Heatley Phil: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Heatley Phil: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:1035] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party and would like to make it clear to members present in the House and those listening in their offices that the National Party supports this bill. We will be voting for it to go to a select committee. 
We were looking to introduce just this type of legislation in the late 1990s but unfortunately at that time the Labour Party was not keen to support it. We were quite disappointed in that at that time quite simply because we look for transparency in our social services and social welfare system—we always have. We in the National Party have always had the view that there needs to be a safety net a social welfare system for those who need housing for those who need a degree of income assistance for those who need childcare during various times in their lives and for all those who from time to time go to the taxpayer—essentially the Government—and ask for help for a short period while they get on their feet. The National Party has always been more than willing to support such a social welfare system. But in saying that we have also been a party strong on accountability transparency and making sure that those who are in need are the ones—regardless of race I would have to add—who are receiving help from the general public through the social welfare system not those who might possibly rort the system or ride it for all it is worth. 
We looked at introducing such provisions for Housing New Zealand in the late 1990s but the Labour Party at that time signalled that it would not support that. It is just amazing how ideas suddenly dawn on other parties and they realise that yes sometimes parties with an opposite view actually do have a good idea. We are pleased that it is being brought to fruition. 
However we will be looking out for the fish-hooks that may be in this legislation particularly any threats to the Privacy Act. I have noted that this legislation does have respect for the Privacy Act and I am pleased to see that. It does recognise the Privacy Act it finds a way to negotiate around the provisions of that legislation and I am delighted with that. But I want to go through the detail clause by clause with select committee colleagues with officials from the Ministry of Social Development and the Housing New Zealand Corporation and with members of the general public just to check that the provisions are fair. We do not want disclosure of private information; we do not want individual rights to be trampled over when this bill goes through. What we do want to see is transparency and openness of process. 
That is why we support the idea of information sharing with the Ministry of Social Development. There is no doubt in my mind that rorts are going on in the Housing New Zealand Corporation sector—effectively State housing. I have certainly made quite a public fuss about the situation at present where State houses are being effectively used as businesses—commercial enterprises. I am not talking about engineering workshops being run out of State houses or anything like that. It is quite simple: it is the issue of boarders. Some State house tenants as time has moved on and the young family has grown up and dispersed have been left with two three or four-bedroom houses and they use simply one room or a couple of rooms and have a lot of spare rooms. They are renting those rooms out to boarders and making quite a tidy income on the side. That is entirely understandable— 
Hon David Carter 
: How many? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Well a month ago the Minister of Housing told the public of New Zealand through the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 which is a good paper for investigative reporting that just over 1000 State houses had boarders as well as the tenants—that the tenants of those State houses actually had boarders. I did some further investigation and discovered that the Minister had got it wrong; he had got it wrong but only by 700 percent. There were not 1000 State house tenancies in New Zealand that had boarders; the number was actually a bit more than that—just under 7000. Members should remember that the taxpayer has given tenants a State house because they are in need. Just under 7000 State house tenants in this country have boarders. They have extra rooms and they are renting them out. 
The National Party is saying that if a State house tenant has a 16-year-old or 17-year-old son at polytech who needs to save money or is on a tight budget and who wants to board at home renting him a room is fine. It is entirely understandable. It is entirely understandable if a State house tenant’s 75-year-old mum who is now alone wants to move in with that tenant to board with that tenant. Maybe a State house tenant is renting out two extra rooms to a daughter who is at polytech and to the 75-year-old mother. The National Party is saying it is understandable that one would want to help out one’s elderly parents or one’s children. But I have discovered that there are just under 7000 tenancies in New Zealand where not one room not two rooms but three four or five rooms are being rented out. 
There is one case in New Zealand of a State house tenant with seven boarders. The Minister of Housing Chris Carter has a tenant in Mount Albert who is renting out four rooms and he already has an income of $67000 a year. I have not done a press release on that yet because I have yet to check whether the particular tenant is a relation of Chris Carter’s. I want to check that because I do not want to get the Minister in trouble. I want to be able to go to him and tell him quietly: “Chris your cousin”— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must use a member’s full name. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: —“is on $67000 a year and he is renting out a State house to four boarders. Get him out of there! I don’t want to go public with this.” 
National members support the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill because we want transparency in the process. We believe that a State house tenant can have boarders if the tenant is supporting young family members or older family members or whatever the situation could be but that to rent out three four five six or seven rooms and make a killing on the side off the back of a taxpayer-provided home is absolutely wrong. This bill we hope when we see the detail of it will target situations where rorts are going on. It is my hope that that will happen. 
Obviously there will be information sharing on the income of tenants. That may be through the work they do or it may be through other benefits they receive. But information matching is absolutely necessary because with the social welfare system growing in the way that it has over the last few years we have seen a mad rush of all those people moving off the unemployment benefit and on to invalids and sickness benefits. The National Party wants to get that under control. We believe there are some rorts going on in the State house area—not by the majority of people not by 90 percent of the people whom we care for but by the 10 percent who are ratbags and the ones we want to target or nail. We want to make sure that regardless of whether they are cousins of Chris Carter we get them move them on and make sure they are contributing to this country as well. 
The National Party supports this legislation. We will be voting for its first reading and examining it at the select committee. We commend it to the House.