Since the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 came into force on 16 April 2026, I have been asked the same question almost every week. Do I now have to meth test between every tenancy?

The answer is no. And I want to be direct about that, even though I sell meth testing for a living.

The two triggers

Regulation 7(2) sets out the only two situations in which a landlord must arrange testing using the prescribed method.

The first is where the New Zealand Police or a local authority notifies the landlord that the manufacture of methamphetamine has, or is likely to have, taken place at the premises.

The second is where the results of a valid screening assessment carried out by any person indicate that the premises are contaminated with methamphetamine, and the landlord is notified of this.

Where either trigger occurs, regulation 7(3) requires the landlord to comply as soon as practicable after being notified.

That is the complete list. There is no third trigger. There is no requirement to test at the start of a tenancy, at the end of a tenancy, or on any schedule.

Source: Regulations 2026, regulation 7(2) and 7(3).

Why the second trigger matters more than people realise

Regulation 7(2)(b) says the screening assessment can be carried out by any person. A tenant can commission one. A prospective buyer can. A departing tenant can leave one behind.

You do not control who pulls that trigger. You only control whether you already know what it is going to say.

What makes a screening assessment valid

Regulation 8 sets the standard. A valid screening assessment must be carried out in accordance with section 3.2 of NZS 8510:2017, subject to modifications set out in the Regulations.

Three of those modifications are worth knowing.

Regulation 8(3)(c) provides that National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health field composite testing is not an approved sampling technique for the purposes of section 3.2.3.2, despite Table 1 of the standard listing it as an approved method for screening assessments. If someone hands you a field composite result, it is not a valid screening assessment under the Regulations.

Regulation 8(3)(b) provides that the requirements relating to competencies and independence apply to the person carrying out the screening assessment only if that person is paid for carrying out the assessment.

Regulation 8(3)(f) requires the screening assessment report to include a conclusion confirming whether the results indicate that the premises are contaminated with methamphetamine.

Source: Regulations 2026, regulation 8(2), 8(3)(b), 8(3)(c) and8(3)(f).

The two thresholds

Regulation 5(2) prescribes the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine at 15 micrograms per100 square centimetres. Above that in any part of the premises, the premises are contaminated for the purposes of the Act.

Regulation 6(2) prescribes the maximum inhabitable level at 30 micrograms per 100 square centimetres. Above that, the special termination rules in section 59B of the Act may apply.

Source: Regulations 2026, regulations 5(2) and 6(2).

Why I still recommend testing, and it is not compliance

Two reasons.

The first is evidence. If you want to hold a tenant responsible for contamination, you need to show what the property was like before they moved in. Without that record you are asserting something you cannot prove.

The second istiming. Because a valid screening assessment by any person can trigger yourlegal obligation, the question is not whether you will ever have to deal withthis. It is whether you find out on your own timetable or on somebody else's.

The part of the Act that protects you

Section 45(1AA) of the Act only engages where the landlord knows that tests carried out in accordance with prescribed methods have established that the premises are contaminated.

Section 45A(3) defines that knowledge narrowly. A landlord knows that premises are contaminated only if the landlord knows that tests carried out in accordance with a relevant prescribed method have established it.

And section 45A(2) provides that a landlord who has complied with the contaminant regulations is not liable, under the Act, for not having provided the tenant with clean or habitable premises on the basis of the presence of the contaminant, during a period where the premises are either not contaminated or are contaminated unknown to the landlord.

Compliance with the Regulations is not only risk avoidance. It is a statutory position.

Source: Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 45(1AA), 45A(2)and 45A(3).

If you are not sure where you stand

Call me. I have been testing New Zealand properties since 2016 and I would rather explain your actual position than sell you something the law does not require.

Steve Hegh, NZHealthy Homes. 021 132 4577.

This article is general information about New Zealand tenancylaw as at August 2026. It is not legal advice.

‍

‍

‍