Bennett Paula: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bennett Paula: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3943] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I rise to talk about Part 2 “Consequential amendments to the Privacy Act 1993” which amends the definition of specified agency in the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act. The question I have as well which is within the scope of clause 6 “Interpretation” amending the definition of “specified agency” is whether anything will be happening with the move to one benefit. I know that the single core benefit—relating to entitlements—is not quite within this part but is within parts of the part. When we move to this single core benefit can the Minister in the chair Chris Carter see what will result when there is one benefit with different parts to it—for example the accommodation supplement? I wonder whether the Minister has discussed with the Ministry of Social Development how that will happen given the changes that are going on concerning accommodation allowances and so on. My own conversations with the ministry and the Minister have suggested that they are not quite sure how this will work; and they have been talking for a long time about moving to the single core benefit. I wonder what if they have not quite got it right the provisions about information sharing and the specified agency will mean for those people. 
 It is fine for us to stand up here and spout about entitlements and say that people should be getting what they deserve and what they need to survive but let us talk about some of the theory and the actual practice. The practice at the moment is not clear-cut. certainly the intention of going to the single core benefit is to make it more simple but I do not know whether that will happen in practice. At the moment I can see that we will be having conflicts about information sharing anyway. I ask whether the Minister has thought through how when we actually change the system it will meet the information-sharing requirements. That is something the National Party certainly has concerns about. As I said previously it is incredibly important that people get the help they need while they need it so they can then move on and live more fulfilling lives and have more aspirations—and perhaps not live in a State house for the rest of their lives. 
I take umbrage at a previous speaker who said there should be no difference between living in a State house and living somewhere else. I challenge that and say I think there should be. I think people should aspire for more for themselves and their families. We in the National Party do not apologise for that. We do not apologise for wanting more for New Zealand—and more for New Zealanders—than having to be dependent on the State. We are not about to start apologising for that now. 
So when members say there should be no differentiation and that it should all be the same and we should not be judging people—and there has been talk about entitlements and social development and so on—the reality is that people are on welfare and they are getting help from the taxpayer. They deserve it and as I said I have no qualms at all about those needing housing but let us not start apologising for the aspiration of wanting more for New Zealanders. 
There is this crying bleeding-heart attitude that we need to be looking after everybody’s rights and making sure that everyone is getting everything. Let us make sure we are helping people who need it—in the short term. What is happening is that it is becoming longer and longer and so we have intergenerational welfare dependency with people losing that aspiration in thinking that what they have got is OK—and it is not; they can actually do better than OK. They can actually have more than just “OK” and they can do better than living in a State house for the rest of their lives and then their kids’ lives and then the kids after that. The National Party is the party that stands up and advocates for more for people and sees them having dreams and aspirations and getting off welfare and getting out of their State house. I do not want my information shared in all honesty. So I am just not going to be in a situation where I need to do that. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: John Key and I both moved out of State housing. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: Thank goodness! What happened with him was that the next generation came along and they aspired for more. Look what can happen. I can hear exactly what the Labour Party members are saying but look what can happen with aspiration dreams and hard work—people can turn themselves into someone else. So all strength and recognition to someone like John Key for getting that guidance from a parent who took help from the State while it was needed but aspired for more for the children. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: But what about the next generation? 
PAULA BENNETT 
: Members should look at that next generation and see what happened to them with a bit of aspiration and hope.