Tolley Anne: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3949] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I rise to speak tonight in support of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. I want to continue on from my colleague talking about the major intent of the amendment before the Committee tonight which is to enable fraud to be detected by the matching of information. I spoke in the second reading debate when this bill came back from the Social Services Committee of an elderly gentleman who had visited me in my office in Gisborne. He was living in a State house and was having difficulty making ends meet. As he lived up on the East Coast he was in a remote rural area where everything costs more—every time one goes to get fuel or food it costs more. So he was really struggling. 
He was a delightful old gentleman and he said to me that he did not want to break the law. He was very grateful for the help the New Zealand taxpayer gives him but he had the opportunity of having his nephew come and board with him and that would help him pay the bills. He just wanted to make sure that that was legal. He appreciated the fact that he was in a State house and that he was on an income-related rent and he wanted to make sure that he was working within the rules. Of course he was within the rules by having only one person board with him. 
This matter occupied the select committee when it tried to determine the lengths that some people will go to in order to get around the law. Looking back we asked the officials questions about what the difference was between a tenant and a boarder. We also asked in the light of the proposed information sharing between the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development whether those agencies would be able to pick up the sort of fraud perpetrated where there might be for instance joint tenants—two people in a joint tenancy of a State house. Under an income-related rent a tenant can have one boarder. Therefore one person could relinquish his or her tenancy and become a boarder so that his or her income would not then count towards the income-related rent. 
There is no way that this bill will address that sort of fraud. There is just no way that we can design a law that digs into people’s lives as deeply as that. It is a sad indictment on our welfare system that some people will go to such lengths to defraud the taxpayer. Unfortunately what we are debating tonight cannot go to that level of detail to try to make sure that people are honest but it can provide the information that will pick up those situations where more than one boarder is living in a State house. 
I will just refer to a comment my colleague Phil Heatley made about a State house that might have five six or seven boarders. Having operated a private hotel for 6 years and a bed and breakfast for 4 years I know that under the laws of this country if more than three people stay in a bed and breakfast overnight there is a whole new ramp of fire regulations and health and safety requirements around the way that business operates because the operator is selling accommodation. Therefore I ask this Committee what the difference is between operating a bed and breakfast and operating a State house that has four or five boarders. It is dinner bed and breakfast at the expense of the taxpayer. 
Bob Clarkson 
: And income tax as well. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: Well apart from the taxation purposes there are no health and safety requirements expected of the person who is the tenant of that house and who is therefore responsible for the health and safety of the people who are staying in it. 
I think that this bill is timely legislation to try to put an end to those sorts of rorts. National did try to bring this legislation in once and we are very pleased that the Government has now seen sense.