And officials deliberately prevented the rights of Ministry of Social Development (MSD) customers from becoming “public knowledge” — fearing the motels would stop taking in the homeless.
The Human Rights Commission says there have been “possible” rights violations in the emergency and transitional housing system – it has spoken with more than 30 parties in the past month about their experiences with the accommodation.
The law changes
Emails show that in 2019 the Department of Urban Development was told by regulators that emergency and temporary housing “clearly fell under the Housing Rental Act” (RTA).
The ministry was concerned at the time that motels “may not comply” with the law.
It argued that one solution was to change the law, to exempt emergency and temporary housing providers.
The cabinet supported the changes, which were then incorporated into the amendment legislation passed by parliament in 2020.
This prevented residents from bringing motels to the Rent Assessment Board and meant that providers did not have to meet Healthy Homes standards for insulation and working smoke detectors.
The OIA documents show that in 2019 and 2020 motels were deliberately not told about residents’ rights.
The public release of a cabinet paper was delayed because “there is a risk that providers may choose to exit the market if the potential application of the RTA became public knowledge,” housing officials wrote.
The Department of Urban Development said that if providers terminated their contracts, up to 3,000 households would be left homeless “without shelter, sleeping in cars or crowded houses”.
It had already expressed concern that motels would be brought before the rent commission, with an “unfavorable procedure” before the waivers began.
The ministry was also aware of the human rights risks.
It had mentioned these in drafts for the cabinet in 2020 for months, saying the law changes “could conflict with the right to adequate housing”.
Ministry of Health opposition
The Department of Housing and Urban Development chose a small group of stakeholders for “confidential consultations” ahead of the law change — meeting opposition from the Department of Health, emails revealed.
An email from the public health team, including then director Dr Caroline McElnay, said “we cannot support the policy”.
“The argument is that the risk of ‘market exit’ justifies the abolition of human rights (and health protection as a result). We cannot support this argument. We believe that the Crown is responsible for ensuring adequate housing for all.”
The email said the law change would stop customers from taking action in situations “that would otherwise warrant enforcement action” and that “efforts to establish a culture of ‘responsible landlords’ are being undermined”.
“Abolishing legal rights for this group adds to existing inequalities and goes against the government’s stance on reducing child poverty/improving child well-being.”
Interest Group Alerts
The Tenants Protection Association in Christchurch was another stakeholder that was consulted.
It wrote back to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, saying the changes were “unjust” for emergency and temporary housing users.
“These are people who are trying to live a dignified life, who have lived for years in appalling situations,” it sounds.
“We’ve had reports of people being told to be gone by 5pm at noon. This is unacceptable.”
Community Housing Aotearoa was also asked for confidential consultations, saying the changes were “not acceptable”.
“We have consistently called for a rights-based approach.”
Community Housing Aotearoa was also concerned about the government’s admission that it didn’t want moteliers’ obligations to be “public knowledge” — for fear of an exodus.
“It really bothers us when providers are contracted by the government and are not aware of their responsibilities.”
Human Rights Commission concerns
Housing research manager Vee Blackwood of the Human Rights Commission told RNZ that the adverse effects of the changes to the Housing Rental Act were evident from emergency and temporary housing users who spoke to the committee over the past month for its housing research.
Blackwood said there was no clear process for resolving complaints for them, and that this “caused a serious harm and potentially violates the human right to redress”.
Some customers’ concerns about the habitability of their property — including black mold and the absence of cooking facilities — “would have clearly been addressed by the Housing Rental Act if emergency and temporary housing had not been ruled out,” Blackwood said.
According to Blackwood, since the changes, “residents in emergency and temporary housing have essentially fallen through the regulatory loopholes because they have had no responsibility, under [the] RTA, but they also have not had protection under any other code of conduct or framework”.
“And so over the past two years we’ve seen some pretty shocking situations in terms of possible rights violations.”
Last month, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development released a draft code of conduct that it has been working on since 2019.
Blackwood said this was “essentially two years late”.
The code would not become final until next year. Blackwood said even then, it would be unenforceable until accommodation providers proactively incorporate the code into housing contracts upon renewal, which could take years.
Even after that, Blackwood said, “if an individual resident wants to assert their rights under the code, they can’t complain to something like Tenancy Services, about their legal rights, because it’s basically a contractual matter.”
The same concerns were expressed two and a half years ago by the Christchurch Tenants Protection Association in its feedback to the government.
“A code of conduct cannot replace the protections that the RTA offers tenants. A code of conduct does not provide the independent checks and balances that the RTA provides. Where does a tenant go if he believes he has been unjustly evicted?”
Checking Former Customers
Dunedin woman Olive was a former emergency housing client who had shared her story with the committee for the past month.
She told RNZ that she was evicted last year with just a few hours’ notice to pack her bags and that she lived in a barn on gravel for nine months with no running water.
She said she felt the system didn’t give her a chance to defend herself.
“Not having that security basically means you have a lot of private providers who get a significant amount of money to do their job, which is to house people temporarily, but they don’t do it in an ethical way, and there’s no recourse for people.” “.
Whangārei wife Jessica Kaipo (Ngāpuhi) lived in motels with her daughter last year and earlier this year.
She said she was evicted after leaving her room messy with vomit in the toilet one day when she went to the hospital.
“I never had a voice. Even though I was sick. In a hospital and when I got out, I had almost nowhere to go.”
She said she was constantly afraid of emergency shelters because she knew she could be evicted right away if something went wrong.
“We weren’t allowed to be ourselves,” she said.
At one of the motels, she said her daughter was “playing in the yard and the owner came out growling.”
Kaipo wanted to intervene, but didn’t – she was afraid she would be evicted if she did.
Government, stakeholder response
Community Housing Aotearoa said this week it had “consistently and vigorously advocated temporary housing to be included in the Housing Rent Act since 2018” and would continue to do so.
The Ministry of Health said it would stand by its comments on the amendments to the law.
But in a written statement, Acting Housing Minister Peeni Henare (Ngāti Hine, Ngāpuhi) said changing the law “was common sense”.
“Transitional and emergency housing does not naturally align well with some of the RTA’s requirements, such as around notice periods,” Henare said.
“Currently, many temporary housing providers have formal complaints handling policies in place,” he said.
But he acknowledged that it was “important to have a neutral third party” for disputes, and for this reason the newly released draft code of practice for temporary housing proposed independent resolutions.
Henare said sudden eviction was “very rare” and there was “ongoing monitoring” to ensure contractors were meeting their obligations.
Work on the code began in 2019, but Covid-19 had “adjusted timelines,” he said.
In another statement, the Department of Social Development’s housing manager Karen Hocking said emergency housing providers are commercial companies that set their own rules, but most “support and understand our customers.”
The emergency housing system was under review, Hocking said.
“If a customer is concerned about their privacy and security where they stay, they should contact us immediately.”
In response to Jessica Kaipo’s criticism, the ministry said there were “a series of issues and complaints about Jessica’s behavior” and that staff moved her to another motel after the eviction.
Last month, RNZ reported that the average stay in emergency shelters – which is designed to last just a week – had grown to more than 20 weeks, with some stays extended to two years.
Transitional housing is designed for stays of up to 12 weeks – while people find permanent housing, but data provided to RNZ shows that some people have lived in transitional housing for up to five years.
The Human Rights Commission still wants to hear from current or former clients of emergency and temporary housing for its housing survey.