Research highlights opportunities to improve insurance outcomes for Māori

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 3 Copyright © Financial Markets Authority 2026. This material is licenced for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. In essence, you are free to copy, distribute and adapt the material, as long as you attribute it to the FMA and abide by other licence terms. Please note that this licence does not apply to any logos, emblems and trademarks, design elements or to any photography and imagery. Those specific items may not be re-used without express permission. Permission to reproduce material in this paper does not extend to any material that is identified as being protected by copyright owned by a third party. Permission to reproduce this material cannot be granted by the FMA, you must obtain permission from the copyright holders themselves. Disclaimer This paper is published by the Financial Markets Authority and is based on research led by Dr Lara Greaves in 2026, alongside staff from the Financial Markets Authority. Data for the survey were collected by Te Ao Mārama Aotearoa Trust through Te Ao Mārama panel. The views, opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this paper are strictly those of the author[s] and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Financial Markets Authority, its Board, or the New Zealand Government. This document should not be used as a substitute for legislation or legal advice. The Financial Markets Authority is not responsible for the results of any actions taken on the basis of information in this document, or for any errors or omissions in, or the correctness of, the information contained herein. Contact details For media or technical queries please contact questions@fma.govt.nz. Phone: 0800 434 566 Overseas Calls: 00 64 3 962 2695 Financial Markets Authority Level 5, Ernst & Young Building 2 Takutai Square, Britomart DX Box CX10033 PO Box 106 672 Auckland 1143 Financial Markets Authority Level 1, 215 Lambton Quay PO Box 1179 Wellington 6140

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 4 Contents Contents 4 Mihimihi 7 Foreword 8 Executive summary 9 Wānanga with Māori in the insurance industry and Te Arawa landholders and governors 10 A survey of 952 Māori with Te Ao Mārama Panel 11 A synthesis of the main findings 13 Summary: key themes and findings 14 Summary: key solutions 15 Future research is still needed 15 Conclusion 15 Introduction 16 Background and literature review 17 Inequitable coverage and heightened risk 18 Barriers to insurance 18 Affordability 19 Negative experiences with insurance for collectively owned land and marae insurance 19 Embedded values within the insurance sector 20 Trust in institutions 20 Broader issues with the financial markets and economic system 20 Solutions 21 Summary: Literature review 21 Industry and landholder wānanga 23 Key themes: Māori industry wānanga 24 Cross-cutting theme: Mutual financial literacy as enabling change 24 The worldview and origins of insurance are not barriers 24 Trust, distrust, and the "one step behind" starting position 24 Collectively owned whenua, papakāinga, and the limits of valuation 25 Climate, location and the shift from sustainability to resilience 25 Distribution, advice and the Māori adviser pipeline 25 Solutions: KiwiSaver as a wholesale lever 26

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 5 Solutions: Iwi-led, people-guided design 26 Key themes: Māori landholders wānanga 26 Accessibility: Unclear information and processes 27 Cultural literacy within the insurance industry 27 Distrust, mistrust and experiences of bias 28 Affordability 28 Un-insurability and inconsistencies in policies 29 Compliance requirements from local government and insurers 29 Solutions: National collective actions 29 Solutions: Māori owned and operated businesses 30 Solutions: An intergenerational view 30 Solutions: Regionally contextual 30 Summary: Wānanga 30 Survey methods 32 Designing the questions 32 Survey panel 32 Data collection 33 Survey results 34 Why Māori are less likely to have insurance 34 Solutions that might increase insurance rates for Māori 38 Insurance and land with multiple owners 39 Consideration and concern around weather events 41 Trust in the insurance industry to treat people fairly 43 Insurance product uptake and importance ratings 44 Issues with insurance and complaints 47 The main message to policy makers about Māori and insurance 49 Discussion and implications 52 Summary: key themes and findings 53 Solutions 57 Summary: key solutions 57 Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research 58 Conclusion 60
Appendix 1: Wānanga methods and questions 61
Appendix 2: Survey development 62

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 6
Appendix 3: Additional survey methods and analysis information 66
Appendix 4: Data tables from the survey 68
References 73

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 7 Mihimihi Ka rere āwhiowhio taku kārearea ki te papanui o te rangi. E paratū ana te tiro whānui ki ngā tohu whenua. Ka tangi ia i te kahu o te whenua e panoni nei – hei whakatūpato, hei tiaki. Tiaki rangi. Tiaki whenua. Tiaki tangata. Ki ngā mate, takahia te nuku o te whenua e tae ai koutou ki ō koutou wehenga wairua. Haere, haere, haere atu rā. Waiho rātou ki te ao wairua; huri ana ki a tātou e kawe nei i ngā take o te ora. E ngā hau e whā e haumiri ana i te whenua, tēnā koutou. Tauti mai, rāhiri mai ki tēnei pūrongo māorooro kua tukuna atu i te roro o te whare tiaki o Te Mana Tātai Hokohoko. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. My falcon whirls to the mist lined skies. From great heights, it surveys the features of the land. It cries to the changing of the landscape – to warn, to protect. Guardian of the sky. Guardian of the earth. Guardian of the people. To those who have passed on, trample the breadth of the land so that you may arrive at your departing place to the spiritual world. Go forth and farewell. Leave those passed to the spiritual world; let us turn to those carrying the matters of the living. To the many peoples across the land, greetings to you all. Welcome to this resounding report released from the house of guardianship – the Financial Markets Authority. Therefore, greetings and acknowledgments to you all.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 8 Foreword The role of insurance is to manage the risk of unaffordable outcomes and to support peace of mind and security. It is the FMA’s job as the regulator to support these outcomes for consumers. As an independent Crown entity, the FMA must also enable the Crown to fulfil its obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Through the FMA’s Māori strategy Matangirua and Kaupapa Māori research programme we are growing our understanding of where barriers and opportunities for Māori consumers and providers exist with insurances. On behalf of the Financial Markets Authority, we wish to extend our sincere thanks to the wānanga participants and Te Ao Mārama panelists and their whānau for contributing to this research. Almost 1,000 people have generously shared their stories, experiences and insights in this study – individuals, whānau, hapū and iwi leaders, governors of whenua Māori, multiple-owned and collectively owned land, and Māori working within the insurance industry. In particular we wish to acknowledge lead researcher Dr Lara Greaves for her expertise and leadership, the Te Ao Mārama Aotearoa Trust for their generous engagement with the survey, and our FMA colleagues for their support throughout. This is an unprecedented study which would not have been possible without the input of everyone involved. The findings in this research, particularly the high level of engagement by tangata whenua, highlight its importance and the work that lies ahead of us to address inequities and foster innovation with insurances. The FMA is committed to taking the insights from this research and applying them to help ensure the FMA’s purpose, that more New Zealanders than ever believe the financial services sector is working well for them, is true for tangata whenua. Ngā mihi maioha Hannah Chapman, Strategic Adviser Māori and Dr. Philip Stevens, Chief Economist

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 9 Executive summary The Financial Markets Authority (FMA) oversees New Zealand’s financial markets to ensure fairness, efficiency, and transparency. It promotes trust and confidence by enforcing conduct laws and helping participants make informed decisions. There are significant knowledge gaps across the wider sector regarding the experiences of Māori consumers and providers within Aotearoa New Zealand’s financial system. The FMA has been addressing this through the implementation of its Māori strategy, Matangirua. Through strategic engagement, Kaupapa Māori research and cultural capability uplift, Matangirua focuses on enabling Māori to participate in New Zealand’s financial markets as Māori, asking the question, ‘what does fair look like for Māori?’, to provide new insights, challenges or solutions. This research report explores Māori views and experiences of insurance. Māori enter the insurance market as consumers at both an individual and whānau (family grouping) level (e.g. for home, health or life insurance) and a collective level (e.g. for marae 1 insurance). Insights about insurance for Māori are increasingly important given the young age profile of Māori populations: one in three New Zealanders under 25 years of age identified as Māori in the 2023 Census (Statistics New Zealand 2022). This younger age profile means that proportionally more Māori will be entering the market for insurance as individuals and whānau. Additionally, Māori engage with insurance collectively: approximately 1.4 million hectares of land in Aotearoa remains in Māori ownership (Te Kooti Whenua Māori | Māori Land Court 2022, 2012) and anecdotally, some have reported challenges with insurance for collectively held land. However, past FMA Consumer Confidence survey results suggest that insurance is not serving Māori communities as well as it could: Māori are less likely to have insurance products when compared to the total sample. For instance, the 2025 survey showed that when compared to the overall sample, Māori were less likely to have insurance for a car (58.5% of Māori, 76.5% of the total sample), house (34.9% compared to 59.6% overall), contents (40.2% Māori, 59.4% overall), and health (25.1% Māori, 32.9% overall) (Greaves 2025). This led to the research question for a review of the academic and policy literature: what lies behind these observations? A review of the academic and policy literature The first phase of the research was a literature review which explored the current policy and academic research on Māori and insurance, with a particular focus on disparities in access, experiences, and outcomes. A notable finding from the literature review was the invisibility in data of Māori experiences with insurance and, more broadly, of financial services. Without robust evidence, it becomes more difficult to assess whether existing frameworks are delivering fair outcomes or to identify where change is
needed. This finding from the literature review was a central driver of the reason to hold wānanga (forum) and conduct a survey to provide data on these topics. The literature review also explored similar findings to past FMA Consumer Confidence Surveys: that Māori are less likely to have insurance. However, the evidence also suggests that Māori are more likely to be exposed to 1 Communal places for whānau, hapū to gather for cultural, educational, social and spiritual purposes. Marae can also include residential housing for members.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 10 risk, such as through weather events. This is based on where Māori live, and studies showing that marae are more likely to be situated in areas with higher weather risk. The review also explored a range of barriers that exist for Māori wanting insurance: Research reveals clear inequities and offers some reasons for why they occur. These reasons can be summarised as relating to affordability; negative experiences with insurance for collectively owned land and marae insurance; trust in institutions; the embedded values within the insurance sector; and wider issues with the financial system. The long-term socio-economic impacts of colonisation on Māori are also said to create greater affordability barriers. There has also been discussion of the extent to which the values that the concept of insurance is based on align with te ao Māori (Māori worldview) and mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge), in terms of the response to risk and to loss. Additionally, some have pointed out that insurance is often based on Western norms and around concepts like the nuclear family, and that these biases carry through to the valuation of taonga. As a result of negative experiences with institutions, across a range of measures Māori have lower trust in institutions. Māori also report significantly lower levels of trust in insurance companies and brokers in the FMA’s surveys (Financial Markets Authority 2024). Lower levels of trust likely relate to and reinforce many of the other barriers discussed here. In addition, some would argue that access to insurance cannot be addressed in isolation; it must be understood as part of a broader need for reform to increase equity across the financial system, including regulation, product design, and risk assessment practices. The literature review also found solutions that have been proposed to address some of these issues. On the supply side, the literature identifies a narrow – but growing – range of specialist insurance offerings tailored to Māori, such as marae or iwi (tribe)-specific cover provided through selected brokers or partner arrangements. There was also success post-Canterbury earthquakes in the use of claims navigators who could help whānau in their interactions with insurance companies and the Earthquake Commission 2 , lessening administrative barriers and stress. Another issue is the need for the industry to be culturally responsive and knowledgeable about Māori communities; ensuring that there are more kaimahi Māori (Māori workers) in the industry is one option. Others have raised that ensuring that information is delivered in an accessible and appropriate way would benefit Māori communities. Wānanga with Māori in the insurance industry and Te Arawa landholders and governors The second phase involved wānanga with industry stakeholders (February 2026) and Māori landholders and governors (from Te Arawa region, April 2026). This phase allowed the researchers
to explore in-depth insights and experiences from Māori engaged most directly with the insurance industry and the issues around insuring Māori land. The two wānanga illustrated a consistent and reinforcing picture of how the insurance system does not meet the needs of hapori Māori (Māori communities). They also showed a more nuanced and solutions-oriented perspective than the existing literature alone might suggest. Analysis of the industry wānanga centred an important reframe: insurance, at its origins, is not fundamentally at odds with te ao Māori. However, the systemic enablement of individualisation over collectivisation has reshaped it into a product that no longer 2 Now the Natural Hazards Commission (NHC)

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 11 reflects the collective, intergenerational risk-sharing that underpins both insurance and Māori communities’ practices. Both wānanga identified lower levels of trust as a core feature of Māori communities’ relationship with insurance, shaped by inherited institutional mistrust, ongoing experience of systemic racism, and a perception that the industry prioritises profit over the needs of tangata whenua (people of the land). Across both groups, the collective nature of Māori land ownership emerged as a central issue. The standard valuation methodologies, assumptions of individual title or ownership, and nuclear-family policy structures consistently create issues for papakāinga, marae, multiple-owned 3 and collectively owned land, leaving communities either uninsured, underinsured, or facing premiums with no relationship to actual risk or cultural value. Climate change is said to have intensified these concerns, which were noted across both wānanga, with some raising that Māori communities are disproportionately located in high-risk areas, that whenua (land) cannot simply be abandoned or substituted, and that the industry’s trajectory toward risk-based pricing and market withdrawal threatens to remove cover from those who need it most. Accessibility and cultural literacy were important themes: landholders described a system that is hard to navigate, poorly explained, and unresponsive to kanohi ki te kanohi (face-to-face) engagement. Industry stakeholders identified a structural distribution problem with too few Māori advisers, issues with adviser retention, and channels that cannot deliver suitable advice to Māori. On solutions, both groups converged on the importance of iwi-led and Māori-designed responses, with the industry wānanga drawing a careful distinction between co-ownership of a provider and authority, cautioning that Māori capital in an entity does not automatically translate into better outcomes for Māori communities on the ground. The industry wānanga took place before the survey and included time for consultation on what topics should be asked about in the survey. The survey was designed based on these responses and the themes from the literature review. A survey of 952 Māori with Te Ao Mārama Panel The third phase of the project involved a survey to explore how widespread these issues are among Māori, alongside their views of insurance. The survey was then provided to a randomly sampled survey panel of Māori participants: Te Ao Mārama (TAM) panel. A total of 952 participants completed the survey in April-May 2026. The researchers made a specific design choice to have some of the questions ask the participants to reflect on those around them – their whānau and communities – rather than solely their own personal experience, which is typical in survey research. This meant that participants acted as informants and experts in their own communities’ experiences and could reflect
on the experiences of the collective. Participants were asked to reflect and rate their agreement on statements as to what they think makes Māori less likely to have insurance. Participants were more likely to agree to the statements around people not 3 Multiple-ownership and collective-ownership refer to different concepts. However, they were used interchangeably by different research participants. For clarity, where this report uses the term multiple-owned or multiple ownership, it is referring to both concepts unless otherwise stated.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 12 having enough money for insurance (82% agreed, rating the statement 5-7 on a 7-point scale); little trust that insurance companies would pay out (55% agreed); and that the insurance industry does not understand Māori communities (52%). In contrast, there was strong disagreement that whānau are a substitute for insurance (62% disagreed, rating it 1-3 on the scale). The survey also took a positive, future-facing approach with this line of questioning and asked participants to rate a range of possible solutions that may lead more Māori to take up insurance. The most popular solutions were iwi offering insurance (71% agreed) and the ability to access a navigator to help with insurance claims (71% agreed), although 62% thought insurance being offered to collectives (such as whānau or hapū (kinship group)) would help. Increasing the Māori insurance workforce was rated less highly, but still held reasonable support, with 48% agreeing, 27% viewing this as neutral, and 20% disagreeing. Participants were asked about insurance issues for multiple-owned land. This was to explore how common the issues that had arisen in the wānanga might be in the Māori population: 49% of participants (n=464) said they were involved with land that has multiple owners (the question included ‘land held by Māori land trusts, family trusts, or other land types’). Of those who were involved with such land, 31% said the property was at least partially insured. Of the 243 participants who knew whether the property was insured, 12% reported an issue with insurance with the property. These issues most commonly related to affordability; disagreement and tensions in governance and decision making; no coverage or limited coverage; or administrative barriers to insurance. A set of questions gauged the extent to which participants were both aware of and concerned about the effects of weather events and insurance. Overall, about a quarter of participants said they had ‘not at all’ considered weather events affecting insurance availability (26%) or price (22%), or how weather events might affect the whenua they whakapapa to, marae, or papakāinga (25%). In contrast, a smaller group had considered these ‘a great deal’ or ‘quite a bit’ – 28% for insurance availability; 36% for the price of insurance; and 33% for the effects weather events might have on whenua they whakapapa to. These results show diverse views across Māori. Participants were then asked about the extent to which they were concerned about the effects of weather events. The sample was split across response options about the effects of weather events on insurance price, access and whenua, with a smaller group being not at all concerned (13-20%). Participants were relatively more worried about changes to the price of insurance (39% said ‘quite’ or ‘extremely’ worried), compared to its availability (25%). The survey also asked participants to evaluate the extent to which
they trust the insurance industry to treat people fairly on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 10 (completely). Overall, the distribution was skewed towards less trust (33% rated their trust as 0-3; compared to 21% who were on the trusting side at 7-10), however, most participants were around the neutral mid-point of the scale (43% rated their trust as 4 to 6). Participants were asked which insurances they held (based on those relevant to their situation) and which they found important. Car or motor insurance was rated as the most important (91% rated it as 5-7 on the 7-point scale; note 89% of participants had this insurance), followed by house insurance (90%; where 86% held this insurance), and contents or renter’s insurance (86%; 78% held this insurance). These three types of insurance were also those that people were most likely to have. However, the gap between those in the sample thinking an insurance was important and holding that insurance was wider for life insurance (55% important; 44% have), health insurance (51% important, 33% have), and funeral insurance (37% important, 16% have). This shows a potential unmet need in communities for these types of insurance.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 13 Participants were asked if they had experienced any problems with insurance in the past two years, ‘whether it be an issue when trying to buy insurance or an issue with a claim’: 17% responded yes (n=157), 79% said no (n=720), with 4% responding ‘don’t know’ (n=35). This is higher than the Consumer New Zealand 2024 survey of a general sample where 9% had experienced an issue (Ipsos 2024). The most common issue was sales pressure (41%), followed by issues of information accessibility such as the terms and conditions being unclear or unfair (38%); information being too complicated (35%); or unresponsive companies or brokers (32%). The substantive survey questions ended with an open-ended question (i.e. a type-in freeform box) that asked the sample what the main thing was that they would ‘tell the policy makers in Wellington about Māori and insurance’; 64.5% (n=614) shared an answer. Accessibility (43%) was the most-raised concern, this included calls for simpler products, fairer pricing, and direct community outreach. A strong desire for Māori-owned (31%) insurance options grounded in tikanga and delivered through iwi and hapū was the second most prominent theme, alongside affordability concerns (27%). Distrust of the industry was captured across the integrity (16%), advancement (7%), and discrimination (2%) themes, with participants citing exploitative structures, discriminatory underwriting practices, and poor treatment of Māori customers as key barriers. Affordability concerns and distrust of the industry were most pronounced among rural and northern North Island participants, older Māori, and those involved in multiple-owned land. These groups also showed the greatest concern about weather events affecting their whenua, marae, and papakāinga. Wellington-based participants were consistently more trusting of the industry and less concerned about climate-related insurance risks. Gender differences were notable, with the wāhine and other genders (combined) category more likely than tāne to find insurance important, to support proposed solutions, and to be worried about weather-related risks. Age shaped both priorities and trust: older Māori were more concerned about climate risks and more likely to value personal insurance products but were also more likely to trust the industry; while younger Māori prioritised accessibility and physical insurances. Those involved in multiple-owned land stood out as a distinct group, showing higher distrust, greater concern about weather impacts, and stronger support for Māori-owned solutions. Overall, a noteworthy result was that 64.5% of participants answered an open-ended survey question to tell policy makers what the most important point was. This shows interest in the topic and demonstrates that there was a high level of sophistication in participant responses. This research project has illustrated that there is interest among Māori in this
under-researched topic. A synthesis of the main findings The researchers then mapped the themes for the literature review and two wānanga, with similar key survey findings to explore the main findings of the research. This shows the common themes across components of the data collection:

