Auckland homelessness spike: Who, or what, is to blame?
Photo:
RNZ / Luke McPake
Auckland councillors are calling on the government to take action over the growing homelessness problem in the city.
Outreach providers say there has been a 90 percent increase in homelessness in Auckland since September last year, after the government
tightened up emergency housing eligibility rules
.
The council's Community Committee wants the government to work with frontline agencies and make sure they are using up-to-date data when dealing with the issue.
"No one I know wants to see Kiwis living without shelter, and we're very concerned with the level of rough sleeping and people in cars, and in tents and other things, including in Auckland," Associate Minister for Housing Tama Potaka told
Morning Report
on Wednesday.
Community Committee chair, Councillor Angela Dalton, told
Checkpoint
on Tuesday
recent government policy changes had "made it harder for people to access emergency housing", as had declining people deemed to have contributed to their own lack of accommodation.
"I think there's some policies that have been changed that show a lack of compassion because they are making assumptions that people are not trying hard enough."
Potaka said there were "a lot of contributing factors and causes" behind the rise in homelessness.
"There's a number of things that this government is doing, whether or not it's the build program, making sure we build another 500 social homes in Auckland, Māori housing, Kainga Ora, 1500 new homes with chips, resetting the housing system. You would have heard us talking about granny flats and enabling those… and I look forward to the council actually supporting those actions."
Potaka said he had "directed officials to identify some potential target interventions and understand the utilisation rates across transitional housing first, and other support programmes, to make sure we're getting the right utilisation of programmes.
"We're also liaising with a lot of those providers like Strive, Auckland City Mission… and a whole range of others in Auckland."
He said there was "different data", and "a bit of ambiguity" around how a recent Salvation Army report came to the conclusion there had been
a 386 percent rise in people denied help because they had contributed to their own homelessness
.
"It's very hard to attribute one particular cause… You can't attribute [the rise] just to a policy change. There's a range of causes, and one of the biggest ones, of course, is disconnection with families and with whanau - and that's one of the biggest contributors to people sleeping rough."
Ministry of Social Development (MSD) said in June 36 percent of applications for emergency housing were declined, mostly often "because their need can be met in another way", according to group general manager enablement Karen Hocking.
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Of those declined emergency housing because it was deemed they had contributed to their own homelessness, Potaka said two-thirds still got some form of assistance.
"Overall, the vast majority of people, between 85 percent and 90 percent who apply for emergency housing, get some sort of support for emergency housing."
He would not detail what actions could be considered as contributing to one's own homelessness.
"There could be a range of circumstances. I'm not going to go into the various types of circumstances that can emerge, but sometimes people do that…
"There's a responsibility framework that goes with emergency housing. People who have a genuine need for short-term temporary accommodation in most big towns and cities in New Zealand, there is support, but there is a responsibility framework that goes with it.
"For example, you have to undertake some training when you're in emergency housing around budgeting and other things, or getting ready to rent. There's a whole bunch of programmes within the emergency housing framework that are in place to support people to transition out and get to a place which they can stay in a more enduring manner than emergency housing - a catastrophe we all know about."
MSD's Hocking gave some examples, however.
"We have some concerns that the data used by the National Homelessness Data Project does not adequately reflect the support we are providing New Zealanders," she added.
Potaka said rather than just government, it was "actually a whole lot of society that's responsible" for solving the issue, including "councils, whanau, iwi Māori, charitable organisations".
"We've got a huge build programme that's in place right now around community housing providers, and a range of others who are actually building homes that hopefully will be suitable for those that have got serious housing deprivation - whether or not that's on the street or people on the social housing waitlist, which, by the way, has come down about 5000 families since we got into administration."
