March 22, 2025 • 10 mins
The ACT Party is call for more powers for Kāinga Ora to terminate tenancies.
It was triggered by a recent ruling by the Tenancy Tribunal, where a tenant with 25 complaints, 6 warnings and police call outs, and even an alleged shooting, will not have their tenancy terminated.
There was an overhaul just last year which made it easier for Kāinga Ora to evict tenants, but ACT says more is needed.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks'd
be so.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
The ACT party is calling for more powers for conger
Aura to terminate tenancies. Was triggered by a recent ruling
by the Tenancy Tribunal where get this, a tenant with
twenty five complaints, six warnings, and police police call outs
and even an alleged shooting will not have their tenancy
(00:30):
terminated after the Tenancy Tribunal rule that insufficient evidence was
provided to justify a diction, basically because all the witnesses
are too scared. There was an overhaul last year that
made it easier for Conga Aora to evict tenant, but
Acts ACT thinks that more is needed and at Party
Housing spokesperson Cameron Luxton is with me now, good afternoon.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Yeah, good afternoon. Come, thanks for having me on on this.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Yeah good.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Look.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Is this a one off? Or are we seeing this
is the tip of the iceberg or a broader problem?
Speaker 3 (01:03):
But the real concern is that it isn't a one off.
And I'll tell you why, because you've got right now
tenants who will people in the facility, residents who are
now fearful after this tendency wasn't terminated through a tendency
tribunal hearing. They're now fearful of speaking up or that
they may be victims of violence. I think we have
(01:25):
to be concerned that this is happening more often around
the country because fundamentally the problem lies when if someone
wishes to make a complaint against someone in their neighborhood,
if they don't have access to a private situation where
they can give evidence, a private testimony or hearing, well,
they do expose themselves to repercussions. And that's something that
(01:47):
we've got to change. So, yeah, you're right, there's been
some changes in what the policies of kying or order are.
In fact, act campaigned and got through in the coalition
government an end to the Sustaining Tendencies framework, the policy
to keep people in coying lad of tendencies, whether it
was we're as good or bad for the community. So
we've got an end to that. But this process has
(02:09):
shown that kind order needs even more support, or even
that the neighborhood needs more support, and that if they
are fearful of repercussion, they should be able to give
these testimonies so that they can be taken into account
at tendency tribunal hearings.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Is it a case that I mean, ky Or has
got the you know, being given the directions to be
tougher on this stuff, but you've still got the tendency Tribunal.
Do we need to do we need an overhaul in
terms of what evidence they can consider.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
Yeah, well that's what I'm That's what I'm myself as
a spokesman for the act party. That is what I'm
proposing right now, what I'm calling for. I think that
the requirement right now that it has that kind order
has to prove antisocial behavior should be including testimony from
other residents in the area. And the fact that this
(02:58):
wasn't the evidence threshold wasn't found by the tendency tribunal
because no one would go on the record up and
put their name and face out there for their for
their neighbors to see. Uh, And that led to the
Tendancy trubunal finding is not enough evidence in this case,
even though as you say, there had been more than
a couple of dozen events, including the distuch charge of
(03:19):
a firearm. I mean that just shows that we're at
a point now where the Tendancy Tribunal is the bond
neck not kind of order?
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Well, I mean you've got the police. The evidence of
police call outs is not something that's here, say, is it?
I mean it's this Is this just a lousy decision
by the Tennessey Tribunal or what?
Speaker 3 (03:38):
Well, I hesitate to criticize.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
The t you can't do that, but I can you.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
Know that's yeah, well that's I mean, there's contumity there.
But basically what we've got is a threshold for evidence
which isn't fit for what the current situation is. And
you know, people all around New Zealand have got kind
of order in their communities or wanting kind of order,
wanting to do developments in the communities. Stories like this
(04:05):
do not help social cohesion in accepting that as part
of a functioning community to accept people in happily, we
need to make sure that the settings are right and
the tendency tribunal settings on having evidence clearly aren't right.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
So this is not so much a kind of aura issue.
They're the ones who are bringing the case to get
rid of these tenants. This is this is a tenanty
tribunal evidence evidence sort of issue, isn't it?
Speaker 3 (04:31):
Well? K Like yeah, like you've said, and I've said,
the kind Orders had a change in policy when the
government changed and kind order is a landlord. Yeah, it's
a landlord on behalf of the government, but it is
a landlord, and many landlords have had issues going to
the tendency tribunal. I wonder how much more widespread this
actually is in the private rental market as well. This
(04:54):
could just be, as you say, the tiberty iceberg. But
I think the real, the real issue we've got here
is that a landlord, whether the government or a private
need to be able to trust that when people when
they rally enough people around to say, look, this is
actually a problem for this tendancy and it's causing serious disruptions,
or even just treating a asset like a publicly taxpayer
(05:16):
funded house in just this sort of disregard and the
entitlement that's being shown by people to treat something like this,
they need to go to the back of the housing queue.
