Bradford Sue: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:1039] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 It has been a very curious debate this afternoon which came just as the House was falling asleep. We have the National Party supporting the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. That does not surprise me at all given that National members talk about this being the kind of legislation that National put forward in the 1990s but could not get Labour’s support for then. I am very disturbed that Labour is now heading backwards to where National was in the 1990s. With this bill there is no question about that and it looks as though we may be one of the only parties in the House that opposes the bill. I hope our colleagues in the Maori Party may be considering opposing it as well because it is both unnecessary and intrusive into the lives of beneficiaries once again. Is it not curious that when it is beneficiaries who are at stake we have a grand coalition between so far National Labour and New Zealand First? I hope that at least one other party in the House will stand up for the interests of beneficiaries—no one else seems to be doing so. 
We share the concerns of civil liberties groups around the country about the proliferation of information-matching programmes that operate between Government agencies. Such programmes have grown from 20—more than enough—in 1995-96 to 72 in 2004-05. That information comes from the 2005 annual report of the Privacy Commissioner—I did not make it up. So there are 72 information-matching programmes; we do not need any more. This widespread expansion represents a major intrusion of the State into the private lives of New Zealanders. Just because people are beneficiaries does not mean they do not count as human beings with civil and human rights. Some limits have to be imposed on this proliferation and the Green Party considers that the programme that is proposed by the bill falls outside any reasonable limit. 
The bill also sets Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants aside from other tenants and puts them all in a category of their own which is rather odd. People who are renting from private landlords or from other social landlords such as local bodies or third sector housing agencies will not be required to provide the same level of information matching as required by the bill. That does not make sense either even if one believes in what the bill is on about. The Green Party considers that it is unacceptable to establish two classes of tenants with different privacy rights with regard to their tenancy information. All tenants should have the right to have their personal information treated in the same way and in accordance with the law by their landlords regardless of whom that landlord might happen to be. 
I also ask why the bill is necessary. Section 68 of the Privacy Act 1993 sets out guidelines to the Privacy Commissioner regarding proposed information-matching programmes. One of the things to be considered under those guidelines is whether the use of an alternative means of achieving the same objective would give the desired results of that programme. In this case I question what the information-matching programme will achieve that the obtaining of the written authority of Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants for their information to be provided through the Ministry of Social Development would not achieve anyway. I am confident that the vast majority of tenants would willingly sign if it was explained that the purpose was to allow them to maximise their benefits and entitlements. In this way the Ministry of Social Development would obtain the necessary information through informed consent rather than through some shadowy information-matching programme that most tenants will not even know exists. There are ample—and some of us would say draconian—powers already in the Social Security Act 1964 and its myriad of amendments and in the Education Act in regard to student allowances to investigate the circumstances of those who may not agree to such information being shared by Housing New Zealand Corporation. 
I am also concerned that the focus—as usual unfortunately—is on extending State powers to detect and prevent benefit fraud rather than on how the State may actually do its best to extend entitlements to beneficiaries and make sure that people are receiving their full and correct entitlements. We still have a massive problem right around the country with regard to an ineffective administration of our benefit system so that many people do not get their correct entitlements. I would far rather see the focus be on people getting the full amount they are entitled to rather than there being yet another piece of legislation aimed at trying to cut people off and harass them further. 
Finally I am quite suspicious about why we have to have a whole bill that provides a separate purpose around the information-matching programme rather than just inserting into existing legislation a list of specified agencies as contained in section 97 of the Privacy Act that can carry out such programmes. Why do we have to have a whole bill to do this even if one agrees with what is going on? Most information programmes are carried out under Part 10 of the Privacy Act rather than having specific legislation like this written for them. I question whether the full detail of that programme needs to be contained in the legislation. Is it because the Government is concerned that the Privacy Commissioners themselves may not look favourably upon that programme? Clearly there are other means of achieving the same objective that do not impinge upon tenants’ privacy in the manner that this bill sets out. 
The Green Party totally opposes this bill as being unnecessary undemocratic and intrusive. I wish that the Government would put the same effort into helping beneficiaries to get enough to live on and achieve the full entitlements they should already be getting rather than on finding new ways to further harass them.