and other commercial accommodation suppliers can access government funding so long as they are willing to offer emergency accommodation, without quality checks.71 As already noted, the Code of Practice as currently drafted will not apply to any emergency accommodation. In 2021 the Auditor-General released a report with his findings from an Inquiry into MSD’s funding of private rental properties via the emergency housing grant.72 This report includes significant findings about the Ministry’s oversight of the accommodation it funds with the emergency housing grant, and the lack of mechanisms to ensure accommodation is fit for purpose: The Ministry does not consider that it was responsible for assessing the quality of the housing it provided or that it has the regulatory mandate or capacity to do this. The only mechanism that the Ministry said it had for ensuring that accommodation was suitable was by responding to complaints from people living there. [emphasis added] The Ministry received numerous complaints about the quality of some of the houses that it placed people in. We were also told about dwellings with building debris; that did not have cooking facilities, furnishings, or bedding; and that did not have appropriate consents from Auckland Council. These could have been isolated incidents, but it is not possible to know their extent because the Ministry did not record and retain the addresses of the homes it housed people in, set standards for the properties it used, or have a process to check whether those properties met its expectations. The Ministry also did not have an accurate record of the complaints it received. In our view, although there was evidence that service delivery staff responded to some individual complaints, the Ministry should have had mechanisms to ensure that it was clear what quality of housing should be supplied for the price it was paying. It should also have had controls to ensure that quality housing was being delivered. [emphasis added] While the Auditor-General’s report only considered MSD’s (since ended) practice of funding private rental properties, the underlying issues in terms of inadequate oversight are essentially the same. MSD continues to take the position that it is not responsible for emergency accommodation delivered by commercial accommodation suppliers. It asserts that the accommodation arrangements are between the individual resident and the individual motelier, and MSD’s role is simply to provide funding via the emergency housing grant. In November 2022, the Minister for Social Development was asked whether the Ministry was living up to its obligation to ensure it provides safe accommodation services. The Minister’s response confirms that MSD’s policy and practice remains reactive rather than proactive, relying primarily on individual complaints from clients. Where we receive complaints around safety, then MSD moves quickly to move families to where they are safe. But we can’t respond when people don’t tell us what’s going on.73 If MSD does not require motels to undergo accreditation, or quality control processes before receiving emergency housing grant funding to deliver accommodation, it cannot ensure the accommodation is adequate to meet basic human rights requirements. The Auditor-General’s findings and recommendations on oversight and review mechanisms were clear. Nevertheless, MSD has failed to implement adequate standards or processes for assessing safety and quality in 55