What does wellbeing look like for Pacific peoples?
It is a deceptively simple question, yet one that sits at the heart of a new publication, Untangling Notions of Pacific Wellbeing Across the Trans-Tasman Diaspora. The book brings together Pacific scholars and researchers from across Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia to explore how Pacific communities understand and experience wellbeing on their own terms.
The chapters examine diverse aspects of Pacific life, from health and identity to community connections and social participation. Together, they challenge the idea that wellbeing can be measured through a single lens or understood solely through Western frameworks.
Instead, the book demonstrates what Pacific communities have long known: wellbeing is holistic, relational, collective and strongly connected to culture, family and belonging.
Housing is one of the clearest examples.
In a chapter co-authored with PhD candidate Mark Meyers, and colleagues Dr Ruth Faleolo (La Trobe University) and Lefaoali’i Associate Professor Dion Enari (Ngā Wai a Te Tūī | Māori and Indigenous Research Centre and School of Healthcare and Social Practice, Unitec), we explore Pacific experiences of housing in Aotearoa and ask a critical question: are the homes being built today actually supporting Pacific wellbeing?
For many Pacific peoples, housing is far more than shelter.
A home is a space where children are nurtured, elders are cared for, cultural knowledge is passed between generations, and families gather to celebrate, mourn and fulfil communal obligations. Housing plays a central role in sustaining the relationships that underpin Pacific wellbeing.
Yet much of New Zealand’s housing stock continues to be designed around assumptions that do not always reflect Pacific realities.
Housing policy often assumes a nuclear family model, with a prescribed number of bedrooms and occupants. Success is frequently measured by metrics that prioritise individual space and privacy. These standards can be useful, but they do not always capture how Pacific families live, nor what they need to thrive.
One example is the concept of overcrowding.
Conventional housing measures often define overcrowding according to the number of people per bedroom. Viewed through this lens, many Pacific households can appear overcrowded.
But numbers alone do not tell the full story.
Pacific families have a long tradition of intergenerational living. Grandparents, parents, children and extended relatives often share a home, not simply because of economic necessity, but because collective living reflects cultural values of care, reciprocity and mutual support.
The question, then, is not always how many people live in a house.
The more important question may be whether the house has been designed to support the people who live there.
Does a large household have enough bathrooms? Are bathrooms located where elderly family members can safely access them? Is there flexibility for changing family needs over time? Is there enough communal space for family gatherings, church activities, celebrations and visiting relatives? Can the home accommodate caregiving responsibilities and multigenerational living with dignity?
These considerations rarely feature prominently in housing debates, yet they have a direct impact on quality of life.
When housing design fails to account for cultural realities, the consequences extend beyond inconvenience. Poorly designed housing can affect health outcomes, educational achievement, family relationships and social connectedness. In other words, it can directly affect wellbeing.
Conversely, housing that responds to Pacific ways of living can strengthen wellbeing across multiple dimensions.
A well-designed home can support ageing in place for elders. It can provide young people with stable environments for learning. It can strengthen family cohesion and create opportunities for cultural practices to flourish. It can reduce stress and improve physical and mental health outcomes.
Housing is, therefore, not simply an infrastructure issue.
It is a wellbeing issue.
One of the key messages emerging from Untangling Notions of Pacific Wellbeing Across the Trans-Tasman Diaspora is that Pacific communities must be involved in defining what wellbeing means and how it is measured. The same principle applies to housing.
Rather than expecting Pacific families to adapt to housing systems designed around different assumptions, we should be asking how housing systems can better respond to Pacific families.
This requires genuine engagement with Pacific communities, Pacific-led research and a willingness to move beyond one-size-fits-all solutions.
It also requires recognising that difference is not deficiency.
Intergenerational living is not inherently a housing problem. Strong family interconnectedness is not a social burden. Collective approaches to caregiving are not obstacles to modern life.
They are strengths.
As New Zealand continues to grapple with housing affordability, urban growth and population change, there is an opportunity to think differently about what successful housing looks like.
The number of houses built will always matter.
But so too will the lives that unfold within them.
If we want to improve Pacific wellbeing, we must move beyond seeing housing as simply a matter of supply and demand. We must recognise it as a foundation for belonging, cultural continuity, family resilience and community wellbeing.
Ultimately, the question is not whether Pacific families fit within our housing models.
The question is whether our housing models are prepared to reflect the realities, aspirations and strengths of Pacific families. We also know that intergenerational living is having an upward trend in New Zealand, meaning better housing and planning policies to enable it is not just good for Pacific communities but for many others
Because when homes are designed with Pacific peoples rather than merely for them, the benefits extend far beyond housing itself. They create the conditions for Pacific individuals, families and communities to thrive.
