Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Social Services Committee for consideration.

The bill provides for information matching between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development. It authorises the corporation to disclose to the ministry information relating to its tenants and tenancies. The information match between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development follows 2003 and 2004 Budget initiatives for new and extended information matches between various Government agencies and the Ministry of Social Development.

The ministry has completed the implementation of higher priority information matches with other agencies. These matches have resulted in savings to taxpayers and maintain the integrity of the income support system. The ministry has now engaged with Housing New Zealand Corporation to implement an information-matching programme from 1 July 2006. The information will help minimise overpayments of benefits and student allowances, help the recovery of beneficiary and student debt arising from those overpayments, and help in the detection of fraud. In addition to minimising overpayments that could result in ongoing repayments, the information match may benefit tenants, their partners, and dependents, by identifying situations where they are not receiving their correct entitlement to income support.

Information-matching rules under the Privacy Act require that individuals affected by the programme will be notified. Housing New Zealand Corporation will undertake targeted publicity before the implementation of the information-matching programme and throughout the operation of the programme, to comply with the information-matching rules in the Privacy Act. All new and existing corporation tenants will be made aware that information supplied to it by tenants may be provided to the Ministry of Social Development.

The ministry has agreed to provide reports to Housing New Zealand Corporation on the extent to which housing tenants are giving incorrect information to the corporation. This will allow Housing New Zealand Corporation to make informed decisions on potential remedies.

The bill renames the Housing Restructuring Act 1992 as the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992, to make it clear that the Act will provide for tenancy matters. The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Privacy Act to include Housing New Zealand Corporation and Housing New Zealand Ltd as specified agencies for the purposes of information sharing, and to list the new information-matching provisions. The bill extends information matching between agencies so to improve the integrity of the income support system.

I commend the bill to the House.

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?

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 1,000 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 1,000 State house tenancies in New Zealand that had boarders; the number was actually a bit more than that—just under 7,000. Members should remember that the taxpayer has given tenants a State house because they are in need. Just under 7,000 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 7,000 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 $67,000 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.

—“is on $67,000 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.

I want to make a few remarks on behalf of my colleague Pita Paraone, our housing spokesperson. The aim of the bill is to amend the Housing Restructuring Act 1992 in two ways: to rename it as the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992, and to allow one-way information-matching on tenants and tenancies between Government departments—more precisely, the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development.

The primary purpose of the bill is to protect the integrity of the benefits system by allowing an exchange of information that will minimise benefit and student allowance overpayments and will help to detect fraud. The information-matching provision in the bill also applies to tenants on benefits who pay income-related rents. The bill recognises that current legislation struggles with what constitutes a household or a family. The bill is quite specific about what information may be disclosed about who lives at the address in question. The legislation requires a consequential amendment to the Privacy Act.

New Zealand First will be supporting the bill going to the select committee, but, as the previous speaker indicated he may do, we will certainly be looking for all the fish-hooks within it—in fact, that is the role of the select committee. We support the intent of the legislation to minimise opportunities for the overpayment of benefits, or benefit fraud.

It is vital that the information matching is only one way, from the Housing New Zealand Corporation to the Ministry of Social Development, and is requested only on clear and justifiable grounds. 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 acceptable, but New Zealand First is wary of the possibilities afforded by the electronic information age. We will be seeking assurances that any information sharing occurs under strict limits and controls, and is sought only for the purposes outlined in the bill.

Changes required to the Privacy Act will need to be carefully worked through to ensure the intent of that Act is not compromised, and I should imagine some necessary changes will be made to the Electoral Act to ensure we do not have people running up huge bills and winning their elections when, in fact, they have breached the integrity and the intent of that particular Act. Some definite work will need to be done there in terms of legislative reform.

In between times, we shall be voting for this particular bill to go through to the select committee, and we will be looking very carefully at the issues we raise in that forum.

As Phil Heatley mentioned in his contribution, the National Party will support the referral of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill to the select committee. I congratulate the Hon Chris Carter on presenting the bill to the House, because it is momentous.

Chris Carter has admitted the bill has two main purposes. The first is to rename the Housing Restructuring Act 1992, which will now become the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992. I congratulate Chris Carter on that huge achievement! He has been a member of the House for a number of years. Many people have asked me whether we are related, but I have assured them there is no relationship at all. I keep getting asked what Chris Carter’s portfolio is and what he has achieved in his time here. I have been embarrassed to say that even though he shares the same surname as me, to date I cannot say there is a lot that he will be remembered for. But today we are creating Chris Carter’s epitaph. The thing by which Chris Carter will be remembered by the Parliament of New Zealand into the future is that he was the man who courageously put forward a bill to change the name of the Housing Restructuring Act 1992 into the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992. That is a huge achievement, and members on the Opposition side of the House are very happy to support this momentous bill.

