 Demographic projections depend on assumptions about fertility, mortality and migration.Projections used here are based on the Stats NZ medium series of assumptions, using mediumlevels of fertility mortality and migration. The projections use 2006 figures as a base.63

Table 23 Projected growth in the Māori population by age 2006-2026Population by age group (years)0–14 15–39 40–64 65+ TotalMāori Population2006 (base) 215,000 246,000 138,000 26,000 625,0002011 233,000 253,000 157,000 32,000 675,0002016 251,000 263,000 171,000 42,000 727,0002021 265,000 274,000 179,000 54,000 772,0002026 260,000 304,000 182,000 71,000 817,000Percent growth 21% 24% 32% 173% 31%Percent of Māori Population2006 (base) 34% 39% 22% 4% 100%2011 35% 37% 23% 5% 100%2016 35% 36% 24% 6% 100%2021 34% 35% 23% 7% 100%2026 32% 37% 22% 9% 100%Percent of the Total Population2006 24% 17% 10% 5% 15%2011 26% 16% 11% 5% 15%2016 28% 16% 11% 6% 16%2021 29% 16% 11% 6% 16%2026 29% 17% 12% 7% 17%Source: Statistics New Zealand, National Ethnic Population predictions 2006 (base) – 2026217 Projections indicate that by 2026, the median age of the Māori population willincrease from 23 (in 2006) to 25 years (see Table 25). The comparable increase forthe total population will be from 36 to 40 years.218 The key driver for the Māori population growth will be the growth in the working agepopulation (those aged 15-64). The total Māori population is expected to grow by192,000. Of this 102,000 (or 53 percent of the growth) will be among the workingage population (see Table 23). By comparison, 41 percent of the growth in the totalpopulation will be people in the working age group.219 Perhaps the most striking trend, in terms of rate of growth, is the projected nearthree-fold increase in the number of Māori aged 65+ years (from 26,000 in 2006 to71,000 in 2026 -173 percent growth). As a proportion of the total Māori population,this age group is projected to more than double from 4 percent to 9 percent.Projections of housing demand for the elderly220 A report titled Accommodation Options for Older People in New Zealand 89 signalledthat there will be growing rental demand from the older population for theCorporation’s housing stock along with growing demand for local authorities andprivate landlords 90 . Based on projections prepared by Statistics New Zealand, the89 New Zealand Institute for Research on Ageing/Business and Economic Research Limited.Accommodation Options for Older People in Aotearoa/New Zealand, Report prepared for CHRANZby Davey, de Joux, Nana and Arcus, June 2004, p. 115-120.90Housing tenure projections used here presume that there will be no changes in current tenurepatterns, given the current decline in levels of owner-occupiers and continued problems ofaffordability, these projections may be considered as somewhat conservative in their estimatesof future rental housing demand.64

eport indicated that by 2051, approximately 81,000 Māori aged over 65 wereprojected to be home owners, 5,000 would potentially rent from a TLA and 11,000from the Corporation (see Table 24).Table 24 Projected housing tenure for Māori aged 65+ years (2021 and 2051 1 )OwnRentingTotal privatehouse TLA HNZC Other dwellings202165+ 35,924 2334 5,043 10,622 53,92385+ 1,967 105 226 647 2,945205165+ 81,118 5,272 11,370 23,978 121,73885+ 10,444 560 1,212 3,450 15,666Source: New Zealand Institute for Research on Ageing/Business and Economic Research Limited., Accommodation Optionsfor Older People in Aotearoa/New Zealand, Report prepared for CHRANZ by Davey, de Joux, Nana and Arcus, June 2004,pp.119.1 Assumes current tenure patterns221 From the projections in Table 24 above it can be estimated that in 2021 about onethird of Māori aged 65+ years will require rental housing, about 9 percent will rentfrom the Corporation. The comparable figure for the total population is 18 percent,and 3 percent, respectively.Regional growth in the Māori population222 Projections out to 2026, obtained from Stats NZ 91 , indicate that the Māori populationin all 16 regions and most territorial authorities is projected to increase. However,growth rates will vary between areas. Figure 47 shows that the largest Māoripopulation growth will be in the Auckland region up 45,100 from 156,600 in 2006 to201,700 in 2021. Further, Auckland will continue to house one quarter of the Māoripopulation. The Waikato (up 19,300), Canterbury (up 15,200), Bay of Plenty (up13,900) and Wellington (up 13,200) regions are also expected to experiencesignificant growth in Māori numbers.91 Statistics New Zealand: Subnational ethnic population projections 2006(base) - 201665

