Tolley Anne: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Tolley Anne: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3494] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I rise to speak as a member of the Social Services Committee in support of the second reading of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. 
The bill we are debating today does a couple of things: it changes the name of the legislation to that very long mouthful of words—but a more accurate description—and establishes information matching between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development. That is a one-way information-matching system. The Social Services Committee was given four reasons for the necessity of that matching: firstly to assist the Ministry of Social Development in minimising and recovering beneficiary and student debt from benefit and allowance overpayments secondly to provide early intervention in cases that could result in the creation of substantial debt thirdly to assist in the detection of fraud and to help to track people who are in debt to the Ministry of Social Development and fourthly and finally to identify beneficiaries who are not receiving the correct income support entitlements. In other words we are looking to uncover fraud prevent the accumulation of excessive debt and make sure that people receive their correct entitlements. 
National supports this bill for three reasons. The first reason is that we tried to introduce legislation similar to this bill in 1999 but Labour opposed it. We raised at that time concerns about fraud about people accumulating debt—getting themselves into a position they could never see a way to get out of—and about ensuring fairness so that people received what they were entitled to receive. If we were a bit churlish we could perhaps say today to Labour members that we told them so. However we are supporting this bill because it is well overdue. 
The second reason why we are supporting the bill is that it increases transparency and openness. I refer to the analysis in the report of the Privacy Commissioner to the select committee which states: “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.” National certainly accepts that analysis and agrees that the transfer of information should be seen to happen clearly and transparently. 
Some discussion took place about information sharing outside any agreed protocols. In particular the submission from the Dunedin Community Law Centre highlighted concerns around informal information-sharing between agencies and expressed fears that allowing such information sharing to happen with the consent of the State had the potential to further undermine respect for the code of conduct. I disagree with that. I actually think this legislative change to formalise and make very transparent and clear the transfer of information makes any informal sharing of information and ignoring of protocols much tougher. 
The third reason why National supports this bill is to address some of the issues my colleague Mr Heatley raised around State house tenants benefiting from boarders and thereby supplementing their incomes fraudulently. The statistics quoted by the Minister of Housing at the end of last year show that nearly 7000 State tenants had paying boarders. Members may ask what is wrong with that. Actually I have no great problem with it if it is done within the rules. I accept what Mr Heatley said about a tenant having six boarders; I think that is excessive. But in my office this week I saw an elderly gentleman who lives in a State house on an income-related rent and really stretches to make ends meet. He lives up the East Coast so he has relatively high transportation costs. All his provisions cost more than they would elsewhere because he lives in a remote rural area. All he wanted was to be able to have a relative board with him and supplement his income in order to make his benefit go a little further. Nothing is wrong with that at all; it is quite within the rules. All he required from me was to get that set out in writing by Housing New Zealand Corporation to make sure he was covered. I applaud that gentleman for his efforts to make sure in his words that he was not “ripping anyone off”. 
National has no problem with people who play within the rules. But a large number of tenants in State houses receive money from boarders and do not declare the rent they receive from them as part of their income. One of the major outcomes of this information sharing is that if people do not declare such income and that income cannot be considered in the annual review of State tenants carried out by Housing New Zealand Corporation then it will be found they are defrauding the New Zealand taxpayers who are helping them. The outcome of this information sharing is that if Housing New Zealand Corporation knows that more people than its tenants are living in a house and some are paying board then that information can be sent to the Ministry of Social Development which can then make its own inquiries about the income that is actually being received into that household and alter the income-related rents accordingly. That is a fair way to deal with people who receive assistance from New Zealand taxpayers. So National supports this bill for those three reasons. 
The select committee received only two submissions on the bill. One was from the New Zealand Property Investors Federation Inc. which supported the proposals. I thank it for its quite comprehensive submission. The property investors supported what was being proposed—of course they did—but also wanted the bill to be extended to enable the Ministry of Social Development to supply the Ministry of Justice and its officials with specific address-for-service data to improve the tracking and enforcement of court-ordered money orders. The officials ruled that that was outside the scope of the bill which was a bit disappointing. 
The property investors referred to the 2003 agreement that under a tenancy tribunal judgment creditors could be given assistance to trace tribunal debtors by the provision of access to some Government-held address information. They made the point that private landowners are owed between $5 million and $6 million in rent arrears and at least $43 million for damage. They are continually frustrated at their inability to track down tenants who have disappeared but are still within the State system. Many of those tenants are known to the State and still actually receive benefits from the State whilst owing millions of dollars for both damage and outstanding rents to people who have provided them with accommodation. It was a great pity that that matter was deemed to be outside the scope of the bill and to learn that the 2003 agreement is obviously not working. 
The second submission was from the Dunedin Community Law Centre. It was concerned about how to protect individuals from multiple investigations by agencies. It cited the stress and trauma experienced by individuals and families when a number of agencies is investigating them. That matter too was dismissed by the officials on the premise that there would not be a two-way match and that the information matching would be between only the two organisations. 
The select committee largely supported this bill; I think only the Greens dissented. This legislation is well overdue. National will not say too loudly or too often to Government members that we told them so but we support the second reading of this bill.