The second main purpose of the bill is to allow the sharing of information about tenants and tenancies between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development—or we could say Work and Income. National, of course, supports that measure, because as Phil Heatley said, we wanted to do that in late 1999 but Labour opposed the legislation and claimed that it breached civil liberties. Well, I say to Chris Carter and the other members of the Labour Party that the time has come to get tough on people who are, frankly, rorting the system. We had an excellent example of that provided by Chris Carter today—an admission he will not be remembered for favourably—when, with great reluctance, he revealed that up to 10 percent of all State house tenants are operating a business. They are operating, in many cases, quite substantial boarding houses, whereby they rent a house from Housing New Zealand Corporation and then they take on boarders.

In some cases, I suspect the inventive tenants are making quite a considerable fortune. Many State houses are being rented out by this Government, in suburbs like Mount Albert, at a total cost of $35 a week. Under the Government’s income-related rents policy, it is able to rent out some of those very good houses, some of which are quite sizeable, for the princely sum of $35 a week. Members can imagine that if tenants have one or two spare rooms, they can attract a boarder who is interested in living in those one or two rooms. They are in a position to probably charge each boarder a minimum of $100 a week. It is not a bad little lurk for those people to pay the Government 35 bucks for their rent, and to then collect a couple of hundred of bucks—and I bet that that income is not being declared to the Inland Revenue Department. So it is not a bad deal for those people.

I thank Chris Carter for bringing the legislation forward at long last. We particularly want to follow the very interesting case of the Mount Albert tenant—which Chris Carter is very quiet about; he does not want to talk about this man—with seven boarders in his house. Chris Carter should find out how much they are all paying—probably the best part of 100 bucks a week each, which is $700 a week going into that house. Chris Carter should confirm to us the rent paid by the tenant, but it is likely to be the minimum rent of around $35 or $40-odd a week. That is a sham, particularly when over 12,000 desperate New Zealand families are waiting for State houses as we speak.

Didn’t you sell off 13,000 yourself?

Well, we have the old chimer-in; I wondered how long it would take him. We sold off 13,000 State houses to wonderfully happy, proud homeowners. They were people who lived in State houses, and the previous National Government said to them that if they wanted the opportunity to become a homeowner, we would help them into their house with the Home Buy scheme.

Labour did not like that; it does not like people to become independent of the State. Labour wants people to be confined to the benefit, to live in State houses, and to be dependent on the generosity of a Government that stifles their own initiative to progress themselves. There is a total difference in philosophy between the Opposition side of the House and the Government side of the House. Labour thinks that if it can keep people downtrodden, force them to live in a State house, and make sure they are on a benefit of one form or another, then hopefully they will vote for Labour for the rest of their lives.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: It’s scary.

No, it is not scary, because New Zealanders are not as dumb as that. They are fast waking up to the fact that they can do better for themselves if they can break the cycle of dependence on people like Chris Carter, and try to get out there, get their own jobs, and manage to buy their own houses.

When the next election brings a National Government into office, I can assure Chris Carter that one of the first bills I want to bring back into the House is one that gives people who are living in State houses the ability to be assisted in buying a State house. I will see that those people become independent, and are no longer dependent on the State. I want those people to own their own houses, although I know Chris Carter hates that idea.

One of the things that new members should do is to take the opportunity to look at the ministerial register of interests, which goes through the interests that all the Ministers have. New members will find that Ministers are not very good at capitalism. They have not gone out and bettered themselves. They have been quite happy to just muddle along, perhaps owning the odd house in Wellington, or perhaps renting a house somewhere else. But I say that the philosophy of members on the Opposition side of the House is to encourage people to get out and do it for themselves, and if they end up owning their own house, then, as far as I am concerned, that is great.

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 Māori 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.

On behalf of the Māori Party, I say that we support this bill going to the select committee. It opens up a whole can of worms about the living situations of a lot of our people. We would like some clarity, not just about the issues of boarding, etc., but about the status our people have in respect of their housing, and about the ways in which they can be moved from the situation of poverty that most who live in those houses are currently facing to a situation whereby they can own those homes themselves.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to support this bill going to a select committee. I guess I should make the comment that it is better late than never from this Labour Government. As we heard from Mr Carter just before, National wanted to put this bill forward at the end of 1999. ACT certainly would have supported the bill at that stage, and we support it now, because we are talking about very sensible provisions.

