When government officials consulted on the proposal to exempt emergency housing system accommodation from the Act, peak bodies for tenant protection and community housing raised their concerns that this approach was not sufficiently rights-based.62 Media reporting has confirmed that other public officials, including then-director of public health Dr Caroline McElnay, made clear their opposition to the policy: “The argument is that the risk of ‘market exit’ justifies the removal of human rights (and as a consequence, health protections). We cannot support this argument. We think the Crown is responsible for ensuring adequate housing for everyone.”63 Despite this, the Government chose to continue, and to deliberately remove legal protections for all emergency housing system residents. This decision was made explicitly on the basis that the risk of market exit (i.e., that providers would stop offering emergency housing because they did not wish to be required to meet legal tenancy obligations) was too great.64 When Government made this decision, it agreed to develop a Code of Practice that sets out expectations of providers, “to ensure that transitional and emergency [housing grant] housing clients still have adequate protections.”65 The Cabinet paper also noted that: The current model for emergency [housing grant accommodation] is not contract-based. While motels are usually warm, dry, and secure, there are currently fewer levers for ensuring accommodation quality in this type of housing. It will be important that agencies’ internal processes recognise and seek to address this gap in protection, and actively ensure that accommodation providers meet the standards to be set out in the Code of Practice.66 Despite this commitment to create an alternative mechanism that offered adequate protections, a draft Code was not consulted on for more than two years. The issues we heard about habitability and basic facilities would have been addressed by the Residential Tenancies Act if emergency housing system accommodation was not excluded. In some instances, it is likely residents would have been able to complain to the Tenancy Tribunal about breaches of Healthy Homes and other housing requirements. The issues about tenure security and eviction processes would also have been addressed by the Residential Tenancies Act. Security of tenure, with guaranteed legal protection and due process in relation to eviction, discrimination, harassment, and other unfair treatment, is a key feature of the right to a decent home. Even though emergency housing is by its nature temporary, residents should still be able to have some degree of security about their ongoing housing situation. We have concerns that the lack of security of tenure, in combination with the lack of a complaint or appeal mechanism for the past two years, has led to conditions where residents in the emergency housing system have little protection against unfair eviction.67 Additionally, there is no regulatory protection against residents being given notice as retaliation for complaining about some aspect of the housing service. This exemption of emergency accommodation and transitional housing from the Residential Tenancies Act, and the delay in developing a Code that provides alternative protection, has led to a breach of the right to accountability and access to justice for these individuals, as well as breaching other features of their right to a decent home. This situation is also likely to breach Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 53