Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3932] 
Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I seek leave for Shane Ardern to assume the Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Mr Chairman it is a privilege to speak with you in the Chair. It is also a privilege to welcome back the Minister of Housing Chris Carter from his overseas jaunt. He has been away for some time. There has been a lot of movement within Housing New Zealand Corporation in that time with regard to the recent allegations of financial mismanagement and the gagging clause which have put this country into shock. Essentially we saw a public servant be gagged by a contract that came from his department. Housing New Zealand Corporation stopped its staff from talking to the media but what was worse was that it also stopped them from talking to their duly elected member of Parliament who could have been any one of us or a Minister of the Crown—indeed it could have been that very Minister. However that is water under the bridge to a degree though we should explore the details around that issue perhaps later this week. 
This afternoon though we are discussing the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. The aim of this bill is to amend the Housing Restructuring Act 1992. First of all I say we support the Government’s moves to rename the Act as the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992 and to insert information-matching provisions in the Act to allow Housing New Zealand Corporation to disclose information about tenants and tenancies to the Ministry of Social Development as the ministry responsible for the administration of the Social Security Act 1964. The ministry is very interested and quite intrigued to know about the goings-on in Housing New Zealand Corporation. It needs to check that the benefits it parts with on behalf of the taxpayer go to the right people—to those in need and not to those who are rorting the system. 
In fact it is interesting to note—and Minister may like to pay attention to this particular point because it is quite a poignant one—that National tried to introduce legislation on this matter in 1999. At that time Labour did not see fit to support the legislation. However after 6½ years in Government I think that the problem has crystallised in the minds of the Labour members and Minister Carter has decided that perhaps it would have been a good thing to support National 6 years ago. Now he has actually grabbed hold of the baton and carried the torch so to speak from that National Government and has introduced this legislation. So how could the National members not support their very good idea of 6 or 7 years ago? 
We are a party of transparency a party of openness and a party where privacy rights are protected but only to the degree that lawful citizens are able to go about their own business in their own private lives. We become concerned where we see rorting of the system—and certainly under this Minister’s watch we have seen a fair bit of that within Housing New Zealand Corporation and the State house sector particularly while the Minister has been overseas focusing on other things in the fine restaurants of Britain. We have seen a lot of those rorts go on under the Minister’s watch and I know that he is a bit concerned about that issue and he is chasing his tail. This year I will continue to present him with the facts on the rorts that waste taxpayers’ money. Week by week and month by month I will put them before the Minister and perhaps he will address them in time. He has addressed this issue—7 years late yes. But grandma would say—and that Minister’s grandma would say this too if she were alive today—“Better late than never”. “Better late than never Christopher—” 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: “—Minister Carter” she would say. The Minister’s grandmother would call him Minister Carter and she would say that it is better late than never. Seven years after the National Party introduced this idea he is promoting it in legislation and I say: “Good for him!” 
There is rorting within the State house system and we see that this legislation seeks to address that problem. For example many State house tenants profit from having boarders. We understand that at the moment 7000 State houses have boarders living under the roof—and those are just the ones we know about. What about all those that we do not know about? We see that in Part 1 those particular issues are addressed. 
I will talk about the new Part 6 “Information matching” which is proposed to be inserted in the principal Act by clause 5. It talks about what matching will be going on and why we are doing that. For example the purpose of the information matching is to “verify the entitlement or eligibility of any person to or for any benefit”. Housing New Zealand Corporation will share its information with the Ministry of Social Development in order that the ministry can verify whether a particular person is in fact eligible for a benefit. It would be a State house tenant. The corporation would provide the ministry with information about the tenancy—for instance the name of the tenant other names the tenant may use the physical address where the tenant lives the start and end date and weekly rent of the tenancy the tenant’s income and any address or other details that it may be appropriate to share—in order that the ministry can verify whether the person is eligible for another social welfare benefit of some sort. 
The ministry will first of all verify the tenant’s entitlement. Second once the tenant has an entitlement the ministry will verify the value of the entitlement. It may be $10 a week it may be $50 a week or it may be a State house—or the tenant may be on the take wherever and whenever he or she can be. So it is a matter not just of verifying the entitlement as a matter of fact but also of verifying the amount of any benefit to which the person is or was entitled or to which any person is or was eligible. The third reason that National supports this information-matching bill is not only to verify the entitlement and verify the amount of the entitlement but also to recover debts due to the Crown. We must appreciate that within the State house sector sometimes debts are drummed up. They are owed to the Crown. The Minister’s collection agency has not been on the ball and debts build up—for example back rent where a portion of rent is to be paid to the corporation or any other debts that have accrued. 
Other debts could accrue where there has been damage to the home that the tenant cannot demonstrate is everyday wear and tear expected maintenance or some other understandable accident that has occurred either internally in the property or externally on the grounds. So debts can be drummed up. If a door or a wall is kicked in or if glass is broken from the inside because of rough play debts can build up. Essentially in some cases it comes down to vandalism. The thought that New Zealand taxpayers could give the privilege of a home to a State house tenant who then vandalises it is a hard one for New Zealanders to deal with. It does not happen very often but it does happen on occasion. The ratbags that perpetrate that sort of activity and damage homes and who claim high-value entitlements they are not entitled to ought to be caught up with and that is what this bill will do. 
So this bill which is similar to the bill National proposed and Labour opposed in 1999 is a very good bill indeed. The National team will of course be addressing part by part the details of this legislation. Again I welcome the Minister back into the Chamber—into this debating chamber. We look forward to him answering the specific questions on the bill that National will have for him. He needs to remember that because National did all the research on this matter in 1998 and 1999 and because we did all the hard slog and groundwork putting blood sweat and tears into it we have a very very acute understanding of the implications of each of its clauses. So I hope the Minister has been well briefed during the aeroplane flight back from overseas. I hope that he took time out from his first-class travel to talk to his officials back in the baggage compartment and to receive a good briefing on this legislation. 
