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 third time. I thank the Social Services Committee for its careful consideration of the bill. There were two written submissions on the bill and I would like to thank the submitters.

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 a number of higher priority information matches with other agencies. Those matches have resulted in savings to taxpayers and have maintained the integrity of the income support system. The ministry has now engaged with Housing New Zealand Corporation to implement an information match. The information match will help to minimise overpayments of benefits and student allowances, help the recovery of beneficiary and student debt arising from those overpayments, and help with the detection of fraud. In addition to minimising overpayments that could result in ongoing repayments, the information match may benefit tenants, their partners, and dependants by identifying that they are not receiving their correct entitlement to income support.

Information-matching rules under the Privacy Act 1993 require that the individuals who are 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 bill renames the Housing Restructuring Act 1992 as the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992, to make it clear that the Act provides for tenancy matters. The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Privacy Act 1993 to include Housing New Zealand Corporation and Housing New Zealand Ltd as specified agencies for the purpose of information sharing, and to list the new information-matching provisions.

In closing, I say the bill extends information matching between agencies so as to improve the integrity of the income support system.

As the Minister has just said, this bill amends, and changes the name of, the Housing Restructuring Act 1992. It inserts into that Act information-matching provisions that allow Housing New Zealand Corporation to disclose information about its tenants and tenancies to the Ministry of Social Development, and it amends the Privacy Act in order to allow for that.

In the Social Services Committee we were told that this bill was necessary to help the Ministry of Social Development minimise benefit and student allowance overpayments, to help the ministry recover beneficiary and student debt, to provide early intervention to prevent debt accumulation, to prevent fraud, and to help locate people who owe money to the ministry. The National Party has supported the bill’s progress through this House because it was our idea. In fact, in 1999 the National-led Government tried to introduce similar legislation into the House, but the Labour Opposition would not support it. We are very pleased that Labour has seen the light and recognises that we understand the realities about some of these things, and that we do have some very good solutions.

We are pleased to see this bill finally come through and we support it, for a number of reasons. First of all, we believe it increases transparency and openness. The Privacy Commissioner in her report to the select committee concluded: “Very large sums of money are paid out by the Ministry of Social Development in delivering welfare assistance. We readily accept that the department’s objectives, which seek to protect that money, relate to matters of significant public importance.” That is absolutely the National Party’s position at this point.

This is a large budget; millions of dollars of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars are made available to assist people into more affordable housing. When unscrupulous tenants try to double-dip and get more than they are entitled to from what they call “the system”, but which is, in actual fact, public money earned by hard-working New Zealanders paying their taxes—and exorbitant taxes they are becoming, too—we believe there is a responsibility on the State to track them down and put a stop to it. Of course, there are always those who get themselves into trouble without realising it—unintentionally—and this information matching will help to pick up some of those anomalies before they grow into an overwhelming debt that some people find themselves simply unable to face or to work their way out of.

Second, we also support this bill because it addresses the issue of State house tenants who lease out their rooms and do not declare the income. The Minister’s figures at the end of last year show that almost 7,000 State tenants had paying boarders—the worst had seven. They are not people who need a helping hand with housing from overtaxed New Zealand workers. I would say, in that case, they are a very entrepreneurial group of people.

At the Committee stage I raised the issue of bed and breakfast owners. People with more than three paying guests have a huge raft of increased fire, health, and safety requirements. They have to have escape plans, smoke detectors, well-labelled fire exits, and fire extinguishers right through their properties. There is an inspection regime, and some will require alarms that are connected automatically to the fire station and the police station. So the issue is not just about State tenants ripping off the taxpayers by double-dipping into public and private purses. There are enormous risks in overcrowded homes.

I am well aware that Housing New Zealand Corporation tries very hard to match its houses with the needs of families. So if it has done that and placed someone in a house that has only two or three bedrooms, and then that person gets in three or four paying boarders, there is overcrowding that puts some of those people at risk. Also, many tenants could be occupying a house that is too large for their needs, and they should make way for families and move down to a smaller home. Perhaps that is an issue for another time.