And that's what we should be at. The king Orders
should be able to kick out a tenant who's doing
twenty five issues that have been reported discharge of firearm.
(05:38):
When that gets reported, someone needs to back out and
they need to go to the back of the housing.
So it's not good enough that we have people waiting
for social housing. Well, somebody is able to do this.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
So you're suggesting that King Aora should simply have more
power to evict people without resort to the tenantcy tribunal
or are you suggesting an overhaul of the tenants y
tribunal as well, including allowing broader sort of evidence in
terms of the number of anonymous complaints and police involvement
in the property.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
What I'm calling for, well, look, I think Coying Order
has had their direction and that is the end of
the Sustaining Tendencies policy and Coying Order. There should be
a simple process within the bureaucracy, and I want to
see a kind of order bureaucracy that's complicated where it
has to go up through many layers. There needs to
be a direct way to deal with tendencies quickly that
(06:28):
are becoming antisocial for the community, because this is a
wider community issue. But what I'm calling for is to
say we need to be able to have people feel
like they can give testimony to the tendency tribunal in
a private way that protects their anonanimity, because that is
what is that issue with many people wanting to give
giving evidence in this case, those people should be able
(06:51):
to and those people giving evidence in either way, either
in defense of a tenant or in saying there is
antisocial behavior having a tendency, those people should be able
to do it on either side of the case in
a private way. And the fact that that wasn't allowed
to happen seems to be from this case a major
issue from the tendency tribunal being able to make it ruling.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
How can we protect witnesses in a way, because I
mean also people within the neighborhood, I mean they might
not want to give evidence because even if it's anonymous,
you know, obviously the people in the vicinity are going
to be the ones who those who are being targeted
are going to think, well, it's probably them or this.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
Lot, Well that's right, and even yeah, and even then
if you can raise speculation across a whole lot of people,
so yeah, fair enough, But there needs to be a
situation where the events can actually be tabled because as
we're found in this case, there was not There was
found that that king order wasn't able to produce enough evidence,
(07:51):
but there's clearly people that felt like they had a
story to tell about what they've witnessed with this property
that weren't able to go on the record and say it,
and therefore the Tendency Tribunal didn't take it into account
and they said that the tendency can remain.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Do you think we should actually even have a I mean,
when it comes to the tents Tribunal, we should actually
amend the law that if there have been a certain
number of complaints that can be considered, in other words,
even if they haven't got the witnesses in front of them,
if they've been saved. How many in this case we
had twenty five complaints, six warnings, police call outs as well.
Should they be able to sort of consider the broader
(08:27):
evidence without having to get corroborated testimony from individual witnesses.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
I think you definitely want to have corroborated testimony. I
think it would be a tricky thing to say, let's
have a certain number of complaints, because you get you
can have a gang up mentality, we've also neighbors at
war or experienced it ourselves, and you don't want to
have the social dynamic of a group of people who
don't particularly like a neighbors starting that up. But I
(08:54):
think in this case we've got what seems like a
very serious issue that looked like the tendency tribunal couldn't
take into account because of the requirement on making and
making complaints public. I think that it would be a
bit of a stretch to say, let's just have a
set number and as soon as you hit that number,
(09:14):
you're out. That would be a rife for people taking
advantage of. But I think just actually in this case,
having the ability of a tendency tribunal to hear evidence
on behalf of residence in the neighborhood of the experience
they've had and make a judgment based on that without
having to make that public.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
Would be Okay. We're to now then, Because it's one
thing to say this is what we've changed, it's another
thing to get a change cracking, and it's not seem
to get it through the legislative process. This set looks
like the long haul again, doesn't it? For tenants and landlords?
Speaker 3 (09:46):
Yeah? What's next? I mean, on my behalf, just getting
out and talking about this and making a point that
this isn't something that should be accepted in our country
as a as a start. But you know, Act's got
the ACT Party and the coalition negotiations got things across
the line, such as removing the Sustainable Tency policy. We
(10:07):
didn't get everything across the line, like having to enabling
the Tendency Tribunal to have private hearings and evidence was
another thing they didn't get across the line. But look,
I'm going to talk about I'll be discussing it with
my National and New Zealand First colleagues and see if
we can get something moving on that.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Good on here. Okay, thanks Cameron, really appreciate your time.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
I appreciate it, and thank you for more from the
Weekend Collective. Listen live to News Talk ZEDB weekends from
three pm, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks'd
be so.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
The ACT party is calling for more powers for conger
Aura to terminate tenancies. Was triggered by a recent ruling
by the Tenancy Tribunal where get this, a tenant with
twenty five complaints, six warnings, and police police call outs
and even an alleged shooting will not have their tenancy
(00:30):
terminated after the Tenancy Tribunal rule that insufficient evidence was
provided to justify a diction, basically because all the witnesses
are too scared. There was an overhaul last year that
made it easier for Conga Aora to evict tenant, but
Acts ACT thinks that more is needed and at Party
Housing spokesperson Cameron Luxton is with me now, good afternoon.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Yeah, good afternoon. Come, thanks for having me on on this.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Yeah good.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Look.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Is this a one off? Or are we seeing this
is the tip of the iceberg or a broader problem?
Speaker 3 (01:03):
But the real concern is that it isn't a one off.
And I'll tell you why, because you've got right now
tenants who will people in the facility, residents who are
now fearful after this tendency wasn't terminated through a tendency
tribunal hearing. They're now fearful of speaking up or that
they may be victims of violence. I think we have
(01:25):
to be concerned that this is happening more often around
the country because fundamentally the problem lies when if someone
wishes to make a complaint against someone in their neighborhood,
if they don't have access to a private situation where
they can give evidence, a private testimony or hearing, well,
they do expose themselves to repercussions. And that's something that
(01:47):
we've got to change. So, yeah, you're right, there's been
some changes in what the policies of kying or order are.
In fact, act campaigned and got through in the coalition
government an end to the Sustaining Tendencies framework, the policy
to keep people in coying lad of tendencies, whether it
was we're as good or bad for the community. So
we've got an end to that. But this process has
(02:09):
shown that kind order needs even more support, or even
that the neighborhood needs more support, and that if they
are fearful of repercussion, they should be able to give
these testimonies so that they can be taken into account
at tendency tribunal hearings.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Is it a case that I mean, ky Or has
got the you know, being given the directions to be
tougher on this stuff, but you've still got the tendency Tribunal.
Do we need to do we need an overhaul in
terms of what evidence they can consider.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
Yeah, well that's what I'm That's what I'm myself as
a spokesman for the act party. That is what I'm
proposing right now, what I'm calling for. I think that
the requirement right now that it has that kind order
has to prove antisocial behavior should be including testimony from
other residents in the area. And the fact that this
(02:58):
wasn't the evidence threshold wasn't found by the tendency tribunal
because no one would go on the record up and
put their name and face out there for their for
their neighbors to see. Uh, And that led to the
Tendancy trubunal finding is not enough evidence in this case,
even though as you say, there had been more than
a couple of dozen events, including the distuch charge of
(03:19):
a firearm. I mean that just shows that we're at
a point now where the Tendancy Tribunal is the bond
neck not kind of order?
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Well, I mean you've got the police. The evidence of
police call outs is not something that's here, say, is it?
I mean it's this Is this just a lousy decision
by the Tennessey Tribunal or what?
Speaker 3 (03:38):
Well, I hesitate to criticize.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
The t you can't do that, but I can you.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
Know that's yeah, well that's I mean, there's contumity there.
But basically what we've got is a threshold for evidence
which isn't fit for what the current situation is. And
you know, people all around New Zealand have got kind
of order in their communities or wanting kind of order,
wanting to do developments in the communities. Stories like this
(04:05):
do not help social cohesion in accepting that as part
of a functioning community to accept people in happily, we
need to make sure that the settings are right and
the tendency tribunal settings on having evidence clearly aren't right.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
So this is not so much a kind of aura issue.
They're the ones who are bringing the case to get
rid of these tenants. This is this is a tenanty
tribunal evidence evidence sort of issue, isn't it?
Speaker 3 (04:31):
Well? K Like yeah, like you've said, and I've said,
the kind Orders had a change in policy when the
government changed and kind order is a landlord. Yeah, it's
a landlord on behalf of the government, but it is
a landlord, and many landlords have had issues going to
the tendency tribunal. I wonder how much more widespread this
actually is in the private rental market as well. This
(04:54):
could just be, as you say, the tiberty iceberg. But
I think the real, the real issue we've got here
is that a landlord, whether the government or a private
need to be able to trust that when people when
they rally enough people around to say, look, this is
actually a problem for this tendancy and it's causing serious disruptions,
or even just treating a asset like a publicly taxpayer
(05:16):
funded house in just this sort of disregard and the
entitlement that's being shown by people to treat something like this,
they need to go to the back of the housing queue.
And that's what we should be at. The king Orders
should be able to kick out a tenant who's doing
twenty five issues that have been reported discharge of firearm.
(05:38):
When that gets reported, someone needs to back out and
they need to go to the back of the housing.
So it's not good enough that we have people waiting
for social housing. Well, somebody is able to do this.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
So you're suggesting that King Aora should simply have more
power to evict people without resort to the tenantcy tribunal
or are you suggesting an overhaul of the tenants y
tribunal as well, including allowing broader sort of evidence in
terms of the number of anonymous complaints and police involvement
in the property.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
What I'm calling for, well, look, I think Coying Order
has had their direction and that is the end of
the Sustaining Tendencies policy and Coying Order. There should be
a simple process within the bureaucracy, and I want to
see a kind of order bureaucracy that's complicated where it
has to go up through many layers. There needs to
be a direct way to deal with tendencies quickly that
(06:28):
are becoming antisocial for the community, because this is a
wider community issue. But what I'm calling for is to
say we need to be able to have people feel
like they can give testimony to the tendency tribunal in
a private way that protects their anonanimity, because that is
what is that issue with many people wanting to give
giving evidence in this case, those people should be able
(06:51):
to and those people giving evidence in either way, either
in defense of a tenant or in saying there is
antisocial behavior having a tendency, those people should be able
to do it on either side of the case in
a private way. And the fact that that wasn't allowed
to happen seems to be from this case a major
issue from the tendency tribunal being able to make it ruling.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
How can we protect witnesses in a way, because I
mean also people within the neighborhood, I mean they might
not want to give evidence because even if it's anonymous,
you know, obviously the people in the vicinity are going
to be the ones who those who are being targeted
are going to think, well, it's probably them or this.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
Lot, Well that's right, and even yeah, and even then
if you can raise speculation across a whole lot of people,
so yeah, fair enough, But there needs to be a
situation where the events can actually be tabled because as
we're found in this case, there was not There was
found that that king order wasn't able to produce enough evidence,
(07:51):
but there's clearly people that felt like they had a
story to tell about what they've witnessed with this property
that weren't able to go on the record and say it,
and therefore the Tendency Tribunal didn't take it into account
and they said that the tendency can remain.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Do you think we should actually even have a I mean,
when it comes to the tents Tribunal, we should actually
amend the law that if there have been a certain
number of complaints that can be considered, in other words,
even if they haven't got the witnesses in front of them,
if they've been saved. How many in this case we
had twenty five complaints, six warnings, police call outs as well.
Should they be able to sort of consider the broader
(08:27):
evidence without having to get corroborated testimony from individual witnesses.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
I think you definitely want to have corroborated testimony. I
think it would be a tricky thing to say, let's
have a certain number of complaints, because you get you
can have a gang up mentality, we've also neighbors at
war or experienced it ourselves, and you don't want to
have the social dynamic of a group of people who
don't particularly like a neighbors starting that up. But I
(08:54):
think in this case we've got what seems like a
very serious issue that looked like the tendency tribunal couldn't
take into account because of the requirement on making and
making complaints public. I think that it would be a
bit of a stretch to say, let's just have a
set number and as soon as you hit that number,
(09:14):
you're out. That would be a rife for people taking
advantage of. But I think just actually in this case,
having the ability of a tendency tribunal to hear evidence
on behalf of residence in the neighborhood of the experience
they've had and make a judgment based on that without
having to make that public.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
Would be Okay. We're to now then, Because it's one
thing to say this is what we've changed, it's another
thing to get a change cracking, and it's not seem
to get it through the legislative process. This set looks
like the long haul again, doesn't it? For tenants and landlords?
Speaker 3 (09:46):
Yeah? What's next? I mean, on my behalf, just getting
out and talking about this and making a point that
this isn't something that should be accepted in our country
as a as a start. But you know, Act's got
the ACT Party and the coalition negotiations got things across
the line, such as removing the Sustainable Tency policy. We
(10:07):
didn't get everything across the line, like having to enabling
the Tendency Tribunal to have private hearings and evidence was
another thing they didn't get across the line. But look,
I'm going to talk about I'll be discussing it with
my National and New Zealand First colleagues and see if
we can get something moving on that.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Good on here. Okay, thanks Cameron, really appreciate your time.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
I appreciate it, and thank you for more from the
Weekend Collective. Listen live to News Talk ZEDB weekends from
three pm, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!