Like city facades, rentals can kill
Wellington City Council and the central Government are to be congratulated for taking fast action to address injury risks posed by unreinforced masonry in pedestrian areas (January 26). If only the central Government gave similar urgency to health and safety risks posed by poor quality rental housing.
Seismic risk levels vary throughout the country, so seismic strengthening is a local issue. Wellington City Council has done what it can to ensure the safety of its residents. Wellington and Dunedin city councils are each working towards requiring basic standards in their cities’ rentals, looking at how best to implement the Rental Warrant of Fitness (RWoF). But rental properties are in poor condition nationwide, making rental housing quality a national issue. Central government shirks its responsibilities to its citizens when it leaves the problem to local councils.
Sadly, we know the risks of falling masonry in earthquakes. Of the 185 deaths in the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, 39 were due to unreinforced masonry. Estimates to fix unreinforced masonry in Wellington run to $20,000-$30,000 per building. Failure to fix will bring fines of up to $200,000.
Meanwhile, each year, even when there are no earthquakes, there are 1600 excess winter deaths (the difference between winter and non-winter mortality rates), 8000 excess winter hospitalisations, 250 home injury deaths, 18,000 home injury hospitalisations, and 650,000 minor home injuries.
We know that many of these deaths and hospitalisations could be prevented by requiring the basic health and safety standards in the University of Otago RWoF. Field trials have shown that the cost of bringing homes to this standard averages less than $3000 per dwelling.
Standards for residential dwellings, where we spend much more of our time, are piecemeal and difficult to enforce. For the few standards enforceable in the tenancy tribunal, failure to comply has a maximum fine of $4000.
In our own homes, perhaps we take our own risks, but tenants have little choice. The housing crisis is now so desperate that most tenants must take what they can get, not pick and choose between safe and unsafe homes.
Landlords have little incentive to improve their properties when demand outstrips supply. But tenants have as much right to expect to be safe in their homes as pedestrians do to be safe walking down Cuba St. Safety standard requirements for commercial buildings are comprehensive, clear and firmly enforced through independent certification. Why do we not have similarly tight standards for residential rental housing?
Deaths from earthquakes are shocking and unpredictable, and we are right to try to avert possible future deaths by requiring building owners to fix unreinforced masonry, even though that work is costly. Deaths from poor quality housing are no less shocking just because they are more predictable and more numerous. Central government could avert many of these deaths by requiring landlords to make their properties safe, dry and able to be heated, particularly as the cost of the work is relatively low. Dr Lucy Telfar Barnard and Professor Philippa Howden-Chapman are part of the He Kainga Oranga/ Housing and Health Research Programme at the University of Otago, Wellington.