between different agencies tasked with responding to emergency housing need.80 The Implementation Unit’s report also refers to the limitations of the emergency housing grant initiative. It identifies that while the emergency housing grant settings were suitable when first implemented, they “could have been revisited as the situation became more complex and various interventions needed to be considered as a package.”81 Since the report, the Government has acknowledged that emergency accommodation is “unsuitable to respond to the ongoing housing needs of individuals, families and whānau” and it has begun a multi-year internal programme to review and reset the emergency housing system.82 The Minister for Social Development signalled the findings of this review and redesign would be released by the end of 2022.83 We have not been asked to contribute to this process. These internal reviews are important to ensure policies are delivering as intended. The Government has taken some action to internally monitor and review its policies and initiatives that make up the overall emergency housing system. But constructive accountability requires independent review followed by remedial action. This independent review and remedial action is lacking in the current emergency housing system. In 2021 our Inquiry found that: Effective and accessible accountability arrangements in relation to the right to a decent home grounded on Te Tiriti o Waitangi do not yet exist in the kāwanatanga sphere. This accountability deficit places Aotearoa New Zealand in breach of its legally binding international human rights obligations.84 We are seriously concerned about the lack of constructive accountability in relation to the emergency housing grant initiative. These accountability failures cannot be laid at the feet of a single government agency. While MSD administers the emergency housing grant and other housing support products, HUD is the policy lead. HUD and MSD work together to develop and provide joint advice to Ministers. They have a shared responsibility for the emergency housing system. The emergency housing grant sits within the benefit system.85 This diminishes HUD’s ability to manage an end-to-end emergency housing system. While HUD can provide advice to Ministers on the continued operation of the emergency housing grant, it has no direct control over the way funds are spent under this initiative. For example, it cannot ensure value for money of the services paid for, because that is a responsibility held by MSD (although not yet appropriately met by the Ministry). We do not intend to make findings regarding the appropriateness of government spending; that mandate primarily sits with the Auditor-General and we defer to that office. However, we observe that the inconsistency in funding between these two initiatives in the emergency housing system appears to be having a negative impact. The failures of the emergency housing grant initiative jeopardise the reputation of transitional housing provided in contracted motels, as well as new initiatives such as motels providing contracted emergency housing. Despite the intention for emergency accommodation and transitional housing to operate as distinct interventions, the two increasingly appear to residents and the public as just one flawed system. This means it is far more likely for poor outcomes in 57