How Kiwis are being turned away from emergency housing

Sunday, 28 September 2025

City missions in Auckland and Christchurch say demand for shelter is soaring but figures obtained by the Sunday Star Times show growing numbers are being turned away from emergency housing. They warn restrictive policies are pushing vulnerable people into unsafe boarding houses, couch surfing and the streets – contradicting ministers’ claims that those in genuine need are being supported. Amelia Wade investigates.

For the first time in the 12 years Helen Robinson has been with the Auckland City Mission she’s had to approve the purchase of mattresses so there’s somewhere for people to sleep during the day.

“It's Auckland's experience, it's New Zealand's experience, and we are just repeatedly putting that back in front of ministers to say, those in genuine need, they are not being met.”

In Christchurch, the Methodist Mission has been surveying the new people who come through its doors. Many have given up on asking the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) for help.

“What we're seeing is a group of people who are now saying there's actually no point going into Work and Income,” said the mission’s executive director Jill Hawkey.

“[They say], We know we're going to get rejected. We know we're going to get turned down. What's the point of actually going in there and putting ourselves through that?”

The experiences of the Auckland City Mission and the Christchurch Methodist Mission are a direct contradiction to ministers’ repeated assertions that people in genuine need for emergency housing would have that need met.

On Friday Housing Minister Chris Bishop said MSD had been instructed to use their discretion when assessing emergency housing applications.

“It is there for those who need it.”

Hawkey said this has not been her experience.

“I certainly don't believe it's happening because we certainly see people who have got a need for housing going to MSD and being turned down.”

Rough sleeping and homelessness has risen to crisis point for numerous housing providers across Aotearoa - with a slew of reports blaming, in part, the Government’s move to restrict access to emergency housing.

In April last year a target was set to reduce use of emergency housing by 75% by 2030 because the previous government’s policies over the pandemic had led to thousands of families, many with young children, living in motels.

The new government called the situation “a moral, social and financial catastrophe” which was costing taxpayers about a million dollars a day.

MSD was told to prioritise moving families into transitional housing but at the same time it tightened the “gateway” into emergency housing. Official advice said this would “mitigate the risk that the fast track could create perverse incentives for people to enter, return to, or stay longer” in emergency housing.

These changes aimed to make sure emergency housing was for people with no other housing options, MSD told the Star-Times in a statement.

The policy change was incredibly efficient. Come this January, the Government celebrated reaching its emergency housing reduction target five years early.

But housing providers say the need for urgent housing hasn’t gone away; in fact it’s increased and is continuing to rise. In Auckland alone a recent council count showed there’s at least 800 “unsheltered homeless” - a number which has almost doubled in eight months.

The rapid escalation spurred Robinson, the Auckland City Missioner, to implore decisionmakers to “change those policies”.

Do you know more or have a story to tell? Email amelia.wade@thepost.co.nz

A common complaint from frontline providers is MSD’s internal policies are obtuse and it’s not clear exactly why people are being declined for emergency housing.

“I very genuinely can't tell you what is the difference between being declined access to emergency housing because you could have reasonably foreseen your circumstance and because you have contributed to your own needs,” said Robinson.

Under the Official Information Act, the Star-Times has obtained a list of all the reasons an emergency housing grant can be declined; it’s 45 reasons long, 35 of which have been used so far this year.

The reasons include: Circumstances could have been reasonably foreseen, not a qualifying need, income exceeds limits, not an emergency situation, not an essential need, not at risk of losing the tenancy, reasonable steps have not been taken to find alternative housing, there is not difficulty with obtaining alternative housing, you do not have an immediate need.

The figures show there’s been a dramatic increase in the use of “the need can be met another way”. In 2020, that reason was used 1029 times; in 2024 it was 1236 times.

But in the year to June 30, it had already been used 918 times and if that trend continues for the rest of the year it could reach more than 1800 - a 75% increase.

“What people have been telling us is that before someone is granted or declined access to emergency housing there is a whole series of questions and conversations,” said Robinson.

“And one of the key questions that MSD staff are directed to ask people is have they tried low-cost housing and low-cost housing is a different way of describing what we would commonly know as boarding houses.”

MSD denies this. It told the Star-Times: “We do not refer people to private accommodation such as boarding houses.”

But the number of people staying in hostels is believed to be on the rise. Robinson said many hundreds are now doing so though official numbers are hard to quantify.

Boarding houses, lodges and hostels are unregulated - no one knows exactly how many there are or how many people stay in them. They also represent a policy contradiction.

MSD classifies boarding houses as “permanent housing” but the people living in them also fall into the technical definition of homelessness because they are severely housing deprived because they have shared living facilities and no security of tenure - people can be booted out with 48 hours’ notice even if they’ve lived there for years.

Hostels can also be very unsafe because there are no healthy homes obligations and no requirement to provide support for their many very vulnerable tenants.

“Many women who we work with describe a reality where it's actually safer for them to be on the streets than it is in a boarding house.”

