'Three very different New Zealands living alongside each other'

Public Policy / news

Social Cohesion in New Zealand report co-author Shambeel Eaqub says financial stress is fracturing New Zealand's social fabric, but there is cause for optimism

23rd Apr 26, 10:17am by admin

Photo by Aneta Hartmannová on Unsplash.

This is a press release from the Helen Clark Foundation about a new report it has released.

Financial stress, crumbling institutional trust, and rising isolation are pulling New Zealanders apart, a new report from The Helen Clark Foundation reveals.

The second annual Social Cohesion in New Zealand report found the country’s social fabric is fraying on almost every measure. The survey of nearly 3,000 New Zealanders is the second instalment of what is now an annual tracking programme, enabling year-on-year comparisons for the first time.

"The results are both frightening and hopeful,” economist and co-author Shambeel Eaqub says.

“New Zealand still has strong foundations, but there are growing cracks in how people experience fairness, opportunity and connection. Financial stress is the dominant driver.”

The steepest declines were in beliefs about fairness and institutional integrity in New Zealand. Trust in the government dropped from 42% to 39%. The share of people believing hard work leads to a better life fell 7 points to 45%. Attitudes toward immigration are becoming more negative, mirroring trends seen internationally.

Drawing on two full years of survey data - more than 5,500 responses - the report identifies three distinct groups of New Zealanders:

● The Connected (30%): High levels of belonging, institutional trust, and acceptance of others.

● The Ambivalent (41%): Moderate belonging but low participation. Includes most older homeowners, retirees, and centre-right voters.

● The Alienated (28%): Disconnected from institutions and conventional civic life, but often actively engaged in protest and online political activity. Almost half of Māori and Pasifika respondents fall into this group, as do nearly half of Green voters and seven in 10 NZ First voters.

“We have three very different New Zealands living alongside each other. Financial stress, political allegiance, institutional distrust, and social isolation are reinforcing each other, producing a population that is frustrated and disconnecting from the conventional institutions we rely on for collective decision-making,” Eaqub says.

The research finds financial stress is the single biggest driver of low social cohesion. People struggling to make ends meet are significantly less likely to feel connected, trust institutions, or participate in community life. At the same time, loneliness and isolation are rising. “Isolation doesn’t mean people disengage entirely,” Eaqub says.

“But it does change how they participate - away from traditional institutions and toward more oppositional or online forms of engagement.”

What needs to change

The report is not without cause for optimism. Over 80% of New Zealanders feel a sense of national belonging and pride in the New Zealand way of life - figures that have held steady year on year. Young New Zealanders are more aspirational than any other age group, even as they experience the worst social cohesion outcomes. The Foundation is calling for a more coordinated, long-term approach to social cohesion - including aligning economic and social policy, and investing in sustained community initiatives rather than short-term programmes.

“Social cohesion isn’t a ‘nice to have’ - it’s what allows a country to make difficult decisions and navigate long-term challenges,” Eaqub says.

“It happens when communities have the support and conditions to solve problems together, manage differences, and care for each other over time. If we want a resilient, inclusive New Zealand, strengthening social cohesion is vital.”

About the report

Social Cohesion in New Zealand (April 2026) is the second annual report from The Helen Clark Foundation’s social cohesion research programme. The 2025 survey of 2,882 New Zealanders was conducted by Talbot Mills Research with booster samples for Māori, Pacific, and Asian communities. Research is led by Shamubeel Eaqub and Rosie Collins.

About the Helen Clark Foundation

The Helen Clark Foundation is an independent, non-partisan public policy think tank based in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland. It focuses on developing solutions to New Zealand’s long-term policy challenges.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

22 Comments

by Averageman | 23rd Apr 26, 11:17am 1776899875

Some key points. Young people are the future. Home ownership anchors belonging. Belonging is critical to social cohesion. Financial stress is a dominant driver of low belonging, low trust, high isolation, and negative attitudes to immigration. So...whats draining NZ of its cumulative effort, driving our youth offshore, and crushing future belonging, connection, ...and hope?

Its the stupid house prices in relation to our income/economy.

Whether renting or buying, its access to the basic human need of shelter at an affordable price. Without meaningful change like land tax and or lower investor Dti in this area, nothing will change. We simply keep the leverage casino pumping and export societies constructive output to the Global Banking Cartel. Interesting this is not really identified.

How many houses was Helen reported to own again...?

by NZGecko | 23rd Apr 26, 11:55am 1776902126

It comes back to previous Govt aided and abetted greed.

Now being withdrawn, by thousand cuts, to property speculators benefits, like a debt druggy going cold turkey.

Glad it is mid colĺapse, into a crumpled heap of positively lower DTIs for families.

Another -30% down over a fews years, is the future.

Nice!

by Independent_Observer | 23rd Apr 26, 11:32am 1776900765

Yip that and offshoring jobs/trades/businesses to countries with cheaper foreign labour has also impacted this the past 3 decades as globalisation become the 'cool' thing to do in order to maximise shareholder wealth - while not worrying about the longer term economic and social implications of doing so.

