Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this

I move, That the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The bill provides for information matching between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development. It authorises the corporation to disclose to the ministry information relating to the corporation’s tenants and tenancies.

The bill has been reported back from the Social Services Committee. I thank the committee for its careful consideration of the bill. There were two written submissions on the bill, and I thank those submitters. The select committee recommended that the bill be passed with one minor technical amendment. References in other Acts and regulations to the Housing Restructuring Act 1992 need to be amended to reflect the new name of the principal Act. Subsequent to the introduction of the bill, the Social Security (Temporary Additional Support) Regulations 2005 were promulgated, and the bill has also been amended to include reference to those regulations.

The information match between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development follows initiatives in Budget 2003 and Budget 2004 for new and extended information-matching between various Government agencies and the Ministry of Social Development. The ministry has completed the implementation of higher-priority information matches with other agencies. Those matches have resulted in savings to taxpayers and have maintained the integrity of the social assistance system. The ministry has now engaged with Housing New Zealand Corporation to implement an information match. As with previous matches between Government agencies and the Ministry of Social Development, this information match is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993, and the Privacy Commissioner will report back on the operation of the match.

The information match will help to minimise the overpayment of benefits and student allowances, help with the recovery of beneficiary and student debt that arises from any such overpayment, and help with the detection of fraud. In addition to minimising benefit overpayments, the information match may benefit tenants, their partners, and their dependants by enabling the Ministry of Social Development to address situations where people are not receiving their full entitlement to social assistance. For example, the Ministry of Social Development may make a tenant who is leaving a Housing New Zealand Corporation tenancy aware of the accommodation supplement and other assistance that may be available from the Ministry of Social Development for private sector renters.

Information-matching rules under the Privacy Act require that individuals who will be affected by the programme are notified. Housing New Zealand Corporation will undertake targeted publicity before the implementation of the information-matching programme and throughout its operation, to comply with the information-matching rules in the Privacy Act. All new and existing Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants will be made aware that certain information supplied by the corporation may be provided to the Ministry of Social Development for information-matching purposes. The bill does not allow for the ministry to provide the corporation with personal information regarding tenants and their partners.

The bill renames the Housing Restructuring Act 1992 as the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992 to make it clear that the Act provides for tenancy matters. The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Privacy Act to include Housing New Zealand Corporation and Housing New Zealand Ltd as specified agencies for the purpose of information sharing.

In closing, I say the bill extends information matching between agencies so as to improve the integrity of the social assistance system, and, as such, it should be welcomed by all. I am pleased to commend the bill to the House.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) Link to this

I rise to support the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. The two main purposes of the bill are to amend the Housing Restructuring Act 1992 by renaming it and inserting in it information-matching provisions that authorise Housing New Zealand Corporation to disclose information about tenants and tenancies to the department responsible for the administration of the Social Security Act 1964. Why would members not support this bill? It is interesting to note that National introduced this legislation in 1999. At that time Labour did not see the light or see the importance of having information matching with Housing New Zealand and social security services. But Labour does see the importance of that now, and we welcome its progress on the matter.

The bill increases transparency and openness in the State’s social services agency. Of course, Housing New Zealand Corporation is a social services agency. State housing is a social service—and who would argue that we should not have social housing for the needy—as is the Ministry of Social Development, with all the sorts of social services that it provides. Those social services include the unemployment benefit, the domestic purposes benefit, and other benefits that those who are struggling require from time to time—hopefully just for short periods.

So the bill increases transparency and openness. The Minister has canvassed the issue over privacy rights being protected. I know that the Greens oppose the bill, and perhaps we will hear a bit more from Sue Bradford later on the reasons for that. I know that part of the Greens’ reasoning concerns the fact that privacy rights should be given over voluntarily, and not be required by legislation. Our concern, of course, is in respect of the ratbags out there—and they are a minority—who are ripping off the system, whether it be in the Housing New Zealand portfolio, the State housing portfolio, or in the area of receiving benefits from the taxpayer. Why would those ratbags want to voluntarily disclose their private information? They would not want to voluntarily disclose information that would have them caught, would they? No. They would not want to voluntarily disclose information that would make the public see through their sinister games ripping off the taxpayers of this country, would they?