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 14 The work also included a range of solutions that were present across the different research activities:
Summary: key themes and findings
Literature review Industry wānanga Landholders wānanga Survey Invisibility and an evidence gap Main message to policy makers: 1) accessibility; 2) Māori-owned solutions; 3) affordability Inequitable coverage and heightened risk Climate, location and the shift from sustainability to resilience 28-36% considering weather events and insurance ‘quite a bit’ or ‘a great deal’; 25-39% ‘quite’ or ‘extremely’ worried Affordability barriers Affordability Affordability rated as the largest barrier (82% agree) Negative experiences with insurance for collectively owned land/marae Collectively owned whenua, papakāinga, and the limits of valuation Un-insurability & inconsistencies Issues appeared for 12% of those involved in multiple-owned land (who know about the land’s insurance) Compliance requirements from local government and insurers Negative experiences with insurance reported by 17% in the past 2 years Cross-cutting theme:
Mutual financial literacy as enabling change
Cultural literacy within the insurance industry 52% agreed the industry does not understand Māori communities Distribution, advice and the Māori adviser pipeline Accessibility:
Unclear information and processes
Accessibility raised as the main message to policy makers (28%; 35% for those aged under 30) Trust in institutions Trust, distrust, and the "one step behind" starting position Distrust, mistrust and experiences of bias Many were neutral (43%) although 33% reported distrust, 21% trust Embedded values as barriers The worldview and origins of insurance are not barriers Mixed results to statement about insurance being not aligned with Māori values – 32% disagreed; 32% neutral; 23% agreed Broader system-level issues

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 15 Future research is still needed The research report sought to fill a large gap in the research literature. It could only be limited in focus, but in completing this work, the researchers identified a large range of potential research questions. This research used different types of data and evidence, but no administrative data were available. An analysis of such data would provide another point of triangulation and a higher-level view of the issues. The work also suggested that issues can be regionally specific, meaning a wider range of wānanga may create additional insights and raise new issues. The report also explored only some of the demographic data: the survey data should be analysed in more detail (e.g. by other demographics, such as to explore the experiences of single parents, or by income level). Largely through asking for research priorities at the industry wānanga, the project also led to many other diverse research questions. These included: the need for an exploration of regulatory barriers for iwi-led solutions; existing evaluation practices; how to build trust and responsiveness and better deliver accessible information; how to improve collective marae policies; exploring KiwiSaver-linked solutions; and how to manage climate change resilience and other related issues in Māori communities. Conclusion The research project included a literature review; two wānanga with different groups; and a representative survey of Māori. Across all these data points, there were some clear commonalities and issues identified, especially around climate change and weather event related risk and change; affordability; negative experiences; cultural literacy; accessible information; trust in institutions; and differences or similarities in worldviews. These findings provide an important initial investigation into the topic and present further opportunities for engagement and potential solutions. Summary: key solutions Literature review Industry wānanga Landholders wānanga Survey A range of solutions are emerging: iwi-led or iwi as partners; navigators; Māori financial advisers/more culturally appropriate information KiwiSaver as a wholesale lever; iwi-led, people￾guided design Solutions: national collective actions; Māori￾owned/operated; intergenerational; regionally contextual Iwi-owned solutions and navigators were rated more highly; followed by collective solutions; and more kaimahi Māori

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 16 Introduction The Financial Markets Authority (FMA) oversees New Zealand’s financial markets to ensure fairness, efficiency, and transparency. It promotes trust and confidence by enforcing conduct laws and helping participants make informed decisions. There are significant knowledge gaps across the wider sector regarding the experiences of Māori consumers and providers within Aotearoa New Zealand’s financial system. The FMA has been addressing this through the implementation of its Māori strategy, Matangirua. Through strategic engagement and Kaupapa Māori research 4 , Matangirua focuses on enabling Māori to participate in New Zealand’s financial markets as Māori, asking the question, ‘what does fair look like for Māori?’, to provide new insights, challenges or solutions. This research report explores Māori experiences with and views of insurance. Two statistics illustrate the importance of this work. Just under one in three New Zealanders under 25 years of age identify as Māori, and the Māori population is projected to surpass 20% of the total population by 2040 (Statistics New Zealand 2022; Te Whata, 2026). Approximately 1.4 million hectares of land in Aotearoa remains in Māori ownership, with particularly high concentrations in regions such as Waiariki (Bay of Plenty) (~23%), Tairāwhiti (East Coast) (~18%), and Aotea (Manawatū, Whanganui, Taranaki) (~28%) (Te Kooti Whenua Māori | Māori Land Court 2022, 2012). The scale and distribution of these landholdings underscore both their economic and cultural significance, and the importance of ensuring that insurance settings and market responses are fit for purpose for whenua Māori and the communities connected to it. Actionable insights are needed to identify where the FMA can act to help address inequities and reduce harms, vulnerabilities, and risks experienced uniquely or disproportionately by Māori consumers. By deepening its understanding of te ao Māori and the diverse lived realities of Māori individuals, whānau and communities, the FMA can also help foster innovation that grows business offerings that address barriers, supporting greater Māori participation in the financial markets. This report describes research that the FMA has conducted – grounded in Kaupapa Māori research methodologies – to address knowledge gaps regarding the views and experiences of Māori consumers. The first phase of the research was a literature review which explored the current policy and academic research on Māori and insurance, with a particular focus on disparities in access, experiences, and outcomes. The second phase involved a wānanga with industry stakeholders and a wānanga with Māori landholders and governors. This phase allowed the researchers to explore in-depth insights and experiences from Māori engaged most directly with the insurance industry and the issues of insuring Māori land. Next, the project team designed a survey based on the literature
review and wānanga notes. The FMA commissioned Demos and Data Limited to undertake this research. Demos and Data engaged TAMA to field the survey through the Te Ao Mārama Panel and to supply a de-identified, weighted dataset. A total of 952 participants completed the survey in April-May
2026. This report summarises the methods of this survey and the key results. The report then finishes in a
discussion of the main findings of the work, and the gaps for future research.
4 A culturally framed approach conducted by Māori, with Māori that is rooted in a Māori worldview, normalises and centralises the experiences of Māori, and contributes to positive outcomes for Māori.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 17 Background and literature review Māori have experienced structural inequities through colonisation, socio-economic marginalisation, and bias across institutions (Moewaka Barnes and McCreanor 2019; Anderson, Binney, and Harris 2014; Houkamau and Sibley 2015). From this history, Māori have less access to education, income, intergenerational wealth, and to land as an economic resource, which has affected business development and economic development (Reserve Bank of New Zealand 2022; K. Baker, Chapman, and Leef 2025; Wolfgramm 2024; K. Baker, Chapman, and De Berry 2025). For example, analysis by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (2022) shows that Māori businesses face persistently higher borrowing costs and remain underrepresented in asset ownership. These conditions compound over time at both an individual (or whānau) and collective (hapū, iwi, hapori, pakihi (business)) level, limiting the ability to both obtain insurance and maintain adequate and sustained coverage. Existing work within the FMA has shown a pattern of inequity in access to insurance. Every year since 2013 the FMA has run a version of the Consumer Confidence Survey which surveys a representative sample of New Zealanders on their views of and experiences with the financial markets and related topics. Past surveys have shown that Māori are less likely to have insurance products when compared to the total sample. For instance, the 2025 survey showed that when compared to the overall sample, Māori were less likely to have insurance for a car (58.5% of Māori, 76.5% of the total sample), house (34.9% compared to 59.6% overall), contents (40.2% Māori, 59.4% overall), and health (25.1% Māori, 32.9% overall) (Greaves 2025). Māori were also more likely to have no insurance products (23.4% had no products compared to 10.7% of the overall sample). These statistics suggest that Māori have lower levels of uptake of insurance products. But why is this the case? And how can the insurance system be made fairer and more accessible for Māori? The first step of this project was to create a literature review to explore academic works, public sector research, and other writings on the topic of Māori and insurance. 5 This section of the report provides a summary of the key themes and findings from the literature review exercise. Invisibility and an evidence gap Overall, the existing statistical research showed a similar pattern to past FMA survey work. However, there were very few studies that explored Māori rates of insurance specifically or surveys that included in-depth questions related to insurance. 6 A notable finding from the literature review was the invisibility in data of Māori experiences in insurance and, more broadly, in financial services. This is a significant evidence gap that limits understanding and impedes the development of solutions. In working to develop the survey, the researchers also consulted the international
literature on insurance and Indigenous peoples and found – despite 6.2% of the world’s population being Indigenous (United Nations n.d.) – very little research on Indigenous peoples and 5This section is based on a literature review conducted by Nali Patel as part of a summer internship at the FMA. 6 In the process of designing the survey, in addition to conducting a regular academic literature review, the researchers searched for survey results and questions on insurance for Māori through reports from similar surveys and government agencies’ websites (e.g. the Office of the Retirement Commissioner, the Commerce Commission); similar academic projects such as Te Kupenga by StatsNZ, Te Hoe Nuku Roa, and the Māori Identity and Financial Attitudes survey; and Waitangi Tribunal inquiry files.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 18 their views of and experiences with insurance generally. The gap itself is a significant finding, pointing to a need for further research in this area (K. Baker, Chapman, and De Berry 2025). Visibility is viewed as important within policy and research, as issues which are not measured or documented risk becoming “out of sight, out of mind” in decision‑making processes (Strid, Walby, and Armstrong 2013; Setel et al. 2007; Walter et al. 2025). Without robust evidence, it is difficult to assess whether existing frameworks are delivering fair outcomes or to identify where changes are required. This finding from the literature review was a central driver of the reason to hold wānanga and conduct a survey to provide data on these topics. Additionally, the researchers note that other projects on topics related to Māori and insurance were underway during the writing of this report, including some funded by the Natural Hazards Commission Toka Tū Ake. Inequitable coverage and heightened risk As discussed in relation to the FMA’s past survey work, a consistent finding across years has been that, on average, Māori have less insurance coverage. Other works have similarly found lower rates of health insurance and home insurance for Māori homeowners, and lower rates of insurance in general, and have suggested that insurance rates may vary further depending on disability and region (Hill et al. 2013; Gamble 2022; Waldegrave et al. 2006; Iorns and Godfery 2024). This lower coverage accompanies research that points to Māori overrepresentation in areas of greater risk, meaning a greater overall need for insurance. For example, a study of the Canterbury earthquakes and recovery showed that Māori were more likely to have lived in the areas of the city with less resources (Kenney and Phibbs 2014). This meant they faced barriers to government assistance but also were less likely to be heard in government consultation. Other emerging evidence suggests that Māori are more likely to live in areas with a greater level of climate change and weather event related risk, and that marae are more likely to be situated in areas with higher exposure to weather events (Awatere et al. 2026; Bailey-Winiata et al. 2025). Alongside the loss of whenua, marae, and papakāinga, researchers have also raised a broader suite of risks relating to climate change for Māori, such as loss of taonga species, disruption to hapū/iwi identity, loss of Indigenous knowledge systems, and increased health inequities (Awatere et al. 2026). The combination of lower coverage and greater risk creates compounding inequities in insurance for Māori. For example, in Wairoa where approximately 70% of the population is Māori, only around half of residents hold flood insurance cover (Iorns and Godfery 2024). Letica et al. (2024) caution that as hazards become increasingly non-random, insurers may retreat from exposed areas, and that these impacts are
likely to disproportionately affect Māori communities. Because access to public natural hazards insurance under the Natural Hazards Insurance Act (NHIA) 2023 is tied to private fire insurance, these compounding inequities mean households may lose eligibility for NHIA benefits precisely as climate-related risk escalates. At the same time, research shows that many New Zealanders generally feel both concerned and under-informed about climate risks to property and adaptation options (Tower Insurance 2025; Manning et al. 2015; Milfont, Athy, and Sibley 2024). Given the lack of research on views of insurance and weather-related risk focused on Māori, this was identified as an area to survey for the current project. Barriers to insurance Given that the research consistently shows less access to insurance, what are some of the barriers that Māori experience around insurance? The literature review explored some of the reasons why Māori are less likely to

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 19 have insurance. These can be summarised as relating to: affordability; negative experiences with insurance for collectively owned land and marae insurance; trust in institutions; the embedded values within the insurance sector; and wider issues with the financial system. Note that among the little existing research and policy work, similar issues have been raised by Indigenous peoples internationally, including: inequity of coverage across different types of insurance; tensions and commonalities in reconciling Indigenous values and insurance; and a focus on both incremental and structural solutions that may work better for Indigenous communities (Krysiak 2017; Serván-Mori et al. 2024; Jaramillo and Willging 2021; Mariam 2003). There are also cases of bad actors preying on inequities to target Indigenous consumers. For example, where multiple providers engaged “acted unconscionably” when mis-selling life, funeral and accidental injury insurance products to Aboriginal consumers in remote areas of Australia (ASIC 2022). These examples illustrate that Indigenous contexts have some of the same issues in common, and others provide case studies of where insurance inequity can create greater issues for the pursuit of wellbeing by Indigenous peoples. Affordability As part of the current project, the researchers obtained further information from data tables from past FMA Consumer Confidence surveys. The 2022 survey asked participants about the main barriers for participants in taking up insurance, the answer options included: affordability; being overwhelmed by the range of products available; not knowing enough about the products; insurance not being a priority; no experience with insurance; worrying that insurers do not have one’s best interests at heart; negative claim experiences; distrust; preferring to self-insure; not being able to get insurance; or not thinking that they need it. There were only two statistically significant differences between Māori and others: Māori were significantly more likely to say they could not afford insurance (36% of Māori compared to 25% of all respondents) and were less likely to say there were no barriers to insurance (22% of Māori, 33% of all respondents). A consistent finding across many decades is that Māori tend to have lower incomes, and less access to wealth and education, meaning more constrained household budgets and the need to prioritise expenses: researchers often argue that financial topics cannot be discussed without considering the effects of colonisation (Moewaka Barnes and McCreanor 2019; Cochrane and Pacheco 2022; Rua et al. 2023; Houkamau et al. 2020). This lower average financial position relates to many outcomes including the uptake of insurance. Negative experiences with insurance for collectively owned land and marae insurance Recent qualitative research from the FMA further identifies a range of systemic and persistent barriers,
particularly affecting collectively owned Māori land (K. Baker, Chapman, and Leef 2025). These include the application of Western risk models that categorise collective ownership structures as higher risk; difficulties using land with multiple owners as collateral; and anti-money laundering and compliance requirements that scale poorly in rural settings or post-disaster contexts. Issues with marae insurance may also create negative experiences for Māori (Iorns and Godfery 2024). Marae are ordinarily excluded from NHIA cover because they do not meet the residential threshold, a policy choice carried over from earlier legislative regimes. The result has been described as a form of legislative cultural blindness, whereby marae fall through coverage gaps because whānau and hapū-based forms of collective living diverge from the nuclear household model embedded within the NHIA Act (Iorns and Godfery 2024). Iorns and Godfery (2024) further note that technical coverage

