Heatley Phil: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3932] 
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.