New Zealanders' Worry About Cost Of Living On The Rise Again Following The Budget 2025 Announcement
New Zealand / Aotearoa, 17 June 2025 - Ipsos New Zealand has released the 28th edition of the Ipsos Issues Monitor which tracks the issues most important to New Zealanders today and which political parties are best able to manage them. The survey has been running since 2018.
The quarterly survey of 1,002 New Zealanders reveals that following a steady decline since May 2024, more than one in two (55%) consider inflation / cost of living to be the most important issue. Healthcare follows as the second highest concern, while the economy remains the third most important issue, with slight increases (by 2pp) for both issues. Notably, New Zealanders' concern for the economy has reached the highest level since February 2021.
Key findings for the New Zealand market include:
Inflation / cost of living is still the primary concern for one in two New Zealanders. While not statistically significant, the proportion of New Zealanders selecting this as a key issue has risen by 5 percentage points from the previous wave in February.
Healthcare / hospitals remains the second top issue and continues on its upward trend, reaching its highest level of concern since tracking began (43%).
Concerns around the economy continue to rise over the long-term, once again reaching the highest level seen since February 2021.
Issues change in importance across generations:
Inflation / cost of living is the primary concern for New Zealanders aged 18-64, while those aged 65+ are significantly less likely to be concerned about it
Healthcare continues as the primary concern for those aged 65+, it ranks third and second respectively for those aged 18-34 and 35-64
Housing is the second most important issue for 18-34 age group and fifth for 35–49-year-olds, while it is outside of the top-5 issues for those aged 50+
While concern for the economy is relatively consistent across all the age groups, unemployment is more significant issue for young New Zealanders aged 18-34 (23%).
Although political leaning has an impact on the perception of importance for multiple issues, both those intending to vote on the 'left' if there was an election tomorrow, and those intending to vote on the 'right' continue to agree that inflation / cost of living and healthcare are the two primary concerns facing New Zealand. However:
The economy and crime are of significantly higher concern to right-leaning voters
Left-leaning voters are significantly more concerned about poverty / inequality.
Following a significant decline, New Zealanders' rating of the current coalition government's performance has stabilised, rising by 0.1 points to 4.3, with 39% of New Zealanders scoring it 0-3 out of 10.
Labour is now perceived as the political party most capable of handling three of the top five issues – inflation / cost of living, healthcare, and housing, while National is seen to be most capable of managing the economy and crime.
Beyond the top 5 issues, National is now seen as being the most capable of managing just one of the remaining fifteen issues: Defence / foreign affairs / terrorism.
New Zealanders' top five concerns are largely in line with our Australian counterparts, with both countries identifying inflation / cost of living as their top issue and showing a similar level of concern for the economy. More Australians are concerned about housing than us, while more of us are concerned about healthcare.
Carin Hercock, Country Manager, Ipsos New Zealand, said: 'Despite several reductions in the OCR, New Zealanders are still feeling the impact of high living costs. This is particularly an issue for young adult New Zealanders who are increasingly concerned about inflation, housing costs and unemployment.'
Amanda Dudding, Executive Director Public Affairs, Ipsos New Zealand, added: 'No matter your political stance, inflation and healthcare are seen as the most important issues for New Zealanders. Healthcare is now the leading issue for 7 out of 10 New Zealanders over 65 years and is well ahead of the level of concern felt during the peak of Covid community transition. '
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
4 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
OUSA rep running for council criticised
A Labour candidate for the Dunedin City Council has become the target of a campaign calling for him to stand down as a student representative. Jett Groshinski's decision to run as a Labour-endorsed candidate at this year's local body elections has caused tension within the Otago University Students' Association (OUSA) executive, where he is the political representative. He has been allowed to continue his role in a reduced capacity, and OUSA president Liam White was confident any conflict of interest could be avoided. However, since then, fellow student Fergus Parks has posted flyers across the university campus calling for Mr Groshinski to step down from his representative role. Mr Parks said his posters were filling a communication gap left by OUSA. He was supportive of Mr Groshinski standing as a candidate, but the problem was he was doing it "at the same time while he's on the executive''. "The perception of the students is, 'oh, he's just been using this role as a means to support his campaign'" The biggest problem was it had been "effectively radio silence'' from OUSA on the matter, Mr Parks said. "There's been no official posts, no official notices from the president and everything which has so far happened has only been facilitated by the student newspaper [Critic Te Ārohi], which is independent of the OUSA. "The lack of clarity leading up to here just doesn't fill you with hope about how they're going to handle it" He was also concerned Mr Groshinski would continue to receive a full wage for reduced duties while other executive members took on more work. Mr Groshinski said the executive had agreed to a "conflict of interest plan'' to keep his two roles separate. He could comment on election matters as a candidate, but referred any requests for OUSA comment on to Mr White. Mr White said the OUSA executive had held thorough discussions on the matter and there was a "diversity of opinion amongst the executives''. "Some people thought that he should resign outright, that it wasn't a conflict that we could manage, and some of the executives disagreed with that. "But eventually we went with Jett not being involved in media. "He will not be involved in the OUSA local body election process ... and he's going to come off as chair of the political action committee" Mr White said he was confident Mr Groshinski and the OUSA were managing the situation, although he did say resignation was not out of the question if there was a serious breach of trust. There had been some frustration about others picking up parts of Mr Groshinski's role, but there was also an understanding "that just [had] to happen''. Asked about Mr Park's concerns on communication, Mr White said exams meant it was an exhausting time of year and he trusted Critic to give a fair representation of the situation. In a personal capacity, he did not want to drive more attention to the matter and would rather Mr Groshinski be seen as a student running for council, instead of standing as an OUSA executive member. OUSA was unlikely to endorse a candidate for the election and would instead focus on educating students about the candidates, he said. In 2022, Mr Groshinski unsuccessfully ran for Dunedin mayor and council.