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 20 boundaries such as distance rules and accessway definitions can produce incidental and inconsistent outcomes for dwellings located on marae. Valuation methodologies represent another set of issues. The reliance on market value when assessing Māori land is widely criticised, as Māori land is generally not intended to enter the open market (Iorns and Godfery 2024). As a result, market values are often depressed relative to comparable general land, leading to systematic undervaluation of claims. This approach also fails to reflect the cultural, spiritual, and intergenerational significance of land as a foundation of identity and continuity, including concepts such as ahikāroa. Where land forms part of a broader social and cultural system rather than a tradable asset, market-based valuation can materially misrepresent loss and damage. Embedded values within the insurance sector Similarly, some have raised that the idea of insurance does not align well with Māori worldviews and values (Owen, Letica, and Awatere 2024). Insurance is built on the idea of post-loss compensation. This has been contrasted to views of risk based on mātauranga Māori which emphasises avoidance and adaptation to hazards from the beginning. Insurance reduces the risk of loss more than it reduces the risk of damage itself, while Māori views of insurance may be to avoid the adverse occurrence altogether. Policies have been built over time based on Western market systems and cultural norms, including the idea of a nuclear family. One paper also notes the misalignment between Māori worldviews, tikanga, and the treatment and valuation of taonga when compared with Western insurance philosophies, which are grounded in individual ownership and nuclear-family structures (Owen, Letica, and Awatere 2024). This misalignment extends into legal and policy frameworks; for example, collective whānau-based ownership models often fall outside current policy settings, contributing to gaps and inconsistencies in the financial sector generally (McLeod and Lam 2021; Fleming 1997; Burns and Dwyer 2007) which likely extend to insurance coverage and protection. Trust in institutions As a result of negative experiences with institutions across a range of measures, Māori have lower trust in institutions (Lindsay Latimer et al. 2022; Statistics New Zealand 2021; Papadopoulos and Vance 2019). For example, in health insurance, an emerging body of work discusses genetic discrimination in access to healthcare, with concerns for Māori and Pasifika. A recent paper also discusses the idea that Māori and Pasifika may be more likely to be denied health insurance (Uerata et al. 2025). Additionally, Māori report significantly lower levels of trust in insurance companies and brokers in the FMA’s surveys (Financial Markets Authority 2024). Lower levels of trust likely relate to and reinforce many of the other barriers discussed here. Broader issues with the
financial markets and economic system Although this project seeks to explore Māori experiences with insurance specifically, many authors have raised issues with the broader financial markets and economic system (Sturman and Scobie 2024; Moewaka Barnes and McCreanor 2019; K. Baker, Chapman, and De Berry 2025; Dell et al. 2022). This includes the cultural values and priorities embedded within its design, and therefore its limited ability to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi / Te Tiriti o Waitangi and move towards equity or equality in insurance and the financial sector (K. Baker, Chapman, and Leef 2025). Consequently, many would argue that insurance access cannot be addressed in isolation; it must be understood as part of a broader need for reform across the financial system, including regulation, product design, and risk assessment practices.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 21 Solutions Finally, a range of potential solutions arise within the literature. On the supply side, the literature identifies a narrow – but growing – range of specialist insurance offerings tailored to Māori, such as marae or iwi‑specific cover provided through selected brokers or partner arrangements (McLeod and Lam 2021; G. Baker 2025). One widely discussed example is iwi partnering with providers to offer health insurance schemes (G. Baker 2025). Claims navigators appear as a solution in sources discussing the response to the Canterbury earthquakes (Kenney and Phibbs 2014). After the earthquakes Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Ngā Maata Waka provided insurance system navigators to aid whānau in engaging with claims, including with the Earthquake Commission (NHC). This solution recognises knowledge and administrative barriers to making successful claims, and can be a by Māori, for Māori solution. Past qualitative work from the FMA has discussed that some find it hard to navigate paperwork and application systems and that a navigator could “… have a foot in both worlds to build the bridge” (Renee Raroa, quoted in K. Baker, Chapman, and Leef, 2025). Building the cultural literacy of the insurance sector and workforce, as well as creating more pathways for Māori to work in the sector have been raised as solutions. Past work within the FMA has shown that Māori are less likely to engage financial advisers and often report nervousness when interacting with providers, compounding information gaps and limiting access to appropriate insurance solutions (Financial Markets Authority 2024). Māori consumers consistently express a preference for proactive, relationship-based engagement and for information that is personalised, accessible, and culturally relevant (Houkamau et al. 2020). 7 More generally, the research on Māori and the financial system has highlighted the need for culturally appropriate advice and financial education, and some have pointed to the need for more Māori to work in the industry to ensure it can better meet the needs of whānau and hapori Māori (K. Baker, Chapman, and Leef 2025; Houkamau et al. 2020). Summary: Literature review The literature review consistently found that Māori are less likely to have insurance. This finding accompanies research that suggests that Māori may have a higher risk profile, especially when it comes to the effects of climate change and weather events. Researchers link these inequities to colonisation, and the resulting barriers to accessing education, land, and wealth for Māori. These also relate to various other barriers, such as issues with affordability, negative experiences with insurance for collective landownership, Western values and norms being embedded into the system and the very idea of insurance, lower trust for Māori in the insurance sector, and issues that have been raised with the financial system more generally. Overall, a key theme
from the literature review was invisibility: there was very little research on Māori views of and experiences with insurance, which limits the ability of policymakers to engage with the best solutions for Māori. Given the lack of research, this report includes two wānanga – one with Māori working in the industry and one with Māori landowners – to explore the issues in-depth. Taking the notes from the first wānanga, and the literature review, the researchers designed a survey for a representative group of Māori from Te Ao Mārama (TAM) Panel (n=952), an independent, Māori-governed survey panel. The next section of the report discusses 7 Note that this was also the case for Pacific communities in the FMA survey, and some sources discuss this as a solution that would also help to remove barriers for Pacific consumers.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 22 the themes from the two wānanga, before moving to the methods and results sections for the survey. The report ends by discussing the overall findings and mapping the remaining gaps in the research literature.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 23 Industry and landholder wānanga Given the large gaps in the literature, the FMA conducted two wānanga to explore the research topic in more depth. The purpose of the wānanga was to take a qualitative, idea-generating approach, and to gather in-depth views, insights and experiences. Engagement with key stakeholders and exploring the topic qualitatively is often useful before a more fine-grained survey takes place to ensure the survey covers relevant topics (Creswell and Clark 2017). Wānanga also provide a culturally appropriate method of engaging with Māori, that draws on tikanga Māori and a range of Kaupapa Māori research ethics (Mahuika and Mahuika 2020). Note: more details on the wānanga are available in Appendix 1. The two wānanga had slightly different functions for the project, they were:

1. The industry wānanga in February 2026 with two groups of Māori in the insurance industry (from insurers
   (life, health, and fire and general), retail banks involved in insurance distribution, independent financial advisers and advice firms; with some participants having experience in iwi entities and post-settlement governance organisations): one in Tāmaki Makaurau, the other in Te Whanganui-a-Tara, connected via video link. The purpose of this wānanga was to hear from people working in the insurance sector who could represent the contexts, lived realities and experiences of Māori consumers (individual, whānau) with insurances. Additionally, insights from the wānanga were used to inform the design of the survey.
2. The landholders and governors wānanga in April 2026 8
   , with 16 individuals from whānau, hapū and iwi from Te Arawa region. The purpose of the wānanga was to focus on their experiences with insurance as Māori and as governors and kaitiaki of whenua Māori. Wānanga attendees all had whakapapa to the region. There was a mix of genders and ages (30s through to kaumātua). 8 Note that due to scheduling constraints, this wānanga took place after the survey was designed.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 24 Key themes: Māori industry wānanga From the notes and transcript, a member of the research team 9 constructed seven key themes and identified one cross-cutting issue. Cross-cutting theme: Mutual financial literacy as enabling change Financial literacy appeared throughout the wānanga, however, the kōrero reframed literacy issues as mutual. The wānanga highlighted problems with framings that locate the literacy gap solely in whānau and hapū. They pointed to the need for the industry to learn about te ao Māori, about collective ownership structures, and the relational nature of trust, alongside whānau learning more about products, claims processes and adviser relationships. The reframing of mutual financial literacy moves literacy from a deficit narrative to a capability￾building one, and places obligations on both sides of the consumer relationship. The worldview and origins of insurance are not barriers "The idea of insurance isn't foreign — it's the way it's been packaged that is." Overall, discussion in the wānanga reflected that insurance — at its origin — is a pooled-risk, mutual-protection idea. Insurance has similarities with the practice of koha (contribution), of collective whānau and hapū responsibility for those experiencing hardship, and intergenerational mitigation against loss. An observation was that there are similarities between these ideas in te ao Māori and the ideas underpinning insurance. Many reflected that the divergence between insurance and Māori practices came later, as the concept of insurance was reshaped into an individualised, commodified product sold to a customer rather than held by a community. This framing contrasts some of the discussion found in academic works in the literature review. The wānanga returned repeatedly to the shared origin point between insurance-as-pooled-risk and Māori collective practice. The mutual society, the friendly society, and the marae-based response to whānau hardship all rest on the same premise: that risk is best held collectively, and that protection is an intergenerational obligation. The wānanga drew out two consequences. First, the framing of Māori consumers as new to or under-served by insurance under-describes what is happening. Māori communities have long practised insurance in substance, if not in product form. Second, the individualised product form that now dominates the market makes it harder for collective entities (whānau, hapū, iwi, marae) to access protection in a form that matches how they hold risk. Some noted the limitations of group policies: these are often "group" only in administration, not in design. Trust, distrust, and the "one step behind" starting position "We're not starting from neutral. We're starting one step behind." A consistent thread was that Māori consumers enter the insurance relationship from a position of inherited mistrust. Trust is shaped by historical experiences of financial
institutions, intergenerational memories of asset 9 Dr Claire Weinhold led analysis on this wānanga.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 25 loss, and by present-day experiences of being misread or under-served. The wānanga emphasised that trust is relational, time-intensive, and earned through demonstrated cultural safety rather than asserted through brands or marketing. Some noted that the industry sometimes mistakes engagement for trust. A whānau may take out a policy because they have to (lender requirement, landlord requirement, vehicle finance), without that transaction implying any underlying confidence in the provider. This matters for conduct: uptake numbers from Māori can mask a low-trust relationship that is unlikely to support claims-time satisfaction, renewal, or genuinely protective cover. Collectively owned whenua, papakāinga, and the limits of valuation "Underwater or not, whenua is whenua." Participants discussed coverage gaps for collectively owned Māori land. Standard valuation methodologies — built around market value, individual title, and substitutability — struggle with papakāinga and whenua with multiple owners, where the value held is partly economic but substantially taonga, whakapapa and intergenerational use. The practical consequences are that whānau report difficulty insuring dwellings on papakāinga at replacement value; difficulty insuring marae and associated buildings for what they actually represent to the community; and difficulty navigating products that assume a single owner, a single title, and a single decision-maker. Where cover is available, premiums often reflect the perceived risk of a non-standard arrangement rather than the actual risk profile of the asset. The wānanga was clear that the industry's valuation and underwriting tools need to recognise forms of ownership and value that have always existed in Aotearoa, and that the sector treat these as ordinary practice. Climate, location and the shift from sustainability to resilience "You can't relocate a marae. You can't relocate a tūpuna." Climate-related insurance pressures were a prominent theme in the wānanga. Māori communities are over￾represented in locations exposed to flood, coastal erosion and other climate hazards, partly as a function of the historical geography of land return and partly as a function of where whenua connections have always been. The wānanga discussed that the standard industry response (risk-based pricing, partial retreat from high-risk locations, and eventual withdrawal of cover) sits uneasily with the idea that whenua cannot be substituted. They reframed the conversation from sustainability to resilience. Sustainability, in industry usage, often implies the ability to maintain a product line profitably over time. Resilience, in the wānanga usage, meant the ability of communities to remain on whenua, to recover from events, and to plan intergenerationally. Conflating sustainability and resilience produces policy that protects portfolios while leaving communities without cover. Distribution, advice and
the Māori adviser pipeline "You can't be culturally safe if there's no one in the room." The wānanga noted that Māori representation in the financial services workforce sits at approximately 19%, with adviser-specific numbers significantly lower. They described the distribution landscape as shifting, with banks stepping back from insurance distribution, brokers and independent advisers taking more of the load, and the overall financial adviser pool shrinking. The consequences play out in three places. First, Māori consumers are less likely to encounter an adviser who shares their context, which affects who seeks advice and

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 26 who does not. Second, culturally safe advice is more likely when the adviser has the lived experience to ask the right questions. Third, Māori advisers entering the profession report a lack of culturally safe workplaces, which affects the retention pipeline over time. This was framed more as a structural conduct issue: if the distribution channel cannot consistently deliver suitable advice to a significant consumer segment, that is a sector-wide problem. Solutions: KiwiSaver as a wholesale lever "If you want scale, you already have the vehicle." A recurring observation (particularly in the Wellington rōpū), was that KiwiSaver represents an under-used wholesale lever for lifting Māori insurance coverage. Some pointed to the Australian comparison, where approximately 67% of superannuation members hold linked risk insurance through their fund as a default. The Australian model carries its own well-documented issues — erosion of balances, opaque cover, claims friction — and so it was raised as illustrative rather than prescriptive. The underlying point is that wholesale, default￾style design choices reach a different population than retail product marketing. For Māori consumers, who are over-represented in lower-engagement, lower-balance KiwiSaver cohorts, wholesale design choices may close coverage gaps that retail efforts have not. The wānanga were explicit that any such move would need to be co￾designed with iwi and Māori providers. Solutions: Iwi-led, people-guided design "Co-ownership is not the same as influence. We learned that the hard way." When discussing solutions, the wānanga returned to a clear design principle: products should follow need, not the other way around. Iwi-led design — where iwi entities lead the framing — was held up as the strongest model. Examples discussed included shared-equity housing precedents, marae as civil-defence infrastructure, and iwi-led insurance distribution pilots. However, some drew a careful distinction between iwi-led and iwi co￾owned. Co-ownership of a financial services provider, while symbolically significant, does not automatically translate into product design influence, distribution change, or improved consumer outcomes. An example was raised where an iwi entity held a co-ownership stake in a financial services provider and yet found that this stake did not translate into influence over product design or distribution for their people. The lesson the participant drew was that co-ownership is a positive step, but is insufficient on its own: governance, design authority, and operational influence lead to greater change. Key themes: Māori landholders wānanga Across two major questions in the wānanga, researchers described six key themes, and four solutions. 10 These are presented alongside examples from the wānanga that illustrate each theme. The second part of the wānanga moved to discuss solutions and practical steps to ensure that
insurance works better for hapori Māori. 10 Hannah Chapman and Jacob De Berry led the analysis of the Māori landholders wānanga.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 27 Accessibility: Unclear information and processes The most common theme identified related to the accessibility of insurance, which included the necessity of clear information. Common experiences included whānau not knowing how to access information, where to go, who to speak with, or whose expertise to trust. These were compounded by technological accessibility barriers: the insurance industry’s increasing reliance on online processes assumes that customers have access to the necessary technology, internet connectivity, and higher levels of digital literacy. The wānanga raised that even when information is accessible, it is often not presented clearly enough to be easily understood. Attendees shared experiences of insurance providers reviewing or making changes to policies without providing sufficient explanation of what had changed or what those changes meant for them as customers. Many acknowledged that insurance is generally not well understood within their communities, highlighting the need to strengthen financial literacy among whānau and across communities. This was emphasised as particularly important for those in or entering governance roles. However, there was also recognition that insurance providers have a responsibility to ensure customers understand what their policies do and do not cover, so they can make informed decisions about what they are purchasing and how to manage their policies. Cultural literacy within the insurance industry Cultural literacy within the insurance industry was a strong theme, distinct from but connected to accessibility. The wānanga discussed common experiences of companies and individuals working in the industry having little to no understanding of te ao Māori values, lived realities and social and cultural norms for whānau and hapū. The prevailing view was that this widespread lack of cultural literacy across the insurance industry presents a significant barrier for Māori individuals and entities - both commercial and non-commercial - and to the development of effective solutions. Some identified vulnerabilities arising from Māori customers being unable to access culturally appropriate engagement. One commonly cited example was concern for kaumātua, who prefer kanohi kitea (in￾person/face to face) engagement in alignment with cultural values such as manaakitanga and whanaungatanga. Without culturally relevant approaches, kaumātua are far less likely to develop a clear understanding of important information, including what their policies cover and do not cover, their obligations, and how to make claims. The wānanga also discussed the negative impacts of insurance providers lacking an understanding of Māori communities and te ao Māori worldviews that underpin social and organisational structures, as well as Example – Unclear information and process A kuia purchased a life insurance policy for her mokopuna. After the kuia’s death, another whānau
member continued to pay the premiums. When that whānau member passed away, the payments ceased. Many years later, another whānau member named in the policy received a bill from the insurer for a considerable sum in unpaid premiums. The whānau understood that, because payments had lapsed, the policy would have been cancelled. They have since challenged this bill and have now been asked to provide proof of death: a request they experienced as questioning their mana.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 28 business models. This was a source of significant frustration, particularly given that many of these structures are established through legislation and have been in place for decades. Distrust, mistrust and experiences of bias Distrust stems from direct knowledge or lived experience. Wānanga participants emphasised a significant level of distrust in the insurance industry, grounded in their own experiences of systemic racism and bias, or those of others in their relational networks. Mistrust is grounded in a general sense of unease, uncertainty, or instinct. Participants expressed mistrust toward the financial system, as well as toward authorities and the insurance industry, largely due to impacts of colonisation and related power dynamics. This included a perception that profit is prioritised over addressing the barriers experienced by tangata whenua, particularly in the absence of meaningful action. Some also shared the view that certain insurance providers may intentionally design complex processes, leading to customer fatigue. Affordability Affordability was the second most common theme in the wānanga. Although insurance affordability was raised as a barrier generally, the discussion became focused on the affordability of insuring taonga. Some noted the high replacement costs of taonga, such as whakairo (carvings) and tukutuku (woven panels). A related concern was how the value of taonga are determined, as they are inherently difficult to quantify, and resulting premiums are often unaffordable. Furthermore, concerns were raised regarding the appropriateness of valuing taonga in financial terms only given their cultural and spiritual significance, and the uniqueness of historically important taonga which deems them irreplaceable. Example – Lack of cultural literacy One organisation was unable to obtain directors’ liability insurance for more than four years, as insurance providers did not understand its business model. It eventually secured cover through an overseas provider. Example – Distrust and mistrust A cause of distrust is the explicit provision for nuclear families within insurance settings, which does not exist for whānau, hapū, or iwi. For example, an individual may own a home, but the land on which it sits is collectively owned by their extended whānau or hapū – a scenario that currently considers the home as uninsurable. Repeated calls from leaders within te ao Māori for equitable provisions have not compelled change from the insurance industry. A long-term effect of the lack of response and ongoing disparities experienced by whānau, hapū and iwi contribute to a general and apparently widespread mistrust of the industry.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 29 Un-insurability and inconsistencies in policies A key discussion point was that marae — and increasingly kāinga — are either at risk of becoming uninsurable or are already uninsurable. The wānanga identified common contributing factors, including geothermal activity and climate change impacts such as increased flooding risk. Additionally, many marae are in remote areas or face accessibility challenges, which escalates rebuilding and maintenance costs. There was significant concern about the uncertainty surrounding the protection of marae and kāinga, given the deep connection tangata whenua have with the whenua and the reality that they ‘won’t leave it’. Many shared concerns about the immediate risks facing their marae or kāinga, and the need to actively plan for climate￾related impacts. However, they also expressed uncertainty about where to access support or guidance to identify appropriate solutions. Some also identified inconsistencies in their experiences with home insurance and consistency of cover. Compliance requirements from local government and insurers The wānanga discussed the relationship between council compliance, and a perceived relationship with insurance affordability. Specifically, they discussed actions taken by marae in response to advice received from council staff to reduce risk to meet council compliance, such as installing fire sprinkler systems. However, these mitigating measures were not considered by insurance companies when assessing pricing. This resulted in marae having fire sprinklers but being unable to afford the insurance premiums. The view was that these matters are related and that the two ‘systems’ should work together to reduce risk of confusion and unaffordability. The wānanga also noted that some districts have compliance requirements for marae to undergo a valuation every two years. However, this was not elaborated on. Solutions: National collective actions Four solutions were also raised in the wānanga. First, there was discussion of the ways in which iwi and hapū could collectivise action and harness their economic strength to create alternative approaches to insurance, Example – Strategies to manage affordability Participants shared examples of long-term strategies for managing insurance affordability:

