This is an issue that some of you might find challenging. A woman is being evicted from her Housing New Zealand home because she's facing drugs charges - she's allegedly been dealing drugs.

However, it's not just the woman's home. She has four small children under eight.

Housing New Zealand said Police executed a search warrant at her house and found drugs, and said the tenant admitted selling up to 60 tinnies of cannabis a day. This was in a report on TV3.

The woman's lawyer says Housing New Zealand's job is to house people. It is not set up to play judge and jury. Michael Meyrick, the lawyer, has a point. It's the court's job to determine guilt or innocence, not Housing New Zealand's.

There is no suggestion this woman will lose her children. There is no suggestion that she herself is a drug user, or that the children have in any way have been neglected. She pays her rent on time. That's not surprising. She's been making good money.

She's not a p cook. The house isn't damaged in any way. She is a good tenant, it seems. She looks after the yard. The house is tidy. But she's been selling tinnies from her home.

She's been given 90 days to leave, and her eviction is supported by the tenancy tribunal. She won't be eligible for a Housing New Zealand property for another year.

The woman says she has no place to go and it won't be easy to find a home to house her and her four children. She's in Auckland. As you know, housing isn't easy to come by in our biggest city.

And she'll struggle to find a home given her record -- evicted from a Housing New Zealand home, and facing charges of dealing cannabis.

So the question is, what becomes of her four children? They'll stay with her, but they'll be uprooted from their school, and will be homeless too.

Forget the woman, this isn't really about her. It's about her children paying the price for her alleged crimes and her stupidity.

So should Housing New Zealand allow the woman to stay in the home to keep a roof over her children's heads, or are they stepping outside their mandate here?

Its role is as a housing provider. Should it also be acting as policeman too?