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) Link to this

I am pleased to rise to speak in the second reading of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. I was also very pleased the Social Services Committee, which I chair, received this bill and took it through the select committee process. The bill was referred to the committee on 13 December 2005. Submissions closed on 27 February 2006. We considered two submissions and were grateful for the advice we received from the Housing New Zealand Corporation, the Ministry of Social Development, and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Also, I would like to thank all my colleagues on the select committee for their effort in dispatching this bill back to the House as rapidly as they have.

The bill authorises Housing New Zealand Corporation to disclose to the Ministry of Social Development information relating to its tenants and tenancies. The Ministry of Social Development will use the information to determine eligibility for all forms of financial assistance granted under the Social Security Act 1964 and the Student Allowances Regulations 1998, and to recover debts owed to the Crown in respect of those benefits. This is the result of the 2003 and 2004 Budgets, in which Cabinet approved information matching between those two agencies in order to improve the integrity of the income support system. The sharing of information will minimise benefit and student allowance debt overpayments by Housing New Zealand tenants and also help with the recovery of overpayments when they occur. This information-matching programme is another layer in the Government’s effort to protect the integrity of the benefit system. This will result not only in savings but also in an enhanced credibility of the benefit system. Information matching could lead to an anticipated saving of around $1.4 million a year. Expected savings are made in overpayments of benefits and allowances and debt recovered, less the cost of recovery.

People can from time to time find themselves, quite inadvertently at times, at odds with regard to their benefits or allowances—perhaps having been overpaid and not acting quickly enough to rectify the situation. Debt accrues and people can find themselves in quite a lot of trouble. I believe that this kind of legislation will assist in minimising that situation. Also, it is worth remembering that when people have quite purposefully gone about trying to defraud our benefit system, it is incumbent on any Government that happens to be in office at the time to maintain, uphold, and improve upon the integrity of the welfare benefit system for all New Zealanders. This bill certainly addresses the loopholes that can sometimes occur for some people.

Just as I head towards concluding my brief contribution to this reading, I recall one effort made in the late 1980s by the then Labour Government, relating to the incredible benefit fraud that was being detected throughout the system at the time. It was what I call quite an innovation in liberating some people from being caught up fraudulently in the benefit system. The then Labour Government instigated over a period of a couple of years an amnesty that cleared the decks, enabling many people to unburden themselves of debts they had accrued or of fraudulent activities that had not yet been detected. It liberated many people, enabling them to start again with clean slates. This legislation will minimise any possibility of people being able to defraud the benefit system, and information matching will assist in that.

ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) Link to this

I rise to speak as a member of the Social Services Committee in support of the second reading of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill.

The bill we are debating today does a couple of things: it changes the name of the legislation to that very long mouthful of words—but a more accurate description—and establishes information matching between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development. That is a one-way information-matching system. The Social Services Committee was given four reasons for the necessity of that matching: firstly, to assist the Ministry of Social Development in minimising and recovering beneficiary and student debt from benefit and allowance overpayments, secondly, to provide early intervention in cases that could result in the creation of substantial debt, thirdly, to assist in the detection of fraud and to help to track people who are in debt to the Ministry of Social Development, and, fourthly and finally, to identify beneficiaries who are not receiving the correct income support entitlements. In other words, we are looking to uncover fraud, prevent the accumulation of excessive debt, and make sure that people receive their correct entitlements.

National supports this bill, for three reasons. The first reason is that we tried to introduce legislation similar to this bill in 1999, but Labour opposed it. We raised at that time concerns about fraud, about people accumulating debt—getting themselves into a position they could never see a way to get out of—and about ensuring fairness, so that people received what they were entitled to receive. If we were a bit churlish, we could perhaps say today to Labour members that we told them so. However, we are supporting this bill because it is well overdue.

The second reason why we are supporting the bill is that it increases transparency and openness. I refer to the analysis in the report of the Privacy Commissioner to the select committee, which states: “Very large sums of money are paid out by the Ministry of Social Development in delivering welfare assistance. We readily accept that the department’s objectives, which seek to protect that money, relate to matters of significant public importance.” National certainly accepts that analysis and agrees that the transfer of information should be seen to happen clearly and transparently.

