Zizi Sparks: Why charging people in emergency housing 25pc of income is wrong

Many motels along Fenton St are used for emergency housing. Photo / File

OPINION

Should people in emergency housing have to pay for it?

That was the question posed in a

story

run by NZME

earlier this week.

The Ministry of Social Development began charging people in motels and other emergency accommodation 25 per cent of their income on Monday.

Peter Sykes, chief executive of Auckland charity Mangere East Family Services, which works with homeless people, said: "it is taking from the poor and giving to the rich".

Latest Ministry of Social Development figures show there was more than $5 million spent on emergency housing and special needs grants in Rotorua for the three months to the end of June - with the city far outstripping what was paid in other parts of the region.

In the year to March 31, more than $5.7m was spent on 4485 emergency housing grants in Tauranga.

Much of this is going into moteliers' pockets.

The policy change was partly designed to rein in the cost of emergency housing, which has exploded to $83 million for the last three months alone - up from $8m per quarter in 2017 nationwide.

It is cost-cutting at a time when Covid-19 has caused unprecedented hardship and cost cuts are needed.

But it can't be at the expense of those facing that hardship.

If I do some quick maths about how much I spend on accommodation - bills included - it works out to be around 27 per cent. I imagine in places such as Auckland, that could easily soar to 40 per cent.

I don't know how the thousands of people in emergency housing got there.

It could be for any number of reasons. But I believe many don't want to be there.

I would imagine many of the people are doing what they can to reverse their situation and that would take money. Having to spend 25 per cent of income - often a benefit- on accommodation when you are already in poverty could be crippling and perpetuate the cycle.

According to the Ministry of Social Development's website, an unemployed single parent with a dependent child and income below the threshold could be eligible for up to $375 per week after tax.

After giving 25 per cent of that back to the Government, they have $281.25 to last a week. That's food, transport and daycare for them and their dependent child.

On top of that, I imagine they will be hunting for permanent accommodation and a job.

That permanent accommodation is going to want a bond and rent in advance.

Giving back 25 per cent of an already minimal income has got to put the brakes on aspirations of getting out of emergency housing.

I do believe those in emergency housing should be charged but is 25 per cent too much?

I think so.