Figure 47 Projected regional growth in the Māori population 2006 (base)- 2016West CoastTasmanMarlboroughNelsonSouthlandGisborneOtagoTaranakiHawke's BayNorthlandManawatu-WanganuiWellingtonBay of PlentyCanterburyWaikatoAuckland0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000Source: Statistics New Zealand, Subnational ethnic population projections 2006(base) - 2016223 Table 25 shows that in regions where Māori currently make up a high proportion ofthe total population, the Māori share is projected to increase over the next decade,(for example, from 47 to 51 percent in Gisborne, from 31 to 34 percent in Northland,and from 28 to 29 percent in the Bay of Plenty).224 Like the total New Zealand population, the Māori population will age in all regionsbetween 2006-2026. The median 92 age for Māori is projected to range between 23.4years (for Southland) and 29.1 years (for Marlborough) in 2016 (see Table 25).Table 25 Projected Māori share of regional council areas 2006(base)-2021Projected Māori Share Median AgeRegional Council 2006 2021 2006 2021Gisborne 47% 51% 24.5 27.0Northland 31% 34% 23.5 27.2Bay of Plenty 28% 29% 23.5 24.9Hawke's Bay 24% 27% 23.0 24.9Waikato 21% 24% 22.8 24.7Manawatu-Wanganui 20% 23% 22.2 24.9Taranaki 16% 20% 22.5 23.9Wellington 13% 15% 23.5 25.3Southland 12% 15% 22.5 23.4Auckland 11% 12% 23.1 23.6Marlborough 11% 12% 25.6 29.1West Coast 10% 12% 22.5 27.8Nelson 9% 12% 22.5 24.1Canterbury 7% 9% 22.6 23.4Tasman 7% 8% 22.4 25.9Otago 7% 8% 22.6 24.0Source: Statstics New Zealand-Subnational ethnic population projections 2006(base) – 202192 The age at which half of the population is younger, and half older, than this age.66

225 At the territorial authority level 93 , Selwyn District is projected to have the largestpercentage increase in the Māori population up by 50 percent between 2006-2021.Nelson City, Waimakariri District, Tauranga City, Papakura District, Rodney Districtand Kapiti Coast District are also projected to grow by more than 40 percent. Thelargest numerical increase in the Māori population is projected for Manukau City(16,700), Christchurch City (10,600), Hamilton City (9,600), Waitakere City (8,800),and Tauranga City (7,500).Summary226 By 2026, the Māori population is expected to have grown by 31 percent (from 2006).The younger age structure of the Māori population means that there is built inmomentum for further growth. Combined with higher levels of fertility, the Māoripopulation is expected to grow at a faster rate than that of the European population.The Māori population will age in the coming decades with the median age of theMāori population projected to increase by 1.7 years between 2006 and 2021.However, even two decades on, the Māori population will still have a younger agestructure than the European population. At the regional level, growth will occuracross all regions and be most pronounced in Auckland, Waikato and theCanterbury regions.93 Please see Appendix A for a full list of projections for all TLAs.67

