Once, Twice, Thirty Three Times Engagement
Vic Crockford asks, why did "engagement" appear 33 times in the recent retirement policy review?
On Friday 14 November, the Retirement Commission released its Review of Retirement Income Policies.
Outgoing Retirement Commissioner, Jane Wrightson has made an appeal for a long-term political accord. One that treats retirement not just as fiscal, but as social and cultural. Her key message?
We need to move beyond the long-term fix.
The policy recommendations will be debated, as they should. But what stood out for communications professionals was how many times “engagement” was mentioned throughout the document.
33 times.
In relation to how the Commission engaged to undertake the review, in relation to who engages with KiwiSaver and Sorted and who doesn’t, and in relation to the importance of engagement as a trust building mechanism.
On page 20, the report authors say that:
Public engagement plays a key role in maintaining trust. Surveys, focus groups, and regular reviews help policymakers understand what matters to New Zealanders. Engagement also helps build consensus around difficult trade-offs. People understand that no system can do everything at once, but they want to be part of the conversation.
Some groups rely on trust more than information. Research shows that people with lower financial literacy, or those from marginalised communities, may use trust as a substitute for technical knowledge. This makes targeted outreach and clear communication especially important.
Together this reinforces how trust and engagement are not just nice to haves. They are essential to the long-term success of retirement income policies. They help ensure that changes are well understood, widely supported, and grounded in the values New Zealanders care about.
This is the strongest case for the importance of strategic communications we have read.
We’re living through a time of heightened distrust of institutions and a fracturing of relationships between government and citizens in democracies the world over. Communications tools are being used for ill in many contexts. But we can also use them for good – to strengthen buy-in to policy programs and the big picture work going on across issues like retirement, energy, housing, and financial services.
By including people in structured conversations, understanding who trustworthy intermediaries are, and finding shared, positive values, we can design engagement programs that work.
Conversations that matter
We’re in a noisy world, being fed information by the second. When information replaces communication, hope for genuine engagement in policy changes is lost. However, when conversations are structured and we meet people where they are at, the conditions for genuine engagement are created.
A great example of this is Te Runanga o Toa Rangatira’s recent Porirua Assembly. A deliberative democracy process designed by the iwi for the Porirua community, it had the intent of hosting “Porirua in a room” to discuss climate change issues. 50 representatives of the broader population of the city came together to dialogue and create a set of preferred actions.
It provided rangatahi the chance to speak up as well as others who don’t always get their voices heard in policy forums.
Those 50 people, like most of us, are normally in an information soup – receiving information from every direction with little chance to think deeply or respond. But by providing a structured forum for a two-way conversation, some great and actionable ideas came out.
Who do you trust?
The Commission found that people often rely on trust more than information. So, the person who conveys the message becomes critical. It is not enough to send anonymous surveys into communities (see above).
In an increasingly inhuman world, being human really matters. Having visible and credible spokespeople who have been provided the appropriate training and tools to manage reputation threats can help build trust. In policy design, those people are typically leaders or subject matter experts. But as we learned during COVID, it is important to know who communities trust and equip them with the authority to engage and tell the “why” story of change.
Nowhere is this best exemplified in recent communications history than the NZ Herpes Foundation campaign: NZ: The Best Place In The World To Have Herpes. It won a Golden Lion at Cannes – and for good reason. It used that most human of traits, weird humour, and a cast of trustworthy Kiwi – Sir Graham Henry and Frank Bunce included – to destigmatise herpes and encourage people to seek treatment and support.
Engagement, trust, and values in a Holy Trinity
Great work has been done in the field of sociology to identify common values that are shared across many cultures and religions. We may differ in our weighting of certain values, but there is – usually – common ground to be found.
When we communicate through the lens of shared values, we can help build a reinforcing “flywheel”, whereby values-based communications begets engagement, begets trust – ultimately creating the conditions for policy change to endure.
This is hard to apply in the messy real world, of course. But there is a great example of where trust and engagement have set the stage for reform: KiwiSaver. In the Commission’s review, they point to the fact that innovative KiwiSaver providers like Heft client, Sharesies, have created an environment of “adaptive efficiency” and fostered improved consumer engagement due to their focus on making it easier for customers to engage with their savings and improving user experience overall:
“KiwiSaver satisfaction rose to 57% in 2025, up from 52% in 2024” (p52).
Kudos to Sharesies and the other KiwiSaver innovators. And a reminder to those of us supporting these great products and innovations – we have a critical role to play in the flywheel. Without strategic, credible communications these great ideas are less likely to make it into the world to create the conditions for reform.
It’s on us to ensure trust and engagement are built in right from the start.