King Colin: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
King Colin: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4093] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill and I am pleased to do so. It is interesting to have been somewhat of a passenger to this bill as it has progressed through the House and to have been sitting and listening to some of the comments that came through in its second reading. I see that this bill makes an enormous amount of common sense and it will encourage us to accept our responsibilities. In fact it crosses to the very heart of the Kiwi psyche of fair play and honesty. So on that basis alone it is a common-sense bill. As a member of Parliament one becomes very quickly acquainted with the needs of those who are not as fortunate as we are. One realises the complexity of situations and challenges that confront them. 
In the debate during the bill’s second reading some members said that it did not get a very fair hearing—that it sort of slipped through. But from my summing up of the second reading of this bill it had received a fair old dusting. It was very interesting to hear the housing spokesperson for National Phil Heatley bring out the point that in actual fact this bill was before the House in 1999 because of the same issue. On that occasion it was the Labour Party that kicked it into touch. It voted against it. However common sense has come to prevail and we see we are at the stage we were 7 years ago. So from that point of view standing and speaking to this bill during its third reading it is nice to see some National policy in this bill move on its way in the direction of being passed into law. 
Positively it addresses the issues of those people who are ripping off the system—those ratbags; those very few people who need reminding of their responsibilities. They are only a very small minority I know. However they need to be accountable. It is very interesting to see that 63000 homes are owned by the Housing New Zealand Corporation which provides support to people in need. It is a big number of houses and a big responsibility. In Blenheim alone we have 450 such houses and I was quite surprised to find out that number. Associated with some of the problems is the issue around the number of people living in a house and paying board. That in itself needs to be an issue that is referred to so that that board can be considered as income. 
I would like to make a point at this stage after hearing the arguments during the second reading process that some families are enormously large in size—up to 10 or 12 people. If they are old enough to pay board then I certainly hope they are not living on their parents free of board because that in itself would not be giving the appropriate direction for people to pay their way. 
Such points were covered thoroughly during that second reading. It was interesting to hear that there were some very clearly defined reasons why this legislation had to come forward. It is there to minimise the issue around benefit debt. When one stops and thinks about that one can see that it is so very very easy to fall into the trap whereby one ends up in a situation well over one’s head and does not know where to turn. It is better to address the issue sooner rather than later. Quality information being transferred between the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development would be a first step in solving the problem. 
Early intervention and detection are appropriate and able to be conducted. The issue I have with this is that we should not incur a bureaucracy in doing so and so effectively use a sledgehammer to kill an ant. It was pointed out that the technologies and setting up would cost in the vicinity of $600000. That sounded all very good. I believe that in about 2005 the sum to be collected from people who were abusing the system was estimated to be about $1.4 million. So it will be very important to keep in view that there need to be appropriate efficiencies so that we do not end up with another layer of bureaucracy which is so common in regard to the Government we have today. We know that fraud detection is one of the other reasons and a great deal of original thinking can emanate from the desperation of people trying to make ends meet. 
Again I thought it was very appropriate that the officials pointed out that there was a positive around the bill in as much as it would help identify those people who were not receiving their full entitlements. That is a very important aspect. When somebody who is really struggling makes an appointment to see a member of Parliament it is surprising what help one can be in empowering him or her to go away and get those appropriate entitlements. That is a really rewarding and enjoyable part of being a member of Parliament. 
The three reasons why National supports the bill are as I said that it came before the House in 1999—it was a National bill and from that point of view it is commendable that Labour has come to the party and we are where we are today—it is important from the National Party point of view that we have increased transparency and honesty; and of course there is the issue around those people who are receiving undeclared income by way of extra boarders. That money should be declared as income from the point of view of Housing New Zealand Corporation to the Ministry of Social Development. 
It was quite obvious during the debate that there are always two sides to the story and as has been referred to already in this third reading only two submissions were received. That was a surprise. I am less than happy with that although we see that they came from two different angles. One came from the angle of the New Zealand Property Investors Federation. It made some interesting statements; it has to incur somewhere in the region of a $5 million or $6 million debt owing on rent and it also has to wear a $45 million a year damage bill. That in itself was an issue. It is very unfortunate that this bill does not have the scope to be able to encompass that major issue. 
In regard to consequences around the Privacy Act 1993 it is good to see that on balance the members of this Parliament are comfortable that the privacy of the individual is looked after and that there are no major issues around that. 
What I would consider to be the gem statement during the debates that I read about came from the member from New Zealand First who made the comment that no doubt we were all thinking that this bill in the way that it intends for information to be shared between Government departments is in fact a forerunner of similar communications between Government departments in the future. 
I have had great pleasure in supporting this bill during its various stages and on that basis I think it is long overdue. It is interesting that it was a National initiative in 1999. That it is back here in 2006 is appropriate. It will address a number of anomalies and all in all it will enable Housing New Zealand Corporation to conduct its affairs in an even-handed way and share that information with the Ministry of Social Development.