Otago Daily Times
5 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Counting on the census
One of the great pillars on which modern New Zealand society is based has been scrapped by the government in a move which has shocked many. The five-yearly, or thereabouts, census has seemingly had its day, Statistics Minister Shane Reti reckons. He announced on Wednesday that New Zealanders had, for the last time, needed to scurry about looking for a pen to fill out the forms or pray that the more recently online documents would work as intended. Citing the need to save time and money, Dr Reti signalled the census will be replaced with "a smaller annual survey and targeted data collection". This will, according to the somewhat breathless Beehive media release, provide better quality economic data to underpin the government's "growth agenda". In line with this thinking, there will be no census in 2028, with the new approach starting in 2030. The new method of collecting nationwide statistics will sharpen the focus on delivering "more timely insights into New Zealand's population", the minister reckons. Good luck with that. While we should not automatically kibosh something before it has had a chance to prove its worth, it is difficult to see how what may effectively be a scattergun approach will be superior to the system which has developed over more than 170 years. The census has, of course, never been perfect. There were well-publicised issues with the 2018 and 2023 counts, and the five-yearly spacing has been interrupted several times, due to such events as the Depression, World War 2 and the Christchurch earthquake in February 2011. There were also concerns about the robustness of responses when the 2023 census was held the month after Cyclone Gabrielle. Dr Reti also has some justification for being concerned about the cost of the census, which has ballooned during the past decade. According to government figures, the 2013 census cost $104 million, but outlay for the 2023 one was $325m, and the now-ditched 2028 one was expected to cost around $400m. The huge leap in price is certainly concerning. Based on those government numbers, there can be no doubt running a census is a very expensive business. However, we need to remember, and perhaps remind the government, that the policies which are meant to benefit everyone across the country in healthcare, education, housing, transport and so on, actually cost many billions of dollars. The price-tag for a census which informs those policies is definitely not chicken feed, but money generally well-spent. Reaction to this week's announcement has largely been negative and expressing surprise at the move. There is particular concern about how cherry-picking data and using smaller sample sets will affect the rigour of information about Māori and Pasifika communities, and also people with disabilities, rainbow communities, and smaller ethnic groups. Dr Reti's promised land of a "sharpened focus on quality" when it comes to statistics will be extremely difficult to achieve. There are crucial questions to answer around how people's existing data within government agencies will be appropriately and sensitively used, who decides what to use and when, and who will oversee the process to make sure it is as comprehensive and fair as such a potentially fraught new system can be. We are uneasy that this move appears to be another example of this government not being especially interested in the science or data necessary for good decision-making and for making policy which is evidence-based, instead careening ever-more wildly across the political landscape in pursuit of zealotry-driven outcomes. We unapologetically support the census system we had, and believe in the provision of proper statistical data sets for modern-day needs and as a source of valuable information for the historians of the future Beware the old saying: "Garbage in, garbage out."