Opposition parties have
blamed the rise on homelessness on the government's policies
.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Facing prospect of election defeat, Government tries to change the rules
There's no good reason to remove election-day enrolment, which has been in place since 2020. And there's certainly no reason to remove the ability to enrol during the advance voting period. You've been able to enrol up to the day before election day since 1993. The idea that election-day enrolment was delaying the official results is also nonsense. Whether people update their enrolment details two weeks before the election or on election day, that form still has to be processed and their information updated. It's the same amount of workers' time, either way. The Government can just hire more people to do it after election day, rather than before, and the job will get done on time. Don't give me the 'well, they should sort out their enrolment details earlier' line. I thought National and Act were against bureaucracy? And now they're saying you should lose your right to vote unless you know about the bureaucracy of voter enrolment and tick the state's forms well ahead of time? We should be making it as easy as possible for people to exercise their right to vote. Aotearoa New Zealand has a good record in that regard. We were world leaders in votes for Māori, votes for women, removing the property-ownership test. We don't have people queuing for hours like in the United States. But now the Government wants to use bureaucracy to trip people up and stop them voting. Even Judith Collins has said it is wrong: 'The proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on s12 of the NZBORA [the right to vote]. The accepted starting point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy. A compelling justification is required to limit that right.' The Deputy Prime Minister says you're a 'dropkick' if you don't get your registration sorted well before the election. But why shouldn't a person be able to come along on election day or in the early voting period, cast their vote, and, if their enrolment details need updating, do it at the same time? Why force us to use an inefficient, two-step process? Since when has the supposedly libertarian Act Party loved bureaucracy? Truth is, we know why the Government is doing this. It's a Government that's failing to deliver and fading in the polls. In most recent polls, Labour has been ahead of National. Forty-eight per cent of voters say it's time for a new Government. Only 38% want to give this Government a second chance. So they're trying to screw the scrum in their favour. David Seymour let it slip with his 'dropkicks' comment. Act MP Todd Stephenson put it even more bluntly: 'It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away.' Trying to make sure only the 'right' people are voting is dangerous, anti-democratic thinking. We all know this change is about setting up barriers for people who are young, Māori, disengaged or alienated from the structures of power and wealth in this country – because those people are unlikely to vote for a Government that works in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. The Government knows full well that these New Zealanders, who have the same right to vote as anyone else, are less likely to be familiar with the rules around registration. The Government also knows there will be many people, Kiwis not as politically engaged as you and me, dear reader, but no less worthy of the vote, who will turn up to a polling place on election day or during the advance voting period thinking that they can update their registration at the same time as they vote – because that's how it has been and they haven't heard about the change – and be turned away under this new law. Democracy is meant to be a contest of ideas. And it is fundamental to democracy that the voters choose the Government, not the other way around. If the Government wants to be re-elected, it should give people a reason to vote for it, not try to exclude voters it doesn't like.


Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
Comments On The Equal Pay Amendment Bill
The group's chair, Gail Duncan, said: 'The Social Justice Group have sent in their submission to the Peoples Select Committee on Pay Equity. This Select Committee was the brainchild of Marilyn Waring and we were very grateful to have the opportunity to submit ' The Bill was deliberately passed in full with no public consultation, no accompanying Regulatory Impact Statement, no exemption from the Ministry of Regulation, and did not meet Cabinet's requirements. Breaching all requirements with no regard to the long term impact on women or regard that these roles underpin the wellbeing of communities, ignoring that many women in these roles are the sole income earner for their families – they are the breadwinners - and all deserve appropriate recompense for their service and labour. Discrimination is what it is, and this Act embodies and perpetuates it, taking us backwards. The Government introduced the Equal Pay Amendment Bill to the house under urgency on Monday 5 May 2025 and it was passed on Wednesday evening 7 May 2025. The approach not only breached the Bill of Rights Act, but was inconsistent with the international Sustainable Development Goals requirements for delivery of fair pay for women. This government starkly says to New Zealand employers (including the government) that while we can't afford to pay women at pay equity rates, we can afford to deliver tax cuts to landlords and concessions to some industries such as the tobacco industry. The impact of this reduction in due process is being paid for by women across New Zealand as they strive to support themselves and their families. This Bill limits their capability to pursue claims by extinguishing existing cases and denying back pay. The removal of pay equity from the books has undermined the future prosperity of all women in New Zealand, particularly Māori and Polynesian, reducing the productivity and economic contribution of half of New Zealand's workforce. This in turn contributes to child poverty, holding back the next generation. Furthermore, it forces the women of New Zealand to sacrifice their pay equity claims to balance the books for Budget 2025. This, we submit, is unprincipled and ruthless. The National Party has always backtracked on any improvements to women's pay parity . It removed the Employment Equity Act, passed under the Labour government in 1990. That Act aimed to address pay equity and inequality in employment for women, Māori, Pasifika, and workers with disabilities. It also established the Employment Equity Office. The Act was repealed by the incoming National government later that year (1990). Again following Kristine Bartlett and the Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota winning the case for care workers in the Court of Appeal in 2014, and a pay equity settlement in June 2017 the National Party publicly stated that its intention was to write off the compensation from the ledger, and rewrite the Bill such that no woman would ever be able to make such claims again. In July 2017 the National Government introduced the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill 2017 (284-1), to repeal the Equal Pay Act 1972, and create a process for raising pay equity claims within the structure of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The Bill lapsed following the general election. Source: In 2025 the Coalition Government has now achieved this intent with the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. The redacted Cabinet Paper 'Reviewing policy settings' (1 May 2025), justifies pay equity changes on the grounds of the Government's commitment to improve the quality of legislation, reducing complexity and costs. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill was promoted as providing a better pay regulatory framework for a pay equity process, based on the concepts of the Regulatory Standards Bill. New Zealand is not a basket case economically, New Zealand has head space. Policy decisions should enhance wellbeing across the population and this is not evidenced. Instead, the austerity measures being applied are counterproductively pausing the economy against public messaging that growth is the answer. The government is forging a pathway to hardship for hardworking New Zealanders. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill is one strategic part of these austerity measures and their ongoing plan to lower wages across the whole spectrum of workers. This began with the rescinding of Fair Pay Agreement Act, effective from 20 December 2023, by the Fair Pay Agreement Repeal Bill introduced on 12 December 2023 by MP Hon Brooke van Veldon, Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The same minister then reviewed the Equal Pay Act 1972, one of the most important pieces of legislation for women on the statute book in New Zealand. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill has set New Zealand back over 50 years, abandoning international obligations to ensure pay parity for women and is another contractionary measure. Treasury has already warned of a slowing economy, slowing spending and lowering business revenue leading to a reduction in the Government's tax take. Taking $12.8 billion out of the economy by reneging on obligations to value women's work appropriately will backfire. This government has introduced a new framework for the use of parties to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation. The government has raised doubts about the comparison between jobs conducted predominantly by women and other roles of similar responsibility, and implied that prior claims had no merit and determined a reset is required. Differences in remuneration for reasons other than sex-based discrimination? The only one given is the employer will struggle to pay and the Government is threatening that it will reduce funding for those activities concerned. This is as bad as saying businesses and farmers will struggle to make changes to meet our climate change obligations, so we won't foist any requirements upon them. This is setting New Zealand up to fail. St Peter's on Willis Social Justice Group opposes the legislation which has passed giving Brooke van Veldon the power to adjust and further discriminate against women without consultation either publicly or with cabinet. To conclude, St Peter's on Willis Social Justice Group will justify our stance by quoting scripture, as we were asked in the oral hearing for the Regulatory Standards Bill. Jesus is clear about our need to care for the poor and disadvantaged, for instance: in Matthew 25:34-46. He is scathing about influential people who circumvent justice with trickery, for example in Matthew 25:23, 'But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees! For you tithe mint dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practised without neglecting the others.' And Luke 11:46, 'Woe also to you lawyers! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them.' Using the words of Dr Martin Luther King, quoting Amos 5:24, 'Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.' This government is making decisions which put them on the wrong side of history. Basically, we must pay women what they are worth and reinstate the pay parity obligations lost in the passing of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.


Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
Selling Conservation Land Is Exploitative And Out Of Step With The Values Of Kiwis
Conservation Minister Tama Potaka today announced the Government is progressing with its Modernising Conservation Land Management proposals, including a new National Conservation Policy Statement. 'Public conservation land must remain protected so Kiwis can enjoy our incredible landscapes and precious native wildlife,' says Forest & Bird Chief Executive Nicola Toki. 'We should not be making it easier to sell off conservation land for commercial gain.' The consultation document proposes making around five million hectares of public conservation land available for exchange or disposal if deemed 'surplus' or to 'support other government priorities'. "Forest & Bird is urging the Government to abandon plans that threaten the future of Aotearoa New Zealand's public conservation land, including short-sighted proposals that would make it easier to sell off or commercially exploit these areas." "The Government is attempting to quietly offload our conservation land, without a mandate, without public consultation, and without any signal before the election that this was on the agenda. 'This feels less like policy and more like an international online auction of the very places that define who we are. We don't want a three-year term killing off over three billion years of natural evolution." The proposal also undermines independent checks and weakens ecological protections. 'These reforms represent the most significant weakening of conservation law in a generation,' says Ms Toki. 'They shift the focus from protection to exploitation, dismantling the very purpose of our national parks and conservation lands. 'This increases pressure on vulnerable species, reduces our ability to respond to site-specific conservation needs, and risks turning the Department of Conservation into a land-use manager rather than a protector of nature. 'Our national parks are not theme parks, they are taonga with deep cultural and ecological significance. 'New Zealand needs evidence-based conservation policy with independent oversight. We must avoid ministerial overreach and poorly informed national policy changes. 'New Zealand already has the highest proportion of threatened species in the world. In a warming climate, it's more important than ever to protect, restore, and expand our forests and wetlands, not sell them off or expose them to increased tourism pressure. 'The only growth we should be seeing is in populations of the 4000 native species that are threatened or at risk of extinction. 'This is not conservation reform. It's conservation retreat. Our laws should uphold the promise to protect nature for its own sake, for future generations, and for all those who hold these places dear.'