articles

Our recent article, “Lawyers on Meth,” highlighted how experienced real estate lawyers recognize the significant risks that meth-related issues pose for real estate professionals and property managers.

The current environment—shaped by government policies, the demands of Healthy Homes compliance, cost-conscious landlords under financial pressure, and a focus on facilitating smooth property sales—has led to a sustained decrease in meth testing for properties. This is occurring despite clear evidence of escalating risks. Testing data shows a steady rise in contamination levels, while wastewater testing reveals meth consumption has doubled over the past year.

This “she’ll be right” mindset towards meth contamination fosters complacency. Crucial steps that should safeguard businesses supporting property transactions are often overlooked or forgotten. Conversations that encourage property owners to take responsibility for decision-making around meth risks are being avoided. Such inaction increases the likelihood of disputes, as clients who suffer the fallout of a meth contamination event may hold their advisors accountable.

Being held accountable carries not only an emotional toll—dealing with complaints and conflict is never easy—but also a financial one. For businesses, the costs can be substantial. Depending on employment agreements, individual employees may also face personal financial exposure.

Are you unwittingly assuming liability for meth risks by failing to address the issue effectively?

We’re here to help. Every week, we work with professionals who acknowledge that these risks are real and seek our support to better manage their exposure.

Call on 0800 638 452 or send us an email to info@shhsolutions.com

We know that when a meth habit becomes entrenched, the need to feed the habit dominates a person’s behaviour. When a meth user’s day job/benefit no longer provides enough income to feed the habit a user can quit, moderate their use or engage in illegal, often devastatingly harmful, activity.

Illegal activity will include dealing, stealing, prostituting themselves or others they have control over (this includes children), allowing meth to be manufactured in the property they occupy or making meth themselves.

The misery that sits alongside these challenges is enormous. While harm directly affects the user, the effects of meth mean it’s impact often does not register. So, the burden of misery is felt most by whanau, who are powerless to act, and the communicates within which they illegal activity takes place.

Government policy on consequence

While it is known experiencing consequence can support behaviour change, in recent years, Government policy on drug use has focused reducing consequence for drug users. The rational appears to be that consequences are harmful. Therefore, removing consequences reduces harm.

But does removal of consequences actually reduce harm?

Economic harm associated with government policy on meth use

Where meth contamination in property is concerned, the level of meth contamination identified in testing (and used to trigger consequences) is directly related to the amount of meth related behaviour that occurs. The more meth related behaviour, the greater the cost involved in reaching that level of contamination. The more money spent on the meth habit. The greater the cost the more harmful behaviour.

ESR have developed a Meth Calculator to help estimate the amount of smoked doses of meth needed to achieve a level of contamination based on room size. Using the assumptions on meth purchase costs included in the National Drugs in Wastewater Testing Programme, it is possible to calculate the impact of government policy where meth contamination of property is concerned.

The level recommended in the NZ Standard, 1.5µg/100cm², is in line with international precedent when it comes to protecting the health, wellbeing of property occupants and owners. At 15µg/100cm², the level adopted by a range of government agencies, starting in May 2018, it 10 times what sat in the NZ Standard. It is 30 times higher than what is concerned acceptable in Australia.

x10 acceptable meth level = x10 economic cost to the user

It is known consequence can be used to motivate behaviour change. If a standard sized lounge/kitchen area for a rental property is between 18 and 21m², the difference in economic harm to the user before consequence can be applied is a shift from between $1,520 and $3,240 to $15,112 and $32,240. The difference in cost relates to the volumes in which drugs are purchased.   

The differences between those two sets of numbers, is enormous. Government policy prioritises the need of drug users to have a roof over their heads. It makes no provision for professional support to motivate behaviour change. The shift in emphasis means the costs/debts incurred by drug users go from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars.

Meth use policy failure

The longer and more entrenched a meth habit becomes, not only does it cost the user more, it also increases the level of risk in how meth is used. Use rates increase. Smoking turns to injecting. Direct harm to the user increases.

Taking a narrow view on the frameworks used to determine policy, mean meth related misery is being reinforced by government policy.

Time for a change?

While undoubtedly there are lawyers with meth habits, this is not what this post is about! Sorry to disappoint those looking for salacious tittle tattle.

This post focuses on what the legal profession that supports real estate professionals (sales and property management), where property related meth risk is concerned.

Overcoming a reluctance to change

The challenge for any risk management business, is that the people whose habits contribute to the risk are often reluctant to change. So, rather than a light bulb moment of risk realisation, you can end up with a profound and sometimes aggressive push back.

Use of the words ‘scare mongering’ and pointing out the obvious vested interest in a service solution provider highlighting risk are easy. However, where that risk is real, this smoke screening simply delays engagement with reality and increases the harm that can arise.

So, having an independent third party confirm the reality of risk is kind of handy!

So what does the legal profession supporting real estate professionals have to say about meth risk?

Richard Hern is a partner at Wynn Williams. Miles Stratford, CEO of Safe & Healthy Home Solutions, recently sat on a panel at the 2025 REINZ RPM Conference, where the impact of mistakes they have seen real estate professionals make were discussed. Also on the panel was Megan O’Callaghan, Barfoot and Thompson In-house Adviser on the Head office Property Management Team.

While Miles’ focus was very much on risks related to methamphetamine, Richard’s focus was broader. Among the examples he shared, were a number of claims against real estate professionals which arose due to their inability to effectively manage the risks presented by meth related behaviour and contamination.

