Investigating the New Zealand policy response to methamphetamine‐contaminated houses

Abstract

The contamination of houses from clandestine methamphetamine manufacture emerged as an issue in New Zealand in the early 2000s. This perspective reviews and discusses the series of policies developed to address methamphetamine contamination in New Zealand houses over a 15‐year period, ending with the reversal of the established policy approach in 2018. The policies addressing methamphetamine contamination of New Zealand properties were influenced by a range of sources including overseas scientific guidelines, local scientific reviews, public housing agency policies, and the local methamphetamine testing industry. A post‐remediation methamphetamine level of 0.5 μg/100 cm2 was initially implemented in 2010, leading to the termination of public housing tenancies, suspensions from the public housing list, and financial charges for decontamination on public housing tenants. Subsequent reviews of the policy led to some increase in the thresholds (up to 1.5–3.8 μg/100 cm2) and the adoption of less punitive sanction processes. A scientific review in 2018 recommended a substantial threshold increase to 15 μg/100 cm2 (a 30‐fold increase on the 2010 standard), resulting in HNZ initiating a plan to compensate previously sanctioned tenants. Overreliance on the “precautionary principle”; strict interpretation of scientific guidelines; and the public housing agency's “zero tolerance approach” to drug use, contributed to an overly punitive policy approach to methamphetamine contamination in New Zealand that negatively impacted vulnerable public housing tenants, landlords, and property owners. Investigation into the extent that all possible influences had on the development of the policies, as well as the consequences of their implementation, should be undertaken.

Lessons from the implementation of residential methamphetamine contamination policies in New Zealand

“…The interviews were undertaken from February 2020 to November 2021. The interview guide drew on previous formative research [12] and included general questions seeking views on methamphetamine housing contamination policies across all stakeholders, and specific questions tailored to the speciality roles of the stakeholders (e.g., industry, public sector employees, tenant representatives). Topics covered included participants' views on policy and implementation, participation in the Tenancy Tribunal, the policy development process, changes in the methamphetamine testing and remediation industry, changes in policy approach and future expectations.…”

“…However, understanding of health risks from exposure remains limited, particularly to contamination caused by low levels of use [3][4][5][6][7]. To compensate for the absence of conclusive scientific evidence, some jurisdictions have followed strong precautionary approaches [4,[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. For instance, some state and local jurisdictions in the United States have incorporated methamphetamine contamination thresholds at the minimum level that can be detected by testing equipment, requiring property decontamination at any detection level [15].…”