The bill will allow the Ministry of Social Development to match information from the Housing New Zealand Corporation against its files. The information would be used to reduce fraud and the overpayment of benefits, by providing accurate details of how many people live at the recipients’ Housing New Zealand Corporation addresses and what their tenancy details are. I think it is useful to look at what information can be disclosed, particularly in light of the discussion we have had about the changes made necessary to the Privacy Act as a result of this legislation.

Information that may be disclosed includes the names and dates of birth of tenants in Housing New Zealand Corporation housing, those of their spouses or partners and dependent children, and those of the dependent children of those spouses or partners; the location of the houses; details of the tenancies, including the start and end dates; income details of those living at the address; and the address details. The information disclosed will be used by the Ministry of Social Development to help it to verify a person’s entitlement or eligibility to a benefit, verify the amount of any benefit to which a person is or was entitled, and recover debts due to the Crown.

Sixty percent of Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants have their rent paid directly out of their benefit by Work and Income. That system is not available to beneficiaries renting privately. That is one area where I think the bill is perhaps deficient, and I look forward to the discussion at the select committee about that particular issue.

The bill will make it harder for people to defraud the welfare agencies by misrepresenting their income, rent, or the number of dependent people living at an address. There has been some discussion of late, particularly in the media, about people living in Housing New Zealand Corporation houses and renting out rooms. There has been some discussion about that today, and I think most people would agree that that income certainly should be disclosed where it is occurring.

That information will be made available to the Ministry of Social Development, which will also make it easier for the ministry to recover outstanding debt. We should not forget that 49 percent of beneficiaries owe a debt to Work and Income. That matter was discussed recently at the financial review of the Ministry of Social Development at the Social Services Committee, and every member of the committee was very concerned about it. That rate is far too high, and measures need to be put in place so that people who are dependent on a benefit are not being put in the terrible state of having to pay money back. Measures such as not overpaying benefits in the first place would go a long way to help, and this bill should go some way to addressing that problem.

This bill will not do much about welfare abuse by people who rent privately, as I mentioned before, but it is a positive step in the right direction, especially because Housing New Zealand Corporation properties are Government-owned. Welfare abuse is a major problem in this country. We spend more on welfare than we do on health and education.

ACT certainly campaigned very hard at election time on tackling welfare abuse. It prevents this country from moving forward. It prevents those people who are genuinely dependent on the State for their income—people who really are vulnerable, as opposed to those who could be supporting themselves but choose not to do so—from moving forward. Welfare abuse needs to be attended to. ACT would like those people in our society who really are vulnerable to be treated much more generously than they are. In fact, those who prevent that from happening are those who wilfully abuse the welfare system, and something should be done about that.

Our burgeoning welfare rolls stand in the way of a great number of things. They stand in the way of tax cuts.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Our shrinking welfare roll is down by 90,000.

If Dr Cullen were to listen carefully, he might learn something.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Our shrinking welfare roll is down by 90,000 under this Government.

I am not sure which one Dr Cullen is talking about, but our burgeoning welfare rolls stand in the way of a great many things. Just because they may be shrinking does not mean they are at the level they should be—and they certainly are not.

Our burgeoning welfare rolls do, in fact, stand in the way of tax cuts. They stand in the way of infrastructure development and the improvement of core Government services—something that I thought Dr Cullen might be interested in improving, but it seems he is not. When I talk about improving core Government services, I do not mean giving money to the America’s Cup campaign or to any number of things that the Government should not have an interest in, at all.

Welfare makes people dependent on the Government. At the start of this urgency period we had the Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill. That legislation needed to be put in place to enhance the Working for Families package, which makes even more families dependent on the State for their income. As Dr Cullen well knows, that money could have been used to provide all the workers of this country with a tax cut, meaning that they would have had more money in their pocket to provide for themselves. That is too good an idea; the Labour Government is not interested in the sort of good idea that would make people stand on their own two feet. Labour is much more interested in making people dependent on the State so that when the next election rolls around, it will be a bit like a turkey voting for a new Christmas.

Welfare makes people dependent on the State, as we on this side of the House certainly know, although Government members seem to struggle with that concept. It takes away people’s choices and erodes their skills, it robs people of work routines—which are important, as we know—and it undermines their self-esteem.

This bill will, I hope, reduce the potential for fraud and be an encouragement for people to lift themselves back into work. I think it is extraordinarily important legislation, and I am proud to support it—which is also something the Government seems to have ignored. ACT will support this bill going to the select committee and, I suspect, further beyond. We will certainly look out for fish-hooks, as other members have said they will do, during the select committee process. We would like to see one or two things addressed, but by and large this is a very good bill, and we support it.