Merepeka Raukawa-Tait: A state house should not be for life

Everyone needs a home, no matter how humble. Photo / File

Everyone wants a home to call their own.

Whether they own, rent or lease it. They want to know that every evening they can go home to their own place.

That the things they left that morning will still be there when they return. It's their haven. They are safe and sound in their familiar surroundings.

I, like the Prime Minister and thousands of other New Zealanders, grew up in a state house. A house owned by the Government. My father was a returned serviceman of World War II.

As I recall, the majority of households in my street were. There were a few privately owned houses but most were state houses. I never knew until much later that this was apparently the wrong side of town. Yet there was nothing wrong with the neighbours in my street. We all went to the same schools together, had parents, teachers and a community who shared the same values.

It was "state housing" that bugged some people. It appears that we weren't top shelf and probably not that deserving either. Stigmatisation is nothing new. It was alive and well 60 years ago.

There will always be a need for state-assisted housing, whether the Government provides this or someone else. And with the Government looking to sell, or lease, some of their housing stock to private housing providers, I hope they consider carefully who is best suited for the job.

Looking at the established, and usually large, social service providers may not be the ideal. Social housing is more than a landlord-tenant arrangement. Of course, it requires an understanding of the housing needs of families who are struggling and unable to afford the rents charged by private landlords. It also requires knowledge of the other needs, sometimes complex, that families have to cope with daily.

There is an opportunity for new housing providers to apply some innovative thinking in addressing more than just pressing housing needs. What range of services could be tagged on?

These social service providers are agile in their service provision. They know that satisfying a housing need is only one part of the picture. And they will insist that their housing comes with conditions. One being that this doesn't last longer than five years.

This being the case, families will need to be supported to take a long, hard look at themselves. Changes in lifestyle may have to be made, so that after five years they are in a position to buy their own home. That should be the aim. Social housing should not be seen as an everlasting income stream for providers either.

Over time, the housing stock throughout the country should be reduced. Social housing has real potential if looked at through a different lens to what we have now. A savings plan, no matter how basic, should be put in place as soon as a house is provided.

Budgeting, household management, parenting skills, healthy lifestyles, work training and being work-prepared must all come into the mix. And if a family is not in a position to move into their own home after five years, something is not working.

Providers who understand that having an affordable roof over your head is one thing, but just as important is addressing all the other issues that social housing tenants usually have going on in their lives. They deserve to be supported for a time but not indefinitely.

Dedicated wraparound services should see families after five years taking control of their own lives. And hopefully in their own homes. The Government is on the right track with social housing and it should ramp up the building of affordable homes too. And not just in Auckland. Everyone, everywhere wants their own castle, no matter how humble.

• Merepeka lives in Rotorua. She writes, speaks and broadcasts to thwart the spread of political correctness.