Some discussion took place about information sharing outside any agreed protocols. In particular, the submission from the Dunedin Community Law Centre highlighted concerns around informal information-sharing between agencies, and expressed fears that allowing such information sharing to happen with the consent of the State had the potential to further undermine respect for the code of conduct. I disagree with that. I actually think this legislative change, to formalise and make very transparent and clear the transfer of information, makes any informal sharing of information and ignoring of protocols much tougher.

The third reason why National supports this bill is to address some of the issues my colleague Mr Heatley raised around State house tenants benefiting from boarders and thereby supplementing their incomes fraudulently. The statistics quoted by the Minister of Housing at the end of last year show that nearly 7,000 State tenants had paying boarders. Members may ask what is wrong with that. Actually, I have no great problem with it if it is done within the rules. I accept what Mr Heatley said about a tenant having six boarders; I think that is excessive. But in my office this week I saw an elderly gentleman who lives in a State house on an income-related rent and really stretches to make ends meet. He lives up the East Coast, so he has relatively high transportation costs. All his provisions cost more than they would elsewhere because he lives in a remote rural area. All he wanted was to be able to have a relative board with him and supplement his income in order to make his benefit go a little further. Nothing is wrong with that at all; it is quite within the rules. All he required from me was to get that set out in writing by Housing New Zealand Corporation to make sure he was covered. I applaud that gentleman for his efforts to make sure, in his words, that he was not “ripping anyone off”.

National has no problem with people who play within the rules. But a large number of tenants in State houses receive money from boarders and do not declare the rent they receive from them as part of their income. One of the major outcomes of this information sharing is that if people do not declare such income and that income cannot be considered in the annual review of State tenants carried out by Housing New Zealand Corporation, then it will be found they are defrauding the New Zealand taxpayers who are helping them. The outcome of this information sharing is that if Housing New Zealand Corporation knows that more people than its tenants are living in a house and some are paying board, then that information can be sent to the Ministry of Social Development, which can then make its own inquiries about the income that is actually being received into that household and alter the income-related rents accordingly. That is a fair way to deal with people who receive assistance from New Zealand taxpayers. So National supports this bill for those three reasons.

The select committee received only two submissions on the bill. One was from the New Zealand Property Investors Federation Inc., which supported the proposals. I thank it for its quite comprehensive submission. The property investors supported what was being proposed—of course they did—but also wanted the bill to be extended to enable the Ministry of Social Development to supply the Ministry of Justice and its officials with specific address-for-service data, to improve the tracking and enforcement of court-ordered money orders. The officials ruled that that was outside the scope of the bill, which was a bit disappointing.

The property investors referred to the 2003 agreement that under a tenancy tribunal judgment, creditors could be given assistance to trace tribunal debtors by the provision of access to some Government-held address information. They made the point that private landowners are owed between $5 million and $6 million in rent arrears, and at least $43 million for damage. They are continually frustrated at their inability to track down tenants who have disappeared but are still within the State system. Many of those tenants are known to the State and still actually receive benefits from the State, whilst owing millions of dollars for both damage and outstanding rents to people who have provided them with accommodation. It was a great pity that that matter was deemed to be outside the scope of the bill and to learn that the 2003 agreement is obviously not working.

The second submission was from the Dunedin Community Law Centre. It was concerned about how to protect individuals from multiple investigations by agencies. It cited the stress and trauma experienced by individuals and families when a number of agencies is investigating them. That matter, too, was dismissed by the officials, on the premise that there would not be a two-way match and that the information matching would be between only the two organisations.

The select committee largely supported this bill; I think only the Greens dissented. This legislation is well overdue. National will not say too loudly or too often to Government members that we told them so, but we support the second reading of this bill.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

I make this contribution to the debate on behalf of New Zealand First, and I want to say from the outset that this House has an obligation and a responsibility to ensure that the legislation we pass, particularly in relation to taxpayer funds, provides a protection from fraud. New Zealand First will support any bill that protects and ensures the credibility of taxpayer expenditure. Notwithstanding the reasons previous speakers have provided to the House for supporting this bill, we support it particularly in terms of the credibility of taxpayer expenditure. I quote from the background to the bill set out in the Bills Digest: “The Bill has been introduced to ‘help minimise overpayments of benefits and student allowances, help the recovery of beneficiary and student debt arising from those overpayments,”—I suggest that some of the comments about the use of overpayments were that it was actually fraud—“and help the detection of fraud. More generally, the match will be another layer in the [Ministry of Social Development’s] efforts to protect the integrity of the benefit system’.”

This bill amends the Housing Restructuring Act of 1992 and, as a consequence, the Privacy Act of 1993. It enables Housing New Zealand Corporation to disclose information about tenants and tenancies to the Ministry of Social Development as the department responsible for the administration of the Social Security Act. New Zealand First supports the intent of this bill because we believe it will help to prevent further abuse of the benefit system, plus minimise the opportunities for fraudulent use of taxpayers’ money. It will also help to detect and minimise benefit and student allowance overpayments.

During the first reading we expressed concern about the privacy issues this bill raises and the ease with which this age of electronic information affords intrusion into people’s private lives. The age of Big Brother is well and truly upon us now and we need to exercise the utmost caution and vigilance when applying to legislation what technology now allows. Just because the means are there does not mean we need to use them. However, we are satisfied that any information sharing carried out under this legislation will be subject to strict controls, and sought only for the purposes outlined in the bill. Checks and balances are vital in the exercise of democracy, and this bill is no exception to that. The rules relating to the use and disposal of information, as laid out in Part 10 of the Privacy Act, certainly apply to this legislation.

The information age is a double-edged sword in the sense that it enables unnecessary and abhorrent intrusion into our private lives, which we must do all we can to prevent. However, it also allows for better detection and prevention of abuse of systems and fraudulent use of taxpayers’ money. Too often in the public sector the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Now that we have the technology that allows us to detect and prevent fraud, or, conversely, departmental errors, we should use it.

New Zealand First is satisfied that the Ministry of Social Development and Housing New Zealand Corporation, as the two Government departments affected by this bill, will use that technology sparingly and that they will use it to maximise people’s benefit entitlements as well as to detect fraud, and that they will apply the legislation with the intention with which it is written.

I want to comment on some things that have been said about the number of boarders some State tenants have. Although some allusion was made to certain supporters of certain political parties, I suggest that some of the families they talk about having two, three, or six boarders, actually number six, eight, or 10. If we are going to be pedantic about that, we need to define what constitutes a family. I know that in the case of some of my relatives, although eight, 10, or 12 people may be living in one house, they are all related. Some of them are descendants of the same mother and father. We talk about addressing the social issues our country confronts. Without exception, everyone talks about the support of the family.

Therefore, I bring that to the notice of the House. Although we make those general comments, some families have those numbers but they do not fit the description of the word “family” as it has been applied in this debate.

This bill should be seen as a forerunner for other similar communications between Government departments. I refer to the issue of those who owe outstanding fines and who are about to flee the country. I refer to the immigration laws, and hopefully during the review process of the Immigration Service these sorts of things will be picked up. At the end of the day, I reaffirm New Zealand First’s support for this bill. We see it as another way of ensuring the prevention of fraudulent use of taxpayer funding.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this

The Green Party continues to oppose this bill, and I believe at this stage that, unfortunately, we are likely to be the only party in the House to do so. Although many members of the public and members of Parliament are quite quick to get upset about what they see as infringements on the privacy of citizens in general, when it comes to beneficiaries not many of us will stand up for their rights to any form of protection at all. The Green Party believes there are already other means whereby Work and Income can find out endless details about the private lives of beneficiaries, including their rent details, without information-matching programmes being extended so that the Housing New Zealand Corporation can disclose information about State tenants to the Ministry of Social Development.

This bill is neither desirable nor necessary, nor has it had the sort of public scrutiny I think it deserves. It is one of those small pieces of legislation that fall between the cracks of public consciousness, and I believe that because submissions were called for over the summer period and over a very brief time frame, we ended up with only two groups making submissions and having any input. That is not democracy at its finest. However, we now live with the consequences, which are that the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill is going to pass through this Parliament with very little public scrutiny, awareness, or questioning of what it contains, at all.

There are a number of reasons why the Green Party continues to oppose this bill. First of all, we have a broad concern about the proliferation of information-matching programmes operating between Government departments and agencies. Those have grown from 20 such formal arrangements in 1995-96 to around 72 in 2004-05, according to the 2005 annual report of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. All these programmes mean that the State is intruding more and more into the lives of ordinary New Zealanders at a level of which I think most of us are unaware. I think that Parliament should take a close look whenever parts of the State seek to extend their information-sharing powers, whatever class of citizens might be affected, and members should very carefully consider whether the new extension is actually necessary.

Otherwise, we may as well all end up being microchipped—with all relevant data implanted inside our heads or wherever—as we go through life, and be done with it. That is not as silly as it sounds. For example, in America there are over 100 medical centres and hospitals that use the first human implantable, passive radio frequency, identification microchip. There is mother and baby tagging, which is a huge growth area, with some 900 US institutions using it. The Mexican Attorney-General has had himself and several of his staff microchipped. The Colombian President has suggested implanting microchips in Colombian workers to ensure they return home after working in the United States. In Cincinnati a company is requiring any employee who works in its secure data centre to be implanted with a microchip. Some might be wondering why I am talking about microchipping of humans in this debate. It is because I fear that if we start down that road in this country—and dogs are only the first step—prisoners and beneficiaries will be the first classes of citizens to be microchipped, because very few people in this place will stand up for their rights to privacy and human dignity. It is not just dogs that we need to worry about when it comes to microchipping.

The second reason why the Green Party does not support this pernicious little bill is that it deliberately puts Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants into a separate category from any other class of tenants. People who rent from a private landlord, a city council or a community sector housing provider will not be subject to the new information-matching measures with Work and Income, but people who are in State houses will be. We believe it is inappropriate to establish two classes of tenant in that way, each with different privacy rights from the other. There is simply no logic to it although, of course, we would not support the extension of these provisions to all landlords. There is a fundamental principle at stake, however, and that is that all tenants should be treated the same with regard to the privacy of their personal information, regardless of the identity of their landlords.

Thirdly, the Green Party questions whether this bill is really necessary. At the moment, when someone applies for a benefit from Work and Income, endless details about personal circumstances—including details about the person’s accommodation to the nth degree—are required to be supplied. If, on top of that, the Ministry of Social Development wants to acquire information directly from the Housing New Zealand Corporation, all it has to do is to ask for written authority from the person concerned so that tenancy information—for example, how much the rent is—can be shared and confirmed. That sort of information is shared and supplied all the time on the basis of informed consent, which is far preferable to a system of going through some shadowy information-matching programme that most people affected by will have no idea exists.

In response to those in the House today who say that in some cases the Ministry of Social Development might need those extra powers to extract the required information, I say that in fact such powers already exist under the Social Security Act. The Ministry of Social Development can investigate the circumstances of people who may not voluntarily agree to such information being already shared by their Housing New Zealand Corporation landlord. Section 98 of the Privacy Act 1993 contains guidelines to the Privacy Commissioner’s role in relation to information-matching arrangements. One of the things that is supposed to be considered when looking at whether to set up a new programme is the question of whether the programme’s goals can be achieved by other means. This bill should not be quietly slipping through with such widespread support in the House when, in fact, those means exist already.

Finally, the Green Party also believes that one of the main justifications for putting up this legislation is far from convincing. During the select committee process, officials were at pains to tell us that one of the reasons for this bill was that by sharing that information between the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development, people were more likely to get their full and accurate benefit entitlements. Although it is possible, I guess, that that could happen in a tiny fraction of cases, I would have a lot more faith in such a rationale if most, if not all, beneficiaries were getting their full benefit entitlements already. In fact, despite the good work that has been done in recent years to improve the culture and practices at Work and Income, there is still a wide variation around the country in the way people are treated, in terms of different offices and different case managers. Many beneficiaries still need help from advocacy groups and from social service agencies in order to access their full entitlements, and I believe that Work and Income puts a far higher priority on ensuring people do not rip off the system than it does on making sure people get every dollar of support to which they are, or may be, entitled.

The extension of the data-matching powers of the State contained in this bill are uncalled for and unnecessary. Arguments that it is really about helping to maximise people’s benefit entitlements are, I think, misleading and far from convincing, so the Green Party will continue to oppose this bill through all stages.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Tēnā tātou te Whare. The Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill is a sad case of “Play it again, Sam.” without a happy ending. In its capacity to instruct the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development to look at the relationship between the income support systems and tenants, it takes this nation back in time.

Fifty years ago in this House similar debates were being held on the future of housing and tenancy. In Opposition from 1949 to 1957, Te Uri o Hau and Ngāti Whātua leader and politician Tapihana Paikea relentlessly highlighted the inability of the National Government to reduce Māori housing waiting lists. He described to the House the realities for post-war Māori who were living in fowl houses, disused stables, and market garden shacks. There is very little difference between then and now. Titiro ki muri kia whakatika ā mua—those who ignore the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them.

Paikea also drew public attention to the racial discrimination that was common in housing. Three months ago, a United Nations special rapporteur reported on the significant disparities that continue to exist between Māori and non-Māori in areas such as housing. The Government’s own Social Report revealed that housing costs in excess of 30 percent of income are more common in households that include at least one non-European adult. This House needs no reminding that people who spend more than one-third of their disposable income on housing costs are likely to be in poverty. And who are those people who spend more than one-third of their disposable income on housing costs? They are, of course, the poor, tangata whenua, Pasifika, new migrants, and the proletariat on low wages—those who traditionally ensured that their party, the Labour Party, would always stand by them. Yeah, right!

The housing profile is not the glossy Taubmans tale that Labour would lead us to believe. In actual fact, the proportion of Māori households who find that they have spent more than a third of their disposable income on housing costs increased from 8 percent in 1988 to 21 percent in 2004. That is a 13 percent increase in the number of Māori households experiencing significant household costs. The only difference between then and now is that the fowl houses and the market garden shacks have been replaced by derelict cowsheds and abandoned vehicles, including buses and caravans.

So what is different? The difference lies in the remedy. Fifty years ago an exciting new scheme was introduced to respond to such disparities. The desire of whānau to own their own homes was realised through capitalisation of the family benefit. This scheme placed the opportunity of immediate homeownership before those families who were previously unable to find the deposit to assist with the cost of a house. I can safely say that the families of my colleagues from the Māori Party here in this House had their family benefit capitalised, which enabled their parents to put a roof over their kids’ heads—a roof that they owned. When one’s first child turned 1, whānau were able to instruct the Social Security Department to accumulate the benefit without interest. The accumulated lump sum of family benefit was then added to the amount available for housing.

Māori applicants who wanted to arrange their whole housing proposition through the Department of Māori Affairs could apply to that department for capitalisation of the family benefit at the same time as they lodged the application for loan finance. It was a one-stop shop. The Department of Māori Affairs dealt with the Social Security Department on behalf of the applicant, rather than the applicant running the gauntlet of officials or automated call centres that might be encountered today. It was a highly successful scheme—a scheme that many of our whānau still talk about as providing them with a step towards self-sufficiency.

The idea of self-reliance was also extended to those who might have experienced greater financial constraints, such as widows, or couples whose only income was the unemployment benefit. In those circumstances, the department had special provisions for dealing with people’s housing needs—options that meant that people might not have had to capitalise a desperately needed family benefit in order to obtain a new home.

Although I am resisting the tendency to say that they were the good old days, I believe that it does make for fairly grim comparisons when one contrasts the policy of capitalisation of the family benefit with this latest housing restructuring legislation. The sadness is that although this nation has got richer, the gaps between the rich and the poor have widened, and for some families the benefits of the trickle-down theory never arrive. What has trickled down to the poor is poverty, and the leaky home syndrome of the poor—a leaking roof, a broken sewerage pipe, polyurethane “Weet-Bix” as floorboards, and inferior workmanship.

Although in the 1950s the Government of the day was pursuing remarkably active policies to help citizens achieve self-sufficiency, in 2006 these new policies turn instead on the tenants, whose greatest misfortune has been to turn to the Housing New Zealand Corporation for help. The snooping surveillance strategies that will be set in place by this bill target a particular group of tenants with increased monitoring. It is unnecessary, it is intrusive, and it is discriminatory. The bill introduces a two-tier system of tenancy. It creates different sets of rights for Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants as opposed to other tenants. And is it not interesting that the Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants that are targeted are those receiving benefits and student allowances? The focus is not about ensuring the capacity of every citizen to belong to, and participate in, a caring community; the bill is purely and simply, as my colleague Hone Harawira called it at the time of its introduction, the “Snooping on the Poor Bill”.