Implications for Housing Policy227 The key demographic factors affecting Māori housing need will be the :• projected growth in the size of the Māori population• growth in the number of kaumatua (Māori over the age of 65)• internal migration• larger Māori family sizes• the great number of single parent families.228 This section discusses the implications of these drivers for housing supply,assistance and affordability, rental tenure, and home ownership.Housing supplyIncrease in demand for housing229 Over the next 10 years, demand from Māori for housing can be expected to increaseas the Māori population expands. Growth in the number of Māori will accentuatepressure on housing supply, especially in Auckland where the greatest increase inthe number of Māori people (by 45,000) is expected. Housing supply stress is alsolikely to increase in Waikato, Canterbury, Bay of Plenty, and Wellington, where thenext largest growth in total numbers (between 10,000 and 20,000) is expected tooccur.230 In terms of the Corporation’s customer base, current demand from Māori forCorporation housing is highest in Auckland (especially South Auckland), Northland,and the Bay of Plenty. Auckland and the Bay of Plenty are also the regions expectedto experience a high level of population growth over the next decade. Therefore theCorporation can anticipate increased demand from Māori for Corporation housing inthese regions.Crowding231 The data presented in this report has shown a steady decline in crowding for Māorisince the mid 1980’s. Notwithstanding this decline, Māori continue to experiencemuch higher levels of crowding than European households. Considering the largersize and lower incomes of many Māori households, combined with high rents, highhouse prices and pressures on housing stock (particularly in urban areas), levels ofMāori household crowding are likely to remain relatively high. In the future, theincidence of Māori household crowding may increase in line with increases in thenumber of elderly Māori.232 With some 12 percent of the total Māori population residing in Corporation housing,the Corporation has the potential to impact directly on the incidence of Māorihousehold crowding. In the future, demand from Māori families who are larger 94 , andmore likely to house extended family members, is likely to continue.Affordability and assistance233 The poor state of Māori social outcomes (low incomes, low levels of employment,and low levels of education) coupled with larger family sizes and the prevalence of94 See Figure 12 regarding occupancy rate.68

single parent families place Māori among the most at risk families and households inNew Zealand.234 The gradual improvements in Māori social and economic outcomes over the pastdecade are unlikely to be sufficient to offset the affordability issues that Māoricurrently face. With the working age Māori population projected to grow by 102,000by 2026, and unemployment on the rise, current demand for housing assistancefrom Māori is likely to increase further.235 In line with the increasing Māori share of the total population, and the increasingMāori share in the Corporation’s tenant base, Māori are likely to make up a growingproportion of the Corporation’s tenants. This will be more pronounced in someregions which has implications for the Corporation’s capability, staffing andapproaches to service delivery. This report suggests that over the next 10 years theCorporation can expect:• on-going demand from Māori for larger houses• demand for housing appropriate for single parent families• growth in demand for housing for kaumatua (either as primary tenants or as partof extended family households).Demand for larger houses236 Research 95 has highlighted that the supply of Corporation houses does not currentlymeet demand from Māori both in terms of the number and size of houses required.Trends in Māori fertility suggest that the demand from Māori for larger homes willcontinue for some time yet. As the Māori population ages, an increase in extendedfamily living could heighten the demand from Māori for larger Corporation houses.Single parent families237 Single parents currently make nearly up half the Corporation’s Māori households.For these tenants housing needs to be appropriate to their needs, for example, safe,close to schools, public transport and amenities. In addition, unless efforts toencourage tenants into affordable private sector renting or home ownership aredesigned to meet the needs of this group then the Corporation faces the prospect ofa long term relationship with this customer group.Growth in the number of kaumatua238 The projected growth in the number of kaumatua over the next 20 years (from26,000 to 71,000) will result in increased housing demand from elderly Māori.Research shows that about a quarter of older Māori have little or no savings orassets with superannuation being their sole source of income 96 . As a result, Māoriwill have fewer housing options available to them in retirement. There is likely to bea sizeable increase in the number of kaumatua experiencing housing stress andpotentially requiring assistance.239 Anecdotal evidence suggests that kaumatua, who are in need of care and support,are more likely to live with their whānau than reside in retirement villages/rest95 Waldegrave et al. (2006: 85).96 Cunningham et al (2002: 43).69

