Paraone Pita: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Paraone Pita: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4095] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand in this the third reading of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting the passing into law of this bill not because we claim that the purpose of this bill is our policy but rather because we are of the view that it is our responsibility to protect taxpayers’ funds and taxpayer assets. This bill does exactly that. As I say New Zealand First supports this bill. However in so doing I want to acknowledge the support that the National Party is giving to this bill as well albeit possibly for different reasons—that is that it was National’s idea in 1999. This must be the only policy that National members can claim to be theirs over recent years as they have tended to take the policies of other parties—of one party in particular—and claim them to be theirs. Be that as it may I acknowledge National’s support. 
In order to legislate the intent of the bill amendments were required to the Housing Restructuring Act of 1992 and the Privacy Act. New Zealand First supports the bill particularly in view of the fact that it protects the integrity of this country’s benefit system by allowing an exchange of information that will minimise benefit and student allowance overpayments and help to detect fraud. The information-matching provision in this bill also applies to tenants on benefits who pay income-related rents. The bill is specific about the information that may be disclosed and who lives at the address in question. It is important that the information matching is confined to Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development and is provided for the purpose that this bill limits it to. I think if it were to go beyond those two departments then it really would be an abuse of the legislative power vested in those two ministries. There is in our view a fine line between having enough information to protect the State’s finances and prying into the private lives of our citizens. That line should be made very clear and should never be crossed. The one-way specific information-sharing enabled by this bill is we believe acceptable. 
We raised concerns during the first reading of the bill about the privacy issues it raises and the ease with which this age of electronic information affords the opportunity for intrusion into people’s private lives. The age of Big Brother is well and truly upon us now and we need to exercise the utmost caution and vigilance when applying through legislation what technology now allows. Just because the means are there does not mean we need to use them. I think the debate during last week’s sitting of the House in relation to dog microchipping is an example of that. However we are satisfied that any information sharing carried out under this legislation will be subject to strict controls and sought only for the purposes outlined in the bill. 
This House has an obligation and a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer funds are protected from fraud. New Zealand First will support any bill that protects and ensures the credibility of taxpayer expenditure and we believe that this bill does that. We are satisfied that the Ministry of Social Development and Housing New Zealand Corporation as the two Government departments affected by this legislation will use it sparingly that they will use it to maximise people’s benefit entitlements as well as to detect fraud and that they will apply its provisions in accordance with the intention with which they were written. 
Comment was made about an earlier statement New Zealand First made in regard to the intent of this bill being extended to other Government departments. I believe that one or two submissions made during the select committee consideration of the bill requested that its provisions should be extended to the courts. Although that is not the intent of the bill I would have thought given the great support that certain parties gave the submitters that perhaps a Supplementary Order Paper might be introduced to extend the Government departments involved in the bill by including the courts. The argument put forward by the submitters was a good one and it needs to be considered. At the end of the day that particular part of our community provides a service that essentially picks up a lot of what Housing New Zealand Corporation is not able to do because it does not have the resources available to it. 
In conclusion I reiterate New Zealand First’s position that we support this legislation. It will certainly protect taxpayers’ funding and assets. Kia ora.