I would also like to talk about the new section 69 “Information and details to be disclosed” which is in the new Part 6 being inserted into the principal Act by clause 5. The examples in that section are very very detailed and I would like to take the opportunity to speak about them later. 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 This bill is quite a good idea but it needs more teeth. I think the information should be going both ways between the Ministry of Social Development and the Housing New Zealand Corporation. The corporation should get the information from social services as this would help to catch a lot of multi-benefits that are being paid out when they should not have to be paid out. I know of many cases where one household is receiving two or three benefits and the recipients are all using the same address—just so members know—and that could be picked up quite easily. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: It’s unacceptable. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: That is right. 
I do worry about whether the Labour Government can be trusted with more information if it were given after David Benson-Pope—the honourable if he is—sent a letter to 60000 State house tenants telling them that if National got into Government all tenants would be kicked out of their State houses. How did he get that information? I did not think we could get this information. [ 
Interruption 
] The member should just keep quiet. I am trying hard here. I have a lot to say about nothing. 
I suggest we change the name of this bill to “Custer’s Last Stand”—I mean “Carter’s Last Stand”; I had better get that right. The whole State housing sector is a mess and badly needs sorting out. There must be a better way and the National Government will find it with my help of course. We will help the disadvantaged and still make it affordable. We will not tell Mr Anderton in the House about where I will sell State houses. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: You’re in favour of everything that’s good and against everything that’s bad. Is that right? 
BOB CLARKSON 
: Just keep talking; it fills up my 5 minutes. We have 7000 houses with boarders living in them who are not paying one dollar to the Housing New Zealand Corporation to help lessen its major drain on taxpayers. We have high-income earners in State houses. What is going on? I thought those houses were a hand up not a handout. 
The Government should wake up. Labour Government members have been in the House for 6½ years I have been here for only 8 months and all I hear is damn excuses—I would have said “bloody excuses” but that would be rude—and the Government still has not got it right. Even the name of the bill needs changing as I said. If this bill made everything transparent which we hoped it would do Labour would be in deep trouble. The rip-offs and waste are shocking. The public would be shocked. To finish I say that we support the bill but it should go a lot further. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the bill and to ask a few questions. First of all I will deal with the Green minority view in the commentary on the bill. The Greens say that they oppose the bill because they are: “concerned by the proliferation of information-matching programmes operating between Government agencies and the intrusion this represents into the personal lives of New Zealanders …” who are on welfare. My answer to that would be quite simply for people not to be on welfare then their lives will not be intruded upon they can get on and live their lives their way and they can look after themselves. 
I certainly support information sharing because I think it has the opportunity to— 
Phil Heatley 
: It’s our bill. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: Well it is our bill; that is right. We brought the bill in in 1999 but it did not have the support of the Labour Party so it is good to see it come back and to progress it this time. 
This bill gives us the opportunity to look at the information that is coming from individuals to the Housing New Zealand Corporation and through to the Ministry of Social Development. But it is a one-way information-matching system. The Social Services Committee which I sit on was given four reasons for the necessity of that matching: first to assist the ministry in minimising and recovering beneficiary and student debt from benefit and allowance overpayments; second to provide early intervention in cases that could result in the creation of substantial debt; and third to assist in the detection of fraud and to help people track those who are in debt to the ministry. We think these are all extremely admirable reasons because we all know the trap that some welfare beneficiaries can get themselves into when they find themselves unable to survive on the money they receive. They get further and further into debt and it creates a vacuum that they cannot get out of. We hope this information sharing is done not to beat up the welfare beneficiary who is trying to do the best he or she can but instead is done to stop the problem before it starts so that someone is not in that perpetual cycle of dependency and debt which is the situation of so many people. 
I have to say though that National does have a concern with the rorts in the system. We can hide our heads in the sand for so long but the reality is that rorts are there. Someone who lives in the area that I look after for the National Party wrote to me the other day stating that she was on a list to get a Housing New Zealand Corporation house and that she wanted some support to be bumped up the list. She wanted her information to be carried over. I asked the person what was so unique about her that she needed to have support from the Government. She looked at me completely stonewalled and with a shocked look on her face said it was because she wanted a State house. I asked her what was so unique about her that she should be bumped up above other people in order to get what is in all cases a benefit for those who are the most needy. She could not answer me. She then marched back to my office a few days later with a letter in her hand which she flashed in my face and said she now had a letter from another MP who said she should be bumped up the list. I have to say that that is of some concern certainly to us in the National Party. Is a State house allocated on the basis of need or is it allocated to the person who shouts the loudest? We need State housing and no one denies that it is an important part of New Zealand’s social services but let us make sure that people are getting a State house because of genuine need. That is what really starts raising some questions for me. 
The fact that there are people earning over $50000 a year who are in a State house just seems incredulous to me. We all know—and I am sure the Minister would agree—that there are people who are not on that sort of money who would benefit from being in a State house but instead we have families that are rorting the system and taking houses away from those who most need them. We need to start shaking some cages and watching people. We need that shaking-tree effect. I think we need to start going at it a bit harder in order to see what can be done. 
Information sharing has been raised by the Greens and a couple of other individuals as being about people’s rights—they say it will scare people it is not fair and everything else. Unless we start asking some of the hard questions then we will not be supporting those who genuinely need support the most. I challenge the Minister as to whether he is asking those sorts of hard questions. National supports this bill purely because it increases transparency and openness. Those are things the National Party hugely advocates. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I thank the previous speaker Paula Bennett the National list member. I thought her speech was a thoughtful presentation that raised some important questions and I will focus on a few of them and on the points she raised. 
Miss Bennett asked whether State housing is allocated on a needs-based assessment. I can assure her it is. Since 1999 the allocation of houses for Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants has been entirely on a needs base. There is quite a rigorous test. I represent a constituency that adjoins where her office is and both of us know well that we live in an area that has the largest Housing New Zealand Corporation waiting list in the country. I regularly have people coming into my office—as does Miss Bennett as she indicated in her speech—who are very unhappy that they have not yet been able to access a Housing New Zealand Corporation house in west Auckland because we do follow a very strict needs assessment. Sadly because of the 13000 houses that were sold by the previous Government we are behind in the number of properties we have available to rent out but we are rapidly catching up. 
The issue of wealthy tenants was also raised by the member. It is true that some people pay market rents—about 10 percent of Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants. But they are tenants we inherited by and large from a previous time when people were paying large rents and the selection for State houses was made not on a needs basis but on the ability to pay. I can say that 98 percent of new tenants are not paying market rents but income-related rents—they have been placed in a Housing New Zealand Corporation house on a needs basis only. In some areas particularly rural areas we do not have a waiting list so properties are available there that sometimes do go to market renters. But as I said 98 percent of new tenants are paying income-related rents showing that the system of helping those who need help the most is working. But we are still working on the stock. 
Anyway getting back to the bill itself—although I think that background information is important—I will say that there was a lot of focus by the first two speakers on what are essentially rorts to the system. This bill will actually be very helpful for beneficiaries who are Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants. It will ensure that beneficiaries are receiving the full entitlement to social assistance and the Ministry of Social Development will be able to check that Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants are receiving their correct entitlements. Should Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants move into private rental accommodation they will then through the system be able to be checked as to whether an accommodation supplement is appropriate to their needs. 
So this bill is about streamlining the system. It is about identifying where the greatest need is. One of the issues many members of the Committee will have had to deal with in their time as constituency MPs is that of people who run up debts through social welfare overpayments. That does happen sometimes. This debt can be neglected very easily and suddenly people who are on a very low income or a benefit can discover that they have through an overpayment process quite a considerable debt on their hands. This system of matching databases will go a long way to preventing that situation from happening and of course will ultimately be very beneficial to those who have received overpayments so as to nip the thing in the bud as early as possible. So I think it is a very sensible process. I thank the main Opposition party for supporting the bill and I am looking forward to us working through this process fairly quickly. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 This is a good bill. It had its genesis back in 1999 when National tried at that time to introduce a bill in order to bring about the transparency and accountability that my colleague Paula Bennett spoke about earlier. It is good that the Minister has acknowledged National’s support for this bill. Other speakers from National will also articulate our position on it. 
If we go back in time 6½ or 7 years when Labour did not support the previous bill we have to ask why it is introducing this measure now. Why did Labour not support the previous bill in 1999? Was it just because National was in Government and Labour was in Opposition that Labour thought that bill was a bad idea? The same sort of thing could be said now that National is in Opposition so maybe we should just vote against the bill. But no this bill has merit because as my colleagues have said it will bring about transparency and accountability. It will make sure that there is a matching of information between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development. It is certainly our view that that is advantageous. 
There have been rorts and we want to make sure that any assistance that goes with housing is based on need. If rorts are happening then they need to be sorted out. The matching of information must be very much part of the process. We do not want to have abuse of the system—there has been too much of that. We actually want the rorts to be sorted out and we want to see exactly how the process will work. 
Section 67 “Purpose of section 68” inserted by clause 5 spells out the situation very well. Section 67(a) states: “verify the entitlement …”. That is very important. What are tenants entitled to? Are they getting the right entitlement? Time and time again constituents come to see me who do not really know what they are entitled to. It is not until we act on their behalf that we find out what they are entitled to and eligible for. That is fine. If we can help them in that respect that is well and good. So section 67(a) refers to the verification of the entitlement or eligibility. The second point in section 67(b) is about verifying the amount of benefit people are entitled to. With all the different benefits that are available the provision in its totality deals with the benefits a person is entitled to. Thirdly section 67(c) refers to the recovery of debts due to the Crown. Many people think it is their right rather than a privilege to have a State house. They think that is their right. They can do damage. They have no respect for what they have been given by the State and by us as taxpayers and then debts are incurred. We say we need to have accountability. 
I want to give an example that I think demonstrates that. In my earlier days when I left university I flatted with a widow. She had a young child. Her mother who had a three-bedroom State house did not live in her State house. She did not live there at all; she actually came and lived with the daughter. There was a three-bedroom State house that had nobody in it yet there were families at that time who would have been overjoyed had they been able to have access to it. In the meantime because the house was vacant it was vandalised. I went around there on occasions to try to tidy the place up—to mow the lawns and do things like that—yet the house became vandalised because there was no tenant. But would that person give that house up? No she would not. She did not live in it during the 1-year period that I was flatting with that couple but she did not give the house up because it was her home. Yet there were very worthy families that could have moved into that three-bedroom home located in a nice part of Hamilton. 
So National is fully supportive of this bill. Information sharing between the ministry and the corporation is the way to go. We believe that the bill will break down secrecy and facilitate transparency and accountability. It will bring together the sharing of information so that everybody benefits and where there are rorts those rorts can be determined and ironed out. The matching of data is something National has supported. We also say that the identification of need is the criterion we should use to maximise and crystallise the argument—that the people who are worthy of support should receive it and we should not have people who want to rip the system off. As my colleague Bob Clarkson said there are numerous examples of people living in State houses and collecting more than one benefit—in fact a number of benefits. Even my colleague Phil Heatley has identified that in this Chamber previously. 
So National is very pleased to be able to support this bill. It is long overdue. As I said it had its genesis back in 1999 and we are happy that it is proceeding through the Committee stage tonight. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 It is interesting to listen to this debate as we go through the Committee stage this evening. I guess I have to raise the question about the relationship we want to forge with the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development. When we look at the triangle we need to look at the relationship with the Labour Party during the last election campaign when eviction notices went out to all those State housing tenants. We have to ask ourselves how that information got out. Was it through the Housing New Zealand Corporation? 
Paula Bennett 
: We’ve asked the question. 
NATHAN GUY 
: We have asked the question. It would be great for the Minister to take a call this evening to let us and the listeners know so we can clear that up once and for all because the information has come to a bit of a dead end. It is very hard to find out the answer to that question that everyone has asked. All those thousands of eviction notices went out to tenants during the campaign and we do not know who did it. So here we are forging ahead with this bill this evening and trying to open up the transparency between the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development and I think that is a fundamentally correct action. This was a National initiative back in 1999. So it is great that the Government has decided to bring it to everyone’s attention now. I think it is wonderful. It has taken a fair while to get here though. 
I need to acknowledge the hard work my colleague Phil Heatley is doing in this portfolio; it is outstanding. He is exposing the rorts that many speakers this evening have alluded to. I need to touch on a few of them. We have had illegal immigrants living in State houses. I believe we have had tenants growing dope in their backyards. We have had families earning over $70000 who have been able to live in a State house. I believe that the information-matching measures in this bill will tidy up some of that. 
It is interesting also to look at the minority view of the Green Party which is opposed to this bill because it has concerns mainly around intrusion into people’s personal lives. But I believe we have to work through that because so many rorts are happening with Housing New Zealand that need to be sorted out. So I think it is important to acknowledge the Green Party’s view but this bill will actually go on to address further the people who are ripping the system off. 
That fundamentally is what this bill will do. It will protect people’s privacy rights but also allow the Housing Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development to work closely together to work out who is entitled to what who is getting what and who is ripping off the system. The good member for Whangarei has worked very very hard in exposing all of the rorts that are happening in State houses throughout New Zealand and that is the biggest issue. 
Also we need to look at the debts the Crown is not currently recovering—thousands and thousands of dollars in debts. I think the collection agency needs to have a ruddy bullet fired in its direction to make sure it is actually collecting the debts. We have a whole lot of issues around back-rent and around damage done to homes. 
So I would like the Minister to take another call and iron out this question that I and many New Zealanders have about how the Labour Party was able to get information out in the election campaign—to send out a false eviction notice to all the tenants in Housing Corporation houses throughout New Zealand. Now the Government is working on a little triangle fostering a better relationship between the Housing New Zealand Corporation the Ministry of Social Development and Labour. Let us hear the Minister take a call and iron out that issue once and for all—the issue of who supplied the information where the Government got it from and whether it will happen again. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 As a member of the Social Services Committee that looked at this bill I would like to help the Committee on a couple of matters. One in particular is the Housing New Zealand Corporation database and how that information got into the hands of the Labour Party so it could distribute that material as a scaremongering tactic—which very much describes Labour’s tactics during the election campaign. Interestingly enough the corporation’s officials made no response when we asked how its database came to be used by Labour. This raised quite some concern for the National Party as the corporation deals with information and the bill is about information sharing and information matching. We asked the corporation—given that something is already so wrong with its database that information could get into the wrong hands and be used maliciously as it was during the campaign—what this means as far as information matching and this bill are concerned. Well everyone looked at each other rather sideways and gulped three times but no one could actually come up with any answers. 
I ask for a bit of caution. I certainly follow on from the previous speaker Nathan Guy in asking the Minister to take a call on this matter because it is a vitally important question that I think New Zealanders need to have answered. We are talking about information matching about a database and about sharing information between departments. We need to be careful that people’s information is being treated with the respect it deserves. Obviously we have seen an actual case of that information having been used in a way— 
Phil Heatley 
: For political purposes. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: It has been used purely for political purposes as my colleague Phil Heatley says. As a consequence one does need to think about how respect for people’s information is observed. 
I am a real advocate for those who need help at times in their lives when they are perhaps struggling and find themselves in a situation they did not expect—being widowed raising children on their own due to circumstances that are outside their control or losing their job through changes within an industry. They have the opportunity to receive a handout from the State so that they can get through that part and get on with the rest of their lives. I know personally the sense of self-satisfaction one can have from being in the workforce and looking after oneself and one’s own. I caution that when we are matching information and making sure that people receive what they perhaps need to get them through such times we do not turn this country into a welfare-dependent State. 
National is certainly looking at second and third generation Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants. We say that by all means we should help those who cannot help themselves in times of need. But let us be very careful that we are not turning this country into a place that has intergenerational dependency where people lose the aspiration to get ahead and do something for themselves because there is nothing like the sense of self-belief that people have when they can look after themselves and provide a role model for others. I passionately believe that the only way to avoid that dependency is through paid work and I recognise the work the Government is doing in many areas as it pushes towards payment towards paid work. 
However I would like the Minister to answer the question of how the database information that was used for malicious purposes at election time came to be released. The matter is certainly of some concern to the National Party. We have asked questions officially and through the select committee. We have not had responses to those questions at all. In fact when we met with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner about this matter and asked its officials questions around the issue they could not answer the question as to how that information had got out either. Moving forward I would like to address other parts of this bill later in the Committee stage but now I ask the Minister to give us some verification on the matters I have raised. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have not heard from Mr Locke and the Green Party. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I take Paula Bennett’s point that we want to help people get on in life and help those who are in poorer circumstances as many in Housing New Zealand Corporation properties are. But I do not think we will do that by putting any negative attitude on people who happen to be in State-provided accommodation as against private accommodation. We need the attitude that a good State house is as good as any other house any other rental property and hopefully any private owner-occupied property. 
We have a tradition going back to the first State houses in 1938 of New Zealanders living in State houses often for long periods of time and really treating them as their own—treating them well and doing the gardens. The State house suburbs that developed in New Zealand have nurtured many of the people in this room I understand. John Key lived in a State house himself although he has more recently taken a somewhat negative attitude to State houses in opposing the building of State houses in the Hobsonville development in his electorate. That was a bit of a put-down of State houses. Unfortunately in some other instances when areas are being planned people try to impose conditions that no State housing can be developed in those areas or that no State housing tenants can live there. 
So there is a certain negative attitude afoot. I think this bill in some ways—even if only minor ways—contributes to that negative attitude because the data-matching will occur between Work and Income and the Housing New Zealand Corporation so it will apply only to people who are on benefits and happen to be in State-provided accommodation. There is no parallel matching—and of course that would be difficult—between Work and Income and those people in private rental accommodation. 
 So there is an inequality there. The Greens are concerned and issues of privacy have been raised. There are so many matching programmes now; they are expanding year by year. The Privacy Commissioner has indicated a certain concern that the more programmes there are the more abuse there can be in the system too. The people who operate these data-matching agencies—the State employees—are human beings and can misuse the agencies as other human beings do in society. This data-matching system is not necessary and as the minority report from the Green Party states the Ministry of Social Development can obtain the information required for benefits through informed consent rather than by imposing this highly computerised data-matching system. There is no demonstrated need for this legislation at this time. It is leading us down the wrong track and placing a negative attitude on those who happen to be State house tenants. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 38 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Consequential amendments to Privacy Act 1993 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I rise to talk about Part 2. I have to inform the Committee that I have had some formal discussions with my colleagues on this side of the Chamber and I want the Committee to take into account that we have come to an agreement. Should the Minister choose to answer the questions put by Nathan Guy and Paula Bennett on the source of the State house tenants’ personal details that went to the Labour Party during the last election campaign so it could direct-mail the tenants threatening letters we would give leave to that if the Chairman felt it was not within the scope of this particular part. We are relaxed about it being in the scope if the Minister wants to address it. If the Minister wants to seek leave so he can address it and put to death those issues then this side of the Committee will absolutely support that because we would like answers as would the State house tenants who lived in a climate of fear for those 2 months leading up to the last general election and of course the general public as well. 
Part 2 “Consequential amendments to Privacy Act 1993” is a reasonably simple and necessary part that deals with the definition of the specified agency that will be involved in the information matching. In this legislation we are not passing that every Government agency be able or obliged to share information with the Ministry of Social Development. We could not have that; we could not have every single agency being rash and free with the personal information held dear by Kiwis within the privacy of their lives and homes. We could not have that information splashing around the Internet across the Minister’s desk or in the information presented to the Labour Party president every month. What we are talking about here of course is just information relating to the Housing New Zealand Corporation. 
More important clause 6 “Interpretation” states: “(2) The definition of specified agency is … the Housing New Zealand Corporation established”—and people will recall this—“(as the Housing Corporation of New Zealand) by section 3(1) of the Housing Corporation Act 1974:”. So there is a play around with words there on the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Housing Corporation of New Zealand. We are being specific here so that we would not be caught up somehow in the future if the courts establish that the wrong organisation was involved in information sharing with the Ministry of Social Development. Thank goodness for Part 2. 
This part interestingly enough formed one of the amendments that I was going to present tonight if the Minister and his officials had not covered it off but—of course—they had in the bill that was presented to the House before the select committee looked at it. The Minister’s officials were on the ball there. The Minister did not have to catch them out—I certainly did not catch them out—and the National Party will be cooperative in addressing that particular issue. 
We also see clause 7 where schedule 3 is amended by inserting: “in its appropriate alphabetical order the following item: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992”. So schedule 3 after the passing of this legislation will contain the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992 under section 68. That relates to the Ministry of Social Development and the issue of information sharing. 
In summing up for this particular part I will read a letter that was sent in mid-June. It states: “Dear Mr Brash Thank you for pressing on with your investigations in Housing New Zealand. I’m thrilled to bits with this bill that will enable tenants of Housing New Zealand to be investigated and that of course is investigated if necessary.” This particular person will remain confidential because we have not passed an Act in this Parliament that allows me to brandish names here there and everywhere. I can of course do it inside the House but I am not Winston Peters; I am just not going to do it. That person acknowledges that Dr Brash and the National Party in 1999 first of all brought in these provisions and we thank the Minister for passing them through this stage today. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I rise to talk about Part 2 “Consequential amendments to the Privacy Act 1993” which amends the definition of specified agency in the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act. The question I have as well which is within the scope of clause 6 “Interpretation” amending the definition of “specified agency” is whether anything will be happening with the move to one benefit. I know that the single core benefit—relating to entitlements—is not quite within this part but is within parts of the part. When we move to this single core benefit can the Minister in the chair Chris Carter see what will result when there is one benefit with different parts to it—for example the accommodation supplement? I wonder whether the Minister has discussed with the Ministry of Social Development how that will happen given the changes that are going on concerning accommodation allowances and so on. My own conversations with the ministry and the Minister have suggested that they are not quite sure how this will work; and they have been talking for a long time about moving to the single core benefit. I wonder what if they have not quite got it right the provisions about information sharing and the specified agency will mean for those people. 
 It is fine for us to stand up here and spout about entitlements and say that people should be getting what they deserve and what they need to survive but let us talk about some of the theory and the actual practice. The practice at the moment is not clear-cut. certainly the intention of going to the single core benefit is to make it more simple but I do not know whether that will happen in practice. At the moment I can see that we will be having conflicts about information sharing anyway. I ask whether the Minister has thought through how when we actually change the system it will meet the information-sharing requirements. That is something the National Party certainly has concerns about. As I said previously it is incredibly important that people get the help they need while they need it so they can then move on and live more fulfilling lives and have more aspirations—and perhaps not live in a State house for the rest of their lives. 
I take umbrage at a previous speaker who said there should be no difference between living in a State house and living somewhere else. I challenge that and say I think there should be. I think people should aspire for more for themselves and their families. We in the National Party do not apologise for that. We do not apologise for wanting more for New Zealand—and more for New Zealanders—than having to be dependent on the State. We are not about to start apologising for that now. 
So when members say there should be no differentiation and that it should all be the same and we should not be judging people—and there has been talk about entitlements and social development and so on—the reality is that people are on welfare and they are getting help from the taxpayer. They deserve it and as I said I have no qualms at all about those needing housing but let us not start apologising for the aspiration of wanting more for New Zealanders. 
There is this crying bleeding-heart attitude that we need to be looking after everybody’s rights and making sure that everyone is getting everything. Let us make sure we are helping people who need it—in the short term. What is happening is that it is becoming longer and longer and so we have intergenerational welfare dependency with people losing that aspiration in thinking that what they have got is OK—and it is not; they can actually do better than OK. They can actually have more than just “OK” and they can do better than living in a State house for the rest of their lives and then their kids’ lives and then the kids after that. The National Party is the party that stands up and advocates for more for people and sees them having dreams and aspirations and getting off welfare and getting out of their State house. I do not want my information shared in all honesty. So I am just not going to be in a situation where I need to do that. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: John Key and I both moved out of State housing. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: Thank goodness! What happened with him was that the next generation came along and they aspired for more. Look what can happen. I can hear exactly what the Labour Party members are saying but look what can happen with aspiration dreams and hard work—people can turn themselves into someone else. So all strength and recognition to someone like John Key for getting that guidance from a parent who took help from the State while it was needed but aspired for more for the children. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: But what about the next generation? 
PAULA BENNETT 
: Members should look at that next generation and see what happened to them with a bit of aspiration and hope. 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 The Housing Restructuring Act badly needs things included but National members will live with the amendments that are in this Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. I worry that if the Government gets more information it might go into overload. 
The Government has made a mess of the Housing New Zealand Corporation in the last 6½ years and I ask how it will improve its performance. The Housing New Zealand Corporation is wasting vast amounts of money at the moment and has been doing so for years. Yes this bill will help but it will not solve all the problems. I am not going to tell Labour how to fix the problems at the moment; I will with the National Party’s and Phil Heatley’s approval tell it what to do before the next election. The Labour Party members should wait with bated breath. In fact some of the members on the other side of the House today were taking swipes at me. They got their facts wrong; they must be hooked into the wrong phone or something. 
Labour currently has 11000 people on the waiting list. I hear these figures being twisted around in the House. But is it not strange that when National went out of power in 1999 there were only 14 families on the urgent waiting list in Auckland? [ 
Interruption 
] Down boys! This system needs sorting. As I said this bill and its amendments will help but I do not think the taxpayers will be happy to wait and hope that the Labour Government sorts out this major problem. It is costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars. Let us clean this mess up. If we can stop the rorts we might be able to lessen dramatically the Housing New Zealand Corporation funding. 
I look forward to making the Act much better when National is in Government. When we change it the new name of it will be “Housing for Kiwis in Need Act”. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I endorse the comments of my colleague Bob Clarkson MP for Tauranga. Certainly—and I use that word “certainly” as something I picked up from Parekura—there is much to do in the State housing sector. I am unsure whether the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill will do all the things National wants to do but we will be targeting some things. We would have used some of these provisions to target Kiwis in need. 
There are Kiwi families up and down this country who are in genuine need. Many are in dire financial straits and all they need is financial help and a roof over their heads—often for just a short time—so they can get on with supporting themselves. Through hearing some of the comments from the Minister Chris Carter tonight and by reading press releases relating to this bill we see that Labour would rather help those people but keep them in dependency. I do not think it is a deliberate malicious effort by the Government or its Ministers to keep those people in dependency but because of the Government’s ignorance and unwillingness to look further at people’s potential it does in fact by default keep them in dependency. We cannot have a country where the Government provides welfare to an extent that it goes to first second and third generations. 
The cynical amongst us would say that welfare is cash for votes—that it is cash for votes when Labour tosses out money in New Plymouth just to keep Harry Duynhoven’s majority above 20000 votes. There are cynical people in this House who would say that Labour would keep people on welfare just to save Marian Hobbs’ seat and to compensate for the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary debacle that she oversaw. But we in the National Party are saying no—whether it is State housing the domestic purposes benefit the unemployment benefit or any other benefit. Benefits are there to help people for a time while they are in need. Labour members do not believe in that but National members certainly do. 
It is a sad thing that list members on the other side of the House who are replacing the whips—who could not organise a vote for the dog microchipping legislation last week—came in to Government on the back of the votes of many of those receiving a benefit. Some of the people receiving a benefit believe that the key to their continuing on the benefit is a vote for the Labour Party. Labour members believe that the key to their remaining in power is to throw more benefits to those people. It is a dependency culture—the Labour Party depends on the beneficiary and the beneficiary depends on the Labour Party. It is a sad thing when welfare goes past need and ventures into generation after generation of State dependency. Harry Duynhoven the member for New Plymouth and Marian Hobbs the member for Wellington Central—stumbling in the seat though she is—should be ashamed of that. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: That is essentially why the National Party supports this part. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Is this the title debate now? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: This is clauses 1 and 2. I have called the member; is he taking the call? The member should take the call. It is wide ranging Mr Clarkson so you have plenty of room and scope. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: I have not had much dinner and that is the problem; I am not thinking clearly. I am pleased to speak on this Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. As I said before the bill needs a different name. During the break I came up with another one. I suggest that it should be called the “Housing Recovery from Rip-offs (Carter’s Second Attempt) Bill”. I have studied State housing and houses for the last 18 months. By the way 18 months is longer than I have been here. It shocks me how the Government has allowed a major waste of money in many areas of this field. The bureaucrats have failed and there are no ifs or buts about that. 
I myself have had vast experience in the house rental market and I know how State tenants can and will use all the tricks in the world to delay paying deposits or rent. They may say that mum and dad will pay the rent but they are out of town at the moment. 
Shane Jones 
: The cheque’s in the mail! 
BOB CLARKSON 
: That is right—that happens a lot. I myself did own a lot of houses and I know that does happen. The Hon David Benson-Pope has finally got something right—this is a good bill. The gentleman is not here to hear me say that. I have cases of three lots of tenants living in State houses and I believe that they are all claiming rent subsidies or benefits. This bill will sort that out. I believe that we should help disadvantaged people—members should take note of that—but we should attack the ones who are ripping the system off. I think the Government will get a shock when it sees how many people are ripping off the system. 
Jill Pettis 
: Name them. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: If we get this bill going we will certainly find those people. I know of cases where State house tenants are taking in boarders and I believe that is a major problem throughout the country. In some cases the boarders pay rent that is then used to pay the Housing New Zealand Corporation. It is a stupid situation. It is a shocking situation and the people of New Zealand are sick and tired of it. 
I also think the Housing New Zealand Corporation should pass incomes declared by tenants to the Inland Revenue Department for confirmation. The Inland Revenue Department could report back on any false income amounts and we might get some truth in the matter. If tenants are honest they have nothing to fear. We are here to help them if we get the right information. Any tenant who gives wrong information should be barred from having a State house. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Forever? 
BOB CLARKSON 
: Well yes until they die then. This information sharing will also—why did members not laugh when I said that? 
Phil Heatley 
: No sense of humour. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: “Thick” is the word. The information sharing will also help to find people owing benefit debts to the Crown. The losses in the State house sector are terrible. I actually made a speech about that in the select committee the other day and got stuck into it. The losses are absolutely shocking. We should welcome anything that helps to fix that problem and we should be pleased. National—and I want to make this point clear—is not against helping the disadvantaged. We just want a fair deal for all and we want the Labour members to open their ears and listen instead of mouthing all the time. Let us get this bill through. National can make it even better later on. We support the bill. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a very brief call in support of this bill. I think it is really important when we look at the bill’s title that we understand that what is happening here is information matching not information sharing which is a little bit different. What we have here is two Government departments in possession of important information often about the same people and they will be able to measure that information against each other to check whether any rort is going on. I think everybody would agree that that is important. 
What the bill does not do is to pass on information to an organisation that did not previously have it. That is an important thing. In terms of future developments regarding information when information is passed from one organisation to another we need to be extremely careful. I am very glad that we have an Office of the Privacy Commissioner that offers the kind of advice it does to make sure that we keep ourselves in check in that regard. 
United Future believes that this bill is really important for two reasons. It is very important to match this information so that people are getting the entitlements they are due. Where people may perhaps be entitled to more than they understood they were this is a way of isolating and identifying that those people may be short-changed. Of course the second reason is that this measure provides us with the opportunity to make sure that people are not double-dipping in the system which is to the detriment of the New Zealand taxpayer and to the detriment of other people who are in need of the services of Work and Income and the Housing New Zealand Corporation. We are very pleased to support the bill we think it has merit and we wish it well on its passage through the House. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill and I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak a little more broadly on it than I have previously. I found it quite restrictive speaking within the parts so I am sure the Minister of Housing the Hon Chris Carter will agree that it is nice for me to have the opportunity to talk a little about the bigger picture and what it means for this information-matching amendment bill to go through. I would certainly like the Minister to take a call and address for us yet again the issue of the single core benefit and the fact that it has been going through the throes and bureaucracy of Parliament for many many years now and still we keep being told it is coming it is coming. I have questions as to how information matching—particularly when it comes to the entitlement part of the bill and ensuring that people are getting their dues—will work in relation to the benefit changes we are looking at with the single core benefit. 
The other thing I am very keen for the Minister to talk a little about is how 60000 letters were distributed via the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s database. There have been calls for the Minister to do that this evening and I back my colleague the knowledgable and incredibly talented when it comes to matters of housing Phil Heatley. It has to be a concern as far as the privacy of people’s information is concerned that a malicious letter was sent out before the election campaign. It informed people that if a National Government were elected they could expect to be thrown out of their State houses which of course was not true. It was a complete and utter lie. What that did was to fill people with fear. 
The question we need to ask when we are looking at the issue of information matching is where that information came from and how people gained access to it. We have asked those questions at the Social Services Committee and we asked the Privacy Commissioner about the matter but we have been stalled and dead-ended. Those are important questions. Leaving aside the fact that the letter was intended to work against the National Party and that sort of thing we need to look at the broader implications of that sort of knowledge being out there and what it means for the protection of a person’s right to privacy. 
The Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill also talks about transparency and openness which is something the National Party is delighted to be supporting. We like that level of transparency. We believe that information is power and that sharing it between the two departments makes sense. It makes so much sense that we tried to introduce something like this bill in 1999. Of course it was National that saw that this bill would give the opportunity to open that up and to have information going from one person in one department to the next. The ramifications are that this bill will benefit those people receiving welfare payments because it means they can look at whether they are getting their full entitlement and whether they are able to survive on that payment. 
When it comes to income-related rents it is always an interesting matter as to how much we help people with a hand up and not a handout. I know that the Minister addressed the matter earlier this evening but I ask him yet again about the implications of second and third-generation welfare dependants coming through in relation to State housing. I unashamedly say that National has greater aspirations for them than that. Living on welfare and being in a State house is OK and thank goodness such support is there for those who need that sort of assistance but it is not the end and it should not be the means for those New Zealanders. They can aspire to having more and we want to be able to take that idea to them and actually share it with them. Information sharing may actually help those people with that side of things. 
My colleagues have certainly touched on the issue of welfare fraud a bit and I agree that this bill will decrease the level of fraud—it will make it that little bit more difficult. Personally I do not think a huge epidemic of welfare fraud is going on throughout society; I think it concerns a smaller portion. The sad thing of course is that those few in the minority make things sound bad and give everyone a bad reputation. We certainly believe in the carrot and stick approach and this legislation gives an opportunity for us to come down hard on those who actually are rorting the system and taking money from those who really do need it and do deserve it. The facts are that when we spend a dollar on someone who is receiving it illegally and wrongly it is a dollar taken from someone else who possibly really does need it to get by and who deserves it. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I would like to make a short contribution first of all to thank the National Party and those other parties in the Chamber that will be supporting this legislation which is as the member for United Future said about a data-sharing programme that will ultimately benefit those in State houses who may well not be receiving the full entitlement they are entitled to. The bill is also to avoid that serious issue I spoke about earlier whereby people can inadvertently be overpaid in their benefits. This will help to correct that sort of situation. So it is very pleasing to hear some positive comments from the Opposition. 
Of course we did hear a number of other rather foolish things. I heard some comments earlier about boarders. I would like to remind the Committee that State house tenants have been able to have boarders since the 1970s. Sadly a lot of the time between then and now was spent under a National Government but National did nothing about it because—well why would they? Two-thirds of boarders are family members and who would want to deny the chance of a grandparent a parent or adult children to stay in a State house? As I said that is a situation that has existed since the 1970s. 
We also heard Mr Clarkson say some positive things about the need to give support to people who need it. I am sure I do not need to remind him that we do indeed have a list of 11000 tenants who are waiting to get into social housing. The previous National Government sold 13000 of those State houses. Did it sell them to the tenants? No! About a quarter went to tenants and three-quarters went to speculators. I wonder whether Mr Clarkson was one of those who bought some of those State houses. A great deal of money was made of course out of housing that was paid for by the taxpayers of New Zealand—and we have now a waiting list of 11000 people. With those 13000 houses we would have alleviated the need of New Zealanders today. 
So I thank Opposition parties for their support for this legislation—those that are supporting it. I urge them to remember that social housing is something that all developed countries seek to provide in as best a way as they can. Just having returned this morning from the UK where I attended a housing conference at York in the north of England I was very pleased to see that the Housing New Zealand Corporation is at the cutting edge internationally of a really first-class service in providing houses to New Zealanders who have a housing need. It is a corporation that the Auditor-General’s report just released to this Parliament a week ago stated was doing a good job. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 In this last discussion around this bill I would like to reiterate that National is supporting the bill as the party that originally brought the idea to this Parliament in 1999. In turn I thank the Minister Chris Carter and Labour members for supporting one of our ideas and I ask the Minister to consider many others that we have rolling forward at the moment. It might interest him to wander off to England—to have some nice nights in restaurants and hotels to enjoy the company perhaps of the royal family or to do whatever the Minister does over there—but clearly if the Minister is adopting National policy it would be easier to walk a mere 5 metres across this Chamber get the ideas and then pass them into legislation as he has done with this Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. So I thank the Minister for his support. 
I would like to clarify the issues around boarders. Of course National was aware while we were looking after the finances of New Zealand over that 9-year period that some State house tenants had boarders and we were happy to have boarders in State houses. Who would deny a State housing family the right to have their 16-year-old kid in the house while he or she was studying at polytech? Of course we would not. Who would deny State house tenants having their 75-year-old grandmother live at home with them? I guess if the Minister wants to label that person as a boarder then who would deny that? Certainly National would not. 
We do not mind one or two boarders being in a State home especially not family members who are in need but my question to the Minister asked what was the maximum number of boarders that a State house tenant had in New Zealand. The answer was not three boarders or four or five or even six. We have one tenancy in this country in which there are seven boarders under a State house roof. That is not a State house; that is a boarding house. That is a business. It is both a boarding house and a business. The Minister reported back to me that many State homes had four five and six boarders and I have illustrated the worst situation where there were seven. I say that because New Zealanders Kiwis who pay their taxes have asked me to say that. We never envisaged that we would be paying our taxes so that State house tenants who were not in need could have five six or seven boarders. That was not the intention. We as taxpayers provide State houses for families who are in need. People tell me that if families need to house a couple of extra relatives in the situations I have pointed out—the 16-year-old at polytech or grandma at home—then they accept that. But we do not accept the Minister providing State housing for five six or seven boarders. I tell members now that Kiwis will not put up with that and it is not something that National believes in. 
National does believe in this legislation though and that is why we support it. Information matching is very important—yes for the reasons the Minister says so that those who are in need can assure themselves that they are getting the full extent of taxpayer help when they are struggling. Information matching is also important to catch the ratbags who are ripping off mum and dad Kiwi workers who pay their taxes. Those workers have had enough of it. The majority of people in State houses are genuine but some are ratbags. Sometimes they are second or third generation Labour Party voters who have been caught up in the cycle of welfare dependency—who have been trapped by Mr Chris Carter and his colleagues. When members throw out the hook of welfare those people become fish who have been caught and they will remain on the Government’s payroll for the rest of their lives. They will tell their kids to do the same and their grandkids as well. Of course National has greater aspirations for those people than the Minister has. 
So National supports this bill and we support it for these two reasons—firstly to make sure that those in need get what is required and secondly to catch the ratbags that the Minister would otherwise hook. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I rise to speak tonight in support of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. I want to continue on from my colleague talking about the major intent of the amendment before the Committee tonight which is to enable fraud to be detected by the matching of information. I spoke in the second reading debate when this bill came back from the Social Services Committee of an elderly gentleman who had visited me in my office in Gisborne. He was living in a State house and was having difficulty making ends meet. As he lived up on the East Coast he was in a remote rural area where everything costs more—every time one goes to get fuel or food it costs more. So he was really struggling. 
He was a delightful old gentleman and he said to me that he did not want to break the law. He was very grateful for the help the New Zealand taxpayer gives him but he had the opportunity of having his nephew come and board with him and that would help him pay the bills. He just wanted to make sure that that was legal. He appreciated the fact that he was in a State house and that he was on an income-related rent and he wanted to make sure that he was working within the rules. Of course he was within the rules by having only one person board with him. 
This matter occupied the select committee when it tried to determine the lengths that some people will go to in order to get around the law. Looking back we asked the officials questions about what the difference was between a tenant and a boarder. We also asked in the light of the proposed information sharing between the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development whether those agencies would be able to pick up the sort of fraud perpetrated where there might be for instance joint tenants—two people in a joint tenancy of a State house. Under an income-related rent a tenant can have one boarder. Therefore one person could relinquish his or her tenancy and become a boarder so that his or her income would not then count towards the income-related rent. 
There is no way that this bill will address that sort of fraud. There is just no way that we can design a law that digs into people’s lives as deeply as that. It is a sad indictment on our welfare system that some people will go to such lengths to defraud the taxpayer. Unfortunately what we are debating tonight cannot go to that level of detail to try to make sure that people are honest but it can provide the information that will pick up those situations where more than one boarder is living in a State house. 
I will just refer to a comment my colleague Phil Heatley made about a State house that might have five six or seven boarders. Having operated a private hotel for 6 years and a bed and breakfast for 4 years I know that under the laws of this country if more than three people stay in a bed and breakfast overnight there is a whole new ramp of fire regulations and health and safety requirements around the way that business operates because the operator is selling accommodation. Therefore I ask this Committee what the difference is between operating a bed and breakfast and operating a State house that has four or five boarders. It is dinner bed and breakfast at the expense of the taxpayer. 
Bob Clarkson 
: And income tax as well. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: Well apart from the taxation purposes there are no health and safety requirements expected of the person who is the tenant of that house and who is therefore responsible for the health and safety of the people who are staying in it. 
I think that this bill is timely legislation to try to put an end to those sorts of rorts. National did try to bring this legislation in once and we are very pleased that the Government has now seen sense. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 38 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.