MORAL AUTHORITY20/12/21
Does MSD have a mandate to deprive citizens of services such as housing, especially for those in most need? Some lobbyist groups among do-gooders have raised concerns whether funding is justified when antisocial or criminal behaviour is associated with accommodations funded by MSD.
We know that HNZC deals with the issue of housing and MSD involves with social development which includes acquiring skills and providing support for those who are on the benefit. And Tenancy Services deals with housing issues between landlords and tenants while the Police are called when there is trouble in the neighbourhood.
There are many reasons why people are on supported income such as illness, criminal behaviour, and anti-social behaviour to name a few. This group is not restricted to any one ethnicity, gender or even status.
First, homelessness is not new, it's inherited from the previous government. And since landlords took advantage of the housing boom, housing became a popular commodity on the market. That means, a basic right to a house is based on income. And therefore, those who are homeless are basically poor. Even folks who are working need support to pay the rent. Well, it does suggest that housing discriminates against poor people.
I am familiar with the antisocial behaviour issue in housing as I was an advocate for tenants a little while ago. Neighbours would kick up a stink and complain about the noise from wild parties and the like in the hood. So HNZC would take culprit tenants to the Tribunal and have them evicted.
Only that, those who have been evicted from the West have now piled up with their friends in the East. So, they continue to party all day and night much to the discontentment of the neighbours. The neighbours again took the culprit tenants to the Tribunal and have them evicted.
Having nowhere else to go, culprit tenants end up sleeping rough on the street. We know that most of culprit tenants are on some form of medication and don't usually have stable homes. They endure a form of illness including addiction. We also know that most of them end up in prison.
Lobbyists among do-gooders of society may want the sick and poor separated in prison or on the streets. And we know the problem in homelessness is its moral ground held by some.
In perspective, the Police deals with antisocial and criminal behaviour. But from what I can gather, police are claiming they are not social workers to deal with mental health issues or other ailments.
The Tenancy Tribunal deals with housing issues, but recidivist nature of the extraordinary kind is also beyond the Residential Tenancy Act.
Then I guess MSD may provide funding for service providers to try and help rehab or contain the social situation. I know, some of these specialist services are volunteers and have worked wonders, for some have changed their lives.
Sick persons have rights to meet their basic needs. And some of these rights may prevent the law and policies to execute their intentions. So, these folks I'm afraid are caught in a cycle of deteriorations. Culprit tenants are going around the MSD, HNZC, Tribunal and prison cycle spun by moral expectations of lobbyist groups.
And you see, a media deprived of controversies seems to have a propaganda relationship with lobbyists groups. They pick up the handle from lobbyist to spin culprit tenants between agencies of public services.
Would you throw a sick person out on the street to fend for themselves? Would you put up with sleepless nights of wild parties and antisocial behaviour of culprit tenants?
The moral expectation of nice people is to separate the rich from the poor. This is effectively stratified by housing affordability and the social outlook of the sunny side is somewhat glossier than the shaded side of the street.
People will always have their ideological, tribal and racial views of society. And for as long as they have the means to their end, society would eventually end up separated between race and status. It's unthinkable of such developments but if we don't do anything, it would become reality.
If there was no moral expectation in the law, then culprit tenants would continue to populate prisons as HNZC and the Tribunal evict them on the street. But not quite; the moral aspect is implicitly implied by agencies and services on the tenant, but explicitly imposed by political groups on services.
That is why I have opted for moral aesthetics to balance the human being and the entity. There is probably no valid argument from lobbyists as their concerns seem deliberately misdirect. But I would begin to analyse the culprit behaviour from the circumstances surrounding the illness.
And the reason why so many people are deprived of resources and services is a moral imposition of lobbyist groups among the so-called nice people of society. I can tell you that many individuals have proven to deserve second chances by authorities and employers, but lobbyists and do-gooders have poisoned those chances.