Photo: 123RF
This week, Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka announced the number of families living in emergency housing had reduced by 68 percent under this government.
It is now down to 993 - to be precise.
The difference between a stable home and being in crisis can be as simple as the loss of a job or a relationship break-up.
Long-time child and poverty advocate Professor Mark Henaghan, is calling for changes to the Property (Relationships) Act to better protect children when relationships do break down.
"In both the private and the public sector, we're not doing enough… with regard to families that sadly have to separate and break up," he told RNZ's Saturday Morning.
"There is provision in the relationships, Property Act that says that the court shall have regard to the interests of children. But basically what happens is that very rarely is that section used. In fact, the courts have said it only to be used in exceptional circumstances…
"The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child... doesn't have a right to property in it. It just seems to be a blind spot."
The government's changes to the way families are shifted out of emergency housing into social housing prioritised families with children.
"Since then, 786 households including 1608 tamariki who were in emergency housing have been placed in social housing through the Priority One pathway," Potaka said.
Henaghan said when couples split, his research had found it was often the woman who was forced to move out - taking the children with her.
"Many of the mothers said it was totally disruptive for them. They felt they had to leave the home. But then in terms of the cost to them and trying to find a new place to live and often it's in a different area, they found it very stressful and very stressful for the children and financially very, very difficult."
And in disputes over property ownership, the Family Court "generally" rules in favour of a sale to free up capital for both parties, he said, but leaving neither in a financial position to buy something similar, perhaps having to move out of the area completely.
According to the Ministry of Justice, the "Family Court must make sure any dependent children are looked after when it divides relationship property", to:
- settle relationship property for the children's benefit
- postpone selling or handing over relationship property if it would cause undue hardship for the person who has day-to-day care of the children
- ensure that both people have enough furniture to set up another home, especially if the children will be living there.
But Henaghan said that was often not the case, with court orders forcing couples to keep the property for the sake of the children - in cases where the parent with custody wanted to stay - frequently only lasting a matter of months.
"What we really need, and one of the things we don't have in property proceedings, is someone representing the children. We do have it in day-to-day care and when parents are fighting over children, but when it comes to property, they don't really have a representation…
"Under the UN convention, the best interests of children should oversee every decision made by the state, whether it's the courts or anyone else. Often it is in the best interest to stay there for a year or maybe even a little bit longer so that the children can kind of have that stability, because the study I was involved in… the big thing that came through was having to get out of the home and having to find somewhere else, it was devastating for children…
"If they have to move out of the home they've lived in for many, many years and move somewhere else probably to a different area where they won't know the children and their friends won't be around them. It's very difficult."
Otago University law professor Mark Henaghan. Photo: Otago University.
Henaghan also questioned just where the families moved out of emergency accommodation were ending up.
"It came out recently that 60 percent of the children in emergency homes are of Māori descent, and another thing came out very recently, 21 percent of Māori children live in overcrowded homes. So that's what's happening.
"Māori people are very generous in that respect. They will take people in, in those circumstances and that's a fantastic thing that they do, but it becomes a limit to that. And overcrowded homes are stressful for children and also can create health problems and all those sorts of things. So that's where they're probably going, and that's not the right way to go, basically.
"It would be nice if we could build homes that could house more than one family, because I know for many Māori living with grandparents and others is the way to go, I think it's a great way to go. But the normal of Western-style home doesn't allow for too many people in the one house - maybe a couple of bedrooms and a living room, it's not enough room for two or three families…
"I mean, when we were students, we could do it. But with young kids, it's almost impossible… it doesn't have the stability that children need."
He would like to see children's best interests written into the Property (Relationships) Act.
"That was recommended by the Law Commission when they did a big study of the Relationship Property Act in 2019.
"And I think we need to stiffen it up to remind people that the consequences for children of having to move around when their parents are no longer living together is quite dire, and it creates real problems for them educationally wise, move to this area and it dislocates them staying in that one place."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
