Meth panic was always political

‘‘Hysteria was whipped up by politicians and, to be fair, the media.’’

‘Zero tolerance’’ is an ugly phrase. It speaks of an unwillingness to compromise, to forgive and, most of all, to understand. It implies instead a strong willingness to punish. For years, zero tolerance was an official policy of Housing New Zealand (HNZ), the government agency whose role is to offer shelter to the most needy and disadvantaged among us. Tough-oncrime rhetoric is at odds with that role.

The board of HNZ acknowledges this contradiction in its report on methamphetamine contamination, which explains how HNZ will compensate 800 tenants it evicted following contamination tests the agency now acknowledges were flawed.

The board has apologised to those tenants and agrees that ‘‘zero tolerance as an absolute policy has little merit when HNZ is a critical part of the social safety net which houses vulnerable New Zealanders’’. The board admits the policy was ‘‘based on dogma that does not reflect the challenges our customers face, nor the realities of housing choices available if they are removed from public housing’’.

Many HNZ customers, the board added, ‘‘have complex and serious housing needs and the incidence of alcohol and drug addiction is significant amongst some of them’’.

To call it dogma is another way of saying it was political. The zero tolerance policy was expanded and promoted in a time of public hysteria and moral panic around the use and manufacture of methamphetamine. Hysteria was whipped up by politicians and, to be fair, the media.

It took a report by the prime minister’s former science adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman, to finally confirm what many had started to suspect, that the meth-testing regime was needlessly punitive and had caused many vulnerable tenants to be unfairly evicted and suspended by HNZ.

Unnecessary tests and clean-ups have cost $100 million. While 800 tenants were evicted, as many as 2400 people may have been directly affected by the policy.

It is easy in hindsight to blame ignorance of science and the persuasiveness of the meth-testing industry. But the HNZ report makes it very clear strong political directions were given to the agency by previous governments.

The words ‘‘zero tolerance’’ appeared in policy documents as early as 2004 but the approach was ramped up in 2011, when Cabinet recommended a policy of suspending tenants for a year. Stricter policies followed in 2012, ‘‘in line with Government’s expectations’’, the report says. These included charging tenants for suspected meth damage, which added insult to injury.

Former housing minister Paula Bennett seemed very comfortable with zero tolerance rhetoric. In a 2015 press release she called social housing ‘‘a privilege’’, not a right as most would describe it, and said ‘‘abuse of that privilege won’t be tolerated’’. Bennett boasted of how many HNZ properties had been decontaminated and even demolished based on what we now know to be poor information. She presented dark, emotive images of ‘‘toxic playgrounds for innocent children’’.

At times, it seemed as though Bennett even took a certain glee in appearing tough on wayward HNZ tenants. She was not the architect of the policy but she was, for a time, its public face. Housing Minister Phil Twyford is right to say there is no need for HNZ resignations but an apology from Bennett to former tenants would be very welcome.