Richard’s perspective that methamphetamine related behaviour presents a real and worsening risk to real estate professionals, was reinforced by Megan. Their experiences of consequence, mean both see this as a risk worth managing.

What to do about meth risk?

For years we have advocated for organisations to put in place policies and procedures that allow the risk to be actively managed. As a minimum, these procedures should include structured conversations that means clients are making fully informed decisions. The conversations team members have, should then be backed up with confirmation in writing of what decision a client made. Where discussions are ongoing, notes should be made against a client file. These contemporaneous notes may not stop the complaints from coming in, but they will make it easier for people like Richard and Megan to defend.

Here to help

As a meth risk management business, we are here to help. We have training available to raise the awareness of staff where this risk is concerned. Make it part of a new team member’s induction programme and they will be set up for success from the start of their time with you.

Meth Use Doubles

Waste water Drug Test Statistics were recently released for 2024. They show that by the end of the year, estimates of consumption rates more than doubled when compared to 2023.

What this means, is the impact and risk to property that comes from meth related behaviour has increased. Our results are showing a greater number of more significant contamination events than ever before.

Increase in Supply and Demand

The more detailed commentary on the report notes that it is highly likelythe increase relates to both supply and demand. In simple terms, this is more people using.

For a home owner, this means the likelihood of an occupant being involved in meth related behaviour has increased.

Rural towns at greatest risk

The report states,“Locations with high methamphetamine use per capita were largely regional North Island towns also experiencing high rates of socioeconomic deprivation.”

Our experience is that these towns are ones with the lowest levels of meth risk management. Essentially, people are turning a blind eye to the impact meth is having on property.

Meth Risk Management

The results show that the likelihood of a meth related loss occurring and the consequences of a meth related loss event are greater than ever before.

Active risk management by testing between the tenancies is more important than ever before.

For people buying a house, ticking the Toxicology Clause box on a sale and purchase agreement, is more important than ever. Particularly if you are “purchasing in a regional North Island towns also experiencing high rates of socioeconomic deprivation.”

Get in touch with our team to find out how we can help you mitigate your risk. info@shhsolutions.com

Image by 8photo on Freepik

The National Drug Harm Index’s $1.5 billion estimate for methamphetamine-related social harm in New Zealand is indeed described as “conservative.” At approximately $1 million of harm per kilogram, this figure likely understates the true impact.

The index fails to fully account for indirect costs. For example, many incarcerated for theft are supporting methamphetamine dependencies, yet acquisitive crime represents only a small fraction of the calculated harm.

This raises important questions about resource allocation. When government priorities and funding decisions rely on these metrics, are we addressing the full scope of the problem?

For homeowners and communities, understanding these impacts is crucial. Comprehensive solutions must consider both direct and indirect consequences to effectively combat drug-related harm in our neighbourhoods.

The Toxicology Clause in the sale and purchase agreement has been included, to ensure that people do not have to remember the real risks presented by meth. Retaining the clause and spending a few hundred dollars on due diligence, can avoid tens of thousands in uninsured losses due to meth contamination. Yet too many people are still rolling the dice on this risk.

Context

On the back of recommendations in the Gluckman Meth Report not to test for meth, testing rates around property sale and purchase dropped from over 30% to less than 5%.

This simply means more meth affected properties are transacting, without the issue being identified at a time when the vendor can deal with it either via insurance or tax-free capital gain.

As a result, we are dealing with an increasing number of people who now own properties that come with significant financial liabilities due to meth contamination.

Consequence

Here are some of the consequences we are seeing:

1. New owners assume costs associated with fixing issues – testing, decontamination, reinstatement and time associated with this work, can mean tens of thousands of dollars in unbudgeted expenses.
2. If funds are not readily available to fix the problem, then the potential for a property purchase to fall over is real. For the likes of first home buyers, who are typically purchasing the highest risk properties, this can extend to guarantors.
3. Some insurers will not provide cover if meth residues are present which exceed levels included in the NZ Standard. If cover is obtained, the policy of insurance will not respond to pre-existing conditions.
4. Meth is a defined contaminant under the Residential Tenancies Act. Ignoring the risk potential and renting out a meth affected property, increases the likelihood the owner will be subject to penalties under the Act.
5. An increasing number of parties managing rental properties require a meth test prior to taking a property on. Properties with problem levels of meth, increasingly limits options to those people who are more comfortable with meth and all the drama that comes with it.

Meth risk mitigation

All properties present a risk as far as meth contamination is concerned. The highest risk properties are those with a rental history – particularly those with short term tenancies.

Mitigating the real risk presented by meth affected property costs a few hundred dollars. It means a new owner avoids the risk of tens of thousands of dollars in uninsured losses.

That all starts with the conversations you are having with your clients regarding this risk.

Professional Support

Our problem with meth in this country is not going away.

The impact of meth affected property on people is profound. It goes well beyond economics.

For over ten years, our team has helped thousands of people work through the challenges presented by meth affected property. We are committed to reducing the harm associated with meth affected property.

Any business which provides support around investment property in particular the property sale and purchase transaction, is exposed to risk and liability as a result of meth related behaviour.  If you are interested in strengthening your ability to look after the interests of the people you serve AND protecting your business, get in touch to see how we can help.

Email info@shhsolutions.com

Call 0800 638 452 and ask to speak with Miles or Nicky

www.methsolutions.co.nz www.shhsolutions.com