I cannot let this bill’s final debate go without talking about New Zealand’s largest group of landlords, the New Zealand Property Investors Federation. It made a submission to the select committee and, as one would expect from an organisation like that, it was an excellent submission and very professional. Whilst the federation supported the intent of the bill, it asked that the bill be extended to enable the Ministry of Social Development to supply the Ministry of Justice and its officials with details that would enable them to collect court-awarded payments from delinquent tenants. The federation’s submission made some very powerful points, which unfortunately have been set to one side by the officials as being outside the scope of the bill. The bill before us is designed to provide the Government with information to enable it to catch fraudsters and those who get into debt to the Government. The federation’s argument was that it, too, wanted information to enable it to catch fraudsters and those who get into debt with it, and I felt it had a very powerful argument.

The federation referred to the 2003 agreement that, under a tenancy tribunal judgment, creditors could be given assistance to trace tribunal debtors by being provided with access to some Government-held address information. It made the point that private landowners are owed between $5 million and $6 million in rent arrears, as against the Government’s $1.6 million of rent arrears, and that private landowners are owed at least $43 million in damages. The federation is continually frustrated at its inability to track down tenants who have disappeared but are still within the State system. Many of the tenants are known to the State and still receive benefits from the State, whilst owing millions of dollars for both damage and outstanding rents to people who have provided them with accommodation.

I feel it was a great pity that the matter was deemed to be outside the scope of this bill, because the 2003 agreement is obviously not working. In fact, the officers, when reporting to the select committee, referred to that agreement and suggested it may well be formalised in statute as a result of the current review of the Residential Tenancies Act, which I understand has now been withdrawn.

In conclusion, National does support this bill. It is long overdue. The Government has certainly dragged its feet on it, but has finally accepted that National did know what it was talking about in 1999. We look forward to the enactment of this legislation, and hope it is implemented promptly throughout New Zealand.

I rise to take a brief call in the third reading of this legislation. It is heartening to hear a speaker from the Opposition, Anne Tolley, repeat that National will be supporting its enactment. A pattern is emerging, as National members have also agreed to support the reference of that fine legislation debated earlier, the Telecommunications Amendment Bill, to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Firstly, the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill is premised on a very important principle—the principle of ensuring that quality information is shared across agencies to ensure that expenditure is carried out in an efficient manner and that value is achieved as we spend taxpayers’ money. Secondly, the bill adds substance to the proposal—and to the dream, dare I say, of all parties that are concerned about value for money, I am sure—of achieving an approach to policy and implementation that causes Government departments to work together for the benefit of the target group, and to ensure that at all times we are doing the best we can with funds that come from the taxpaying base.

I stand and note that New Zealand First and United Future have already indicated they will support the bill because it further adds to the integrity of the benefit system but also strengthens an underlying principle. When we draw resources to help those who are very vulnerable in society, let us ensure we draw what they require, and that we draw them and use them in the most efficient way possible to uphold the integrity of the system, and not damage the views of the taxpayer about how well funds are being spent to assist the most vulnerable segments in our society. I support the third reading of the bill.

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 63,000 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 $600,000. 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.

It is my pleasure to stand in this, the third reading of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting the passing into law of this bill, not because we claim that the purpose of this bill is our policy but rather because we are of the view that it is our responsibility to protect taxpayers’ funds and taxpayer assets. This bill does exactly that. As I say, New Zealand First supports this bill. However, in so doing, I want to acknowledge the support that the National Party is giving to this bill as well, albeit possibly for different reasons—that is, that it was National’s idea in 1999. This must be the only policy that National members can claim to be theirs over recent years, as they have tended to take the policies of other parties—of one party, in particular—and claim them to be theirs. Be that as it may, I acknowledge National’s support.

In order to legislate the intent of the bill, amendments were required to the Housing Restructuring Act of 1992 and the Privacy Act. New Zealand First supports the bill, particularly in view of the fact that it protects the integrity of this country’s benefit system by allowing an exchange of information that will minimise benefit and student allowance overpayments and help to detect fraud. The information-matching provision in this bill also applies to tenants on benefits who pay income-related rents. The bill is specific about the information that may be disclosed and who lives at the address in question. It is important that the information matching is confined to Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development, and is provided for the purpose that this bill limits it to. I think if it were to go beyond those two departments, then it really would be an abuse of the legislative power vested in those two ministries. 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, we believe, acceptable.

We raised concerns during the first reading of the bill about the privacy issues it raises and the ease with which this age of electronic information affords the opportunity for intrusion into people’s private lives. The age of Big Brother is well and truly upon us now, and we need to exercise the utmost caution and vigilance when applying through legislation what technology now allows. Just because the means are there does not mean we need to use them. I think the debate during last week’s sitting of the House in relation to dog microchipping is an example of that. However, we are satisfied that any information sharing carried out under this legislation will be subject to strict controls and sought only for the purposes outlined in the bill.