• Where the structure of the wharenui is insured but not attached taonga (e.g. carvings).
• Absorbing the costs of some claimable repairs to avoid making claims that could increase premium
  costs.
• Trustees personally paying marae insurance premiums to avoid the whakamā (shame or
  embarrassment) associated with the marae being unable to afford them at the time.
  Example – Inconsistencies
  A whānau purchased a house that had been insured prior to the sale. However, once settlement was completed, the whānau was unable to obtain house insurance. The reasons for this decision were not made clear to them.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 30 including coverage for marae and health initiatives for members. One example shared was a National Iwi Chairs initiative exploring how to scale existing successful iwi models to fund marae insurance. They also discussed potential approaches beyond traditional insurance models that focussed on iwi-led, self-funded responses to support the sustainability of marae. The growing influence of Te Ōhanga Māori (The Māori Economy) was also identified as a potential lever to drive industry change and encourage regulatory action to address systemic barriers and affordability challenges. Solutions: Māori owned and operated businesses Second, there was discussion of the potential for growth in Māori-owned and designed business models across the insurance industry to deliver solutions and culturally appropriate services for Māori, including brokerage and assessment services. A related idea was the establishment of a governing body for Māori insurance providers to offer ongoing support. Participants also posed a challenge to the FMA through the question: What can the FMA do to enable more Māori business models? Solutions: An intergenerational view Third, further discussion of the growing strength of Te Ōhanga Māori stimulated kōrero about how iwi can further develop their economic strategies and capabilities to create more sustainable, long-term alternatives for risk mitigation, sustainability of marae and connection to whenua. This includes solutions that carry across generations. Solutions: Regionally contextual Finally, the wānanga also provided cautions that collectivised solutions must be appropriately contextualised to reflect the differing needs of specific regions. For example, fire risk may be a primary concern in some areas, while flooding risk is more significant in others. Summary: Wānanga The two wānanga illustrated a consistent and reinforcing picture of how the insurance system does not meet the needs of hapori Māori. They showed a more nuanced and solutions-oriented perspective than the existing academic and policy literature alone might suggest. Analysis of the industry wānanga centred an important reframe - that insurance, at its origins, is not fundamentally at odds with te ao Māori, but that capitalism and prioritisation of individualisation have reshaped it into a product that no longer reflects the collective, intergenerational risk-sharing that both mutual insurance and Māori community practice share. Both wānanga identified lower levels of trust as a core feature of the Māori relationship with insurance, shaped by inherited institutional mistrust, ongoing systemic racism, and a perception that the industry prioritises profit over the needs of tangata whenua. Across both groups, the collective nature of Māori land ownership emerged as the central issue, where insurance is currently designed and delivered. The standard valuation methodologies, individual title assumptions, and
nuclear-family policy structures consistently create issues for papakāinga, marae, multiple-owned and collectively owned whenua, leaving communities either uninsured, underinsured, or facing premiums with no relationship to actual risk or cultural value.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 31 Climate change intensified these concerns across both wānanga, with participants noting that Māori communities are disproportionately located in high-risk areas, that whenua cannot simply be abandoned or substituted, and that the industry's trajectory toward risk-based pricing and market withdrawal threatens to remove cover from those who need it most. Accessibility and cultural literacy were important themes:
landholders described a system that is hard to navigate, poorly explained, and unresponsive to kanohi kitea engagement. Industry participants identified a structural distribution problem with too few Māori advisers, issues with adviser retention, and channels that cannot deliver suitable advice to Māori. On solutions, both groups converged on the importance of iwi-led and Māori-designed responses, with industry participants drawing a careful distinction between co-ownership of a provider and authority, cautioning that Māori capital in an entity does not automatically translate into better outcomes for Māori communities on the ground. Other, more specific points were raised around the potential of KiwiSaver, the importance of regional context, and leveraging growth in Te Ōhanga Māori.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 32 Survey methods Designing the questions The next step in the project was to design the survey. Given the literature review showed that there is very little research on the topic, survey question development followed multiple steps to (1) decide on the broad areas or subtopics for investigation and (2) create and refine survey questions. 11 The full process for question development is reported in Appendix 2. The researchers made a specific design choice to have some of the questions ask the participants to reflect on those around them – their whānau and communities – rather than solely their own personal experience, which is typical in survey research. This meant that participants acted as informants and experts in their own communities’ experiences and could reflect on the experiences of the collective. This also helps to mitigate any survey sample biases (for example, that rangatahi are less likely to choose to complete surveys). In summary, the researchers mapped the key themes and topic areas from the literature review, further research on similar surveys, and the industry wānanga, and considered the suggestions for survey questions from the wānanga. There was a subsequent iterative question design and review process to create the final survey questions presented to participants. Survey panel Participants were recruited through the Te Ao Mārama (TAM) survey panel. The Te Ao Mārama Panel is a Māori￾led and Māori-governed survey panel held by Te Ao Mārama Aotearoa Trust (TAMA), which exercises kaitiakitanga over the Panel and its data and holds decision rights over data access, linkage, analysis and dissemination. TAMA works in partnership with research partners including Demos and Data Limited, the University of Otago, the University of Auckland and iNZight Analytics Limited. Panel data are Māori data and taonga; they remain under TAMA's kaitiakitanga and are not the property of the FMA or of Demos and Data Limited The panel’s primary purpose is to collect longitudinal data on health, wellbeing, social participation, and the social determinants of health among Māori adults, with a particular focus on tāngata whaikaha Māori (Māori with disabilities). By serving as a platform for diverse research projects, the panel facilitates robust, culturally informed insights that can inform evidence-based policymaking and intervention strategies. Panel members were recruited through two probability pathways: re-contact of respondents to the 2022 Te Ao Mārama national survey who had consented to future contact, and a fresh random sample drawn from the electoral rolls and invited between October and December 2025. Enrolment closed on 30 April 2026 with 2,053 members. For this survey, 2,002 panel members were invited and 952 took part (48 percent). Panel establishment and operation were approved by the Northern B Health and Disability Ethics Committee (HDEC 2025 FULL 21600). Each topical survey
fielded through the Panel obtains its own approval through the pathway appropriate to it; this survey was reviewed by the Ministry of Social Development Research 11 Survey creation was led by Dr Lara Greaves; Brianne Leef led the data analysis, with assistance from Nali Patel and Dr Lara Greaves.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 33 Ethics Panel on 2 April 2026. Retention of the additional demographic module to the Panel database, with participants' express consent, was approved by HDEC Northern B on 2 June 2026 (2026 AM 21600). Data collection TAMA administered the survey and contacted panel members through its panel processes. This involved contacting participants via email (n=1,844; 899 responded), text message (n=103; 33 responses), a phone call with a trained operator (n=15; 4 responses), or post (n=40; 16 participants). A total of 2,002 participants were invited to complete the survey, and 952 participated. As described in Appendix 3, all results apply post￾stratification survey weighting based on sex, age group, region and the NZ deprivation index, drawn from electoral roll and 2022 adult population census counts. Note that when sample weighting is applied, the number of participants (e.g. that gave qualitative answers to one survey item) does not always correspond to the frequency or proportion of the sample in quantitative questions. Data collection took place using Qualtrics survey software, between 20 April and 18 May 2026. Participants received a $10 online GiftPay voucher or were posted a $10 Woolworths voucher in reciprocity of their time and effort. Given the topics in the survey talked about concern around weather events, TAM panel delayed the start of data collection by a week given Cyclone Vaianu was due to hit Aotearoa. The Cyclone meant a state of emergency was declared in many areas across the country, alongside red weather warnings. However, note that despite this initial delay, the following week there was also widespread flooding in the lower North Island. Given the short project timeline the survey launched during this flooding. This may mean concern over the effects of weather events was heightened in the survey. However, it also meant that some participants also remarked on the timeliness and relevance of the survey in the optional feedback section. This report presents the overall results for each survey question and analysis across the following demographics:

1. Age group (18-29; 30-44; 45-59; 60+),
2. Gender (tāne or male; compared with wāhine or female, takatāpui, and another gender 12),
3. Multiple-owned land (involved; not involved),
4. Grouped region (Northland (Te Tai Tokerau) / Auckland (Tāmaki-makau-rau); Waikato / Bay of Plenty (Te
   Moana-a-Toi); Gisborne (Te Tai Rāwhiti) / Hawke's Bay (Te Matau-a-Māui) / Taranaki / Manawatū￾Whanganui – referred to as rural North Island; Wellington (Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara); South Island), and;
5. Region (urban; rural; mixed), assigned as a high-level approximation based on population. Participants
   from Auckland (Tāmaki-makau-rau), Wellington (Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara) or Canterbury (Waitaha) were categorised as urban, Waikato, Bay of Plenty (Te Moana-a-Toi), and Otago (Ōtākou) as mixed, and the remaining regions as rural. As described in Appendix 3, the results only report on statistically significant demographic differences. The reporting mentions whether demographic analysis was conducted for all or just some (i.e. those deemed most relevant) demographic differences. 12 Responses from wāhine, takatāpui, and participants of another gender were combined for analysis because the latter groups are too small to report separately. Differences reported below compare this combined group with tāne and should not be read as findings about takatāpui specifically.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 34 Survey results Why Māori are less likely to have insurance The first survey question asked participants to rate their level of agreement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) with a range of statements as to why Māori are less likely to have insurance. The results are shown in Figure 1. Participants were more likely to agree to the statements around people not having enough money for insurance (82% agreed, rating the statement 5-7); little trust that insurance companies would pay out (55% agreed); and that the insurance industry does not understand Māori communities (52%). In contrast, there was strong disagreement that whānau are a substitute for insurance (62% disagreed, rating it 1-3 on the scale). One statement showed mixed views, the idea that insurance does not align with Māori values as a reason for why Māori do not have insurance: 32% of participants disagreed; 32% were neutral and 23% agreed. Notably, there was a high rate of ‘don’t know’ responses around negative experiences with insurance companies, 34% said they did not know if historical bad experiences had affected rates of insurance in the current day, 34% responded ‘don’t know’ around the effects of bad experiences in the present day. However, 32% agreed that historical negative experiences made Māori less likely to have insurance now, while 27% thought present day bad experiences factored.
Figure 1. Agreement with different reasons why some whānau Māori are less likely tohave insurance.
Note: 3% of participants said, “Don’t know” regarding “People do not have enough money for insurance”. 9% 34% 34% 6% 14% 13% 62% 7% 10% 8% 17% 11% 32% 19% 9% 28% 26% 22% 23% 32% 10% 82% 27% 32% 55% 52% 23% Whānau have your back so there is no need for insurance People do not have enough money for insurance In the present day, Māori have bad experiences with insurance Historically Māori have had bad experiences with insurance There is little trust that insurance companies will pay out The insurance industry does not understand Māori communities The idea of insurance is not aligned with Māori values Don't know Disagree (1-3) Neutral (4) Agree (5-7)

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 35 Participants were also provided space to write in any other reasons why they think whānau Māori are less likely to have insurance, and 127 participants provided further answers to this question. The reasons that they gave were classified into the following categories (note that responses could be classified into more than one category):
No or low knowledge as to why whānau need insurance featured in 50% (n=72) of responses, examples included:
“Do whānau know enough about what insurance policies are available? And what cover they should apply for?” “Lack of education within our communities. Or more that it’s not a common thing within our communities. We don’t grow up with it being normal. I grew up with parents who felt or had no need for insurance other than vehicle insurance. But living week to week meant vehicle insurance was out of the picture. Now as an adult that has been unfamiliar ground for me.” Others raised a lack of cultural alignment (43%; n=62) between products and communities, failure to meet consumer needs, or issues around valuation:
“Insurance companies (not just them) don’t understand Māori needs and there is nothing available to unique situations. Disappointing but products and process is very colonised!” “That insurance often doesn't cover relevant options. For example, health insurance doesn't include holistic practices like mirimiri or rongoa.” Some stated affordability issues (38% n=54):
“When money is tight, and you need to make cutbacks on SOMETHING insurance is the first thing that comes to mind.” “The insurance industry are going to kill their relevance as more and more kiwis can’t afford insurance.” A group (9%; n=14) expressed a lack of trust and confidence that claims will be paid out:
“Insurance companies I feel, they try every possible way not to pay out with claims. This actually happened to me.” “Insurance reminds me of the old gangster protection rackets you'd see on the movies. I'm not confident about payouts, especially when you can't find the paperwork” Some raised issues around eligibility (9%; n=13):
“Health issues are a factor, my mother couldn't have personal insurance. She has diabetes.” “Many houses on Māori land don’t have consent so can’t be insured. You can’t borrow on Māori land so money to build is tight and insurance is an extra cost with a likelihood that you won’t be paid out anyway because that’s my experience as a wāhine Māori (I had insurance, my claim was legit yet a small office of [insurance company] gave me the trashest response and payout).” Others described complexities in the system (8%; n=12) or issues around accessibility (1%; n=2). “Clarity about policies, I would strongly advise having someone (advocate) being with the individual taking out a policy, explaining the terms & conditions of the policy, I find that this is vital & important, because of the so-called fine print, what you think you may be entitled to, may not be so. Personally, these Insurance companies need scrutinizing, I can’t say this enough!”

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 36 “Lack of understanding of insurance process and providers and other factors that hinder access such as digital illiteracy, lack of access to device/internet” A smaller number raised collective ownership issues (1%, n=2):
“Who is responsible for paying premiums, particularly in a shared ownership situation. How are valuations on land made given that the land IS us and IS all of our tūpuna?” And one participant raised alternatives to insurance (1%). Agreement ratings across the seven statements presented as part of the survey question were also analysed by region given the survey question asks participants to reflect on the Māori communities around them. The Northland/Auckland group was most likely to agree that the idea of insurance is not aligned with Māori values, while Wellington was significantly more likely to disagree than the South Island, rural North Island region group (Gisborne, Hawke’s Bay, Taranaki, Manawatū-Whanganui) group, and Northland/Auckland group. Overall, predominately urban and rural areas were more likely to agree than mixed areas (who were more likely to disagree). As shown in Figure 2, the Northland/Auckland and rural North Island groups were more likely to agree that the insurance industry does not understand Māori communities than South Island or the Waikato/BoP group. Wellington and the Waikato/BoP group were more likely to disagree. Overall, rural and urban areas were more likely to agree than mixed.
Figure 2. Agreement with the statement that the insurance industry does not understand Māori communities, by
grouped region.
As shown Figure 3, the Northland/Auckland and rural North Island groups were more likely to agree that there is little trust that insurance companies will pay out than the Wellington, Waikato/BoP and South Island groups. The Wellington group was the most likely to disagree, though the rural North Island group was more likely to disagree than Northland/Auckland group. Overall, rural areas were more likely to agree than mixed. 11% 10% 8% 10% 18% 9% 20% 9% 17% 4% 32% 18% 22% 27% 19% 47% 52% 61% 46% 58% South Island Wellington (Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara) Gisborne (Te Tai Rāwhiti) / Hawke's Bay (Te Matau-a-Māui) / Taranaki / Manawatū-Whanganui Waikato / Bay of Plenty (Te Moana-a-Toi) Northland (Te Tai Tokerau) / Auckland (Tāmaki￾makau-rau) Don't know Disagree Neutral Agree

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 37
Figure 3. Agreement with the statement that there is little trust that insurance companies will pay out, by grouped
region.
Note: 3% of the rural North Island group and 2% of the Wellington group said “Don’t know”. Wellington was more likely to agree that Māori have historically had bad experiences with insurance than Waikato/BoP or South Island groups. Generally, urban and rural areas were more likely to agree than mixed. Wellington was more likely to disagree that Māori have bad experiences with insurance in the present than Northland/Auckland group. Overall, rural areas were more likely to agree than mixed. Rural areas were more likely to agree that people do not have enough money for insurance. Particularly, the rural North Island, Northland/Auckland, and South Island groups were more likely to agree than the Wellington or Waikato/BoP groups. The results across grouped region are displayed in Figure 4. 5% 10% 6% 12% 34% 20% 11% 8% 34% 24% 12% 25% 20% 49% 40% 65% 53% 66% South Island Wellington (Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara) Gisborne (Te Tai Rāwhiti) / Hawke's Bay (Te Matau-a-Māui) / Taranaki / Manawatū￾Whanganui Waikato / Bay of Plenty (Te Moana-a-Toi) Northland (Te Tai Tokerau) / Auckland (Tāmaki￾makau-rau) Don't know Disagree Neutral Agree

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 38
Figure 4. Agreement with the statement that people do not have enough money for insurance, by grouped region.
Note: 2% of the Northland/Auckland group, 1% of the rural North Island group, and 1% of the South Island group said “Don’t know”. 2% of the rural North Island group said “Disagree”. Solutions that might increase insurance rates for Māori The survey also took a positive, future-facing approach with this line of questioning and asked participants to rate a range of possible solutions that may lead more Māori to take up insurance. The most popular solutions were iwi offering insurance (71% agreed) and the ability to access a navigator to help with insurance claims (71% agreed), although 62% thought insurance being offered to collectives (such as whānau or hapū) would help. Increasing the Māori insurance workforce was rated less highly, with 48% agreeing, 27% viewing this as neutral, and 20% disagreeing. These results are shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Agreement about the effectiveness of different solutions to encourage greater rates of insurance for
whānau Māori.
7%
3%
32%
3%
4%
11%
3%
6%
13%
7%
85%
65%
91%
77%
86%
South Island
Wellington (Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara)
Gisborne (Te Tai Rāwhiti) / Hawke's Bay (Te
Matau-a-Māui) / Taranaki / Manawatū￾Whanganui
Waikato / Bay of Plenty (Te Moana-a-Toi)
Northland (Te Tai Tokerau) / Auckland (Tāmaki￾makau-rau) Don't know Disagree Neutral Agree 10% 6% 6% 5% 7% 7% 8% 20% 21% 15% 15% 27% 62% 71% 71% 48% Insurance was offered to collectives like whānau or hapū They could access a navigator to help with insurance claims Iwi offered insurance More Māori worked in the insurance industry Don't know Disagree (1-3) Neutral (4) Agree (5-7)

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 39 The wāhine and other genders (combined) group were more likely to agree with all of the suggested solutions than tāne. When it came to more Māori working in the insurance industry, those living in Wellington had more polarised views, being more likely to agree and to disagree than other regional groupings. There were regional differences in support for iwi offering insurance with the Northland/Auckland group being more likely to agree than the Wellington and Waikato/BoP regions. Those living in the South Island were also more likely to agree than the Wellington and Waikato/BoP regions. For the ability to access a navigator to help with insurance claims, 45–59-year-olds were more likely to agree than 18–29-year-olds. Additionally, there were regional differences where rural people were more likely to agree than those living in urban or mixed areas. Those in Wellington were more likely to disagree than Northland/Auckland group. The Northland/Auckland, rural North Island, and South Island groups were also more likely to agree than Waikato/BoP group or Wellington. Finally, support was also higher among those living in rural and urban areas compared to those living in mixed areas. Those in Wellington were more likely to disagree than rural North Island, Northland/Auckland, and Waikato/BoP groups. Wellington, Northland/Auckland, and rural North Island-based participants were more likely to agree than the Waikato/BoP group. Insurance and land with multiple owners The wānanga and various anecdotes led the researchers to include a question about issues with multiple￾owned land in the survey. This was to explore how common such issues might be in the Māori population.
Table 1 shows the answers to these questions from the sample: 49% of participants (n=464) had involvement
with land that has multiple owners.
Of those who had involvement with such land, 31% said the land was at least partially insured, although 47% said they ‘don’t know’, which suggests that many Māori may not have close involvement with insurance matters around collectively held land. Participants were then asked if there had been issues with insurance for this property. 6% of those with involvement in multiple land selected yes. Put another way, of the 243 participants who knew whether the property was insured 12% reported an issue with insurance with the property.
Table 1. Answers to survey questions about multiple-owned land and insurance.
Statement
Don't know
No Partially Yes
Do you have involvement with land that has multiple owners? (e.g., Māori land trusts, family trusts, or other land types) 103 (11%) 382 (40%) 464 (49%) Is this property insured? 218 (47%) 102 (22%) 26 (6%) 115 (25%) Have there been any issues with insurance for this property? 4 (1%) 364 (78%) 30 (6%)

