URBAN MAORI RESPONSES TO CHANGES IN STATE HOUSING PROVISION.

• Author: Waldegrave, Charles

INTRODUCTION

In New Zealand there has been a recognition of the importance of housing to individual and social well-being, such that state involvement in housing provision has been a central part of welfare and social policies throughout much of the twentieth century (Thorns 1988, Roberts 1992, Ferguson 1994). A particular feature of these policies, from the 1930s through to 1992, was the provision of state rental properties for low-income households, at income-related rents (Thorns 1986, Ferguson 1994).

The 1992 Housing Restructuring Act signalled a fundamental change in the way the state delivered housing assistance to low-income households. The most notable of the reforms signaled by the 1992 Act involved a move away from the provision of properties by the state at income-related rents, to a new system of provision of state houses based on market rents, with direct income supplements to low-income households. A new Crown Owned Company (Housing New Zealand, or HNZ) replaced the previous corporation (Housing Corporation of New Zealand or HCNZ) in the administration of the state housing stock. The new body (HNZ) was charged with meeting both social and profit-making objectives.

The reforms were controversial both in the manner of their implementation, and in the impacts many predicted they would have on tenants (Roberts 1992, Murphy and Kearns 1994, Waldegrave and Sawrey 1994, Waldegrave 1994). The essential argument for the change was that providing the same level of assistance to all low-income households was fairer and more equitable than providing substantial assistance to those in state rentals, but much less to those in the private sector. Proponents of the 1992 changes argued that the provision of income-related rents reduced housing choices for low-income households, created a dependency on state-housing rentals, reduced incentives for people to improve their housing situations, and led to an inefficient distribution of available housing where people did not move into smaller accommodation as their need for space reduced (Luxton 1991).

Opponents of the 1992 Act have said that the introduction of market rents has often meant that rents for state-house tenants have increased by 50% or more and sometimes doubled since 1991; that the rent increases for state-house tenants has greatly exceeded both inflation and rises in accommodation supplement allowances over the same period; that the condition of many HNZ properties has been sub-standard; that the amounts of rent being charged has sometimes exceeded market value; and that HNZ housing stock has been sold off at a time when many low-income households have been unable to access adequate accommodation. From this perspective, the commercial goals of HNZ have been associated with an increasing incidence of overcrowding, homelessness, urban to rural migration, poverty and associated health and social problems (Campbell 1994, NZCCSS 1994, Chile 1997, Clark 1997, Kelly 1997a, 1997b, Waldegrave and Stuart 1997)

Limited research has been undertaken since the phasing in of market rentals, so it is difficult to ascertain which of the various outcomes that have been predicted are indeed occurring. However, in 1997 Parliament's Social Services Select Committee expressed concerns about changes evident since the introduction of the 1992 Housing Restructuring Act. In particular, the Committee expressed concern about the conflict between Housing New Zealand's social goal of providing housing for low-income tenants, and its commercial objectives. In addition, concern was expressed about the adequacy of HNZ maintenance of its properties, and the high level of sales of HNZ properties in areas where there is a demand for HNZ rental accommodation. The Committee concluded that, "Housing NZ's policy should be reviewed to give more weight to the affordability of housing" (Social Services Committee 1998).

Historically, Maori have had a proportionately greater involvement in the state rental sector than non-Maori. Research has consistently identified outcomes that suggested housing and social policies have not been meeting the housing needs of Maori families and communities. In particular, a series of works by Winiata (1983), Douglas (1986), Bathgate (1987), the Maori Women's Housing Research Project (1991) and Kearns et al. (1991a, 1991b) highlighted both the reliance of Maori households on the state sector for housing, and the problems that many low-income Maori households faced in accessing adequate housing in urban and rural settings.

Given that Maori have been over-represented both among low-income and state-renting groups, it can be expected that the major policy changes in the housing area have had disproportionate impacts for Maori. In 1996 the Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit undertook research to determine how urban Maori state tenants were faring under the state housing reforms. This paper will draw upon that research as a basis for assessing the effectiveness of the new ways of delivering housing assistance, in terms of its outcomes for urban Maori households.

METHODOLOGY

It is now well recognised that research with Maori presents particular issues. There has been a justifiable reluctance on the part of Maori to participate in research endeavours that are inconsistent with Maori cultural indices and aspirations. As a result of a growing awareness of these issues, there has emerged a body of literature concerned with addressing methodological and philosophical aspects associated with Maori research. (See for example Stokes 1985, Tuhiwai-Smith 1986, Teariki et al. 1992, Cram 1993). This research sought to address methodological issues relating to recruitment of participants, appropriate training and roles of researchers, empowerment of participants and ethics where participants identify as Maori.

The research reported in this paper involved two discrete primary research studies conducted for Te Puni Kokiri, both focusing upon urban Maori. The first study was a survey of 99 urban Maori households in the greater Wellington region, made up of three participant categories: those who had recently left state housing (referred to hereafter as "Left"); those who wanted to leave state housing ("Leaving"); and those who were staying in state housing ("Staying"). The criteria for Category 1 (Left) were Maori who, after having lived in state housing for more than a year, had moved from state housing at some point since 1992, after the announcement of the housing reforms in the 1991 Budget. For Category 2 (Leaving), respondents were required to be Maori, to be currently living in an HNZ home, to have lived in an HNZ home continuously for at least the previous year and and to have expressed an intention to leave state housing altogether. Criteria for Category 3 (Staying) were that respondents be Maori and HNZ tenants at the time of interview, have lived in a HNZ home continuously for at least a year prior to interview, and expressed an intention to remain in state housing for the foreseeable future. The questionnaire focused on eliciting patterns in the experiences of the three groups, particularly with regard to their current housing situations, and how they perceived their involvement in the housing market.

All households participating in the survey, both beneficiary and non-beneficiary, were paying the minimal rent, 25 per cent of their income, for their state houses during 1991. At the time of the survey in 1996, most households continued to live on low incomes, but circumstances had improved for a few. Eleven households had incomes over $30,000 (household income) per annum. Twenty-seven households did not receive a state benefit, but most of them were on a low income.

The second study comprised a series of eight focus groups, made up of two participant categories: urban Maori who had left HNZ homes ("Left") and urban Maori who were still in HNZ homes ("Stayers"). Criteria for participation in the "Left" group corresponded to Category 1 in the survey component. The "Stayers" group in this component corresponded to Categories 2 and 3 in the survey component. Thus "Stayers" were Maori who had lived in a state house when they attended the focus group, and who had lived in an HNZ home for more than a year continuously.

Each focus group included representatives from eight to 12 households. A total of eight focus groups were run, four consisting of those who had left state housing and four comprising those who were presently in state housing. Focus group discussions were centred on six themes designed to facilitate exploration of people's stories, and their experiences of and opinions about the changes to state-housing provision. The six themes were:

* Particular satisfactions and dissatisfactions regarding current and/or previous state housing;

* Specific needs and/or wants with regard to adequate housing;

* Reasons for leaving, contemplating leaving or staying in state housing;

* Perceptions of changes in life since the housing reforms of 1991;

* Personal and familial...