Wellington’s Loafer’s Lodge is a tragic example of how dangerous boarding houses can be.

In 2023, five people were killed in a deliberately-lit fire. The accused’s murder defence was insanity and his defence team argued his actions were those of a “very unwell” man who’d been in and out of hospital and under community care for 25 years.

They said he was in the throes of a serious psychotic relapse, hearing voices that told him to light the fire. He was found guilty on Friday.

The tragedy triggered audits and reviews, including one by Auckland Council which audited 44 properties and found 40 were suspected to be breaking the law and many had issues including fire safety breaches, growing numbers of gang-affiliated guests and owners who questioned council authority.

Boarding houses also usually require bonds which MSD can provide as a “recoverable product”. But this can be problematic because this becomes a debt. Often boarding house tenants are transient so leave after a few weeks, but the debt follows them and is attached to their benefit, which can then become a reason to deny that person access to emergency housing.

MSD considers that someone has “caused or contributed to their immediate need” if they haven’t paid their board.

“Not only are you back to square one, you're back to negative square one,” said Robinson.

The Star-Times has also obtained the framework given to MSD staff when handling emergency housing requests and it shows there is an “initial screening” of emergency housing requests to “understand their specific needs”.

“[It] really does indicate how the current emergency housing policies are trying to keep people out, not in,” said Robinson.

And despite MSD’s denials she said the script made it “pretty clear” people were being directed to boarding houses.

“What we certainly hear is happening is that people are being directed to boarding houses.”

In Christchurch, there isn’t the same issue with boarding houses because most of them collapsed in the earthquakes, said Hawkey.

But that means if someone is turned down for emergency housing, they have to find somewhere else to go.

“We know from our entry point research survey that about half the people are couch surfing. So, they're just dossing down with friends.

“It might be for a night or two somewhere else or they're actually finding some shelter on the street or trying to find shelter. So, it's people in doorways, in parks, out by the beach,” she said.

The Christchurch Methodist Church is among a collective of housing providers which has been surveying new people to its service to address urgent sector concerns about data gaps and policy impacts.

The raw data for July to September shows 104 people sought help for the first time; the majority of those who went to MSD were declined emergency or transitional housing.

And at least half said they’d had a negative experience.

“What's particularly concerning is that almost 50% are women and we're certainly not seeing the number of women actually on the streets. So those women are couch surfing or staying in really unsatisfactory places or just being anywhere to be safe,” said Hawkey.

People were giving up even going to MSD for help at all, she said.

This could be one of the reasons that despite a documented rise in homelessness, the number of processed emergency housing grants is falling.

In 2020, there were 154,947 grants approved and 3021 declined while last year there were just 55,371 grants approved (down 64%) and 3948 declined (up 30%).

And in the six months to July this year, there have already been 3612 declined . If declines continue at the same rate, MSD is on track to decline more than 7000 emergency housing grants this year alone.

But overall, processed approvals and declines are falling - in 2020 there were 157,968 applications and last year there were 59,316 (down 62%).

Robinson said the key word to understand is “processed”. She believes, based on her clients’ experiences, that people are screened out before they reach the stage of applying for emergency housing.

MSD’s general management of enablement, Karen Hocking, said MSD does not pre-screen people’s eligibility for emergency housing and every application is assessed on the circumstances of the individual.

“If someone asks for housing assistance, we work to understand the person’s need, assess their eligibility for housing-related financial assistance and work alongside them to secure a sustainable housing option. Ultimately it is up to the client to determine for themselves which accommodation option best suits their needs.”

Hocking emphasised most applications for emergency housing were approved and said MSD provided alternative support to most people who were not eligible for emergency housing.

Under pressure to address rising rough sleeping, the housing and associate housing ministers this month announced initiatives, including providing $10m in additional funding for support services.

Housing providers across the country have formed collectives to apply for this funding, including the Christchurch Methodist Mission.

Hawkey is grateful for the money - but said it is also a challenge because it needs to be allocated by next June so is just a short-term measure.

“If approved by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, we will have a team of workers who have a much more intensive approach to supporting people who are in the streets and looking for long-term housing solutions.”

Half of that $10m fund will go to Auckland. Robinson said the City Mission has applied to provide a “transitional plus” programme which will offer very quick access to housing and support.

Robinson said she agrees with the Government that emergency housing isn’t the solution - permanent housing is.

But the world standard is to offer someone housing as soon as they need it, that way they are much easier to help in the long run.

“If we don't provide that, those people become very, very, very unwell, and the likelihood of them being involved in a health system through trips to the emergency department, through hospital stays, through length in hospital, through the criminal justice system, it just becomes inevitable.

“So New Zealand's going to pay for this one way or another.

“The deeply - I was going to say frustrating, but it's deeper than frustrating - it's tragic, it's distressing, is that we are choosing to allow people to suffer and we're paying for them to do this when actually for a relatively small amount of money, we could have people and we could support them.”