It meant we got cheaper goods and services in our CPI, meaning we could lower rates and extend more debt against the housing market (making house prices more expensive and some people happy because they felt rich (ie the 'wealth effect')), but it also meant we hollowed out our manufacturing/production base - destroying jobs and opportunities for younger people here and NZ and giving them to people in other countries like China, Vietnam, India etc.

I for one hope we see a reversal in the globalist trend of the past 3 decades so that we cant produce more here locally - creating jobs and businesses opportunities for NZ'ers - but it will mean higher inflation due to the higher wage costs (which are mostly driven by our high housing and rent costs - so as you see its a chicken/egg situation - the past 3 decades we swapped jobs and business opportunities (with people in Asia) for expensive housing - which to me is a very dumb thing to do as a way to run an economy)

by unaha-closp | 23rd Apr 26, 1:30pm 1776907842

Yes, but I'd hope for even more. Your last paragraph is not entirely true - we don't need to have high inflation result from wage growth, because we can lower structural costs at the same time we raise wages.

NZ has a low population density and plenty of land available for housing. Which means we can open up land supply and lower the cost of building, whilst increasing wage growth and lowering unemployment all at the same time. We are positioned so we can have a booming economy with low inflation right now, if we want to.

Unfortunately Auckland Council exists and has vowed never to let this happen. Auckland Council is adamant that new land will not be made available for infill sprawl.

And so today every second twenty something is moving away, as the economy slides into recession - for absolutely no good reason at all.

by Independent_Observer | 23rd Apr 26, 2:05pm 1776909951

"We can lower structural costs at the same time we raise wages"

Sounds like extremely optimistic thinking! Like what every government for the past few decades has been promising, and yet never delivering, and we find ourselves where we do.

High house prices and rents means that it is expensive to produce goods and services here - to the point where we aren't competitive while global supply chains are open. If we are to bring those jobs/trades/businesses back to NZ to create opportunities for young people (ie the un-doing of the past 3 decades) then it will be highly inflationary as people need high wages to pay for the expensive houses and expensive rents.

Alternatively we have a massive housing crash that makes us more competitive globally as then workers no longer need to demand such high wages to pay for such high house prices and rents (and thus labour cost as an input cost for the production of goods and services reduces). And we can produce more goods and services and cheaper prices - making us more competitive globally.

Lower house prices relative to GDP is more or less the solution to nearly all of our financial and social issues. But it would be painful in the short term, but highly beneficial in the longer term.

by unaha-closp | 23rd Apr 26, 3:22pm 1776914563

It is optimistic in the sense we could if we didn't have NZ politicians.

We are governed by a Connected class of the self-referent and extremely insulated who despise their out-groups (as this survey confirms - thanks Helen Clark).

Housing is an inelastic market in NZ, that massively booms or crashes in response to demand change. We had high demand up until 2021 and councils restricting supply amplified the boom - prices soared. We now have low demand and property prices are cratering. This is the underlying problem and if unchanged it will repeat forever.

In Auckland land costs account for 60-65% of a house value, rising to 80% in the inner suburbs. This is high by global standards and should be about 40-50%. This means we realistically can drop land costs by $150,000 per build, affording $100,000 more in wages to spend on each build. House prices stabilise to a lower level and wages go up.

There are large tracts of land between Beachlands, Clevedon, Pukekohe, Kumeu, Silverdale (Auckland exurbs) and the existing suburbs of Auckland City where NZ is forbidden from building. These are gaps in the structure of Auckland where houses could be.

by Independent_Observer | 23rd Apr 26, 4:27pm 1776918426

Auckland can go to hell as far as I'm concerned (I left a long time ago now after giving up on the city). Too many people with their ego's attached to the price/size/zone of their house - meaning the needed change to fix the issues (via regulatory change) is almost impossible to achieve because to fix the problem, you have to dent the ego's of most of the people living there (their identities are based upon the price/size/zone of the house they live in). They love the problem too much to ever try coming up with a solution. ie the problem is their identity. Once they own a home of the right price/size/zone then its like a member of a ponzi scheme who then spends their time talking up the value of their investment in that ponzi - and anyone who dares mentioning anything that could de-value the price of their ponzi position, is like satan coming along to destroy their entire life image and meaning in life.

But great that you say low demand is fixing the problem Lets keep immigration low and interest rates high and watch what happens to Auckland property values (both in nominal and real terms).

by unaha-closp | 24th Apr 26, 10:19am 1776982787

The problem is Auckland is too big for the rest of NZ to ignore.

by LouB | 23rd Apr 26, 3:52pm 1776916341

Mostly agree.

With your comment....painful in the short term..... Given such a structural adjustment is absolutely needed and is to the benefit of NZ as a whole, thought needs to be applied to how that short (very subjective) term pain is shared across NZ as a whole. I do not think it would be at all equitable for the home buyers of the last, say, 10 years to carry the whole cost of say a 30% contraction in property values. As is clear, a roof over one's head is a fundamental human need.