This bill does not address the critical issues of rent reviews, budgeting, basic home maintenance, entitlement reviews, or the over-inflation of rent that arises from extended whānau living arrangements. This bill does not address overcrowding, it does not address increasing the amount of homeownership by the poor, but it does address the ability of the State to carry out surveillance on the poor.

It fails to answer the call from a whānau living in a four-bedroom Housing New Zealand Corporation house in Ōtara, who came to the Māori Party for help to raise the issue of the housing crisis. In that one home 14 people are currently living, including one daughter, four sons, two nephews, and five mokopuna. The family do not want to shift, as they are established in local schools and in the wider community. They do, however, wish to extend their home by building on a couple of sleepouts, in order to accommodate all the children, but the Housing New Zealand Corporation has declined their request. I ask the House how ridiculous is that.

In the good old days that I mentioned before, that whānau could have capitalised their family benefit in order to build extensions and still maintain their family home. But with this bill nothing in their situation will change, except that they will be even more vulnerable to Big Brother snooping around.

The Māori Party wanted to let this bill have a fair reading, and that is why we agreed for it to go to a select committee. We wanted to be convinced that the bill was not just a new scheme to gang up on beneficiaries—to use information from one department to deny them rights from another. We wanted to be convinced that this bill was not just another part of the ongoing saga of the attack against beneficiaries, but, sadly, the two—and only two—submissions received by the select committee did nothing to give us any confidence that the bill will make a difference for the better. The Māori Party will therefore oppose this bill as being unnecessarily invasive and another model of meddling for unforeseen purposes. It whittles away the rights of Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants, many of whom are beneficiaries. It fails to address the real issues in the sector, and it does nothing to achieve genuine progress for a caring community. And that we can never support.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) Link to this

I stand to speak to the second reading of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. The opening statement by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in its report on this bill to the Social Services Committee accurately describes the bill’s need and purpose: “This bill will authorise Housing New Zealand to disclose tenancy information to the Ministry of Social Development for use in an authorised information-matching programme. It aims to address double-dipping, whereby tenants obtain more financial assistance than they are entitled to, from the two Government departments.” The Office of the Privacy Commissioner then explains that the proposed information-matching programme has been measured by the office against the current Privacy Act—against its rules, guidelines, and principles—and concludes with this comment: “In essence, we conclude that the programme accords with the information-matching guidelines.”

The office notes that the legislation is sufficiently broad in nature to allow the Ministry of Social Development to match against all forms of the ministry’s assistance, and it queries whether that is completely necessary if the double-dipping of subsidised housing through the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the payment of accommodation assistance is all that is being targeted. It queries whether the legislation requires such wide-ranging provisions. The concern of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, however, does not appear to be sufficient to sound any real alarm, and it seems to believe that the normal monitoring operations of its office will be able, adequately, to keep a watchful eye on the application of this amendment.

One of the advantages this amendment facilitates is that as well as picking up quickly on anyone who may be attempting to deliberately double-dip from two Government departments, it also provides the chance for an early intervention with anyone who has misunderstood his or her entitlements, and who is at risk of accruing substantial debt. Disappointingly, we received only two submissions, but they were good submissions. Both generally supported the provisions of the bill, but did raise some ongoing concerns that future legislation could well consider and address. I would like also to suggest that some of the concerns mentioned by both the Māori Party and the Green Party may fall within future considerations.

Perhaps the issue that cropped up that was of most interest to me was the current difficulty that exists in enforcing rulings from the tenancy tribunal. That certainly falls outside the framework of this amendment, but it may well be worthy of some future consideration. It is interesting, also, to note that when we talked about the cost of this proposal, we were told that it would cost about $200,000 to set up the programme within the Housing New Zealand Corporation, and $346,000 to administer. The expectation from the Ministry of Social Development is that it will save $1.4 million in the 2006-07 year and the out-years, based on the information matching that will start on 1 July 2006. I guess I am saying that I hope the ministry is right, because those sums are, of course, estimates.

