Heatley Phil: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Heatley Phil: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3491] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 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 
: Of course not. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: No. They would not want to voluntarily disclose information that would point to fraud and fraudulent activity—absolutely not. That is why we see the need to pass legislation—and I acknowledge the Minister’s comments—that will compulsorily bring transparency and openness. 
It is not transparency in the sense that the information will be printed in every newspaper in the country or anything like that; it is simply disclosure between one State organisation Housing New Zealand Corporation and another State organisation the Ministry of Social Development. So that should happen. I talked about the needy people who are receiving taxpayer support as they struggle from time to time. A minority of those who are getting such support rip off the system. Those people give everyone else who needs social support and who is genuinely needy a bad name. That is an absolute shame and the National Party finds that appalling because we on this side of the House believe we should have social services the unemployment benefit the domestic purposes benefit and State houses for those who are in need—absolutely. I say to those who seek to rort the system—whether it is the people who receive those benefits or Labour which wants to purchase votes—that we on this side of the House find that absolutely appalling and we oppose it. 
I will give members an example and as we are talking about Housing New Zealand Corporation I think it is quite a poignant one. What about all those State house tenants who have boarders? People who are listening in—and I know that many hundreds of thousands of people are listening in to this speech tonight—may not know that Zealand has roughly 63000 State house tenancies. Do listeners know that 7000 of the 63000 State house families take in boarders? We are providing State houses to 7000 families and their boarders. Is it right that we are doing that? Well the National Party accepts that a family in a State house might have one boarder because that boarder could be their 18-year-old son who goes to polytech. Of course such families would have their son as a boarder. The National Party accepts that a State house family might even have two boarders because it could be that grandma is also living with them. She may be 75 be on a pension and have nowhere else to go. 
Of course such families would have living with them their sons who attend polytech and their grandmothers who have nowhere else to go. There is nothing wrong with that. But do New Zealand taxpayers think it is acceptable that some State house tenants in this country have three four or five boarders or as in one case—the worst case in New Zealand—six boarders? I say to the Minister that that is three times two boarders—six times one boarder. That State house family takes in six boarders. Does he understand? Do New Zealanders think it is acceptable that taxpayers should provide a State house for a family—apparently a needy family—that takes in six paying boarders? That is an absolute outrage particularly when voters for the Maori Party—for Tariana Turia—who are often in large families and need large State houses are on the waiting list while another family runs a boarding house business with six boarders in their home. 
I hope that the passing of this Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill catches ratbags like that because there is no way that the taxpayer ever intended providing a State house to a family that would also have four five or six boarders living under their roof. 
There is also no way that the taxpayer ever intended providing State housing for those who earn in excess of $70000 $80000 or in fact $95000 a year after tax. It was revealed in this debating chamber only a few months ago that a State house tenant was earning $95000 after tax—in other words around $130000 gross—and occupying a State home in New Zealand. Was that State house provided by the taxpayer intended for that person? No way! That State house was intended for Tariana Turia’s voter—the one who is struggling in need and has a large family. It was never intended for the tenant who takes in six boarders and it was never intended for the tenant who earns $130000 a year. I hope that this Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill catches that ratbag too. Yes Labour wants to buy votes—and it will throw cash and houses at anyone to get those votes—but the reason for National supporting this legislation is our hope that it will bring some honesty and transparency to the State house sector. That is why on behalf of the National Party I commend this bill to this debating chamber.