homes. This is consistent with the findings 97 which identified a key need within Māorihouseholds to house a parent(s) or grand-parent(s) on a permanent basis. Thisneed was found to be common in both rural and urban areas. This could reflect inpart affordability issues but also cultural values. The likely continuation of this trendcould increase the incidence of crowding and compound issues of affordability forMāori households.240 The proportion of elderly Māori currently living in housing provided by localauthorities (much of which is pensioner housing) and Corporation housing is low.Local authorities and the Corporation should anticipate an increase in the demandfor housing from elderly Māori.Increased housing demand in rural areas241 The growth in the size of the Māori population aged over 65 years, could impactheavily in rural areas if Māori choose to return to their tribal regions in retirementyears. Many Māori reaching retirement age over the next two decades have grownup in their tribal areas. Given the importance of whakapapa, and the social, spiritualand emotional connection of many Māori to their tribal land, it is conceivable that anumber of Māori will want to move “back home”. This is supported by the findings ofa recent qualitative study 98 which found that most people interviewed anticipatedmoving back to Tuhoe lands for retirement.242 Moving back home could accentuate housing supply stress in some rural areas.This is supported by studies 99 which have found that housing demand in rural areaswas under sustained pressure due to increased migration from the cites to thecountry. In areas characterised by sub-standard housing, the emergence of thistrend could have implications for health and social service provision.Monitoring migration trends243 With many Māori living outside of New Zealand, and the world being in recession,the potential for increased ‘return migration’ should also be considered. While theymay not be in need of housing assistance, the growth in this trend could placefurther pressure on housing supply.Rental tenure244 One of the most striking trends in Māori housing in recent years has been thedecline in Māori home ownership and subsequent increase in the proportion ofMāori in rental tenure. Consultation and research has found while many Māori stillstrongly aspire to own their home, this aspiration is difficult to realise because a highproportion of Māori live in urban areas where housing pressure is most intense or incoastal areas where land and real estate prices are premium 100 . Consequently in theshort term at least, home ownership will continue to be beyond the reach of manyMāori.245 Currently about half of the Māori population find themselves in the rental market.The on-going increase in the number of Māori in rental tenure has implications forhousing stability, retirement incomes, the accumulation of wealth, as well as creating97 Waldegrave et al (2006: 120).98 Nikora (2008: 1).99 e.g. Douglas (1986: 39).100 Waldegrave et al. (2006: 122).70

pressure on social housing. The short duration of many tenancies can make itdifficult for tenants to maintain schooling, contact with health professionals, and toparticipate in the community.246 In terms of quality of housing, it is recognised that many New Zealand rentalproperties are older homes and that rental properties are not always well-maintainedor equipped with modern features. Many are poorly insulated and inefficient andexpensive to heat. Therefore access to affordable, secure, quality rental tenure islikely the most pressing housing need for Māori families in the short term.Home ownership247 Since the early 1990’s there has been an on-going decline in Māori homeownership. While this is part of a broader trend in home ownership in New Zealand,the Māori rates have declined more quickly than for Europeans.248 The government is responding to declining levels of home ownership by expandingprogrammes to help people become home owners (e.g. state house sale, gatewayinitiative). This response aligns well with on-going, and well documented, Māoriaspirations for home ownership 101 . Future policies designed to arrest the decline inMāori home ownership will need to address the following recognised barriers toMāori home ownership:• financial barriers• aspirations, knowledge and information/support• impediments to Māori utilising multiple-owned land for housing.Financial barriers249 Trends in fertility suggest that Māori will continue to start families earlier than eitherEuropean or Pacific Peoples. Also Māori women have on average more childrenthan the non-Māori population. This means that in the earlier stages of familyformation they will be less likely to be able to accumulate sufficient resources to buya house and in the later stages, the costs associated with larger families means thatthey will have less disposable income to save for home ownership.250 While there have been gradual improvements in the educational, employment andincome status of Māori over the past 10 years, the economic crisis will see moreMāori become unemployed in the near future. Even though house prices and marketrents have been slowly decreasing over the past year, the average house price isstill inflated and unlikely to be affordable for many Māori.Knowledge, information and support251 The findings presented in this report showed that Māori home ownership rates wererelatively low, regardless of age or income. This indicates that in addition todemographics and socio-economic status, there are other factors operating thatimpede Māori access to home ownership.252 Research 102 suggested that inter-generational experience helped to explain lowerMāori home ownership rates. According to this assumption, some Māori may not101 e.g. Waldegrave et al. (2006: 84).102 Waldegrave et al. (2006).71