I note there is a similar set-up between the Ministry of Social Development and the Customs Service, and the set-up cost alone for that was $2 million. So I want to signal a bit of concern that this programme, from a financial point of view, could end up costing more than it will save. If that is the case, it could be considered a bit of a nonsense. Certainly, based on the figures that have been supplied, the programme will make a difference to the savings the Ministry of Social Development can make.

The other issue raised by the Māori Party member Tariana Turia that I think is really worth noting is the fact that, above and beyond this issue that we are looking at and amending in this bill, we need to signal as a party that we are very concerned about where homeownership is going—particularly first home ownership, and particularly homeownership for middle and low-income people and for those on fixed lower incomes. I agree wholeheartedly that provisions in the past whereby people capitalised on their family benefit made for wonderful experiences for families, and gave a huge opportunity to families who otherwise would not have gained that opportunity.

I do believe there are some opportunities within even the State housing sector where families who have been in a home for a while and who may have improved their family household income considerably during that time could well be offered some incentives around homeownership. It would not mean the depletion of our State housing stock; the money could be reinvested back into stock. But I do think the Government should be encouraged to look, wherever possible, at providing opportunities, particularly for State tenants, to find ways by which they too could become proud homeowners and could enjoy the level of financial autonomy and independence that would afford them.

We are supporting this bill, but we do agree that there are many issues around New Zealand housing that need to be addressed in future endeavours by this and any future Governments.

BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) Link to this

I am happy to speak on this bill, of course. We desperately need some system to catch the people who rip the system off. We should stop all the rorts that are happening—and there are many of them. Taxpayers are already losing $485 per week per house every year. That is $485 per State house on this failed system. That is a helluva lot of money. We do not need tenants ripping the taxpayers off any more.

The Government has a $12 billion investment in State houses, and I stutter when I call this an investment. I believe there is a better way to deal with State house tenants. We need information sharing between the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development. We need to keep control of benefits, etc. Because the Labour Government has trained some people in New Zealand to live on the benefit gravy train, and those people rip off the taxpayer wherever possible, we have problems.

I have nothing to hide myself, and I believe that a lot of State house tenants have nothing to hide. Therefore I believe that all honest tenants would have no trouble with their information being shared between the two departments—the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development. I would like to quote a good example of two houses in Tauranga. One cost $370,000 and is rented for $45 a week. The Housing New Zealand Corporation needs to know that that house is occupied by a little old lady. Unfortunately, her husband died, and she now occupies a three-bedroom house by herself. What a waste. We have families with two or three children who cannot get houses like this. The other house cost $350,000 and three couples share this house. By sharing information this situation would be picked up through benefit payments. All those couples, I know for a fact, use the same address, so that could be picked up very easily. The sad part of this situation is that even if the Labour Government, through its department, knew of this information, it would not act on it because it is inefficient.

The State housing sector is a mess at the moment. Chris Carter is a failure. He has lost the plot. He needs a lot more information to help him make some correct decisions. I believe he does not have the ability to act on any more information; if he got more information he would be more confused. However, I still think that information sharing might get the message through that we have some people ripping the system off.

Labour, through Chris Carter, did not support National in 1999 when it tried to bring similar legislation into the House. As I have said before, Chris Carter must now be getting a bit desperate. He is now recommending original National Party ideas. Good old Chris Carter—he is gradually learning.

We need to make the State house market totally transparent. Sharing information between departments would help in this direction. Sharing information might wake the Labour Government up to the fact that the State housing market is a mess. There must be a better way. Any information sharing in the future will help the future National Government sort this mess out.

I myself, as an honest New Zealander—and that is a bit strange around here—am totally embarrassed by what is happening in the State housing sector. We have the well-paid in State houses. We have multiple families living in a State house, and there are many cases of that. These people are making money at the taxpayers’ expense. I find that strange, but it seems to be allowed.

We need a crossover of information to sort out this mess. I thought that State houses were to help people get a good start. I did not think that a State house was a lifestyle or that it gave someone a chance to make some money out of a taxpayers’ asset. We must get information in order to get back to the original idea of a hand up, not a handout. We must get fairer with all the taxpayers and have a more acceptable system to help people who need a house. Information sharing will help this happen.