The Road to Healthy Homes: The Necessity of Stricter Landlord Regulation.
By Samantha Putt
As far as housing regulation goes, Aotearoa New Zealand is the wild west of developed countries. Landlords are the cowboys, able to control and change the rules for the majority with little overarching authority. The truth is the current rental market is as unstable and flimsy as my previous cowboy analogy. The United Nations’ recent report declared that New Zealand housing is viewed as an asset rather than a human right. This description provokes concerns over the future of renting in Aotearoa, as well as the sustainability of our current housing market.
The fundamental debate in response to the United Nations housing report is the framing of housing as a human right. Act MP David Seymour thinks that framing housing as a human right detracts from the balance of rights and duties within the law. Seymour argues that in the presence of a human right, there is question as to who is accountable to provide that right. An argument can be made that the government should be responsible to ensure this right is fulfilled. The framing of housing as a capital asset rather than necessity to survive is a contributing factor to the current crisis. Assets are generally left to the devices of the individual, whereas human rights are the responsibility of the government.
It is important to reframe housing to be a human right. Property Investors Federation executive officer Sharon Cullwick has distinguished the difference between the right to shelter and the right to housing, arguing that only the former is an established human right. The distinction between housing and shelter is so miniscule that the average person can likely deduce that in modern times, they are intended to be interchangeable. Unless every landlord and property investor is happy to camp out under a tarpaulin held up by tree branches, it is likely that living in a house is the right referred to in “the right to shelter”.
Recent changes to mediate the increasing divide between powerful landlords and the average tenant include introducing a property Warrant of Fitness, similar to that required of vehicles. The Green Party has recently campaigned for this policy through a petition. This requires landlords to ensure that their rentals properties are up to the Healthy Homes Standards by renewing a Warrant of Fitness every three years. The renewal of this warrant is extremely low cost, at an estimated extra $50-70 for landlords annually. This policy would result in a balance between the aforementioned debate of whether housing is a human right or a capital asset. Having regulation intervention by an independent agency would increase the standard of living for many tenants.
Critics of the new initiative, such as wealthy landlord Mark Richardson, argue that having a rental Warrant of Fitness will targets landlords, the majority of which are apparently ‘very damn good.’ It is unusual for domestic laws to be based on trusting individuals to fulfil their legal duty. We do not trust car owners to have perfectly functioning machinery, hence why the Vehicle Warrant of Fitness was introduced. This distinction is even more paramount, as the right to own a car is not a human right. It is unclear why powerful landlords expect to be afforded the benefit of the doubt in a housing crisis that results in desperate tenants adapting to poor housing to have a roof over their heads. In every unregulated system, there will be individuals who exploit good will for profit. Even with assumption that the majority of landlords are “very damn good,” this does not mean that the remaining landlords should be able to exploit their tenants. If an individual is truly a good landlord, they should not have to worry about passing the Warrant of Fitness, as they would be regularly carrying out inspections and repairing any issues that affect the quality of the property.
The current lack of regulation on landlords is held up by the outdated notion that renting is a rite of passage for poor University students and young workers, who live in a damp house for a few years before making a deposit on a home. This perception allows the idea of housing as an asset to flourish, as renting is framed as a temporary hustle. As the goal of owning a house becomes increasingly unfeasible for all New Zealanders, it is important to shift the perceived profile of the average tenant. Tenants are not primarily comprised of University students. Increasing trends show more young families and elderly individuals are renting than ever before. The housing crisis encompasses all New Zealanders: the old, the young and everyone in between. This crisis has dimensions through demographic groups. Māori individuals are among the worst affected by poor rental circumstances due to comparatively lower home ownership rates compared to non-Māori. Additionally, poor housing is a severe detriment to the public health sector, with rates of respiratory infections, asthma and mental health concerns among the issues exacerbated by the current unregulated rental market. The reframing of housing as a human right, and any resulting government intervention, has never been more urgent.
In the scheme of things, holding landlords to account is likely worth the trade-off of charging landlords an extra $50 annually. Having an independent body outside of the tenancy tribunal to ensure that all New Zealanders have access to a healthy rental property is long overdue. Reframing housing to be a human rights issue allows landlords to be held to account by the Government, rather than coast on the problematic assumption that every landlord is selfless and kind. “Pretty damn good” landlords should have nothing to worry about, so I ask why are they so worried?
The petition to create a rental Warrant of Fitness is available at https://action.greens.org.nz/support_a_rental_warrant_of_fitness.
The views expressed in the posts and comments of this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the Equal Justice Project. They should be understood as the personal opinions of the author. No information on this blog will be understood as official. The Equal Justice Project makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The Equal Justice Project will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.
Photo provided by Bronwyn Wilde in situ.