This House has an obligation and a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer funds are protected from fraud. New Zealand First will support any bill that protects and ensures the credibility of taxpayer expenditure, and we believe that this bill does that. We are satisfied that the Ministry of Social Development and Housing New Zealand Corporation, as the two Government departments affected by this legislation, will use it sparingly, that they will use it to maximise people’s benefit entitlements as well as to detect fraud, and that they will apply its provisions in accordance with the intention with which they were written.

Comment was made about an earlier statement New Zealand First made in regard to the intent of this bill being extended to other Government departments. I believe that one or two submissions made during the select committee consideration of the bill requested that its provisions should be extended to the courts. Although that is not the intent of the bill, I would have thought, given the great support that certain parties gave the submitters, that perhaps a Supplementary Order Paper might be introduced to extend the Government departments involved in the bill by including the courts. The argument put forward by the submitters was a good one and it needs to be considered. At the end of the day, that particular part of our community provides a service that essentially picks up a lot of what Housing New Zealand Corporation is not able to do because it does not have the resources available to it.

In conclusion, I reiterate New Zealand First’s position that we support this legislation. It will certainly protect taxpayers’ funding and assets. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa. I do not know whether you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I remember that when I was a young fellow I was hooked into a cult series in which an evil organisation, KAOS, attempted to take over the world. The forces of good were represented in an organisation called CONTROL, which would constantly battle with KAOS to maintain order in the world. At the helm of CONTROL was the Chief, with Secret Agent 86, Maxwell Smart, who was anything but smart. The Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill is the 2006 version of Get Smart. The apparent crisis of overpayment of benefits is responded to with an over-the-top reaction of transferring vital details to any employees or agents of a host of agencies, including the Accident Compensation Corporation, the Chief Registrar of Electors, the Department of Corrections, the Inland Revenue Department, Land Transport New Zealand, the New Zealand Customs Service, and so on.

Following the submissions from the New Zealand Property Investors Federation it appeared that the Ministry of Justice was also considered suitable for the information-matching programme. Members might remember that Maxwell Smart, in his fight against KAOS, is assisted by his sidekick, Agent 99. She is the beautiful one, the one with class, who attempts to talk sense into any project and any situation. As we come here today, the Māori Party—playing Agent 99 to this Labour Government’s Get Smart surveillance scheme—is obviously going to speak against this bill. We have picked up on the submissions from the Dunedin Community Law Centre, which was concerned at the multi-type surveillance able to be brought to bear on one individual by a number of different agencies.

As I understand it, originally the bill’s provisions were to enable Housing New Zealand Corporation to disclose information about tenants and tenancies to the Ministry of Social Development, which administers benefits and student allowances. But not content with the Ministry of Social Development alone, the bill extends the target of its surveillance over a wide berth to help in the detection of fraud. The Māori Party will not condone the abuse of power and privilege that is associated with any fraudulent activity or behaviour, but we have asked right throughout the debate on this bill what justification this control-freak, control-driven Government has for targeting beneficiaries for increased surveillance and monitoring, to a level that compromises their rights. If this Government was really committed to getting smart about housing provision in New Zealand, there are plenty of other responsible actions or interventions that Housing New Zealand Corporation could make to support better services for tenants. Instead we have a reversal of the one-size-fits-all approach that politicians conveniently bring out for debate when all else fails.

This bill unashamedly targets a particular population—the population of beneficiaries—for a mean-spirited attack on their rights. It is an attack that implies that if a tenant is a beneficiary, that tenant has reduced eligibility for civil and human rights. We in the Māori Party have seen such discrimination in New Zealand State housing before. As Maxwell Smart would say, “would you believe” that up until the late 1940s Māori were excluded from mainstream State housing on the grounds that their presence would, allegedly, lower the tone of State housing communities. There was also an assumption that few could afford the rent. These were the so-called golden days of the land of milk and honey; a time when one law for all meant one law for all except Māori. When Māori were finally admitted into mainstream State housing in 1948, through a scheme administered by the State Advances Corporation and the Department of Māori Affairs, they were pepper-potted into Pākehā neighbourhoods seemingly to encourage their assimilation into Pākehā society. But the question of the “right” community standards returned, and it was not long before the native neighbourhoods were shunted out to ghetto-like concentrations in Porirua and South Auckland.