aspire to own a home, because their parents did not own their own home, andtherefore they have not experienced the benefits of home ownership (i.e. ‘you don’tknow what you don’t know’).253 Beyond home ownership aspirations and lack of income, lack of knowledge abouthow to go about buying a home, lack of information about existing home ownershipprogrammes, and the ability to access them could impede Māori taking advantage ofhome ownership opportunities. This has implications for the way in which agenciesdelivering housing assistance engage with and deliver services to Māori and inparticular, the effectiveness of engaging and sharing information with Māori.254 In 2006, Māori were more likely to be home-owners than renters above the age of40. However, Europeans were more likely to be home-owners 10 years earlier thanthat (at the age of 30). This finding has great implications for the personal wealthaccumulation of Māori, which will be significantly pushed back when compared toEuropean. Also family formation is most likely to happen for Māori before the age of40, so that Māori children are more likely to grow up in rented homes, whereasEuropean children are more likely to grow up in homes owned by their parents.72

Appendix: ATable 1 Projected Māori population by Territorial Authority (2006-2021)Territorial authority area2006(base)2021Change 2006–2021Percentage Change 2006 - 2021Manukau City 53,900 70,600 16,700 31.0%Christchurch City 28,200 38,800 10,600 37.6%Hamilton City 27,200 36,800 9,600 35.3%Waitakere City 26,200 35,000 8,800 33.6%Tauranga City 18,000 25,500 7,500 41.7%Whangarei District 19,400 25,200 5,800 29.9%Auckland City 34,900 40,700 5,800 16.6%Papakura District 12,500 17,700 5,200 41.6%Lower Hutt City 17,600 21,800 4,200 23.9%Palmerston North City 12,400 16,000 3,600 29.0%Rotorua District 24,700 28,200 3,500 14.2%Rodney District 8,400 11,800 3,400 40.5%North Shore City 14,200 17,500 3,300 23.2%Hastings District 17,800 21,100 3,300 18.5%Franklin District 9,600 12,600 3,000 31.3%Waikato District 11,800 14,700 2,900 24.6%New Plymouth District 10,300 13,100 2,800 27.2%Napier City 10,500 13,300 2,800 26.7%Far North District 24,500 27,200 2,700 11.0%Wellington City 15,100 17,700 2,600 17.2%Kapiti Coast District 6,000 8,400 2,400 40.0%Dunedin City 8,100 10,400 2,300 28.4%Porirua City 10,700 12,900 2,200 20.6%Gisborne District 21,500 23,700 2,200 10.2%Horowhenua District 6,500 8,300 1,800 27.7%Western Bay of PlentyDistrict 7,600 9,400 1,800 23.7%Nelson City 3,900 5,600 1,700 43.6%Invercargill City 7,200 8,900 1,700 23.6%Waipa District 5,900 7,400 1,500 25.4%Wanganui District 9,800 11,300 1,500 15.3%Whakatane District 14,400 15,800 1,400 9.7%Waimakariri District 3,100 4,400 1,300 41.9%Manawatu District 4,100 5,400 1,300 31.7%Marlborough District 4,600 5,900 1,300 28.3%South Taranaki District 6,000 7,200 1,200 20.0%Selwyn District 2,200 3,300 1,100 50.0%Upper Hutt City 5,600 6,700 1,100 19.6%Taupo District 9,400 10,500 1,100 11.7%Timaru District 2,800 3,800 1,000 35.7%Tararua District 3,800 4,600 800 21.1%Matamata-Piako District 4,200 5,000 800 19.0%Thames-Coromandel District 4,400 5,200 800 18.2%Tasman District 3,300 4,000 700 21.2%Hauraki District 3,400 4,100 700 20.6%Masterton District 4,000 4,600 600 15.0%Kaipara District 4,200 4,800 600 14.3%73