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 40 Notes: “Is this property insured?” and “Have there been any issues with insurance for this property?” were only displayed to participants who selected Yes for “Do you have involvement with land that has multiple owners?” and the percentages are calculated from that group. The participants who said there had been issues with their multiple-owned land were asked to describe the issue through an open-ended text box. Issues included (note that responses could be coded in multiple categories):
Affordability, where premiums were either just too expensive or could not be justified when balancing income and other factors (n= 13 instances; 22.4%), examples included:
“Premium cost, just to ensure the marae building exceeds our income without the compliance costs to meet insurer requirements.”; “this insurance is for our marae and ngā whare iti o matua. The insurance premiums are very high and we are struggling to pay.” “Cost: Marae (Wharepuni/Wharekai/Carvings insurance cost over $10,000+ p.a) Marae homes - septic tank, rising water table, heavy rain $600 to clean tanks each time. We paid $10,000 before insurance could paid out AND we had 3 different Insurance Assessors visit over 8 months before paid out! I think they mistrusted Māori claimants, hence sent out 3 assessors hoping one of them would recommend declining the claim.” Disagreement and tensions in governance and decision making (n= 11; 19%), examples included:
“Too many chiefs. We never settled on an insurance company.”
“Getting all whānau to contribute equally.”
“Historical issues within the land trustees, unable to come to an agreement for future planning and security. Also have multiple different shareholders who are set in their ways and unable to accept change.” No coverage or limited coverage (n= 10; 17.2%) also featured:
“Because the whenua is in shareholding the houses are leased to people (20 year leases). The whenua is also coastal and suffering the effects of climate change plus there was a major earthquake a few years back which saw the seabed rise. We cannot insure the whenua but the lease holders can insure their home and contents. However, some of the lease holders have struggled with insurance.” “Not covered for flooding as it is now classified as flood plain” “In one particular case it has been really difficult to get house and contents insurance. We have been declined by one insurance provider because they said they don't insure properties on multiply owned land. There seemed to be a "blanket approach" - which included not insuring properties that had a licence to occupy issued by the Māori Land Court. We have also encountered difficulties for properties in rural areas, even though they are not in flood prone areas or on fault lines etc. We have been able to arrange insurance, but I had to provide a lot of extra information relating to the whenua Māori arrangements.” Administrative barriers to insurance (n= 10; 17.2%) were also raised:
“Residences not built as houses, unable to be insured as houses.”
“Multiple owners and trust changes that has nullified existing lawyer paid work.”

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 41 Participants described premiums that appeared inconsistent between comparable blocks insured by the same company, and costs following damage from recent cyclones. A small number of participants raised other issues, including the valuation of taonga such as whakairo and wharekura, uncertainty about whether the land needed insurance, and inconsistencies in premiums between comparable blocks. Consideration and concern around weather events These questions gauged the extent to which participants are both aware of (see Figure 6) and concerned about the effects of weather events and insurance (Figure 7). Note that only a small proportion of participants (1-4%) selected the ‘don’t know’ option. Overall, about a quarter of participants said they had ‘not at all’ considered weather events affecting insurance availability (26%), its price (22%), or how weather events might affect the whenua they whakapapa to, marae, or papakāinga (25%). Relative to those who selected ‘not at all’ or ‘somewhat’, a smaller group had considered these ‘a great deal’ or ‘quite a bit’ – 28% for insurance availability; 36% for the price of insurance; and 33% for the effects weather event have on whenua they whakapapa to. These results show mixed consideration of these issues across Māori communities.
Figure 6. The extent to which participants had thought about the effects of weather events and insurance.
Note: 1% of participants said “Don’t know” for the first statement, 2% for the second statement, and 3% for the third statement. Participants were then asked about the extent to which they were concerned about the effects of weather events. Although in the question above many said they had not considered the issues (22-26%), relatively fewer participants were not at all concerned about the effects of weather events on insurance access and whenua (13-20%). Participants were relatively more worried about changes to the price of insurance (39% said ‘quite’ or ‘extremely’ worried), compared to its availability (25%). This difference may reflect the current economic environment where many are concerned about their daily ‘cost of living’, an increase in the price of insurance would add further pressure on household budgets. 25% 22% 26% 14% 23% 22% 25% 17% 23% 18% 18% 16% 15% 18% 12% How weather events affect the whenua you whakapapa to (ancestral land), marae, or papakāinga Weather events affecting the price of insurance Weather events affecting the availability of insurance Don't know Not at all A little Somewhat Quite a bit A great deal

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 42
Figure 7. The extent to which participants were concerned about the effects of weather events and insurance.
Overall, awareness and concern were highest amongst wāhine/takatāpui/other genders, older participants, the rural North Island and Northland/Auckland region groups, and those involved in multi-owned land. The Wellington/Waikato/BoP groups and more mixed urban/rural populations were typically less concerned or more neutral. Generally, the results show a pattern where participants from most of the North Island (Northland/Auckland; Waikato/BoP; rural North Island regions) had significantly higher consideration of the issues, in comparison to Wellington and the South Island, where participants had considered these issues less (for additional explanation of these differences see Appendix 3). Participants from Northland/Auckland and Waikato/BoP were generally less worried about the price of insurance than those in the rural North Island, Wellington or South Island groups. Waikato/BoP-based participants were less concerned about availability than those in Wellington or the South Island. When it came to the question around concern about weather events affecting the land one has whakapapa to, the regions with mixed urban/rural populations were more likely to be unconcerned than those categorised as urban or rural. Participants involved in multiple-owned land were more likely to be concerned. However, those in Gisborne (Te Tai Rāwhiti) / Hawke's Bay (Te Matau-a-Māui) / Taranaki / Manawatū￾Whanganui all showed higher levels of concern than the Northland/Auckland, Wellington, and South Island groups, with the Wellington and Waikato/BoP participants showing the lowest levels of concern on this question generally. Participants involved in multiple-owned land (relative to those not involved) were more likely to be considering the effects of weather events on the whenua they whakapapa to, marae, or papakāinga Those involved in multiple-owned land were also more likely to be concerned about the effects on the whenua than those not involved. Wāhine, takatāpui, and other genders (relative to tāne) were more likely to be considering the effects of weather events on the whenua they whakapapa to, marae, or papakāinga. Wāhine, takatāpui, and other genders were more likely to be worried about the availability of insurance than tāne. 3% 4% 4% 20% 13% 18% 20% 18% 25% 25% 26% 29% 17% 22% 17% 15% 17% 8% Weather events affecting the whenua you whakapapa to (ancestral land), marae, or papakāinga Weather events affecting the price of insurance Weather events affecting the availability of insurance Don't know Not at all A little worried Somewhat worried Quite worried Extremely worried

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 43 These issues tended to be considered more among older Māori. Participants aged 18-44 years old were less likely to have considered the effects of weather events on the price of insurance than 45+ (45-59 and 60+) year olds. When it came to concern about the effects of weather events, participants aged 45 or older (45-59 and 60+) were more likely to be worried about the effect of weather events on the availability of insurance than 30- 44 year olds; similarly those aged 45 or older (45-59 and 60+) were more likely to be worried about the effect of weather events on the price of insurance than those under 45 (18-29 and 30-44). Participants aged 60 years or older were more likely to not be worried about the effect of weather events on the whenua they whakapapa to, marae, or papakāinga than 45-59 year olds. Trust in the insurance industry to treat people fairly The survey also asked participants to evaluate the extent to which they trust the insurance industry to treat people fairly on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 10 (completely). Overall, the distribution was skewed towards less trust (33% rated their trust as 0-3; compared to 21% who were on the trusting side at 7-10), however, most participants were around the neutral mid-point of the scale (43% rated their trust as 4 to 6). Fewer participants trusted the insurance industry completely (1%) compared to those at the lowest end of the scale: 8% selected ‘not at all’.
Figure 8. Participant's ratings of trust in the insurance industry to treat people fairly.
There were some statistically significant demographic differences for trust. Participants older than 60 years old were more likely to trust the insurance industry than 30-59 years olds (30-44 and 45-59). Participants living in the Wellington region were more likely to trust the insurance industry to treat people fairly than those in the rural North Island, Northland/Auckland, and South Island groups. As shown in Figure 9, those involved in multiple-owned land were more likely to distrust the industry. 2% 8% 7% 7% 11% 13% 20% 10% 10% 7% 3% 1%

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 44
Figure 9. Trust in the insurance industry to treat people fairly, by involvement in multiple-owned land.
Note: 1% of participants who are involved in multi-owned land and 4% of participants not involved said “Don’t know”. Insurance product uptake and importance ratings Participants were asked about what insurance products they had. Note that this survey question diverged from the classic question of what insurances an individual has to ask about their ‘whare’, defined in the survey as household. The survey also stated to count the insurance if someone else, such as work or a partner, paid for it for them. This may be why insurance coverage seems higher for this sample compared to past Consumer Confidence Surveys. First, the survey asked if participants owned a vehicle, home, and household contents, before displaying them the relevant insurance products for their situation. The results are shown in Figure 10. Participants were most likely to have car / motor insurance (89%), house insurance (86%), and contents or renter’s insurance (78%).
Figure 10. The percentage of participants who ownedeach insurance product.
Participants were also asked which types of insurance products were the most important for them to have (see
Figure 11). Again, participants were only shown the insurance types that were relevant to their situation. Car or
motor insurance was rated as the most important (91% rated it as 5-7 on the 7-point scale; note 89% of participants had this insurance), followed by house insurance (90%; where 86% held this insurance), and 22% 37% 48% 41% 25% 21% Not involved Involved Don't know Little trust Neutral Trust 9% 11% 16% 33% 44% 78% 86% 89% Other None of these Funeral insurance Health insurance Life insurance Contents or renter's insurance House insurance Car / motor insurance

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 45 content or renter’s insurance (86%; 78% held this insurance). These three types of insurance were those people were most likely to have. However, the gap between those thinking an insurance was important and holding that insurance was wider for life insurance (55% important; 44% have), health insurance (51% important, 33% have), and funeral insurance (37% important, 16% have). A wide gap shows a potential unmet need in communities for these types of insurance.
Figure 11. How important having the different insurance types were to participants.
Note: 3% of participants said car/motor insurance was not important (1-3) and 2% said house insurance was not important. 1% of participants said “Don’t know” regarding the importance of contents/renter’s insurance. Overall, wāhine/takatāpui/other genders (relative to tāne) and older participants were more likely to find insurance important. However, 60+ year olds were relatively less interested in personal insurances (health, life, funeral). Those living in urban areas and younger generations placed more importance on physical insurances (car, house, contents) while rural and older participants tended to favour personal insurances. Car/motor insurance: Those in the urban regions were more likely to agree that car/motor insurance was important than mixed regions were. Particularly, the South Island, Northland/Auckland, and Wellington groups were more likely to find this insurance important than Waikato/BoP group. The youngest group (18-29) were more likely to find car/motor insurance important than 30-44 year olds. House insurance: Rural North Island regions, those from the South Island, and Wellington were the groups more likely to agree that house insurance is important. Participants older than 45 (45-59 and 60+) were more likely to agree than those under 45 (18-29 and 30-44). Wāhine and other genders (combined) were also more likely to agree than tāne. Those not involved in multiple-owned land were also more likely to agree than those who were involved. 4% 6% 3% 2% 5% 20% 20% 36% 6% 5% 7% 22% 26% 22% 91% 90% 86% 55% 51% 37% Car / motor insurance House insurance Contents or renter's insurance Life insurance Health insurance Funeral insurance Don't know Not important (1-3) Neutral (4) Important (5-7)

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 46 Contents/renter’s insurance: Wellington-based participants were more likely to agree that contents or renter’s insurance was important than the Northland/Auckland group participants. Life insurance: Those in the rural North Island regions, Northland/Auckland, and Wellington groups were more likely to agree that life insurance is important than the Waikato/BoP group. Participants older than 60 (60+) were more likely to disagree than 30-59 year olds (30-44 and 45-59). Participants between 30 and 59 years old were more likely to agree than 18-29 year olds and 60+ year olds. Wāhine and other genders (combined) were more likely to agree than tāne. Health insurance: Health insurance was found more important to the Northland/Auckland region group than the Waikato/BoP group. Wellington and Waikato/BoP groups were also more likely to disagree than the Northland/Auckland group.
Figure 12 shows results by age. Participants older than 60 (60+) were more likely to disagree than 45-59 year
olds. Participants older than 30 (30-44, 45-59, and 60+) were more likely to agree than 18-29 year olds by 22-33 percentage points. 45-59 year olds were more likely to agree than 60+ year olds. Wāhine and other genders (combined) were more likely to agree than tāne, and those involved in multiple-owned land were more likely to agree than those not involved.
Figure 12. Ratings on the importance of health insurance, by age group.
Note: 2% of the 45-59 age group and 2% of the 60+ age group said “Don’t know”.
Funeral insurance: Funeral insurance was found more important in rural regions than urban or mixed, with urban regions also more likely to disagree that this insurance is important (see Figure 13). Particularly, Wellington was significantly more likely to disagree (ranging between 39 and 46 percentage points of difference) while the other four region groups were more likely to agree. The rural North Island regions group was 30 percentage points more likely to agree than Wellington. Additionally, the rural North Island regional group and Northland/Auckland group were more likely to agree than Waikato/BoP or South Island. 18-29 year olds were more likely to disagree than participants over 30 (30-44, 45-59, and 60+). Wāhine and other genders (combined) were more likely to agree and tāne were more likely to disagree. 3% 4% 24% 12% 18% 30% 27% 28% 20% 40% 48% 58% 59% 26% 60+ 45-59 30-44 18-29 Don't know Not important Neutral Important

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 47
Figure 13. Ratings of the importance of funeral insurance, by region population (urban/mixed/rural).
Issues with insurance and complaints
Participants were asked if they had experienced any problems with insurance in the past two years, ‘whether it be an issue when trying to buy insurance or an issue with a claim’: 17% responded yes (n=157), 79% said no (n=720), with 4% responding ‘don’t know’ (n=35). Participants in the Northland/Auckland or Waikato/BoP groups were more likely to have had an issue than the Wellington and South Island groups. No other demographic differences were statistically significant. 13 If someone had experienced a problem in the past two years, or selected ‘don’t know’, they were presented with a list of potential problems and asked to select which of those that they had experienced. Figure 14 shows the proportion of participants who experienced each type of insurance issue. The most common issue was sales pressure (41%), the next most experienced issues were those of information accessibility – terms and conditions being unclear or unfair (38%); information being too complicated (35%); or unresponsive companies or brokers (32%). 13 Other questions in this part of the survey were not disaggregated by demographic variables, largely due to the relatively small sample sizes associated with further dividing the number of participants who has experienced an issue (n=157). 5% 4% 7% 27% 30% 44% 21% 32% 17% 48% 35% 32% Rural Mixed Urban Don't know Not important Neutral Important

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 48
Figure 14. The proportion of participants who experienced each type of insurance issue among those who reported
any issue in the past two years.
Those who had previously said they either had a problem or did not know if they had were also asked if they had made a complaint about any of the issues they had experienced: 10% said yes (n=20), 85% said no (n=165), and 4% did not know (n=8). If a participant did not make a complaint, the survey asked them why they chose not to complain, with a list of reasons to select. The answers to this follow up question are displayed in Figure 15.
Figure 15. Reasons why participants chose not to make a complaint (based on participants who had a problem with
insurance in the past 2 years and had chosennot to complain about it).
4%
8%
13%
18%
19%
20%
23%
32%
35%
38%
41%
The premium was unaffordable or unfair for your circumstances Other None of these You were provided with incorrect or misleading information You were turned down for an insurance claim You were not eligible for the insurance you wanted There were unexpected fees or charges A company or broker was not responsive to your questions or concerns You were provided with information that was too complicated The terms and conditions were unclear or unfair Sales staff put pressure on you or tried to sell you extra things 17% 20% 30% 31% 34% 42% 51% 56% Other You didn’t have time You had a feeling that something was wrong, but weren’t sure if it was actually a big deal You were unsure where to go for advice You didn’t feel confident in dealing with it You were unsure what action to take You didn’t think it was worth the effort You did not feel confident that doing anything would resolve the issue

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 49 A majority selected that they did not feel confident that complaining would resolve the issue (56%) and did not think it was worth the effort (51%). These responses suggest most participants do not feel they will be supported by insurance providers in finding a resolution to their issue. A smaller proportion were unsure of what action to take (42%). Note this is still a relatively large proportion of those who did not complain, indicating this is an area where greater knowledge may lead to more complaints, and similarly 31% did not know where to go for advice. The main message to policy makers about Māori and insurance The substantive survey questions ended with an open-ended question (i.e., a type in freeform box) that asked the sample what the main thing was that they would ‘tell the policy makers in Wellington about Māori and insurance’. A large majority, 64.5% (n=614) shared an answer. Asking an open-ended survey question at the end of a survey is generally against survey best practice, given there is typically a low response rate to such a question. This level of response, and the detail given to responding by participants is noteworthy. It shows a high level of engagement with the subject and warrants more detailed analysis than can be completed in this current report. The research team created a classification scheme for the answers to summarise the data, noting that participants’ responses could be classified under more than one category. The results are shown in Figure 16. The answers were classified into the following categories:
Accessibility was raised the most, with 43% (n=263) providing statements that were classified according to these themes: that insurance providers should make it easier to engage their services and should actively engage with marae and iwi with education programmes. The following were some notable examples:
“What I’d want policymakers in Wellington to understand is that trust and accessibility matter. Make insurance easier to understand, more affordable, and more relevant to how our whānau live - including multi-generational homes and shared assets. Right now, it can feel confusing, expensive, and a bit disconnected from our reality. If you want Māori to engage more with insurance, it has to feel like it actually works for us, not just something we’re told we need” “Go to Te Tai Tokerau, Te Tai Rāwhiti, meet with people face to face and see what the realities are for people living there. Spend some time helping out on the whenua and in the wharekai. Go and see the damage from storms and how they are affecting people's lives.” Māori-owned was a theme that appeared in 31% (n=189) of comments. This included views around the need for Māori-owned insurance services, founded in te ao Māori principles, and run through iwi/hapū. Examples included:
“Personally, I would prefer to work with Māori-owned firms and/or Māori insurance brokers who are not working for a commission - who get their salary regardless of how many new clients they generate. I would like to work with/be guided by someone who understands the industry (insurance, banking. Kiwisaver, debt management, investing, etc.,), but can also work /teach it so it fits our needs/way of living/fit for purpose for our marae e.g. get us a good price / encourage whanau to get insurance for their elderly parents and/or their whanau by all putting in $10p/week instead of funeral insurance that you only get premiums paid to date if you pass under 2 years of taking out the policy. Help us to understand so we get out of the unrelenting debt cycles and make our putea work for us.”