Discrimination in targeted housing policy did not reside just in the issue of location. The quality of housing provided was also ripe for analysis. At the inaugural conference of the Māori Women’s Welfare League in Wellington in September 1951, Dame Whina Cooper, the foundation president, instigated a survey of Māori housing in Auckland. The survey revealed that large numbers of Māori were overcrowded in unsanitary dwellings. The status and profile of tangata whenua were reflected in the provision of bare housing features in each house—a lack of insulation, floor coverings, floor space, quality paint, wall coverings, concreting, fencing, sewerage, and community facilities. The devastating data forced the Auckland City Council and the Department of Māori Affairs to demolish slums and provide a higher quota of State and council housing for Māori tenants. Nowadays, more than 15,000 Māori households are in State housing. This year marks the 55th anniversary of the founding of the Māori Women’s Welfare League. Perhaps it is timely to look again at the inspiration left behind by ”Te Whāea o te Motu”—the “Mother of the Nation”—and replicate the 1951 housing survey.

The Māori Party is interested in what rationale the Government can spin around the creation of two categories of tenants with different sets of rights. Clearly, the “one law for all dogs” argument that dominated the microchipping chaos cannot be said to apply to this bill. The Government cannot have it both ways and claim a “one law for all” position, as it is currently doing in respect of the Geneva Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, then try to create a different set of rights for Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants. Both actions are actually a denial of human rights.

This “Get Smart Bill” might never have needed to happen. However, we say that there are already sufficient and considerable measures available in the Ministry of Social Development to extract the information that is supposedly needed. We are advised that the Ministry of Social Development can obtain the same information through informed consent, and that ample powers already exist to achieve compliance. All this bill does is add another layer to its efforts to protect the benefit system. We need to ask what the more important protection is: the benefit system or the people. We agree with our friends the Greens that we would rather the focus be on people receiving the full amount of income support that they are entitled to, than on introducing punitive measures aimed at cutting people off.

This bill sets Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants apart from other tenants. The special privilege for Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants is that they will be subject to data matching with Work and Income. It is KAOS in its absolutely worst degree. One group of citizens is being infected again by this Government’s festering sore—its beef against beneficiaries. Of course, we in this Chamber are all beneficiaries of the State. We are dependent on the generosity of the taxpayers of this land for keeping us in paid work. A considerable wealth of information is available on each and every one of us, either through our own web pages or promotional material or through formal mechanisms such as the annual declaration of pecuniary interests. The difference between the beneficiaries in this Chamber and the beneficiaries in Housing New Zealand Corporation homes is that we can sit behind the protection of parliamentary privilege, the power of position, or the safety net afforded by the Official Information Act in resisting the free-sale trade of our personal information. No such luxury exists for the beneficiaries targeted in this bill. It is as big a contrast as between the class act of The Avengers and the comedy antics of Maxwell Smart.

The Māori Party will not stand by and tolerate the targeted injustice that we see represented in this bill and, similarly, in Working for Families. The Māori Party will vote against this bill.

I rise on behalf of United Future in support of the third reading of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. In response to the previous speaker, I say that the key word in the title is “matching”. The bill provides the chance to identify folk—folk who receive taxpayer-funded income support and who also receive taxpayer-funded housing support—for the mutual benefit of the taxpayer and of those receiving assistance. That is a win-win situation. For beneficiaries, there is the opportunity to check whether they are receiving all the entitlements they are due and, for taxpayers, there is the chance to identify the few beneficiaries who may unlawfully be trying to enjoy the advantages of a State house and claim entitlement to an accommodation supplement.

This is not an information-sharing bill; it is an information-matching bill. I think that very important distinction needs to be understood. The information exists on both departments’ files already; therefore the bill does not introduce to either of the two departments information that is surplus to requirements. The flow of information is one-way and is disclosed on a need-to-know basis. New section 67, inserted by clause 5, refers to the purpose of new section 68, which is: “to facilitate the disclosure of information by the Corporation to the department …”, and states very clearly the reasons why that can be disclosed. New section 68(1) is also clear that: “the chief executive of the department may from time to time”—as is required—“request the Corporation to supply, in respect of persons who are tenants in relation to Corporation housing,”. New section 69 specifies very clearly exactly what information is allowed to be passed over. It includes people’s information to make sure that the right people are matched with the right information, including rental details; income details, which would already have been disclosed by the client to the corporation; and any contact details that might be helpful if the person is no longer renting with the corporation. The bill is very clear about what can be supplied and in what circumstances. The information can be passed only in one direction, and in the sensible direction, as well.

