Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill

I rise to talk about Part 2. I have to inform the Committee that I have had some formal discussions with my colleagues on this side of the Chamber and I want the Committee to take into account that we have come to an agreement. Should the Minister choose to answer the questions put by Nathan Guy and Paula Bennett on the source of the State house tenants’ personal details that went to the Labour Party during the last election campaign so it could direct-mail the tenants threatening letters, we would give leave to that if the Chairman felt it was not within the scope of this particular part. We are relaxed about it being in the scope, if the Minister wants to address it. If the Minister wants to seek leave so he can address it and put to death those issues, then this side of the Committee will absolutely support that, because we would like answers, as would the State house tenants who lived in a climate of fear for those 2 months leading up to the last general election, and, of course, the general public as well.

Part 2, “Consequential amendments to Privacy Act 1993”, is a reasonably simple and necessary part that deals with the definition of the specified agency that will be involved in the information matching. In this legislation, we are not passing that every Government agency be able or obliged to share information with the Ministry of Social Development. We could not have that; we could not have every single agency being rash and free with the personal information held dear by Kiwis within the privacy of their lives and homes. We could not have that information splashing around the Internet, across the Minister’s desk, or in the information presented to the Labour Party president every month. What we are talking about here, of course, is just information relating to the Housing New Zealand Corporation.

More important, clause 6, “Interpretation” states: “(2) The definition of specified agency is … the Housing New Zealand Corporation established”—and people will recall this—“(as the Housing Corporation of New Zealand) by section 3(1) of the Housing Corporation Act 1974:”. So there is a play around with words there on the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Housing Corporation of New Zealand. We are being specific here so that we would not be caught up somehow in the future, if the courts establish that the wrong organisation was involved in information sharing with the Ministry of Social Development. Thank goodness for Part 2.

This part, interestingly enough, formed one of the amendments that I was going to present tonight if the Minister and his officials had not covered it off, but—of course—they had, in the bill that was presented to the House before the select committee looked at it. The Minister’s officials were on the ball there. The Minister did not have to catch them out—I certainly did not catch them out—and the National Party will be cooperative in addressing that particular issue.

We also see clause 7, where schedule 3 is amended by inserting: “in its appropriate alphabetical order, the following item: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992”. So schedule 3, after the passing of this legislation, will contain the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992 under section 68. That relates to the Ministry of Social Development and the issue of information sharing.

In summing up for this particular part, I will read a letter that was sent in mid-June. It states: “Dear Mr Brash, Thank you for pressing on with your investigations in Housing New Zealand. I’m thrilled to bits with this bill that will enable tenants of Housing New Zealand to be investigated, and that, of course, is investigated if necessary.” This particular person will remain confidential, because we have not passed an Act in this Parliament that allows me to brandish names here, there, and everywhere. I can, of course do it inside the House, but I am not Winston Peters; I am just not going to do it. That person acknowledges that Dr Brash and the National Party in 1999 first of all brought in these provisions, and we thank the Minister for passing them through this stage today.

I rise to talk about Part 2, “Consequential amendments to the Privacy Act 1993”, which amends the definition of specified agency in the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act. The question I have as well, which is within the scope of clause 6, “Interpretation”, amending the definition of “specified agency”, is whether anything will be happening with the move to one benefit. I know that the single core benefit—relating to entitlements—is not quite within this part but is within parts of the part. When we move to this single core benefit, can the Minister in the chair, Chris Carter, see what will result when there is one benefit with different parts to it—for example, the accommodation supplement? I wonder whether the Minister has discussed with the Ministry of Social Development how that will happen, given the changes that are going on concerning accommodation allowances, and so on. My own conversations with the ministry and the Minister have suggested that they are not quite sure how this will work; and they have been talking for a long time about moving to the single core benefit. I wonder what, if they have not quite got it right, the provisions about information sharing and the specified agency will mean for those people.

It is fine for us to stand up here and spout about entitlements and say that people should be getting what they deserve, and what they need to survive, but let us talk about some of the theory and the actual practice. The practice at the moment is not clear-cut. certainly the intention of going to the single core benefit is to make it more simple, but I do not know whether that will happen in practice. At the moment, I can see that we will be having conflicts about information sharing, anyway. I ask whether the Minister has thought through how, when we actually change the system, it will meet the information-sharing requirements. That is something the National Party certainly has concerns about. As I said previously, it is incredibly important that people get the help they need while they need it, so they can then move on and live more fulfilling lives and have more aspirations—and perhaps not live in a State house for the rest of their lives.

I take umbrage at a previous speaker who said there should be no difference between living in a State house and living somewhere else. I challenge that, and say I think there should be. I think people should aspire for more for themselves and their families. We in the National Party do not apologise for that. We do not apologise for wanting more for New Zealand—and more for New Zealanders—than having to be dependent on the State. We are not about to start apologising for that now.

