HEALTH and SAFETY

A criteria for housing allocation emphasises Health and Safety issues a priority. But this priority according to HNZC practice is restricted only to the structure and design of the physical house. That is if the structure and design of the house consists of any object or mechanism which poses a threat to the Health and Safety of the tenants is standard to Health and Safety criteria.

I want to draw your attention to the Health and Safety of tenants in their tenancy that is not only referring to the physical structure and design of the house, but also to its social and environmental aspects. Such that if the house is located on top of a cliff, the social aspect will have to include Health and Safety of tenants which in turn will consider the appropriateness of tenants allocated to a tenancy in such a location.

On a similar front, a house that is isolated in an area with less lighting visibility at night is also considered a risk to some tenants for example single mothers or live alone elderly. OK, it's not a sexist statement but a fact that women and elderly who live alone have been targets of violent and sexual crimes in the past.

Also, cultural and religious sensitivity to some tenants must be considered in allocation to areas where they are most likely to be abused or offended by the general attitudes of the neighbourhood. For example, the local refugees housed in risk areas have made known their intentions that they wish to be moved out as they became targets of local gangs and tribal angst. They are seen as taking resources away from locals when they have just arrived while others have been living in the area and are still neglected by government services. This social environment poses a real threat to the health and safety of families everyday in the neighbourhood from locals.

A tenancy located in an area where the density of traffic may hinder the lifestyle and normal activities of some tenants are considered inappropriate under such grounds the tenant's right to refuse an offer for such a tenancy is fundamental to the maintenance of his/her wellbeing or quality of living. It is appropriate in the case of families with members suffering from a disability or illness or having very small children.

In their right minds, tenants who are concerned about their young children would most definitely refuse an accommodation located in a neighbourhood where a known local gang is present. And the housing of an alcoholic in a star block has attracted addicts in the early hours of the day everyday. This has created a lot of nuisance to the neighbourhood and the alcoholic obviously has to be kicked out as in many occasions.

Now, social housing also has a responsibility to the welfare of the alcoholic, but it's just not appropriate to house him/her among families with children or among the elderly.

All the above reasons have been practical and serious concerns to real tenants and warrant their inclusion in Health and Safety standards. In contrasts, I have never come across a complaint about a structure or design of a house other than from its wear and tear that is posing a threat of collapse upon the tenants.

It is likely that a compact building housing families with children among alcoholics will become a breeding ground of neighbourhood problems, and to ensure dependent tenants for the future. But following from the social and environmental aspects of Health and Safety, tenants should continue to exercise the right to refuse a tenancy on offer in consideration of their needs fundamental to the quality of their lives.

In terms of priority, is housing more important than the greater risk surrounding the tenancy compared to someone sleeping under a bridge in a peaceful natural environment challenges the institutionalised mentality of old hands in HNZC who have taken it upon themselves to rearrange the RTA 1986 to fit in their own agenda...