Scoop
13 hours ago
- Scoop
Government, Opposition Scrap Over Common Infrastructure Ground
Article – RNZ Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has agreed to work with his counterparts on the 30-year plan, but the discussion got heated. A reference to $250,000 was corrected to $250 million in this story. Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has committed to working directly with the Opposition, when putting together the Government's response to the 30-year infrastructure plan due out next week. He says that co-operation comes on the proviso that infrastructure decisions are always political in nature – and it did not stop the discussion from repeatedly descending into a fingerpointing tit-for-tat over which government was to blame for what. Labour housing, infrastructure and public investment spokesperson Kieran McAnulty kicked off the scrutiny week select committee hearing on Thursday afternoon, making an effort to 'start on a positive note' on how bipartisanship could work for infrastructure policy, suggesting that would provide more certainty to the sector. 'I agree,' Bishop said. 'That's part of the reason why we campaigned on a 30-year national infrastructure plan being developed in government.' The plan has been developed independently by the Infrastructure Commission since late 2023 and is due to be launched at Parliament next week, with the government required to respond within six months. Bishop said he planned a Parliamentary debate, so all the political parties' views could be included in that response, but McAnulty wanted more. 'At the moment, frankly, the attitude of some ministers of bipartisanship is, 'We'll work with you, if you agree with us', and I don't think that's good enough,' he said, garnering an emphatic 'yeah' from Green MP Julie Anne Genter. Bishop said completely depoliticising infrastructure was not possible, which was to be expected in a democracy. 'You know, if we all agreed, this would be a fairly boring place,' he said. McAnulty agreed with an agreement to disagree. 'We think some of the things you've done are stupid… what I would like to see is a commitment,' he said. 'There's an opportunity there to work with the other side to actually identify where there is broad agreement and include that in your response.' More than just a debate, he wanted the response to include an explanation of which infrastructure projects the government and opposition parties agreed on. Bishop: 'I'm happy to commit to that now. Just making the obvious point … we may not always agree. 'For example, you guys have got to figure out where you're at on PPPs, for example, because you've had about nine different positions. McAnulty: 'We know where we're at with that.' Bishop: 'You sure?' McAnulty: 'Yes, I am actually… this is one of the things that I'm actually trying to avoid, right, is that we can't help ourselves. 'This is the game we're in. We talk about bipartisanship, but we also take every opportunity to have a crack at each other.' Bishop: 'Well, you just said some of the stuff we've done was stupid.' McAnulty: 'Exactly my point, we can't help ourselves.' Bishop said parties could agree on a lot, when it came to infrastructure, and 'sometimes there's a bit more heat than light in this debate'. McAnulty said he did not think the public would know that. The minister pressed on, deferring to Infrastructure Commission chief executive Geoff Cooper to explain the projects expected across the country from about 110 organisations, including all but 14 of the country's councils. The result was a list showing investment worth $206 billion, broken down by region and sector, which Cooper said started to paint a much clearer picture of investment. 'The point is to have… almost a single source of truth for what's in the pipeline,' Bishop said. Committee chair Andy Foster – a former Wellington mayor – said the information should be included in councils' long-term plans and they should be contributing. Bishop had an easy solution. 'Well, if they don't do it, we can just mandate that they do it – but I'd rather not, because that takes time and money,' he said. 'I'd rather they just do it.' 'Enough of those mandates for councils,' interjected Labour local government spokesperson Tangi Utikere. 'We make them do all sorts of things for the right reasons and this would be the same thing,' Bishop responded. Clashes over cancellations While the first half hour was not entirely bonhomie, unicorns and rainbows, the verbal finger pointing was surely on show in the second half of Bishop's appearance. McAnulty asked if the minister accepted cancelling projects across successive governments had affected sector confidence. 'Depends exactly what you're talking about,' Bishop said. 'I accept that, after 2017, the radical change in direction of the National Land Transport Plan at the time had a significant impact.' 'So you're willing to say that one government cancelled projects that had an effect, but you're not willing to concede that you guys cancelling projects has?' McAnulty responded. Bishop said it showed the limits of bipartisanship. 'Our view was that they're the wrong projects for the country, he said. 'Depends which one, but generally too expensive, not good value for money, in some cases undeliverable. 'It was the right thing to do to say, 'You know what, we're actually just not going to proceed with that'.' Genter said many council projects were also defunded under the coalition and the iReX ferry replacement could have been rescoped, rather than dumped. Predictably, this kicked off a four-minute cancellation-measuring contest – which government cancelled more projects? Who cancelled more projects that were already contracted? 'You can have an intention to do something, it doesn't mean it will end up happening,' Bishop concluded – or seemed to. 'The last government lived in fiscal fantasy land.' 'Only because your government made a decision to give billions of dollars to landlords,' Genter fired back. Foster was eager to move on, asking Bishop about whether Kāinga Ora had managed to bring social housing build costs down to the same level as private developers – a topic well traversed in the last scrutiny week in December. The minister did not have the latest numbers, 'because this is not the vote Housing and Urban Development estimates', but the agency was making 'good progress' and would report back on that publicly. He and Utikere then argued some more over the roughly $250 million allocated for cancellation of the ferries contract – whether that was part of Bishop's responsibilities – with Bishop saying it belonged to Rail Minister Winston Peters and Utikere saying, when they'd asked Peters, he'd referred it to Bishop. Utikere: 'And the minister doesn't even know … that's very disappointing.' Bishop: 'Yes. So's your behaviour.' Utikere: 'No, it's not actually, minister, my behaviour is about scrutinising the executive – that is our responsibility. 'It is disappointing that you don't know the answer to just over a quarter of a billion dollars' worth of taxpayers money that has been set aside in your Budget.' Foster stepped in again, suggesting Bishop's answer was that it was best for his ministerial staff to provide an answer and they did. Treasury deputy secretary Leilani Frew said negotiations for the ferry contract exit were still continuing, as well as wind-down costs. The discussion soon wound down too – after a series of patsy questions and a discussion about the causes of 15,000 fewer people being employed in construction. Bishop argued it was an expected side-effect of bringing down the official cash rate, which would – in turn – have the biggest effect on reinvigorating the sector, McAnulty argued housing could be an avenue for stimulating growth. In the end, the public got a commitment to bipartisanship. Whether it lasts remains to be seen, but investors watching this scrappy select committee may be hesitant to bet the house on it.