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 50 “There are a lot of worries about house insurance at the moment with the significant storms being experienced due to climate change. In times of crisis, marae become focal points for communities. For Māori, alternative insurance options (e.g., through iwi) would be beneficial but we also have an important role to play in prevention and resilience. This should be supported by policy makers, financially and systematically.” Affordability (27%; n=166) was where participants said insurance is either too expensive or less of a priority compared to cost of living:
“Most Māori struggle to deal with the basics of life. Insurance would be seen as a luxury they couldn't afford even if they wanted it. Changing that perception and providing insurance at a level that they can afford is what is important. It is not a Māori issue. It is an insurance industry issue. They need to be seen as valuing Māori involvement and are prepared to invest in it.” “We are the least able to afford insurance and the most likely to need it. The cost of living has made it all but impossible for many Māori to be able to afford even basic insurance and I’m not sure that all Māori see the need for it.” Some participants raised ideas about integrity (16%; n=98), where participants described a lack of confidence in the insurance industry to look after their customers and be a tool that works for them rather than against them:
“The problem usually is the inherent lack of trust. You can’t give then take with the same hand. Once that stops trust can be built.” “Pushing a pen to sign is one thing knowing people the whenua is another. Insurance companies pay their executives well to make a bonus on "no claim". Governments also provide extra pūtea. Who gets the cream? I do not believe it is the people.” Advancement (7%; n=40) was a category comprised of calls for advancement and competition in the insurance market:
“Items of great importance, such as a family korowai are of significant value even though they were not brought with money. Insurance cover needs to consider more than just the cost to replace the item with one which is similar. Compensation for the loss should be considered.” “A one-size-fits-all insurance model does not serve Aotearoa well. By embedding Māori perspectives into the design of insurance systems, policymakers can create a more inclusive, equitable, and resilient future for all.” Discrimination (2%; n=15) included descriptions of experiences of disrespect and poor conduct with Māori consumers:
“Underwriting is inherently racist as even just listing yourself as Māori, especially for life or health insurance, attaches statistics to you that are discriminatory.” “Be more flexible, enable new entrants to the insurance market - iwi and hapū organisations, and please treat Māori with genuine respect when delivery insurance sales and claim services. Clear away racist bias from these and other financial transactions.” And lastly, ‘Other’ (4%; n=22) the answers that did not fit into a theme and were relatively uncommon, such as:
“I do believe too many Māori are un-insured or under-insured and will be negatively affected by climate change from the present through to the medium to long-term.” “Get on to it. Especially with natural disasters and severe weather events happening more frequently these days. Rural marae are being affected, and Māori communities are still recovering from last events.”

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 51
Figure 16. The proportion of participants who answered the open-ended message to policy makers question who
answered with each category.
The results also varied across a range of demographic variables. Participants aged between 18 and 44 years old (18-29 and 30-44) were more likely to discuss accessibility than 60+ year olds. Figure 17 shows the results by age group. Raising accessibility as the biggest issue appeared to decrease in frequency across older age groups, perhaps reflecting an issue that decreases with age. Wellington participants were more likely to discuss accessibility than those from the Northland/Auckland, South Island, or Waikato/BoP areas.
Figure 17. The topics that participants most wanted policy makers to know about Māori and insurance, by age
group.
Affordability was more likely to be discussed by the Northland/Auckland, South Island, and Waikato/BoP areas than Wellington. Overall, mixed areas discussed affordability more than urban areas. It was more discussed by 60+ year olds than 30-44 year olds (as well as 18-29 year olds but the unweighted sample size wasn’t big enough to be significant). The frequency of affordability as an issue appeared to increase with age. South Island and Waikato/BoP areas were more likely to discuss integrity than Wellington. Māori-owned insurance solutions were more likely to be discussed by wāhine and other genders (combined) than tāne. It was also more discussed by participants from urban areas than mixed. Particularly, Wellington was more likely to discuss it than South Island regions. Participants involved in multi-owned land were similarly more likely to discuss Māori-owned solutions than those who weren’t involved. 43% 31% 27% 16% 7% 4% 2% Accessibility Māori-owned Affordability Integrity Advancement Other Discrimination 55% 2% 20% 2% 6% 24% 3% 48% 10% 23% 2% 18% 28% 7% 37% 7% 32% 3% 21% 27% 2% 33% 6% 38% 1% 24% 23% 3% Accessibility Advancement Affordability Discrimination Integrity Māori-owned Other 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 52 Discussion and implications This section of the report now discusses the findings of the research across the literature review, two wānanga and survey results. A snapshot of these findings is shown in the summary of findings table. The key themes and findings are mapped across rows, and in this section are discussed in turn.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 53 Summary: key themes and findings Literature review Industry wānanga Landholders wānanga Survey Invisibility and an evidence gap Main message to policy makers: 1) accessibility, 2) Māori-owned solutions, 3) affordability Inequitable coverage and heightened risk Climate, location and the shift from sustainability to resilience 28-36% considering weather events and insurance ‘quite a bit’ or ‘a great deal’; 25-39% ‘quite’ or ‘extremely’ worried Affordability barriers Affordability Affordability rated as the largest barrier (82% agree) Negative experiences with insurance for collectively owned land/marae Collectively owned whenua, papakāinga, and the limits of valuation Un-insurability & inconsistencies Issues appear for 12% of those involved in multiple-owned land (who know about the land’s insurance) Compliance requirements from local government and insurers Negative experiences with insurance reported by 17% in the past 2 years Cross-cutting theme:
Mutual financial literacy as enabling change
Cultural literacy within the insurance industry 52% agreed the industry does not understand Māori communities Distribution, advice and the Māori adviser pipeline Accessibility:
Unclear information and processes
Accessibility raised as the main message to policy makers (43%, 55% for those aged under 30) Trust in institutions Trust, distrust, and the "one step behind" starting position Distrust, mistrust and experiences of bias Many were neutral (43%) although 33% reported distrust, 21% trust Embedded values as barriers The worldview and origins of insurance are not barriers Mixed results to statement about insurance being not aligned with Māori values – 32% disagreed; 32% neutral; 23% agreed Broader system-level issues

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 54 Invisibility and an evidence gap. Invisibility and a lack of evidence was a key finding of the literature review, and part of the rationale for conducting the two wānanga – to be able to explore ideas and fill gaps in the policy and academic literature before conducting a survey (Creswell and Clark 2017). The industry wānanga were presented with the results of the literature review, and the landholders wānanga were told about the finding; both groups reflected that they were unsurprised. The lack of evidence also inspired a survey question and how the survey was framed to the participants. Survey participants were asked what their main message to policy makers would be on the topic of Māori and insurance. A large proportion of the sample (64.5%) answered this open-ended question, which is unusual, given it was near the end of the survey and asked them to reflect in their own words – taking relatively more effort. A large amount of sophistication was seen in these answers, which warrants deeper analysis. There is a later section of the report that discussed other areas that arose in the research process which need further investigation. Climate, weather events, and heightened risk. Weather events and the climate were also raised across the literature review, given past work shows heightened risk for Māori; in the industry wānanga as a concern; and similar concerns featured throughout the kōrero in the landholders wānanga. Participants raised cultural differences, for instance, the centrality of whenua to Māori identity and wellbeing, and how it is viewed as something one cannot simply retreat or move from; and around intergenerational or long-term views. Given past work shows New Zealanders have limited but growing understanding of the effects of climate change, the researchers asked survey participants (a) if they had considered and (b) if they were concerned about the issues of weather events affecting insurance availability and pricing, and their effects on whenua they whakapapa to. The findings were mixed, although a large minority of the participants were in the higher range of the scales, that is, they consider and are concerned about these issues (28-39% depending on the item). Some participants also mentioned their collectively owned land was unable to be insured due to flood risk. Awareness, concern, and the inability to access adequate insurance or afford insurance will be important to consider and monitor over time. Affordability. The literature review pointed to affordability as a potential barrier to insurance, especially given the lower average financial position of many Māori across intergenerational wealth, income, and education, and other inequities stemming from colonisation. Similar points arose during the industry wānanga; where participants discussed that they see whānau have the need to prioritise products, which led to a survey question that asked about the most
important forms of insurance for Māori. Overall, of the seven barriers to insurance listed in the survey, affordability was agreed with the most; and the theme was also present in the main message to policy makers question as something 27% wanted to reinforce. Similarly, when considering insurance for Māori collectives, in the landholders wānanga, participants’ second most raised theme was affordability. There were also concerns that climate change could lead to the removal of availability (the theme ‘un-insurability and inconsistencies in policies’). Affordability was not only raised generally but as an issue around the valuation of taonga and the inability to afford marae insurance. Some even discussed insurance for the structure (wharenui) but not the taonga or paying personally for marae premiums to avoid whakamā associated with the marae not being able to afford them. The results show that affordability is a key issue, not just for individuals and whānau, but collectively in terms of multiple-owned land and marae insurance. Negative experiences for Māori both individually and collectively. Bad experiences across generations and within the current one were points raised in the literature review. The researchers expected to see this theme arise in the rest of the research around experiences in trying to insure collectively held land, but also perhaps in the stories held and shared within Māori communities and whānau. Māori in the industry discussed the issues they had seen around collectively owned whenua and papakāinga, but also around problems with valuation

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 55 methodologies. Similar points were raised by Māori landholders – and many were concerned that with that there is not a clear plan or set of solutions available to meet the challenges hapori Māori currently face around insurance, and in relation to increasing weather events. Alongside reports of inconsistencies in policies that were not explained, the industry wānanga discussed inappropriate valuation methodologies, which undervalue taonga and marae compared to what they represent for the community. A related theme for landholders was around negative experiences and barriers relating to compliance requirements from local government and insurance – creating risk for confusion and greater unaffordability. As noted below, in the future research questions section, this is an area of inquiry that warrants follow up, given that there may be clear solutions around the communication of requirements, or changes needed to regulatory settings. The survey was also utilised for this theme, given it was possible to explore how frequently issues occur in a national probability sample of Māori – which can provide estimates for how often these issues occur in the population. Additionally, in the survey 17% reported having had an issue with insurance in the past 2 years – this was higher than anticipated, where a similar Consumer New Zealand study had shown that about 9% of participants in the general population had experienced issues with insurance in the past 24 months (Ipsos 2024). This inequity warrants further investigation. Similarly, 12% of participants involved with multiple-owned land (not counting those who did not know about the insurance status of the land) reported an issue with insurance for that land. Survey participants raised issues with collectively owned land – including issues relating to governance and disagreement, coverage, and many of the issues reflected in the wānanga. While these may not seem like large numbers, these all represent negative experiences that carry through kōrero across whānau and across Māori communities. Interestingly, 34% of the sample selected ‘don’t know’ for if historical and current day bad experiences affected insurance uptake for Māori, perhaps illustrating that this is something they had not talked to others about. However, focusing only on those involved in multiple-owned land did show a different consumer profile, one marked by less trust. Although these data provide a partial picture, this record of negative experiences does not serve to create a positive reputation for insurance in hapori Māori and perceptions of trust. Mutual financial literacy was identified as a cross-cutting factor in the industry wānanga, and viewed as enabling change. What is meant by ‘mutual’ financial literacy? Rather than framing this as a deficit, it is an opportunity for mutual capacity building. The literature review identified the need for greater financial literacy
within Māori communities – where material is delivered in an appropriate, accessible way – this allows Māori to be able to engage more fully with insurance, financial aspirations, and as consumers. However, a clear literacy limitation has also been evidenced in the literature – that of the industry not understanding Māori, that is, lacking cultural literacy. This was backed up by survey results, where 52% of participants agreed that the industry does not understand Māori, and that this is a reason for lower insurance rates. Consistent across both wānanga were results around valuation methodologies, and products with poor fit. The industry wānanga identified that creating this two-way building of literacy would have positive results for insurance equity and meeting consumer Māori needs. It also aligns with the FMA's wider conduct expectations, which increasingly emphasise provider capability to understand and serve diverse consumer segments. This access to information was also raised in relation to distribution, advice and growing the Māori advisory workforce in the industry wānanga, but also in relation to unclear information and processes in the landholders wānanga. These wānanga reported whānau not knowing how to access information, where to go and who to trust, as well as the fact that even when information was accessible, the ways it was worded or communicated were not clear. They also raised issues of digital literacy and the need to have access to technology or reliable

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 56 internet, which is not guaranteed for older Māori or those living rurally. Accessibility and the suitability of information also had been an issue for those in governance roles. Many raised these issues in the survey as a main message to policy makers. Crucially, 55% of those aged 30 and under raised this as their main issue, which is important given the younger age profile of the Māori population. Across data collection, there was a clear call for the industry to provide information that is clearly explained, which means people can make informed choices. The industry wānanga raised that having more Māori working in financial advice helps, but that there were multiple challenges to retaining the workforce and growing it. They also raised issues that if the distribution channel cannot consistently deliver suitable advice to a significant consumer segment, that is a sector-wide problem. While increasing the number of Māori working in insurance was the least popular solution, around half of the survey sample still agreed it would have a positive effect for insurance rates. Trust. Given that Māori generally show lower levels on institutional trust, it was expected from the literature review that Māori would show low levels of trust towards the insurance industry. Similarly, the industry wānanga stated that Māori were approaching insurance with a level of mistrust, shaped by the kōrero of those around them and from the experiences of older generations. Participants in the landholders wānanga also expressed both distrust – trust stemming from direct knowledge or negative experiences; and mistrust – a general sense of mistrust toward insurance and the financial system. This included a perception that profit is prioritised over addressing the barriers experienced by tangata whenua, particularly in the absence of action over issues facing Māori. The distinction between the two types of trust was helpful. The survey data showed relatively mixed views across Māori, however, when participants were asked if they trusted the insurance industry to treat people fairly, many were neutral (43%) although 33% reported distrust, and 21% answered on the trusting side of the continuum. Overall, this shows a key challenge for the sector is building trust with Māori communities. The industry wānanga raised cultural safety as an important consideration, although cautioned that organisations need to consider cultural safety in their organisational design rather than as a training intervention. It is also important to point to Māori diversity in these results – the trust results for the survey, taken alongside the results for both historical and current day negative experiences – show that a large minority of Māori have positive experiences and trust the sector. Analysis of this group or further discussions with them may show opportunities for engagement with those less trusting and insights about how to go about
building trust with hapori Māori. Embedded world view, values, and the origin of insurance. Another area of the project where there was greater nuance is around embedded values in the system. The literature review identified academic and policy work which suggested that some of the values that insurance is based on – those embedded in the design of the system and how it works today – act as barriers to insurance meeting the needs of hapori Māori. The industry wānanga challenged that idea and showed that these issues are more nuanced. They discussed the idea that insurance does align with Māori worldviews and values, for instance, around pooling resources and risk, but that the substance of insurance is no longer apparent given the way that the markets and capitalism work. They considered that taking many products back to first principles may create an opportunity to create products that are more aligned with Māori values and community needs. In the survey results, there were also mixed results to statement about insurance being not aligned with Māori values, and that then causing lower insurance rates – 32% disagreed; 32% were neutral; and 23% agreed to the statement. Overall, the project has shown that Māori are much more mixed on whether insurance aligns with Māori values, showing an opportunity to imagine and design information, products, and policy based on these shared foundations. Broader system-level issues. Finally, as raised in the literature review, many of the issues raised across this report are not insurance-specific and generalise across the broader financial/economic system and other policy

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 57 areas. The wānanga focused specifically on insurance, although many related issues and broader reflections by participants arose in the landholders wānanga. Further work on this broader question will take place through a survey of this same TAM panel sample as part of the FMA’s 2026 Consumer Confidence Survey. A note on demographic differences. The literature review mentioned that some differences within the Māori population had been found in the past – specifically in relation to disability and region. This report did not explore disability – the topic warrants its own exploration as it relates to insurance – both among tāngata whaikaha Māori and the broader population. However, the work did explore a range of demographic differences in the results. Affordability concerns and distrust of the industry were most pronounced among rural and northern North Island participants, older Māori, and those involved in multiple-owned land. These groups also showed the greatest concern about weather events affecting their whenua, marae, and papakāinga. Wellington-based participants were consistently more trusting of the industry and less concerned about climate-related insurance risks. Gender differences were notable, with the wāhine and other genders (combined) category more likely than tāne to find insurance important, to support proposed solutions, and to be worried about weather-related risks. Age shaped both priorities and trust: older Māori were more concerned about climate risks and more likely to value personal insurance products, and were also more likely to trust the industry, while younger Māori prioritised accessibility and physical insurances. Those involved in multiple￾owned land stood out as a distinct group, showing higher distrust, greater concern about weather impacts, and stronger support for Māori-owned solutions. In the future research below, it is noted that a useful exercise would be to probe these effects in more depth, across more variables. Solutions A core part of Kaupapa Māori research is moving towards strengths and solutions from communities. As such, in this work, the research also included solutions. These provide useful points for further exploration, such as mapping the regulatory barriers to these solutions or gaining a greater understanding of how these emerging solutions work in practice, as case studies. There were a few suggestions for practical solutions that emerged from the literature review and wānanga. A consensus across these is that iwi and Māori led (i.e., by Māori, for Māori) solutions are important, and that Māori need control over solutions. Iwi-owned solutions were popular with 71% of survey participants agreeing they would help to increase insurance coverage for Māori. These were explored in more detail in both wānanga. While the literature review mentioned insurance solutions where iwi have been partners, the industry wānanga cautioned against
solely partnered solutions, and that co-led or co-owned solutions are more effective as Māori Summary: key solutions Literature review Industry wānanga Landholders wānanga Survey A range of solutions are emerging: iwi-led or iwi as partners; navigators; Māori financial advisers/more culturally appropriate information KiwiSaver as a wholesale lever; iwi-led, people￾guided design Solutions: national collective actions; Māori￾owned/operated; intergenerational; regionally contextual Iwi owned solutions and navigators were rated more highly; followed by collective solutions; and more kaimahi Māori

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 58 have greater influence (McLeod and Lam 2021; G. Baker 2025). This is a useful caution for the sector and for the regulator. The presence of Māori capital in an entity is not, by itself, evidence of culturally safe product design or distribution, rather, on the ground change was discussed as the important metric. The need for insurance solutions to be led by iwi and Māori was also the second most common theme in the survey question where participants were asked what the most important thing was to tell policymakers about Māori and insurance. The industry wānanga raised the idea of using KiwiSaver as a wholesale lever for lifting Māori insurance coverage. They raised the risk insurance linked to superannuation that occurs in Australia as a potential solution for inequity, but recognised that this solution would also cause issues, given inequity in KiwiSaver balances for Māori. The wānanga raised that any solution would need Māori/iwi co-design to be effective. The use of KiwiSaver was not asked about in the survey, given that it needs a level of background information to explain it to the public. Both the wānanga and the survey also included content on solutions that work at a collective level. For the landholders wānanga this meant considering ways of working together for a solution for affordable, accessible marae insurance. Collective solutions would also need to be regionally contextual to have enough space for differing risk profiles in different rohe, as discussed in the landholders wānanga. In the survey, there was a question on being able to access insurance through collectives such as hapū or whānau. While this was not explained further, many participants agreed (62%) that it might help with increasing insurance for Māori. Similarly, the landholders wānanga raised the idea that solutions need to be long-term or intergenerational. Collective, long-term intergenerational solutions could be explored in further depth, how they could be designed or processes for co-design, their regulation, and the barriers to implementation. Solutions that aim to minimise accessibility and information barriers have been another theme. The literature review discussed culturally appropriate and relevant financial literacy training and access to kaimahi Māori, who provide a more relatable information point for whānau Māori, and likely help to upskill the industry in cultural literacy (K. Baker, Chapman, and Leef 2025; Houkamau et al. 2020). As discussed above, in relation to access to information, a theme from the wānanga was ensuring a clear pipeline of kaimahi Māori into financial adviser roles and consideration of what policy settings were needed for retention of this workforce. Increasing numbers of kaimahi Māori in insurance was a less popular option in the survey but still held reasonable support (48% agreed it would increase Māori insurance coverage). Similarly, the landholders wānanga raised
that Māori-owned and operated businesses may provide a partial solution and challenged the FMA to consider what they can do to enable more pakihi Māori. Navigators to help with insurance claims are another option. These were one of the most supported solutions in the survey (71%). This solution was discussed in the literature review in relation to the perceived usefulness of insurance navigators in the Canterbury earthquake response (Kenney and Phibbs 2014). Navigators have been shown to be useful in other Māori-centered policy i.e. in Whānau Ora (Smith et al. 2019), and could present a key bridge between whānau and hapori Māori and the insurance industry. Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research A core strength of this work is that it brings together different types of evidence, and that different researchers led the development of different sections. This gave the researchers the ability to triangulate the results across different kinds of evidence, knowledge and data, making them more reliable. The work included a review of the existing literature, qualitative insights (wānanga and in the survey) and quantitative data from a national probability sample of Māori (survey data).