So when members say there should be no differentiation and that it should all be the same and we should not be judging people—and there has been talk about entitlements and social development and so on—the reality is that people are on welfare and they are getting help from the taxpayer. They deserve it and, as I said, I have no qualms at all about those needing housing, but let us not start apologising for the aspiration of wanting more for New Zealanders.

There is this crying, bleeding-heart attitude that we need to be looking after everybody’s rights and making sure that everyone is getting everything. Let us make sure we are helping people who need it—in the short term. What is happening is that it is becoming longer and longer, and so we have intergenerational welfare dependency, with people losing that aspiration, in thinking that what they have got is OK—and it is not; they can actually do better than OK. They can actually have more than just “OK”, and they can do better than living in a State house for the rest of their lives, and then their kids’ lives, and then the kids after that. The National Party is the party that stands up and advocates for more for people and sees them having dreams and aspirations and getting off welfare and getting out of their State house. I do not want my information shared, in all honesty. So I am just not going to be in a situation where I need to do that.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: John Key and I both moved out of State housing.

Thank goodness! What happened with him was that the next generation came along and they aspired for more. Look what can happen. I can hear exactly what the Labour Party members are saying, but look what can happen with aspiration, dreams, and hard work—people can turn themselves into someone else. So all strength and recognition to someone like John Key for getting that guidance from a parent who took help from the State while it was needed, but aspired for more for the children.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: But what about the next generation?

Members should look at that next generation and see what happened to them with a bit of aspiration and hope.

The Housing Restructuring Act badly needs things included, but National members will live with the amendments that are in this Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. I worry that if the Government gets more information, it might go into overload.

The Government has made a mess of the Housing New Zealand Corporation in the last 6½ years, and I ask how it will improve its performance. The Housing New Zealand Corporation is wasting vast amounts of money at the moment, and has been doing so for years. Yes, this bill will help, but it will not solve all the problems. I am not going to tell Labour how to fix the problems, at the moment; I will, with the National Party’s and Phil Heatley’s approval, tell it what to do, before the next election. The Labour Party members should wait with bated breath. In fact, some of the members on the other side of the House today were taking swipes at me. They got their facts wrong; they must be hooked into the wrong phone or something.

Labour currently has 11,000 people on the waiting list. I hear these figures being twisted around in the House. But is it not strange that when National went out of power in 1999, there were only 14 families on the urgent waiting list in Auckland? [Interruption] Down, boys! This system needs sorting. As I said, this bill and its amendments will help, but I do not think the taxpayers will be happy to wait and hope that the Labour Government sorts out this major problem. It is costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars. Let us clean this mess up. If we can stop the rorts, we might be able to lessen dramatically the Housing New Zealand Corporation funding.

I look forward to making the Act much better when National is in Government. When we change it, the new name of it will be “Housing for Kiwis in Need Act”.

I endorse the comments of my colleague Bob Clarkson, MP for Tauranga. Certainly—and I use that word “certainly” as something I picked up from Parekura—there is much to do in the State housing sector. I am unsure whether the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill will do all the things National wants to do, but we will be targeting some things. We would have used some of these provisions to target Kiwis in need.

There are Kiwi families up and down this country who are in genuine need. Many are in dire financial straits, and all they need is financial help and a roof over their heads—often for just a short time—so they can get on with supporting themselves. Through hearing some of the comments from the Minister Chris Carter tonight and by reading press releases relating to this bill, we see that Labour would rather help those people but keep them in dependency. I do not think it is a deliberate, malicious effort by the Government or its Ministers to keep those people in dependency, but because of the Government’s ignorance and unwillingness to look further at people’s potential, it does, in fact, by default, keep them in dependency. We cannot have a country where the Government provides welfare to an extent that it goes to first, second, and third generations.

The cynical amongst us would say that welfare is cash for votes—that it is cash for votes when Labour tosses out money in New Plymouth just to keep Harry Duynhoven’s majority above 20,000 votes. There are cynical people in this House who would say that Labour would keep people on welfare just to save Marian Hobbs’ seat and to compensate for the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary debacle that she oversaw. But we in the National Party are saying no—whether it is State housing, the domestic purposes benefit, the unemployment benefit, or any other benefit. Benefits are there to help people for a time while they are in need. Labour members do not believe in that, but National members certainly do.

It is a sad thing that list members on the other side of the House, who are replacing the whips—who could not organise a vote for the dog microchipping legislation last week—came in to Government on the back of the votes of many of those receiving a benefit. Some of the people receiving a benefit believe that the key to their continuing on the benefit is a vote for the Labour Party. Labour members believe that the key to their remaining in power is to throw more benefits to those people. It is a dependency culture—the Labour Party depends on the beneficiary, and the beneficiary depends on the Labour Party. It is a sad thing when welfare goes past need and ventures into generation after generation of State dependency. Harry Duynhoven, the member for New Plymouth, and Marian Hobbs, the member for Wellington Central—stumbling in the seat though she is—should be ashamed of that.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

That is essentially why the National Party supports this part.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2