Turner Judy: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Turner Judy: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3501] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 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 Maori 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 $200000 to set up the programme within the Housing New Zealand Corporation and $346000 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 Maori 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.