Bradford Sue: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Bradford Sue: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3497] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 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.