Tolley Anne: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Tolley Anne: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4091] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 As the Minister has just said this bill amends and changes the name of the Housing Restructuring Act 1992. It inserts into that Act information-matching provisions that allow Housing New Zealand Corporation to disclose information about its tenants and tenancies to the Ministry of Social Development and it amends the Privacy Act in order to allow for that. 
In the Social Services Committee we were told that this bill was necessary to help the Ministry of Social Development minimise benefit and student allowance overpayments to help the ministry recover beneficiary and student debt to provide early intervention to prevent debt accumulation to prevent fraud and to help locate people who owe money to the ministry. The National Party has supported the bill’s progress through this House because it was our idea. In fact in 1999 the National-led Government tried to introduce similar legislation into the House but the Labour Opposition would not support it. We are very pleased that Labour has seen the light and recognises that we understand the realities about some of these things and that we do have some very good solutions. 
We are pleased to see this bill finally come through and we support it for a number of reasons. First of all we believe it increases transparency and openness. The Privacy Commissioner in her report to the select committee concluded: “Very large sums of money are paid out by the Ministry of Social Development in delivering welfare assistance. We readily accept that the department’s objectives which seek to protect that money relate to matters of significant public importance.” That is absolutely the National Party’s position at this point. 
This is a large budget; millions of dollars of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars are made available to assist people into more affordable housing. When unscrupulous tenants try to double-dip and get more than they are entitled to from what they call “the system” but which is in actual fact public money earned by hard-working New Zealanders paying their taxes—and exorbitant taxes they are becoming too—we believe there is a responsibility on the State to track them down and put a stop to it. Of course there are always those who get themselves into trouble without realising it—unintentionally—and this information matching will help to pick up some of those anomalies before they grow into an overwhelming debt that some people find themselves simply unable to face or to work their way out of. 
Second we also support this bill because it addresses the issue of State house tenants who lease out their rooms and do not declare the income. The Minister’s figures at the end of last year show that almost 7000 State tenants had paying boarders—the worst had seven. They are not people who need a helping hand with housing from overtaxed New Zealand workers. I would say in that case they are a very entrepreneurial group of people. 
At the Committee stage I raised the issue of bed and breakfast owners. People with more than three paying guests have a huge raft of increased fire health and safety requirements. They have to have escape plans smoke detectors well-labelled fire exits and fire extinguishers right through their properties. There is an inspection regime and some will require alarms that are connected automatically to the fire station and the police station. So the issue is not just about State tenants ripping off the taxpayers by double-dipping into public and private purses. There are enormous risks in overcrowded homes. 
I am well aware that Housing New Zealand Corporation tries very hard to match its houses with the needs of families. So if it has done that and placed someone in a house that has only two or three bedrooms and then that person gets in three or four paying boarders there is overcrowding that puts some of those people at risk. Also many tenants could be occupying a house that is too large for their needs and they should make way for families and move down to a smaller home. Perhaps that is an issue for another time. 
I cannot let this bill’s final debate go without talking about New Zealand’s largest group of landlords the New Zealand Property Investors Federation. It made a submission to the select committee and as one would expect from an organisation like that it was an excellent submission and very professional. Whilst the federation supported the intent of the bill it asked that the bill be extended to enable the Ministry of Social Development to supply the Ministry of Justice and its officials with details that would enable them to collect court-awarded payments from delinquent tenants. The federation’s submission made some very powerful points which unfortunately have been set to one side by the officials as being outside the scope of the bill. The bill before us is designed to provide the Government with information to enable it to catch fraudsters and those who get into debt to the Government. The federation’s argument was that it too wanted information to enable it to catch fraudsters and those who get into debt with it and I felt it had a very powerful argument. 
The federation referred to the 2003 agreement that under a tenancy tribunal judgment creditors could be given assistance to trace tribunal debtors by being provided with access to some Government-held address information. It made the point that private landowners are owed between $5 million and $6 million in rent arrears as against the Government’s $1.6 million of rent arrears and that private landowners are owed at least $43 million in damages. The federation is continually frustrated at its inability to track down tenants who have disappeared but are still within the State system. Many of the tenants are known to the State and still receive benefits from the State whilst owing millions of dollars for both damage and outstanding rents to people who have provided them with accommodation. 
I feel it was a great pity that the matter was deemed to be outside the scope of this bill because the 2003 agreement is obviously not working. In fact the officers when reporting to the select committee referred to that agreement and suggested it may well be formalised in statute as a result of the current review of the Residential Tenancies Act which I understand has now been withdrawn. 
 In conclusion National does support this bill. It is long overdue. The Government has certainly dragged its feet on it but has finally accepted that National did know what it was talking about in 1999. We look forward to the enactment of this legislation and hope it is implemented promptly throughout New Zealand.