Tisch Lindsay: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3937] 
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.