Territorial authority area2006(base)2021Change 2006–2021Percentage Change 2006 - 2021Southland District 2,800 3,300 500 17.9%Waitomo District 3,900 4,400 500 12.8%Central Hawke's Bay District 2,900 3,300 400 13.8%Rangitikei District 3,700 4,000 300 8.1%Otorohanga District 2,500 2,700 200 8.0%Opotiki District 5,300 5,500 200 3.8%Ruapehu District 5,500 5,600 100 1.8%South Waikato District 7,300 7,400 100 1.4%Wairoa District 5,100 5,000 -100 -2.0%Kawerau District 4,300 4,000 -300 -7.0%Source: Statstics New Zealand-Subnational ethnic population projections 2006(base) – 202174

ReferencesBathgate, M. Inquiry into Sub-Standard Rural Housing in East Cape and Northland. Report of theSocial Services Committee, New Zealand House of Representatives (1999).Bathgate, Murray. The Housing Circumstances of the Māori people and the Work of the HousingCorporation in Meeting their Needs. Housing Corporation of New Zealand (June 1987).Cunningham C, et al. Nga Ahuatanga Noho o te Hunga Pakeke Māori: Living Standards of OlderMāori. Wellington: Ministry of Social Development, 2002.Davey, J., de Joux, V., Nana, G., Arcus, M. Accommodation Options for Older People inAotearoa/New Zealand. CHRANZ (June 2004).Douglas, E. MK. Fading expectations: The Crisis in Māori Housing. A Report for the Board of MāoriAffairs (June 1986).DTZ New Zealand. Census 2006 and Housing in New Zealand. CHRANZ and Building Research,(August 2007).DTZ New Zealand. Changes in the Structure of the New Zealand Housing Market: Volume 1.CHRANZ, (May 2004).Friesen, W., Murphy, L., Kearns, R.A., Haverkamp, E., Mapping Change and Difference: A SocialAtlas of Auckland, University of Auckland, 2000:Housing New Zealand Corporation (Sept 2008). Māori Housing Trends Report 2008.Housing New Zealand Corporation (May 2008 – April 2009). Tenant Satisfaction Monitor:Performance trends Summary Report. Prepared by Colmar Brunton.Ministry of Social Development (August 2008). The Social Report: te purongo orange tangata2008.Nikora, L., Rua, M., Te Awekotuku, N., Guerin, B., McCaughey, J. (2008). Social consequences ofTûhoe migration: Voices from home in Te Urewera. Māori and Psychology Research Unit,University of Waikato, Hamilton.NZIER (March 2009). Consensus Forecasts.Statistics New Zealand (Feb 2009). Births and Deaths: December 2008 quarter.Statistics New Zealand (Nov 2008). New Zealand Life Period Tables: 2005-07.Statistics New Zealand (Oct 2008). National Ethnic Population Projections: 2006-2026.Statistics New Zealand (Oct 2007). Survey of Dynamics and Motivation for Migration in NewZealand: March 2007 Quarter.Statistics New Zeland (June 2007). Quick Stats about income.Statistics New Zealand (March 2007 revised). Quick Stats about Māori.Statistics New Zealand (Feb 2007). Quick Stats about Population Mobility: 2006 Census.Statistics New Zealand (August 2003). What is the extent of crowding in New Zealand: an analysisof crowding in New Zealand households 1986-2001.Statistics New Zealand (Nov 2002). 2001 Census: Iwi Statistics.75

Thorns, D., Sedgwick, C. Understanding Aotearoa/New Zealand: historical statistics. PalmerstonNorth: Dunmore Press, 1997.Waldegrave, C., King, P. Walker, T., Fitzgerald, E.. Māori Housing Experiences: Emerging Trendsand Issues. CRANZ (August 2006).76