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 59 One other key point of data that could help complete the picture is administrative data. That is, the data collected about and held by insurance companies and the Natural Hazards Commission in their day-to-day operations. It is unclear the extent to which such data exists on Māori communities (i.e. whether and when the data has an identifier that allows for the identification of an individual, whenua, or collective as Māori). The ability for Māori to be able to access and analyse data about Māori is a core part of Māori data sovereignty (Te Mana Raraunga 2018) and could be an avenue for future research that may validate some of the findings of the current report. Another point that emerged in scoping this work and in the literature review was that different communities have different experiences with insurers. This is shown in some of the cross-regional results from the survey, but also in suggestions from the landholders wānanga that the types of hazards experienced by Māori communities varies across regions. Wānanga or qualitative research with a broader range of regions would also validate the findings of the current report but may also show different types of issues and potential solutions. This research report sought to fill a large gap in the research literature. It could only be limited in focus, but in completing this work, the researchers identified a large range of potential research questions. The industry wānanga specifically asked participants for research priorities for the project and topics for the survey. Not all the suggestions best fit the format of the current project or suited a representative survey (e.g., some needed background information or a more specific audience). However, it is important to document these as well as other questions that arose during the research. Some additional research questions generated by the current project were:

• What regulatory or industry barriers are preventing iwi-led solutions in insurance?
  o Research on iwi-led product design: case studies of iwi-led insurance, shared-equity and resilience-linked products, with attention to the iwi-led / co-owned distinction.
• What solutions will help whānau Māori achieve their financial aspirations?
• What are the existing practices and policies that lead to the under-valuation of Māori assets?
  o Deeper work on valuation methodologies, papakāinga insurance design, and marae cover.
• To build trust and responsiveness:
  o How can the sector encourage the creation of and promote more pakihi Māori in insurance? o Qualitative research on the relationship between transaction uptake and underlying trust, and the implications for sector conduct measurement.
• How do collective marae insurances policies operate? And how could they be improved and
  accessibility to them increased?
• What are the pathways to getting more Māori into insurance roles – as insurers, advisors, assessors?
  o Sector-level analysis of the Māori adviser pipeline, retention, and culturally safe distribution models.
• Building understanding:
  o To what extent is there market (insurer and broker) commitment to engage and provide for Māori? o How can the sector better understand Māori and build cultural competency? o How does the sector improve understanding for Māori of how insurance can support them and their aspirations? o What is the best way to share knowledge from Māori communities so that insurance can learn from past mistakes?
• Is the relationship between KiwiSaver and insurance a policy solution?

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 60 o Feasibility and design work on KiwiSaver-linked risk insurance, learning from but not replicating the Australian model.

• Climate and resilience: joined-up work across the sector on availability, affordability, and managed￾retreat communication to affected Māori communities.
• Others raised the relationship between Māori trusts and corporations, their commercial assets, and the
  impacts of climate change/weather events and insurance. For example, the potential loss of uninsured or uninsurable natural assets governed by these entities. Their loss would undoubtedly have an impact on Māori wellbeing. This could be investigated further. There were also areas of the survey data that could not be analysed for reasons such as time and space in this report. Examples include the ability to explore intersectional differences within Māori, such as differences in experiences across household composition (i.e., sole parents), across income levels or educational qualification level. A more comprehensive analysis of the survey data may be useful to provide data to the broader sector, other researchers, stakeholders, and iwi/hapū or other Māori groups. Conclusion In conclusion, this report was borne out of a real gap in the research and policy literature. After hearing anecdotes about Māori experiences of insurance, the researchers explored the literature and a key point from the review was the invisibility of experiences and views for Māori. This led to further exploration through wānanga, and the survey. The survey was, to the researchers’ knowledge, the first comprehensive survey of insurance for an Indigenous group, and certainly the first for Māori (at least that is publicly available). The ability to access Te Ao Mārama panel, a randomly sampled panel of Māori, allowed for these insights into experiences of insurance and views of the industry. The data showed not only barriers and negative experiences – affordability and accessibility as the main issues – but also some potential solutions. Participants were engaged with the topic, with a large majority responding in their own words about what the biggest issue was. From this research, it is clear that there are problems with the current insurance model for individuals and whānau Māori, and Māori collectives such as collective land and marae holders and governors, hapū and iwi. This report thus represents an initial exploration of Māori and insurance but also provides a set of experiences and solutions that can provide insights as to how to understand and work towards fixing these inequities.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 61
Appendix 1: Wānanga methods and questions
In both wānanga attendees gave consent for their kōrero to be recorded and transcribed. Wānanga participants were provided with consent forms to ensure they understood the purposes of the wānanga and how the FMA would treat their stories and information. Attendees were invited to provide feedback on the draft and will receive a copy of the final version as owners of the information and stories shared. Quotes from the industry wānanga have been lightly tidied for readability and de-identified. The themes set out in this paper are drawn directly from what participants said during the wānanga. They are organised and synthesised, but the substantive observations originate with participants and are reflected in the wānanga notes and transcript. Māori industry wānanga This started with a presentation of the key findings of the literature review, followed by wānanga on the following questions:

• “Were there any insights from the literature review that were unexpected, or which you expected
  would have surfaced but didn’t?
• What are you noticing about Māori consumer experiences with insurances?
• This could include barriers/challenges with accessibility, products, advice, claims, or opportunities
  such as iwi-led or co-designed innovations?
  Through our research and engagement, links have emerged between worldview clashes, systemic and structural barriers, distrust, and avoidance/disengagement of Māori consumers with financial services generally (not sector specific).
• Does this resonate with your experiences and knowledge of the insurance sector?
• Drawing from the kōrero today, which top 3 points or themes should be prioritised for further
  exploration through our survey?”
  Māori landholders wānanga
  Participants were presented with questions and then moved into smaller groups for discussion. Each group identified key points to bring back to the wider rōpū for collective discussion. Question One: “If you, your whānau, hapū or iwi (including entities) have experienced barriers to accessing insurance related to your aspirations to live as Māori*, including denied claims, please describe what happened.”

• Housing, papakāinga, kaitiakitanga, etc.
  Question Two: “Describe experiences that you, your whānau, hapū, or iwi (including entities) have had with insurances related to housing on whenua Māori and/or collectively owned land. Think about when it’s gone well and/or when it hasn’t gone well, what contributed to those outcomes?” To respond to this question, wānanga participants remained in a single group and had an open discussion. In keeping with the nature of wānanga, facilitators allowed the kōrero to flow in the direction guided by participants.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 62
Appendix 2: Survey development
First, the literature review was used to map the concepts contained within the existing – scarce – literature on Māori consumers’ experiences and views of insurance, for potential topics to survey on. This is displayed in
Figure A1. From this, given economic differences in wealth and income, it was clear that socioeconomic
measures were needed for background context, but also that the survey needed to ensure that past and historical community experiences featured. The invisibility and evidence gap was used to tell participants why the research was needed. The barriers (‘intersecting issues’ in Figure A1) were all used within survey questions (e.g. assessing trust, views of systems, alternative models).
Figure A1. A conceptual map of the literature review to explore potential areas for survey questions.
The process then included exploring past surveys by government on financial matters including those by from the FMA (e.g. the annual Consumer Confidence survey), Commerce Commission, Te Ara Ahunga Ora Retirement Commission, and various other market research and academic surveys (e.g., the Māori Identity and Financial Attitudes Survey and Te Kupenga by StatsNZ). This exercise found very few relevant survey questions on insurance but created a pool of possible survey questions, including a range of demographic questions drawn from the past Consumer Confidence survey (these were largely based on StatsNZ questions). The next stage involved considering the input of Māori working in the industry through notes from the industry wānanga (explored in more detail above). Figure A2 maps the main issues from the wānanga notes as they relate to the survey.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 63
Figure A2. Further ideas for the survey drawn from the industry wānanga.
Similar to the literature review, there was a need to build in questions about worldviews, including allowing participants’ views to emerge in open-ended survey items. The industry wānanga raised similar issues but also emphasised the need for more kaimahi Māori and navigators (these were included as potential solutions for participants to rate). Industry stakeholders also introduced to idea of a question around prioritising different insurance products. These notes were useful around questions that assessed the issues and solutions. Questions were then developed across a range of areas. The survey was reviewed by the Panel's data governance team, and other researchers involved with TAM panel and iNZight Analytics Limited. The survey was peer reviewed by Māori survey expert Associate Professor Andrew Sporle of iNZight Analytics. We also sought input from the FMA internally. Changes from this process included attention to the ordering of the survey; the types of insurance questions; and the wording of various preambles to items. A full copy of the survey along with the introduction to the survey to participants and Participant Information Sheet was submitted to the research ethics panel at the Ministry of Social Development for review in March 2026. After this process the decision was made to further reduce the length of the survey which meant reducing the detail in some questions and reducing the number of questions about product prioritisation and attitudes towards the industry. Across the survey development process there were a number of decisions around what not to include in the survey. For example, there were many types of insurance that could have been asked about (e.g., travel insurance or public liability insurance for business owners), but these could have led to many further questions, and greater length/respondent burden. The survey thus represents an initial exploration of the topic based on the academic and policy literature, the FMA’s policy priorities, with input from the Māori industry stakeholders wānanga, and wide review. An overview of the final survey is presented in Table A1.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 64
Table A1. An overview of the topics included in the survey.
Module Questions Rationale for inclusion
Reasons why Māori do not have insurance
A list of 7 reasons (from the literature), participants were asked to rate them on 1- 7 agreement scale Enabled Māori as a collective to reflect on their communities and tell the FMA what the problems are Any other reason An open-ended question which asked which reasons we missed Allowed participants to expand, generate new/other ideas Solutions that might encourage more Māori to get insurance Four statements; participants were asked to rate them on 1-7 agreement scale This is strengths-based and solution focused – included to see the most popular solutions Insurance experiences around land with multiple owners A series of four questions designed to ascertain involvement in multiple-owned land, its insurance and any issues with insurance (open-ended) Issues around multiple-owned land were mentioned in the literature and wānanga. These questions were included to assess the scope of the problem in the population Consideration and concern around weather events, insurance availability/price and effects on whenua Two questions with three statements each asking participants whether they have thought about the issues and how worried they are Again, these issues were discussed in the literature and wānanga; important to get a baseline as these issues increase in frequency and reporting Trust in the insurance industry to treat people fairly A statement from 0 to 10 where participants were asked for their trust rating Useful to get a general measure of views of the industry; we thought trust was a good general measure (based on StatsNZ General Social Survey questions) Insurance products owned Two questions ask what types of insurance the participant and their household have Useful variable for analysis alongside the other questions in the survey and demographics Importance of owning different insurance products Participants were asked from 1-7 how important it is for them to have the various insurance products The industry wānanga had raised the need to assess prioritisation as this was something they were seeing day￾to-day. Useful to explore gaps in access and limited funds Issues with insurance and complaints Four questions based on previous FMA consumer confidence surveys that asked about whether someone had an issue; what the issue was; whether they complained and why they did not complain Monitoring issues and complaints is a core part of what the FMA does Main thing you would tell policymakers Open-ended question that allowed participants to give a message to “the policy makers in Wellington about Māori and insurance” Allowed for participants to reflect and for us to find the most important issues for policy (a ranking of sorts)

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 65 Demographics Ethnicity, region, and gender (some participants used their enrolment survey responses); birth year/month; household and personal income; adequacy of income to meet needs; number of adults and children in household; highest qualification; employment status Essential for analysis of the survey TAM panel questions Questions that asked for feedback on the survey (open-ended) and if participants would like a summary of the findings
Part of the standard TAM panel
questions

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 66
Appendix 3: Additional survey methods and
analysis information
Further information on survey completion, sample demographics and weighting The median time to complete the survey was 10.6 minutes. Of the total, 48 participants had incomplete data and are included in reporting, although some of these participants may not be included in demographic breakdowns as they had missing data for those variables. More wāhine (n=536; 57.7%) than tāne (n=322; 34.6%) participated. A small number of participants identified as takatāpui or another gender (together under one percent). Because these groups are too small to report separately, their responses were combined with wāhine for analysis, and the combined category is used throughout this report. The participants tended to be older than the general Māori descent population; 4.0% (n=38) were aged 18-29, 18.7% (n=178) were 30-44, 29.8% (n=284) 45-59, and 39.4% (n=375) were 60+. The sample was more representative by region with 29.1% (n=277) from Northland (Te Tai Tokerau) / Auckland (Tāmaki-makau-rau), 17.4% (n=166) from Waikato / Bay of Plenty (Te Moana-a-Toi), 15.2% (n=145) from Gisborne (Te Tai Rāwhiti) / Hawke's Bay (Te Matau-a-Māui) / Taranaki / Manawatū-Whanganui, 12.5% (n=119) from Wellington (Te Whanga￾nui-a-Tara), 18.3% (n=174) from South Island, and 3 participants who did not live in New Zealand. Analysis was completed with post-stratification survey weights (sweight). To calculate these weights, respondents were linked to the TAM panel database. Demographic strata came from the electoral roll (sex, age group, region, NZ Deprivation index quintile). Both weighting methods adjusted the insurance survey sample toward the 2022 APC (Adult Population Census) counts for Māori descent adults on the electoral roll—the same population benchmarks used for other TAM surveys. Weights are sample weights only (mean 1 within the respondent set); they are not scaled to a national population total. For each respondent with a valid panel ID and demographics, sweight is the ratio of APC to sample share within the weighting stratum (sex × age × region × NZDep):
Shares use APC targets at five regions (reg5). Strata with zero sample size receive no weight. Small cells are stabilised before computing ratios:
NZDep (within sex × age × region) — Adjacent deprivation quintiles are merged along the ordered NZDep scale until each combined cell has at least 3 respondents. The partition is as fine as possible while meeting that rule; APC and sample counts for merged quintiles are summed. Region (within sex × age, if needed) — If any region’s total is still below 3 after step 1, all regions are pooled for that sex–age group. Sex and age are not merged. Analysis Significant differences between demographics were found using pairwise Pearson chi-square tests. For each question and demographic, responses were grouped into affirmative, neutral, or negative categories and cross￾tabulated across two subgroups of a demographic. Chi-square tests were applied to each cross-table to assess

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 67 whether response distributions differed between groups. Where results were significant (p ≤ 0.05), post hoc analysis using adjusted standardised residuals identified the specific categories behind that difference. P￾values were corrected using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The findings were further filtered to only include comparisons with sufficient unweighted sample sizes (minimum 30 per demographic subgroup and 10 per response category) and a 10-percentage-point difference as the minimum effect size. For questions with continuous scales for multi-choice responses (Q1, Q8, Q9, and Q10), an additional ANOVA test with Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference as a post-hoc test was used to identify particularly significant differences. This test focused on differences where both the ANOVA f-statistic and the Tukey’s demographic subgroup result were significant (p ≤ 0.05). Demographic differences Additional reporting on regional differences and thinking about/concern about weather events:

• In terms of the pattern of statistical significance, participants from the Wellington region were the least
  likely to not be thinking about weather events and insurance availability and were more likely to be neutral, potentially reflecting the flooding in the region at the time of surveying. The Waikato/BoP group were thinking more insurance availability than Wellington. The Northland/Auckland, rural North Island, and Waikato/BoP groups reported being more aware of the effects of weather events on the whenua than the Wellington and South Island groups.
• Again, in terms of statistically significant results: for the price of insurance, Wellington was more likely
  to be concerned than the Northland/Auckland group; Waikato/BoP and Northland groups were more likely to not be concerned than the rural North Island group, South Island, or Wellington. In terms of availability: Waikato/BoP-based participants were more likely to be not concerned than Wellington or South Island ones. The Wellington and rural North Island groups more concerned than Northland/Auckland group. And for the effects on the whenua: Wellington and Waikato/BoP groups more likely to be unconcerned than the rural North Island, South Island, or Northland/Auckland groups. Rural North Island groups were more likely to be concerned than Wellington, Northland/Auckland, or South Island groups.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 68
Appendix 4: Data tables from the survey
Tables
Table A2. Results from Figure 1.
Statement
Don't know
Strongly
Disagree 2 3 Neutral 5 6
Strongly
Agree
The idea of insurance is not aligned with
Māori values
117
(13%)
166
(18%)
73
(8%)
51
(6%)
295
(32%)
92
(10%)
48
(5%)
72
(8%)
The insurance industry does not understand
Māori communities
129
(14%)
41
(4%)
45
(5%)
13
(1%)
210
(23%)
160
(18%)
125
(14%)
193
(21%)
There is little trust that insurance companies will pay out 54 (6%) 35 (4%) 27 (3%) 91 (10%) 202 (22%) 154 (17%) 161 (18%) 192 (21%) Historically Māori have had bad experiences with insurance 315 (34%) 42 (5%) 15 (2%) 16 (2%) 238 (26%) 103 (11%) 74 (8%) 113 (12%) In the present day, Māori have bad experiences with insurance 313 (34%) 41 (4%) 18 (2%) 33 (4%) 259 (28%) 108 (12%) 73 (8%) 67 (7%) People do not have enough money for insurance 25 (3%) 27 (3%) 6 (1%) 30 (3%) 78 (9%) 161 (18%) 163 (18%) 424 (46%) Whānau have your back so there is no need for insurance 80 (9%) 261 (28%) 156 (17%) 155 (17%) 176 (19%) 62 (7%) 12 (1%) 14 (2%)
Table A3. Results from Figure 5.
Statement
Don't know
Strongly
Disagree 2 3 Neutral 5 6
Strongly
Agree
More Māori worked in the insurance industry
43
(5%)
98
(11%)
43
(5%)
39
(4%)
249
(27%)
159
(17%)
130
(14%)
152
(17%)
Iwi offered insurance 56
(6%)
36
(4%)
18
(2%)
15
(2%)
138
(15%)
198
(22%)
182
(20%)
268
(29%)
They could access a navigator to help with insurance claims 57 (6%) 31 (3%) 11 (1%) 26 (3%) 140 (15%) 211 (23%) 176 (19%) 263 (29%) Insurance was offered to collectives like whānau or hapū, rather than to individuals like it is now 88 (10%) 43 (5%) 14 (2%) 10 (1%) 188 (21%) 159 (17%) 149 (16%) 260 (29%)

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 69
Table A4. Results from Figure 6.
Statement
Don't know
Not at all A little Somewhat
Quite a bit
A great deal
Weather events affecting the availability of insurance?
14
(1%)
240
(26%)
201
(22%)
211
(23%)
151
(16%)
114
(12%)
Weather events affecting the price of insurance?
22
(2%)
205
(22%)
213
(23%)
160
(17%)
169
(18%)
170
(18%)
How weather events affect the whenua you whakapapa to (ancestral land), marae, or papakāinga? 24 (3%) 237 (25%) 131 (14%) 234 (25%) 171 (18%) 143 (15%)
Table A5. Results from Figure 7.
Statement
Don't know
Not at all
A little worried
Somewhat worried
Quite worried
Extremely worried
Weather events affecting the availability of insurance 40 (4%) 169 (18%) 230 (25%) 273 (29%) 155 (17%) 71 (8%) Weather events affecting the price of insurance 38 (4%) 122 (13%) 166 (18%) 244 (26%) 210 (22%) 157 (17%) Weather events affecting the whenua you whakapapa to (ancestral land), marae, or papakāinga 32 (3%) 188 (20%) 183 (20%) 232 (25%) 162 (17%) 142 (15%)
Table A6. Results from Figure 8.
Trust Count
Don't know 18 (2%)
Not at all 74 (8%)
1 66 (7%)
2 65 (7%)
3 96 (11%)
4 121 (13%)
Neutral 185 (20%)
6 93 (10%)
7 96 (10%)
8 60 (7%)
9 27 (3%)
Completely 12 (1%)

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 70
Table A7. Results underpinning the analysis in Figure 10.
Statement
Has product
Has insurance
Uptake
(%)
We own or lease a car, motorcycle, or other motor vehicle 792 707 89 We own a home (with or without a mortgage) 604 517 86 We have household contents (e.g., furniture, electronics, appliances) 656 514 78 Notes: This was a multi-select question.
Table A8. Results from Figure 10.
Insurance Count
Car / motor insurance
707
(89%)
House insurance
517
(86%)
Contents or renter's insurance
514
(78%)
Life insurance 415
(44%)
Health insurance
311
(33%)
Funeral insurance
153
(16%)
None of these
108
(11%)
Other
87
(9%)
Notes: This was a multi-select question. Car, House, and Contents insurance are out of those who owned those products. The remaining calculations are based on the entire sample.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 71
Table A9. Results from Figure 11.
Insurance
Don't know
Not important 2 3 Neutral 5 6
Very important
Car / motor insurance
3
(0%)
9
(1%)
10
(1%)
3
(0%)
45
(6%)
46
(6%)
174
(22%)
502
(63%)
House insurance
22
(4%)
5
(1%)
2
(0%)
3
(0%)
27
(5%)
17
(3%)
71
(12%)
454
(75%)
Contents or renter's insurance
6
(1%)
14
(2%)
14
(2%)
11
(2%)
44
(7%)
118
(18%)
123
(19%)
321
(49%)
Life insurance 26
(3%)
82
(9%)
57
(6%)
39
(4%)
202
(22%)
113
(12%)
114
(13%)
274
(30%)
Health insurance
22
(2%)
59
(7%)
40
(4%)
80
(9%)
238
(26%)
122
(14%)
105
(12%)
237
(26%)
Funeral insurance
47
(5%)
214
(24%)
68
(8%)
47
(5%)
198
(22%)
84
(9%)
64
(7%)
182
(20%)
Table A10. Responses to questions about experiencing issues with insurance and making complaints.
Question Don't know
No Yes
In the past 2 years have you experienced any problems relating to insurance, whether it be an issue when trying to buy insurance or an issue with a claim? 35 (4%) 720 (79%) 157 (17%) Did you make a complaint about any of these issues? 8 (4%) 164 (85%) 20 (10%)
Table A11. Results from Figure 14.
Issue Count
Sales staff put pressure on you or tried to sell you extra things 78 (41%) The terms and conditions were unclear or unfair 73 (38%) You were provided with information that was too complicated to understand 68 (35%) A company or broker was not responsive to your questions or concerns 61 (32%) There were unexpected fees or charges 44 (23%) You were not eligible for the insurance you wanted 38 (20%) You were turned down for an insurance claim 36 (19%)

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 72 You were provided with incorrect or misleading information 34 (18%) None of these 25 (13%) Other 15 (8%) The premium was unaffordable or unfair for your circumstances 9 (4%) Notes: This was a multi-select question. This question was only displayed to participants who selected Yes for “In the past 2 years have you experienced any problems relating to insurance, whether it be an issue when trying to buy insurance or an issue with a claim?”
Table A12/ Results from Figure 15.
Reason Count
You did not feel confident that doing anything would resolve the issue 92 (56%) You didn’t think it was worth the effort 83 (51%) You were unsure what action to take 69 (42%) You didn’t feel confident in dealing with it 56 (34%) You were unsure where to go for advice 51 (31%) You had a feeling that something was wrong, but weren’t sure if it was actually a big deal 49 (30%) You didn’t have time 33 (20%) Other 28 (17%) Notes: This was a multi-select question.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 73 References Anderson, Atholl, Judith Binney, and Aroha Harris. 2014. Tangata whenua: An illustrated history. Bridget Williams Books. ASIC, 2022, "Court finds Select AFSL and its agents acted unconscionably when selling insurance products:
Royal Commission case study," https://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media￾release/2022-releases/22-176mr-court-finds-select-afsl-and-its-agents-acted-unconscionably￾when-selling-insurance-products-royal-commission-case-study/. Awatere, Shaun, Nikki Harcourt, Ani Kainamu, Margaret Forster, and Bridgette Masters-Awatere. 2026. Ngā mea hirahira o te ao Māori: Climate change risks to the Māori domain. https://www.climatecommission.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/NCCRA/finals/2026-NCCRA-Climate￾change-risks-to-Maori.pdf. Bailey-Winiata, Akuhata P, Shari L Gallop, Liam Wotherspoon, Ryan Paulik, Hone Winder-Murray, Anne Billing, Elva Conroy, Roana Bennett, Iain White, and Joanne Ellis. 2025. "Increased exposure of marae to coastal flooding with sea level rise and adaptation learnings of Ngai Tamawhariua and Maketu Iwi Collective." Shoreline Strategies: 29. Baker, Gabrielle. 2025. Māori health, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and the impacts of outsourcing: An exploratory report. https://asms.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Maori-Health-Final.pdf. Baker, Kahukore, Hannah Chapman, and Jacob De Berry. 2025. Matangirua research wānanga: A case study on Māori consumer experiences of investment and savings. https://www.fma.govt.nz/assets/Research/Matangirua-research-wananga.pdf. Baker, Kahukore, Hannah Chapman, and Brianne Leef. 2025. He Kākahu Whenua: A case study of Toha Network and East Coast Exchange. https://www.fma.govt.nz/library/research/he-kakahu-whenua/ Burns, Janice, and Maire Dwyer. 2007. "Households’ attitudes to saving, investment and wealth." Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bulletin 70 (4): 25-38. Cochrane, Bill, and Gail Pacheco. 2022. Empirical analysis of Pacific, Māori and ethnic pay gaps in New Zealand. New Zealand Human Rights Commission (Auckland, New Zealand). https://tikatangata.org.nz/cms/assets/Documents/Reports-and-Inquiry/Race-and￾Ethnicity/Empirical-analysis-of-Pacific-Maori-and-ethnic-pay-gaps-in-New-Zealand.pdf. Creswell, John W, and Vicki L Plano Clark. 2017. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications. Dell, Kiri, Carla Houkamau, Jason Mika, and Jamie Newth. 2022. "Māori perspectives on conscious capitalism." In The Spirit of Conscious Capitalism: Contributions of World Religions and Spiritualities, 379-397. Springer. Financial Markets Authority. 2024. Consumer confidence survey 2024: An overview of key results. https://www.fma.govt.nz/assets/Research/Consumer-Confidence-Survey-Overview-Report￾2024.pdf. Fleming, Robin. 1997. The common purse: Income sharing in New Zealand families. Auckland University Press. Gamble, Jo. 2022. New Zealand Financial Capability: Focus on Māori. https://assets.retirement.govt.nz/public/Uploads/Research/TAAO-_NZ-financial￾capability_maori.pdf. Greaves, Lara M. 2025. Financial Markets Authority 2025 Consumer Confidence Survey: Results. (New Zealand). Hill, Sarah, Diana Sarfati, Bridget Robson, and Tony Blakely. 2013. "Indigenous inequalities in cancer: what role for health care?"
ANZ journal of surgery 83 (1-2): 36-41. Houkamau, Carla, and Chris G Sibley. 2015. "Looking Māori predicts decreased rates of home ownership:
Institutional racism in housing based on perceived appearance." PloS one 10 (3): e0118540.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 74 Houkamau, Carla, Alexander Stevens, Danielle Oakes, and Marino Blank. 2020. Embedding Tikanga Māori into financial literacy training for Māori. Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga. Iorns, Catherine, and Morgan Godfery. 2024. Ka mate kāinga tahi, ka ora kāinga rua: Legal barriers and obligations in improving Māori access to dwelling insurance for natural hazards. https://www.naturalhazards.govt.nz/assets/Publications-Resources/Funded-Research￾papers/Iorns-Godfery-final-EQC-report-w-Exec-Summary-March2025.pdf. Ipsos. 2024. New Zealand Consumer Survey 2024. Commerce Commission and Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (Wellington, New Zealand). https://www.comcom.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/361274/Commerce-Commission-and￾Ministry-of-Business2C-Innovation-and-Employment-NZ-Consumer-Survey-2024-July-2024.pdf. Jaramillo, Elise Trott, and Cathleen E Willging. 2021. "Producing insecurity: Healthcare access, health insurance, and wellbeing among American Indian elders." Social Science & Medicine 268: 113384. Kenney, Christine, and Suzanne Phibbs. 2014. "Shakes, rattles and roll outs: The untold story of Māori engagement with community recovery, social resilience and urban sustainability in Christchurch, New Zealand." Procedia Economics and Finance 18: 754-762. Krysiak, Jacob. 2017. "Improving Microfinance Through International Agreements and Tailoring the System to Assist Indigenous Populations." American Indian Law Review 41 (2): 409-439. Lindsay Latimer, Cinnamon, Jade Le Grice, Logan Hamley, Lara Greaves, Ashlea Gillon, Shiloh Groot, Madhavi Manchi, Larissa Renfrew, and Terryann C Clark. 2022. "‘Why would you give your children to something you don’t trust?’: Rangatahi health and social services and the pursuit of tino rangatiratanga." Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online 17 (3): 298-312. Mahuika, Nēpia, and Rangimārie Mahuika. 2020. "Wānanga as a research methodology." ALTERNATIVE: An international journal of indigenous peoples 16 (4): 369-377. Manning, Martin, Judy Lawrence, Darren Ngaru King, and Ralph Chapman. 2015. "Dealing with changing risks: a New Zealand perspective on climate change adaptation." Regional Environmental Change 15 (4): 581-594. Mariam, Damen Haile. 2003. "Indigenous social insurance as an alternative financing mechanism for health care in Ethiopia (the case of eders)." Social Science & Medicine 56 (8): 1719-1726. McLeod, Roanna, and Victor Lam. 2021. An overview of Māori financial services institutions and arrangements. https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/project/sites/rbnz/files/publications/analytical￾notes/2021/AN2021-04.pdf. Milfont, Taciano L, Ariana E Athy, and Chris G Sibley. 2024. "Climate change profiles of New Zealanders over time: a one-year latent transition analysis of climate change beliefs and concern." Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 54 (4): 395-411. Moewaka Barnes, Helen, and Tim McCreanor. 2019. "Colonisation, hauora
and whenua in Aotearoa." Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 49: 19-33. Owen, Sally, Selai Letica, and Shaun Awatere. 2024. Risk-based insurance pricing and te ao Māori. https://deepsouthchallenge.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Risk-based-insurance.pdf. Papadopoulos, Tas, and Paul Vance. 2019. "Does ethnicity affect trust in public services?" International Research Society for Public Management, Wellington, New Zealand. https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/assets/DirectoryFile/Does-ethnicity-affect-trust-in-public￾services-IRSPM-Conference.pdf. Reserve Bank of New Zealand. 2022. Improving Māori Access to Capital. https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/have￾your-say/improving-maori-access-to-capital. Rua, Mohi, Darrin Hodgetts, Shiloh Groot, Denise Blake, Rolinda Karapu, and Eddie Neha. 2023. "A Kaupapa Māori conceptualization and efforts to address the needs of the growing precariat in Aotearoa New Zealand: A situated focus on Māori." British Journal of Social Psychology 62: 39-55.

MATANGIRUA | EXPERIENCES OF TANGATA WHENUA WITH INSURANCES 75 Serván-Mori, Edson, Sergio Meneses-Navarro, Rocio Garcia-Diaz, Laura Flamand, Octavio Gómez-Dantés, and Rafael Lozano. 2024. "Inequitable financial protection in health for indigenous populations:
the Mexican case." Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities 11 (5): 3139-3149. Setel, Philip W, Sarah B Macfarlane, Simon Szreter, Lene Mikkelsen, Prabhat Jha, Susan Stout, and Carla AbouZahr. 2007. "A scandal of invisibility: making everyone count by counting everyone." The Lancet 370 (9598): 1569-1577. Smith, Verna, Charlotte Moore, Jacqueline Cumming, and Amohia Boulton. 2019. "Whānau ora: an indigenous policy success story." J. Luetjens, M. Mintrom, & P ‘t. Hart (Eds.), Successful Public Policy:
505-529.
Statistics New Zealand. 2021. "Wellbeing time series explorer 2014–18 (time series)." https://www.stats.govt.nz/tools/wellbeing-time-series-explorer/. ---, 2022, "One in three children projected to be Māori," https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/one-in-three￾children-projected-to-be-maori/. Strid, Sofia, Sylvia Walby, and Jo Armstrong. 2013. "Intersectionality and multiple inequalities: Visibility in British policy on violence against women." Social Politics 20 (4): 558-581. Sturman, Anna, and Matthew Scobie. 2024. The economic possibilities of decolonisation. Bridget Williams Books. Te Kooti Whenua Māori | Māori Land Court. 2012. "Discussion on Māori Land in today's context." https://www.māorilandcourt.govt.nz/mi/the-land/our-judges/news-and-notices/discussion-on￾maori-land-in-todays-context. ---. 2022. "Māori Land Update – Ngā Āhuatanga o te whenua." https://www.māorilandcourt.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Maori-Land-Data/Maori-Land-Update￾2022.pdf. Te Mana Raraunga. 2018. "Principles of Māori Data Sovereignty: Brief #1." Te Mana Raraunga, Māori Data Sovereignty Network. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58e9b10f9de4bb8d1fb5ebbc/t/5bda208b4ae237cd89ee16e 9/1541021836126/TMR+Ma%CC%84ori+Data+Sovereignty+Principles+Oct+2018.pdf. Te Whata. (2026). All Māori: Tāngata. https://tewhata.io/all-maori/social/people/demographics/ Tower Insurance. 2025. Weathering change: Attitudes to climate risk and resilience in New Zealand. https://www.tower.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Weathering-change-attitudes-to-climate￾risk-and-resilience-in-New-Zealand.pdf. Uerata, Lynley, Nina Scott, Jade Tamatea, Amy Jones, Polly Atatoa Carr, Lynne Chepulis, Ryan Paul, Haylee Simon, and Ross Lawrenson. 2025. "Understanding the determinants of health for Māori living with chronic disease in Aotearoa New Zealand." The Journal of Primary Health Care 17 (4): 347-354. United Nations. n.d. "Indigenous Peoples | Respect NOT Dehumanization." https://www.un.org/en/fight￾racism/vulnerable-groups/indigenous-peoples. Waldegrave, Charles, Peter King, Tangihaere Walker, and Eljon Fitzgerald. 2006. Māori Housing Experiences:
Emerging Trends and Issues. (Wellington ). https://thehub.sia.govt.nz/assets/documents/maori￾housing-experiences.pdf. Walter, Maggie, Chris Andersen, Tahu Kukutai, and Chelsea Gabel. 2025. Indigenous statistics: From data deficits to data sovereignty. 2nd edition ed.: Routledge. Wolfgramm, T. H. . 2024. He wāhine, he ōhanga; he ōhanga, he wāhine: Through wāhine, economic development; by wāhine, our economy. The socio-economic status and wellbeing of wāhine Māori from 1990 to 2020 (Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, Wellington, New Zealand). https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_219799325/Wai%202700,%20B007.p df.

76