In my opinion, only a portion of the responsibility for the rampant house price inflation lies with the buyers of those properties. Other actors have facilitated, even incentivised, that rise in prices by, for example making credit easy to obtain through low equity loans, and then profiting handsomely from the higher risk premium interest rates charged to those lenders.

So, again in my opinion, i suggest the following as an illustrative example to bring a degree of equity to the structural adjustment:

There should be a process of debt forgiveness imposed on banks to say, write off 10% of principal on low equity lending (<20% equity say at timeof borrowing) issued between 2020 and end 2025, along with imposing a mandatory >20% equity requirement for new loans advanced to home buyers (50 or so years ago the norm was 40%). No write off for property investors, and a new mandatory 40% equity requirement fenced to the property being bought by an investor, whether corporate or individual.

That's my tuppence worth.

by Independent_Observer | 23rd Apr 26, 4:14pm 1776917674

Good points - I think market forces will bring about the change needed. Painful as it will be for some who are stuck in recency/confirmation bias thinking (ie that the next few decades will be just the same as the last few decades).

by KKNZ2025 | 23rd Apr 26, 5:57pm 1776923820

Solve it overnight. Govt/RBNZ mandate all mortgage loans are non recourse as eg USA.

Then watch how the banks behave when their own skin is in the game.

by tis i | 23rd Apr 26, 6:46pm 1776926797

That and put house prices into the CPI.

by interesting1234 | 24th Apr 26, 8:44am 1776977052

Might see a few CEO's walk before they have to face the music if that ever happened XD

by Phoenix (FKA JC) | 23rd Apr 26, 12:10pm 1776903002

Its the stupid house prices in relation to our income/economy.

People need to rethink the meaning of "developed economy." it should mean that the lowest rung on the hierarchy of needs (shelter, food, water, transport) should become more affordable. That means less human labor is exchanged for those needs.

But that is not the case.

Is Aotearoa and the Anglosphere brethren as economcially developed as we think? The Helen Clark Foundation's research doesn't really address all this.

And yes, Helen has done very well out of the ruling elite structures.

by MikeM7382 | 23rd Apr 26, 12:32pm 1776904338

The Alienated (28%): Disconnected from institutions and conventional civic life, but often actively engaged in protest and online political activity. Almost half of Māori and Pasifika respondents fall into this group, as do nearly half of Green voters and seven in 10 NZ First voters.

Interesting that NZ First voters share common ground with Maori and Pasifika, albeit for different reasons.

by Phoenix (FKA JC) | 23rd Apr 26, 12:40pm 1776904850

The Alienated (28%): Disconnected from institutions and conventional civic life, but often actively engaged in protest and online political activity. Almost half of Māori and Pasifika respondents fall into this group, as do nearly half of Green voters and seven in 10 NZ First voters.

I believe there is a "Comfortably Alienated" segment. Happily disconnected. Secure in all the insecurity.

by unaha-closp | 23rd Apr 26, 1:05pm 1776906312

It is pretty much the same reasoning - poverty and feelings of alienation.

Just different political parties end up pandering to different races within this group - TPM, NZ First, Greens.

by unaha-closp | 23rd Apr 26, 12:32pm 1776904378

The Connected group is characterised as having high acceptance of others and yet somehow excludes 70% of the population - not very accepting. They seem more a politically correct clique that places high value on institutional public morals.

A better name for the group would be Institutionalised.

by KKNZ2025 | 23rd Apr 26, 12:57pm 1776905860

~20% employees are in central & local govt. They're sorted.

by interesting1234 | 23rd Apr 26, 1:36pm 1776908206

Doesn't necessarily confirm they have full faith in the system. I for one from working in Govt developed less faith in the system given the stark difference between frontline workers, middle management, and upper management, let alone unnecessary roles and teams throughout that seem to have to keep busy to justify their roles.

by interesting1234 | 23rd Apr 26, 1:35pm 1776908114

Agreed. These types have no basic survival instinct to have at least some skepticism of major systems and institutions, following with faith unwavering. These people are those that will find it hardest to cope when their beloved systems fail them, or the evidence becomes too overwhelming that it is to the contrary that they cannot ignore it.

by The_Golem | 24th Apr 26, 9:47am 1776980879

The undertone of the report seems to be that 'we are cohesive if you agree with our positions' - the 'strong pillars of cohesion that bind us together', that are the 'shared values' the Labour Party keep talking about without definition and in the apparent belief that we have some kind of monolithic, identifiable culture that embodies the right way to think. That's chilling.

We live in a world of differences and some of those differences are irreconcilable. As such, we need to think a lot harder about how to manage the tension and conflict that difference causes, rather than expecting everyone become part of a team, defined by institutions whose ideas may be very alien.

That institutional trust is collapsing is a strong argument that ever more people don't see institutions as trustworthy (or maybe, much more importantly, competent).