Nick Mills: MSD incentive to reduce emergency housing needs to go

EDITORIAL: 

I have been one of the strongest supporters of giving police the power to move rough sleepers on.  

I've said repeatedly that we need to clean up our streets.  

We need safer city centres.  

We need people sleeping in parks, doorways and shop entrances helped. 

Helped into accommodation, not just left there. 

But yesterday, watching Q+A, I found myself asking a very different question. 

At what cost do we achieve that? 

Because if the allegations uncovered by Q+A are correct, this isn't just about reducing emergency housing numbers anymore.  

It's about whether government targets have created pressure inside MSD that could influence decisions affecting some of our most vulnerable people. 

Documents obtained under the Official Information Act show MSD managers are assessed on a range of performance measures, including reducing the number of people receiving emergency housing grants.  

Staff are graded as "exceeding", "achieving" or "needs improvement", and the documents state that if performance doesn't meet expectations, an improvement plan can follow. 

So we are grading people on whether they keep people out of emergency accommodation. 

That should concern every New Zealander. 

The Auckland City Mission says these targets create an incentive to say no.  

The Christchurch Methodist Mission says nobody should ever be rewarded for denying someone a basic thing like shelter. Those are serious claims. 

Now, MSD says emergency housing targets are only one of 11 performance measures and no one faces disciplinary action based solely on that target. That's important context. 

But even Housing Minister Tama Potaka appeared surprised.  

On Q+A he said he wasn't aware of the performance agreements.  

Initially he described them as an operational matter and couldn’t talk about it, but later admitted he could understand why reasonable people might see them as creating an incentive to refuse legitimate applications. 

What else could it be seen as? 

That answer didn't fill me with confidence. 

Yes, the Government inherited an emergency housing system that had exploded.  

Nearly 5,000 people were in emergency accommodation in late 2021, costing around $340 million a year.  

Reducing those numbers is a worthwhile goal. In fact, the Government reached its target five years early, with emergency housing falling to just 591 people by the end of 2024. 

But here's the issue. 

If someone genuinely needs emergency housing, they should get emergency housing. Full stop. 

End of story in New Zealand. 

Targets should measure how quickly we get people into stable, permanent homes—not how effectively we reduce the headline numbers. It’s election year, of course they want to headlines to look better. 

Q+A also found that for 16 consecutive months there were more than 1,000 additional inquiries about emergency housing each month than formal applications.  

So, people were saying they needed a house but were put off from actually putting an application in because staff were grading them, stopping them. 

The most common reason given when applications weren't approved was simply, "the need can be met in another way." 

The need can be met in another way? Was that living in a shop front? Was that living in a car? Was that staying in the park?  

We can always make the stats look better, can’t we? But this matters. 

This matters because the Government also wants police to have new move-on powers over rough sleepers. Put them in jail, which I’m not fully against.  

If people are being turned away from emergency housing while at the same time being moved off the streets, where the hell are they supposed to go? 

This story has the potential to become a defining issues of this election—not because New Zealanders don’t oppose tough rules, but because as Kiwis we expect some kind of fairness. 

Clean up the streets by all means. 

Just don't clean up the stats at the expense of the people who genuinely need help. 

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:07):
You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills
from News Talks.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
At B I've been one of the strongest supporters of
giving police the power to move on rough sleepers. I've
repeatedly said we need to clean up our streets, we
need to have safer city centers. We need people sleeping
in parks, doorways and shop entrances helped, helped into accommodation,

(00:33):
not just left there. But then yesterday watching Q and A,
I found myself asking a very different question, at what
costs do we achieve that? Because if the allegations uncovered
by Q and A are correct, this isn't just about

(00:53):
reducing emergency housing numbers anymore. It's about whether the government
targets have created pressure inside MSD that could influence decisions
affecting some of our most vulnerable people. Documents obtained under
the Official Information Act show MSD managers are assessed, graded,

(01:17):
assessed looked at on a range of performance measures, including
reducing the number of people receiving emergency housing grants. Staff
are graded as exceeding, achieving, or need improvement, and other
documents state that if performance doesn't meet expectations, an improvement

(01:43):
plan can follow. So we are grading people on whether
they keep people out of emergency accommodation. Now that should
concern every New Zealander. The Orcancited Mission said these targets
create an incentive to say no. The christ Church Methodist
Mission says nobody should ever be rewarded for denying some

(02:06):
boy a basic thing like shelter. Those are reasonably serious claims. Now,
the MSD says emergency housing targets are only one of
eleven performance measures and no one faces disciplinary action based
solely on that target. That's important context. But but even

(02:27):
Housing Minister Tama Potucker appeared surprised on Q and A.
He wasn't aware of the performance agreements, and initially he
described them as operational matter. He couldn't talk about it. No,
of course, he couldn't talk about it, but later admitted
he could understand why reasonable people in New Zealand might
see them as creating an incentive to refuse legitimate applications.

(02:54):
What else could it be seen as, Tama? What else
could it be seen as? That answer didn't fill me
with confidence. Yes, the government inherited an emergency housing system
that had exploded terrible, nearly five thousand people were an
emergency accommodation late in twenty and twenty one, costing US
three hundred and forty million dollars a year. Reducing those

(03:17):
numbers was a goal, a worthwhile goal. In fact, the
government reached its targets five years early, with emergency housing
falling to just five hundred and ninety one people by
the end of twenty twenty four. But here's the issue.
If someone genuinely needs emergency housing, they should get emergency housing,

(03:39):
full stop, end of story. In New Zealand, targets should
measure how quickly we get people into stable permanent homes. No,
not effectively, how we reduce the headline numbers its election year.
Of course they want those headline numbers better. Q and
A also found out that sixteen consentnxecutive months, there were more

(04:02):
than one thousand additional inquiries about emergency housing each month
than formal applications, So people were saying they needed a house,
but were put off from actually putting an application because
staff were grading them, stopping them. The most common reasons
given when applications weren't approved was simple, their need was

(04:25):
me met in some other way. Their need was met
in some other way. Was that living in a shop front?
Was that living in a car? Was that staying in
the park? We can you know, we can always make
stats look better, can't we? This matters because the government
also wants police to have new move on powers over

(04:48):
rough sleepers put them in jail, which I'm not against.
If people have been turned away by emergency housing, while
at the same time be moved on from the streets,
where the hell are they supposed to go? Can someone
tell me that this story has the potential becoming to
fire buying issue of the selection. Not because New Zealanders

(05:09):
don't oppose tough rules, but we still, as Kiwis, expect
some kind of fairness. Don't we clean up the streets?
Absolute must? But don't just clean up the stats at
the expense of people who genuinely need help.

Speaker 1 (05:27):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills, listen live
to news talks It'd Be Wellington from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.