There are two consequential amendments to the Privacy Act. Schedule 3 is amended to include reference to the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992, and section 97 is amended to include the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s new name as a specified agency.

As other speakers have said, some submitters suggested changes that fell outside the scope of this amendment bill. That signals, of course, that this bill does not resolve all issues peculiar to the administration of our benefit system or housing assistance system. We could do better, and we need to be looking constantly at ways of improving both systems.

In conclusion, I want to counter one contribution that was made, although I do not remember at what stage of the debate it arose or even who gave the speech. I was rather disturbed to hear it suggested that the gains in savings from stopping those attempting to double-dip were so insignificant as to almost relegate the bill to be not worthwhile at all. New Zealand enjoys, relative to other countries, very low levels of corruption, and therefore systems that demand honest dealings, particularly from those who benefit from taxpayer assistance, are hugely important to the ongoing ethos of this country. We want to maintain that standard, and I do not think it matters whether the consequential benefit in taxpayer dollars is minimal, compared with the honesty that is demanded of people. That is not too high a price to ask in order to maintain systems that are free from corruption. United Future is happy to support the third reading of the bill.

I would like to speak briefly on the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill, which the Green Party will be opposing. I did not sit on the Social Services Committee; my colleague Sue Bradford did. Our concerns echo almost identically the views expressed so eloquently by the Māori Party. We also share all the concerns articulated by Te Ururoa Flavell. The bill singles out, and discriminates against, beneficiaries when there is no need to because ample powers exist already. We believe the bill provides huge potential for undermining the privacy of that segment of our society.

But the wider issue that really concerns the Greens is that for a Government that professes to be passionate about democracy, this Government seems to be increasingly resorting to surveillance technology. Last week it was embracing microchipping technology; this week it is data-matching technology. We wonder why so much surveillance technology is being embraced by the Government. It seems not concerned that we seem to be adding just one little bit, then another little bit, and slowly laying the foundations for a surveillance society. Instead this society should be open, democratic, and trusting.

We see the bill as being an unnecessary targeting of beneficiaries and the establishment of just another little step in the development of a surveillance society. We are extremely concerned about the undermining of privacy that this bill involves—and, frankly, why would we have a bill that simply targets one group in our society? We do not think a good reason has been put forward by the Government as to why we need this bill, when ample powers exist already.

We do not share the view of United Future that there is no potential for abuse of information data-matching. We think there is great potential and, therefore, we will be opposing the bill.

In rising to support the bill, I have to say that 7 years was a long time to wait for it to come into the House. Seven years ago National introduced similar legislation and Labour did not value its merit then. It has taken the Government 7 long years to now see the importance of the matter. The bill provides for an information-matching programme between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development.

All that the bill does is to enable the corporation to provide information to the ministry, to help the ministry—no more and no less than that. The bill is not, as the Māori Party has asserted, a “spy bill”. It is not an “SIS bill”. It relates only to information disclosed to one ministry: the Ministry of Social Development. I disagree with the previous speaker from the Māori Party, who claimed that the ministry already has the power to collect the information through informed consent. I really do wonder how realistic it is to say that, when the bill deals with cheats. I do not know of many cheats who would voluntarily inform their details to a ministry, so that they could then be caught cheating. The bill is about the cheats; it is not about discriminating against beneficiaries. Furthermore, the bill is not about all information but is merely about information needed for the purpose of helping the ministry, firstly, to verify the entitlement or eligibility of any person to or for any benefit; secondly, to verify the amount of any benefit to which any person is or was entitled or to which any person is or was eligible; and, thirdly, to recover debts due to the Crown—acting by and through the department—in respect of benefits.

We have heard in previous readings of the bill that there are four reasons why the information-matching mechanism is desired. They are, firstly, to assist the ministry in minimising and recovering beneficiary and student debt arising from benefit and allowance overpayments; secondly, to provide early intervention in cases that could result in the creation of substantial debt; thirdly, to assist in the detection of fraud, and to help to track people who are in debt to the ministry; and, fourthly, to identify beneficiaries who are not receiving the correct income support entitlements. Put simply, this bill is designed to uncover and detect fraud and fraudulent activity that dishonestly use the taxes of hard-working New Zealanders. Who would not want such activities to be stopped, or at least reduced if not prevented? Who would not want to catch those cheats?

It is interesting to note that there are some 65,000 Housing New Zealand Corporation properties, and that approximately 190,000 individuals reside in them. That is a lot of houses and a lot of people. State houses should be available for families who need such assistance but not for those who just want them and think they are their right. We have heard that nearly 7,000 State tenants have paying boarders. When those board payments are not taken into account or disclosed, then that amounts to a situation whereby the State and taxpayers are being ripped off—not by all tenants, but by enough to justify this bill. State houses are intended for needy families, not for people who run a boarding house business and make money at the expense of needy families and hard-working taxpayers. Many tenants in State houses receive money from boarders, pocket that money, and do not declare the rent they receive as part of their income. But it is income, it is fraudulent to not declare such income, and that defrauds hard-working New Zealand taxpayers.

We have heard objections that under the privacy legislation this bill is not acceptable—that it is an infringement on the privacy of citizens and on their rights. I say that many people are so focused on their rights, and on what they believe are their absolute rights, that they forget their corresponding duties and obligations: the obligation to pay the rent, the obligation not to defraud hard-working New Zealand taxpayers, the obligation not to cheat the system, and the obligation not to defraud. How far can the cheats in our system hide behind the privacy veil and claim their right to privacy, when they publicly and flagrantly cheat hard-working New Zealand taxpayers? Do the cheats really deserve total immunity from prosecution by claiming the defence of privacy? I do not think so. And how much double-dipping is our society required to put up with, without saying and doing anything about it?

This bill will do something about it. It has been scrutinised by the Privacy Commissioner—from a privacy point of view—who knows that the bill aims to address double-dipping whereby tenants obtain more financial assistance than they are entitled to from the two Government departments: the double-dipping of receiving subsidised housing provided through Housing New Zealand Corporation and the payment of accommodation assistance. As the commissioner observed, very large sums of money are paid out by the Ministry of Social Development in delivering welfare assistance. Protecting that money is a matter of significant public importance. Her report states: “We are of the opinion that the use of the programme will bring monetary savings in terms of identifying fraud and overpayments, and these are likely to be both significant and quantifiable. We also accept that it may lead to early detection of overpayments, and that this may result in benefits to society. The commonality of information reduces the privacy concern about MSD acquiring an unwarranted and intrusive view of its clients’ affairs as a result of this match.”

Not all Housing New Zealand Corporation records will be disclosed, and not every bit of information about Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants will be disclosed. This is a “catch the cheat” bill that is not dissimilar to the information matching that is currently permitted under the Department of Corrections - Ministry of Social Development inmates match, and the Inland Revenue Department - Ministry of Justice fines defaulters match. The common denominator with those matches is that they are aimed at the cheats—those who are stealing from hard-working New Zealand taxpayers. Cheats have to know that if they break the rules, they run the risk of being caught. For the majority of good, responsible, rent-paying, rule-abiding State tenants, this bill will hold no fear. The cheats are now more likely to be caught, through the information-matching processes prescribed by the bill being put in place.

There is a mischief out there, and there are cheats in our system—the double-dippers. Those cheats need to be caught. But we also need to be practical and realistic. To set up this information-matching procedure will cost money, both to set it up and to administer it. In order to be financially viable, the savings must outweigh the costs. We understand the Ministry of Social Development expects to save about $1.4 million a year. We need to ensure that the costs do not exceed the savings. This information-matching process is not designed just to be nosy about people; it is about detecting fraud, preventing double-dipping, catching the cheats, and ensuring proper transparency and the accountability of the tax dollar. This bill does not allow Housing New Zealand Corporation to disclose information about its tenants to all and sundry—to debt collectors and others—but is limited to information disclosed to the Ministry of Social Development about tenants who are receiving taxpayer-funded benefits or a taxpayer-funded service. It is to ensure that the taxpayer is not being ripped off, and to ensure that the tenant is not double-dipping and cheating the system.

State houses are for those in need. There is a considerable waiting list for State houses, and State tenants have a responsibility to be honest. They should not be rewarded for dishonesty—for fraud. Taxpayers have a right to know that their taxes are being spent properly, by going to those in need and not augmenting the coffers of the cheats. After 7 long years we now have a sensible bill. National supports this Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill.