Residential Tenancies (Safe and Secure Rentals) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Residential Tenancies (Safe and Secure Rentals) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider the bill. I urge members tonight to vote for this Residential Tenancies (Safe and Secure Rentals) Amendment Bill, which will make sure that renting will give families the same security and the same quality of life as if they owned their own home. I urge members to consider the nearly 1.5 million New Zealanders—1.5 million New Zealanders—who live in rental accommodation in this country. That consideration includes over 400,000 children who live in rental accommodation in this country and their need, their right, for a safe and secure home in which they can grow and thrive.

Renting should not be a second-class option, but it is. Renting should not be a driver of respiratory illness in children, but it is. Renting should be a secure, stable, and affordable housing option for families—if only it was. We all know—all of us here in this House—from the constituents, the family members, and the communities that we work with that renting in New Zealand is increasingly expensive, unstable, and, for children, quite dangerous, actually.

We also know that the vast majority of landlords care for their properties well and they want their tenants to live well and healthily in the homes that they own. Landlords want to make sure that their homes are safe for their tenants and especially for the children in those homes. So this bill works with the desires of landlords to have good homes, long-term tenancies, and stability for their tenants, and with the desires of tenants to be able to have stability and security in their homes so that they can take care of their children over the long term. This bill will bring those two desires together and improve the quality of renting and tenancies in New Zealand.

The tenancy law we have in this country, in terms of the respective rights and responsibilities between landlords and tenants, is very old. There have been some changes around the edges but, in large part, the legislation has remained the same for quite a few decades now. It is now time for us to modernise the law to make sure it meets the needs of 21st century New Zealand families who are increasingly having to rent for longer and in more expensive and difficult circumstances. So let us make sure that the law balances better the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants. This bill will benefit over 450,000 households in this country, so it will have a huge impact on thousands and thousands of New Zealand families and make sure that they have better, safer, and more secure housing.

I just want to go through the changes that are set out in the bill. The bill makes six changes to the law. The first allows a tenant the first right of refusal when their lease expires. The point of this is to allow tenants to continue to live and reside in the community where they have put down roots, the community that they love. This is critical for tenants: to have the choice to stay in their homes if they want to. This would mean that a landlord cannot use the ending of a tenancy to evict a tenant who has otherwise been a perfectly good tenant. There are some bad landlords who will do that; who will use the tenancy to evict a tenant because they want to put the rent up to an extraordinary degree, or for other reasons. But what we are talking about here is families who have put down roots in their community and have treated this house like their home. They should have the right to be able to stay in the home that they have built there for themselves and for their children.

The second change to the law that this bill makes is it requires landlords to write into the tenancy agreement the calculation that the landlords will use to increase the rent. The bill does not prescribe what that calculation is; it simply requires the calculation to be in the tenancy agreement. And the reason for this is to make sure that everyone—tenants and landlords—knows exactly how much the rent is going to go up by. So, particularly for tenants, this is critical—that they can plan for future expenses. At the moment, tenants can go into a tenancy with absolutely no idea of how much their home is going to cost them in the next 6 months, in the next 12 months. That is simply unfeasible for families who are increasingly living on tighter and tighter budgets and struggling to be able to pay the basic bills. So, at least, with this law change, tenants are able to calculate future rent rises and to financially plan for those future rent rises.

The third change is that this bill will restrict rent increases to no more often than once every 12 months for periodic and fixed-term tenancies. Again, this is to enable tenants to have more certainty and security in the rents that they will have to pay so that they know they can financially plan and keep that tenancy. A great deal of the driver for homelessness is rents going up too fast, too quickly for tenants. They are moving from place to place as they try to find tenancy that they can afford; it is particularly critical, again, for low income families on tight budgets.

The fourth change is the bill will restore the minimum 90-day notice period required from landlords. The bill will remove the right of landlords to evict tenants under the 42-day notice rules. There is absolutely no justification for giving families who have built a home in that house, who have lived here sometimes for a year or 2 years or even more, who have roots in that house, to have only 42 days to have to leave it. I do not agree that just because a landlord says that he or she wants their family to live in that house that that is a justification for evicting a family who has used that house as their home, where their children have used that house as their home. That family who lives in the house, who pays their rent, is entitled to much better decency than this law allows. We must get rid of the 42-day eviction notice period.

I have also had significant feedback from tenants’ organisations about this. They say that Housing New Zealand is one of the worst when it comes to using even the 90-day notice provisions, actually, for evicting tenants for no good reason. So if this bill gets through to select committee tonight, we would want to look at means by which tenants can appeal the decision to use a 90-day notice to evict. These are people’s homes where they have their children; they need to have more stability and security than even this bill provides.

The fifth change that this bill will make is that it removes the obligation on tenants to have to pay leasing fees to rental agencies. Leasing fees are just a rort. There is no justification for why tenants should have to pay these companies any money. These companies are performing a service for the landlord. It is a significant increase in the cost of moving into a new home, particularly for those families who are struggling to be able to maintain tenancies. Leasing fees are a major barrier to families who are trying to get into a home. It is an unjust barrier. It is unfair. It needs to be gone. There is absolutely no justification for charging tenants those fees.

The sixth change that this bill would make is a fairly simple one, actually: to create a default lease term of 3 years for longer-term tenancies. This can, of course, be changed in the agreement. So it does not hold landlords or tenants to a 3-year term, but it does start to set the framework in law and in the culture of tenancies in this country to encourage longer-term tenancies and to allow for tenants to have greater control over the home that they build in the house that they rent.

I urge members to allow this bill to go to select committee. There will be things that others do not agree with, and I am open to making changes. But we cannot—when homeownership is at the lowest it has been in 60 years—allow tenants to continue to suffer the full burden of that. Under the existing law, they do; under my law there is a chance of fairness for ordinary tenant families and their children. Thank you.

I rise to take a call on this Residential Tenancies (Safe and Secure Rentals) Amendment Bill in its first reading. Can I just put on the record immediately from the start that National will not support this bill. I would like to spend the rest of my time explaining the reasons why. I do acknowledge the member, Metiria Turei, like all members who put themselves forward in a member’s bill with the right intent. I understand the intent of what she is wanting to do through this bill, which is around a safe and secure home, and ensuring that security of tenure is an important issue for lots of our families and lots of our communities as well. However, we cannot support some of that intent.

I have to say that we have already had the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill that came through the Social Services Committee. There was quite an exhaustive process to be able to find a balance through that process to address some of those issues. One of those issues that I think that we have been talking about out in the communities, and that the member has been talking about, is the security of tenure, but also the types of homes—are they healthy? Are they well? Are they fit for purpose to ensure that our communities, our families in particular, and our whānau, have a place of lodgings that will allow them to be able to thrive and grow as well? I know the Greens have often talked about this, but the whole aspect of the HomeStart programme is about healthy homes and ensuring that we now have over 300,000 homes that are fit for purpose in regard to being healthier and warmer.

We have to talk about the things that we have done, because the member has talked about wanting to do more, but she does not often talk about some of the other things that currently exist as well. So those are elements in which, under this Government, we have ensured that our homes are healthy; that is right across the board. We know that at least 85 percent of our State houses are now warm, dry, and healthier. The very people that the member talks about in those vulnerable situations actually exist in those homes. This is some of the work that has already been done. The member talks about, I suppose, the areas of need and of concern—as a Government we have already been addressing those issues as well. So we believe that of the rhetoric around the great concerns, this Government has already been meeting those concerns.

Let us take the key element of the member’s speech when she talked about the rights of the tenant over the rights of the owners, of the landlords, in respect of their properties. This is a significant principle of issue that needs to be debated, because this is what we are talking about. The member is saying that the rights of the tenant in some cases should almost be—and in some cases override—the rights of the owner and of the landlord. Why should they not have the rights to be able to demand the first right of refusal? Why should they not have the right to demand the fact that they do not have to pay the letting fees and so forth? These things are pragmatic and practical and have existed for some time.

I can remember that through the submissions what was quite clear was that—and it is not often highlighted—almost 70 percent of the homeownership rentals that exist are actually mum and dad renters who are out there. There was a time when, as a country, we encouraged the LAQCs (loss attributing qualifying companies) as a way for people to save for their retirement in which they could have a rental property. In fact, in most cases it was one or two—right? Under this Government, as you will know, we have actually changed that legislative framework. We have removed some of the benefits that have existed under that. But that still exists. At least 70 percent of those who have rentals are actually mum and dad investors who do the best to ensure that their homes are cared for, that they are healthy, that they are warm, and that they best suit their tenants as best possible. We know that exists.

But we also know that there are landlords that do not provide these properties, as well. So I just want to go on record that the member is now challenging a key principle—not only of the law, but a key principle of being part of a democratic society—whereby homeowner landlords are challenged by this bill, which says that the rights of a tenant should in some cases supersede the rights of the owner. I want to make that clear to those who are listening, because that is part of this bill being proposed here tonight by this member, as well.

As the member said, there are six parts. Let us go through them. There are six points to this bill that the member is proposing giving the tenants the right of renewal when a fixed-term tenancy expires, and requiring landlords to state the criteria of future rent rises in tenancy agreements.

Let us take that first point and let us debate that. This currently exists already: section 60B of the current Residential Tenancies Act sets out that a tenant who wishes to exercise a right under the tenancy agreement to renew or extend the fixed term of tenancy must provide the landlord with written notice no later than 21 days before its expiry. As the member herself has said, where there is a good relationship, where the house has been looked after, where we know that there are 6-monthly, maybe a yearly, reviews—where the landlord will come and will check the facilities and make sure that everything is fine and there are no problems and will deal with any repairs and maintenance—there has not been an issue. There has not been a problem.

I am not sure about the dilemma—the member’s proposal wants to require, in fact, that now the tenant should have the right to dictate to and determine for the owner. That is the key principle that is being challenged here. I would like to remind other members of the House to remember that by supporting this bill, that is actually what we are doing: we are removing the rights. Security of tenure—we would all agree that is important. It happens by goodwill. It happens by caring for the property. It happens because there is a relationship of trust that exists.

💬 Metiria Turei: No, it doesn’t.

That exists, and we know that is there. That is currently there. I just want to say that the member has turned around to try to use this as a way of challenging that.

Let us look at some of the other areas that the member is wanting to address in her bill’s six points. Ensuring tenants may no longer be charged a letting fee—she has called this an injustice. She has called it an injustice, when the reality is the administration cost—whether it be that people have a property manager or have a real estate agent that would do that for them—the letting fee is an administration fee that is used to administer that proportion of that rental agreement.

What is the harm that we are doing here? The member is now not only wanting to remove the rights of the homeowner but also wanting to put on them the extra burden of the letting fee—the administration costs. She laughs, but she probably knows—I do not know—she could be a rental owner herself. The reality is that we are putting the burden back again on the homeowner. I just have a feeling that there are a lot of New Zealanders out there who will not like hearing what this member is wanting to propose because it is a real challenge to the democratic right of any homeowner in this country. It is a really interesting debate that we are having. I will be interested to what the other members have to say, as well.

Let us also talk about the fourth point: creating a default minimum of 3 years for fixed-term leases, prohibiting rent increases more often than once every 12 months, and repealing the 42 days’ notice. It just gets a bit concerning when the member wants to propose this. The reality is that we have heard from, for instance, community housing providers who have taken on rental properties—who now, through the devolution of that stock into their care, know some of the challenges that they have when they have tenants in their properties who do not care for, and look after, them. This bill is weighted so far on to the tenant that you have to say it has removed any rights or any responsibilities that come to the landowner—I keep saying “landowner”; it is a homeowner, as well. Such a change would risk unintended consequences and, we believe, would create higher rents as well.

Section 13A(1)(m) of the Residential Tenancies Act, which this bill would repeal, states that the tenancy agreement must include “a statement (if applicable) that the tenant shall pay any fee or other charge for services rendered by any solicitor or letting agent relating to the grant … of the tenancy;”. Again, what I get concerned about is that this member is proposing—remember that we said that 70 percent of those rentals are actually owned by mum and dad investors, who may have one or maybe two properties but on average they have one; they are people who are wanting to use this for an ability to be able to care for themselves when they go into retirement—to take away their owners’ ability to be able to make their decisions around how they rent the property and whom they rent the property to, and is putting all the security on tenants.

💬 Metiria Turei: Oh, Alfred.

They may moan and groan, but here is the reality that exists out there. You can talk to all the advocates around tenancy, but I guarantee you will not be talking to those who are the homeowners.

💬 Metiria Turei: Yeah, I did.

I would be interested to hear that, because that is not what we are hearing on the ground. That is not the chatter we are hearing from all those out there who say that this bill is ridiculous.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Name one of them.

We have already this year, through the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2016, passed an ability to make a difference that we know is quite critically important. We talk about the member over there who is talking about that. What has made a difference? We are now ensuring that we are forcing the insulation of homes and the mandatory ability to have smoke alarms in there. There is a balance that exists to ensure that landlords take care to make sure that the home is warm and dry, it is healthier, and it is fit for purpose to meet the needs of their tenants. We look at this bill and, again, we hear the intent of the member, but I cannot applaud. I cannot support this bill and the issues that the member is trying to raise.

I have to say we have already had quite an exhaustive examination. Members on the opposite side know—they have been through it. We have heard the submissions. We have heard them talk about the fact that the burden of costs will eventually go back on to the tenant. That is the burden of costs. The member has not considered that. In fact, there is a fairy-tale world where everything should be well. But that member should know that landlords have talked about those tenants who have ransacked the house and they have had to pay the costs, and yet the member still wants to believe that everything is bright and rosy. We do not commend this bill. We do not support this bill to the House.

I like the member Alfred Ngaro on a personal level—I really do; I really do. But it is really sad to see him wheeled out yet again to be an apologist for the most appalling policy positions that the National Government takes. He is the community-friendly face that is wheeled out to justify and to run interference against any bill, any policy, that might benefit the lives of working people in this country. His sole political function in the National Government is to run interference against anything that might improve the lives of working people, that might give them more secure employment, better quality housing, higher wages, more rights at work—you name it. Whatever the issue, Alfred Ngaro will stand up and pretend to be concerned about the people whom he pretends to represent. I think that is really, really sad, if that is the political role that you play in this Parliament.

Renters are now half the population of New Zealand—half the population. In Auckland it is even more than that. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place, under this National Government’s negligent, reckless mismanagement of the housing crisis. They are facing Hobson’s choice. They cannot afford to buy their own properties. They are locked out of the real estate market. Is it any wonder, when today we read that in the last 3 years the number of homes that are valued at more than a million dollars has gone up fourfold, from 59,000 homes to 235,000? Is it any wonder that we have the lowest rate of homeownership in 65 years? That is why renters are locked out of the housing market. They do not have a show, under this National Government.

But what is the alternative? It is a case of “Can’t live with it; can’t live without it.” They face a miserable, insecure existence. They have very little security of tenure. Half the population of this country faces the prospect of being kicked out of their homes, with 90 days’ notice, for no reason at all. The average tenancy—the average tenancy—is between 6 and 12 months. How can you raise a family or live a decent life, with that level of insecurity? I cannot believe Alfred Ngaro can stand up in this House and, with a straight face, defend the existing laws and policies in this country. They are unworkable. They expose half the population of this country to a level of insecurity that is unconscionable. I applaud Metiria Turei for bringing this bill to this House.

New Zealand is an outlier. We give fewer rights to renters than any other country in the OECD. New Zealand renters have such little security of tenure. They do not have the rights to make the most basic alterations to their properties. They can be faced with repeated severe rent rises. And people are really, really hurting in the current rental market. In Auckland in the last 5 years the average rent went up by $5,000—$5,000 in 5 years. How can people survive?

Metiria Turei’s bill makes all the sense in the world. It is humane. It is decent. There are ideas in this bill—the idea of tenants having the first right of renewal when a tenancy expires; the idea of standard tenancy forms that will include a commitment to a certain formula for future rent rises; the idea of a default term of 3 years.

Alfred Ngaro would try to reduce this debate to one of property rights of landlords to the rights of tenants. That is not how the world works. There are dozens of jurisdictions around the world that give rights to renters, and that give them security of tenure. Has Alfred Ngaro spoken to the Property Investors Federation? He has not. He clearly has not, because if he had he would know it is very interested in this bill and it is very supportive. Alfred Ngaro is to the right of the Property Investors Federation. That is how out of touch that member is.

I rise to speak to the Residential Tenancies (Safe and Secure Rentals) Amendment Bill. Just to follow on from my colleague Alfred Ngaro, it is a bill that we will not be supporting. Hearing some of the points of the Opposition, it is fair to say that I think they are making some very valid points about where we should be ending up around providing an element of safety and security for tenants. I suppose the argument is going to be about how we get to that point. Some of the clauses in this proposed bill, I fundamentally disagree with. Just to start off, in the explanatory note under the general policy statement, there is a very, sort of, pejorative claim that “there has been comparatively little done to address issues faced by renters.”

I think, as my colleague Alfred Ngaro mentioned, when you look at the residential tenancies amendment that we touched on this year, bringing in more insulation for rental properties, bringing in mandatory smoke alarms for rental properties—I have got six volunteer fire brigades in my electorate, all reporting back about the positive changes and impacts those amendments are already making in residential properties. Also, when you look at an area like Canterbury, I think it is a good lesson that can be rolled out to the rest of the country. Post-earthquake, there were large tracts of land freed up that increased supply, which equals demand.

What has happened in the rental market there is that rent has dropped considerably—about 10 percent in the last year. What that has allowed is for tenants to have the pick of some of the properties that they would like. I think where this is going to land, as a fundamental principle, is can we legislate to get to this end point? I would say that we cannot because basically what this should be built on is the contract between the landlord and the tenant. The premise that a landlord does not want to sustain a good tenant is incorrect. In fact, I think it is the complete opposite. Any good landlord knows the value of a good tenant, and many good landlords would keep a good tenant in, even at below market price, because they know there is no value in having an investment property that might sit vacant for 4, 6, or 8 weeks while they are bringing in new tenants. That allows for a good working relationship between good tenants and good landlords. I think that is what we should be focusing on.

The member in charge of the bill, Metiria Turei, also raises the issue around covering the cost of fees for leasing the property. I can appreciate some of that. I was in London last week for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Westminster trip with Jenny Salesa from Labour. In Philip Hammond’s first Autumn Statement, they have brought in a law outlawing leasing fees—exactly what this is prescribing. However, it is already shown that that is passed on to the price of the rent, so I do not agree with this. However, maybe something around transparency of fees, I believe, would be the right way forward for people who are choosing to rent a property to understand more about how these leasing fees are calculated, and whether they choose to take that property and pay those leasing fees.

I think that the clause about only allowing rent reviews every 12 months—I think that is slightly illogical. If the principle behind that is that it will reduce rent increases to only once every 12 months—say it was going to be that every 6 months the landlord would put it up $10; well, at 12 months they would just put it up $20. I do not think the frequency of rent review is really the issue here. It is about having the ability for the landlord and the tenant to work together to understand what a good contract is and what is right for them.

When we look at the issue around the 90-day notice, it is reduced for landlords who are selling their house, but bear in mind that tenants will know this. The house will be advertised and, at the end of the day, if the landlord needs to sell their house, they need to sell their house. That is why I do not support this bill. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am taking a call for New Zealand First on behalf of our spokesperson on this matter, Denis O’Rourke. It is surprising that the Government itself has not done a lot more to make tenancies more secure, and to try to limit the rate of rent increases. It is fundamental to improving the ability of people in this country to find a home. If they cannot actually afford to buy one—and more and more people will never be able to afford one, as a result of this Government’s policies—you will have to be able to afford to rent one. The quality of rentals becomes more important if it has to be a lifetime issue. Rents must be affordable, rather than simply market-based.

My colleague read a book by Shamubeel Eaqub, called Generation Rent, and it describes the differences between New Zealand’s rental market and legislation, and those of other countries with much better-developed rental markets, and much better legislation. It identifies that there are three main differences. One is fair rents. The Government needs to regulate rents, especially where landlords have been profiteering, and especially in Auckland, because of the severe housing crisis there. There, the market has failed, rents have exploded, people were hurt, they are living in cars, and the Government has done little more than make some inadequate provisions for emergency housing.

Secondly, New Zealand does not have secure tenancies, in comparison with what you see in other countries. New Zealand’s tenancies tend to be short term, and tenants have very little protection against eviction. It is too easy to get rid of tenants in this country so that they do not have another home to go to. More long-term tenancies are going to be needed because people will not be able to afford to buy their own home. The Government needs to do a lot more to encourage that, but, again, nothing is being done.

Thirdly, there is the question of the quality of rental properties. Much more must be done to improve the quality of rental properties, so that people have a genuine alternative to owning their own homes, and we are not seeing that. We are not seeing improvements in heating standards. We are also not seeing improvements in weatherproofing. Damp homes and draughty homes are killers, leading to a range of health issues, which can be avoided by having simple and basic requirements for leakproofing, adequate ventilation, and draught-proofing. The purpose and the aim of this bill is to strengthen tenants’ rights and promote secure long-term tenancies. This, in itself, is not enough, but it is the right thing to do. New Zealand First will support the bill to select committee.

Looking through the main provisions, the removal of tenants’ responsibilities for letting fees, etc.—the principal Act provides that every tenancy agreement shall show minimum information. Then there are the statements in tenancy agreements. The bill provides that when the tenancy terminates, the agreement must give the existing tenant the right to renew the tenancy. We also regard this as being appropriate. It is a way in which longer-term and more secure tenancies can be supported. But probably the most important provision in the agreement that the bill requires is a statement of the criteria that the landlord must use to calculate any future rent increase. The bill also says that the rent may be increased, provided that it shall not be increased within 180 days after the date on which the last increase took effect.

Lastly, there is the issue of termination by notice. The principal Act sets out the various periods of notice to be given by a landlord to tenants in order to end a tenancy. Overall, New Zealand First is happy to see the bill go to select committee, and to hear what submitters have to say on this bill. Kia ora.

I have got to say that, actually, where Metiria Turei, perhaps, has got some things right is in actually trying to look out for the rights of other people. I have got no issue at all when people are looking out for the rights of others, and making sure that people get a fair go. However, I have got to say that this bill is not the right way to go about it. We always want people to have a fair go. We want to recognise that people have rights, but I will tell you something that is not talked about enough around New Zealand, and that is actually about responsibilities.

I want to start my contribution by reading an excerpt from an email that I received in the last week or so. This is from a local landlord who said: “We want you to view a house”—I haven’t had a chance to see the house—“left for the landlords to repair and clean up. The tenants have finally left the house, owing 7 weeks’ rent. We need to repair damaged kitchen cabinets, oven, dishwasher, light fittings, handrails, broken windows, carpets and sailcloth. We need to dispose of many bags of rubbish and boxes of clothing left lying on the deck and out on the lawn. Over the last 3 months we’ve tried to get the tenants out of our house, but as landlords we have no power, because of the legal requirements under the Residential Tenancies Act.”

There are two sides to a coin, and the particular things that this bill is talking about actually go no way to help any of the people who are being talked about. We talk, for a start, about the default setting being 3 years for an agreement. Most landlords I know would love to sign somebody up for 3 years. That would be great. That would give them 3 years’ certainty of rent. The people I have spoken to usually have trouble finding tenants who want to sign up for 3 years.

But the default does not need to be there at all because there is provision already for a landlord and a tenant, by mutual agreement, to set a term, either as a periodic term, or for 12 months, or for 18 months, or for 2 years, or for 3 years, or for 10 years if they want to. That is the benefit of a default. Therefore, it sounds nice, it sounds rosy, but it does not deliver anything in particular.

There is talk in this bill of trying to abolish letting fees.

💬 Hon Member: What’s wrong with that?

You could do that. There is nothing wrong with it, necessarily, per se, except that of course a landlord is going to recoup the cost through the rent anyway. Landlords probably will not pay for the letting costs, and so people will have choices around that. It is only then going to hide the cost of the letting fees inside the rent, and it will achieve nothing other than, of course, for the promoters of this bill to make themselves feel good, in that they can look like they have saved people some money, when they are still going to pay it anyway, through their rent.

Landlords are generally good people. There are some rogue landlords out there, and we do need to make sure that there are protections in place for tenants. But we cannot just put all of the expectations on landlords to carry all of the risk all of the time. From time to time somebody will need to sell their property. If we are going to do away with the 42 days’ notice—at the point of sale, I might add. It is only at the point that the sale goes unconditional that somebody is going to get 42 days’ notice. It is ample time. It is an appropriate time. Generally, landlords are not buying and selling all of the time.

Mr Twyford talked about the inappropriateness or the insecurity that people have, because of the 90-day warning that somebody can give, that they have it hanging over their head that they may be booted out of their house at any time. The landlords I speak to do not want high turnover in their rental properties. They want good tenants who will pay their rent, good tenants who will look after the property like it is their own, and if you are looking after a property, if you are paying your rent, the chances of your landlord booting you out for no good reason, on a 90-day notice, are very, very low.

Again, as I say, I applaud attempts by people to make people’s lives better. But, as I said, this bill will not do that. This bill is misguided. This bill will not deliver any benefits to New Zealand, and therefore I cannot support it.

Firstly, I want to commend the member Metiria Turei for such an awesome bill. It is long overdue, and I thank her for bringing it to the House.

I would not have thought that twice in one evening I would be speaking about housing and how it impacts the people in my electorate of Christchurch East. In my earlier contribution I talked about how, in the last 6 weeks, 28 people have come to my office—28 people have come to my office—because they are finding it difficult to find bonds and to pay rent. They are coming into an electorate office. My heart goes out to these people because many of them have children, and they are scared and they are stressed. That is the answer to that member Jono Naylor’s speech that he just made, about how there are rogue tenants and they do terrible things to houses. There are dozens and dozens—thousands—of people out there who are scared that any day they are going to lose the roof over their head.

The Christchurch experience is a cautionary tale that we must all listen to, because we had the experience of rack-renters for years. When the insurance money washed into Christchurch for people to rebuild and repair their homes, there was money for people to go out and rent properties, and the landlords took advantage of that. There were people who were paying $1,000 a week for a substandard house. When there is an opportunity to make money, unfortunately, there are some people who will do that, and they will exploit other people to do it.

This bill attempts to put a stop to that. All it wants to do is bring fairness back into the housing market. Not only did we have the experience of rack-renters—not for 1 year, not for 2 years, but for several years—but we had, and we continue to have, the condition of “as-is, where-is” homes. People actually took their money, they left their damaged homes, they rented them out, and they went and bought somewhere nice and dry and warm, somewhere else. They left these properties unrepaired, or not repaired to a fit standard. We have got thousands of them across Christchurch. We have got many of them in my electorate. People have not repaired their homes, and they are making money. They are exploiting people.

I am incensed that the National Government members can stand there and defend these practices. Sure, we have got some great landlords in this country, but I can tell you that we have many, many landlords who are just in it to exploit, to make money, and, actually, to cause misery to people. The whole idea of letting fees—we have got people who turn over their leases every 6 months, and they charge hundreds of dollars just to renew a lease. That is exploitation, and it should not happen. I am really angry about this—I am really angry.

I just want to challenge Alfred Ngaro and his view—his take—about this. Mr Ngaro, I want to say something to you. I have Cook Islands people from Auckland getting in touch with me in Christchurch, to try to help them find rentals. I have Cook Islands people trying to find rentals in Auckland. They are ringing me in Christchurch.

💬 Alfred Ngaro: Why are you using the Cook Islands thing?

Because they cannot afford to find rentals in Auckland. They are facing eviction. They have huge costs.

💬 Alfred Ngaro: What’s your point, Poto?

My point, Mr Ngaro, is that Cook Islanders have the lowest homeownership rates of any Pacific Islanders—the lowest homeownership rates. They are our people. They are our people, Mr Ngaro, and that is a shame. You should be ashamed of supporting a Government that does not promote homeownership for our people. Homeownership is the only way that we are going to be able to put down roots and develop a strong community, not being transient—

💬 Alfred Ngaro: What have you done for our people?

What have you done for our people? Stand up. Stand up right now, Mr Ngaro, and tell me what you have done for the Cook Islands people in this country.

💬 Alfred Ngaro: You stand up.

You stand up and tell me that, Mr Ngaro, because I know—

💬 Alfred Ngaro: You’re ashamed to say that.

Excuse me. [Interruption]

If nobody is seeking a point of order—oh, someone is.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I now have a point of order.

💬 Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify whether or not you gave the call to Mr Seymour because Poto Williams’ time had finished or because of the errant point of order that was called out but not stood for.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I did hear someone call for a point of order, but nobody stood to progress the point of order. At that stage Poto Williams, who was close to her time being completed, resumed her seat. At that stage Mr Seymour sought a call, and I have given the call to him.

💬 Kris Faafoi: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding of the situation is that Poto Williams was still on her feet and still speaking, and a member called “point of order” and was not intending to take a point of order, which caused Poto Williams to sit down, interrupting her speech. If he has got a genuine point of order, he can stand up and take one, but he used that tactic to try to stop—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now—as I said, I heard “point of order” called, I looked for whether a point of order was going to be taken by anybody—it was not. I noted that Poto Williams resumed her seat—and the member would perhaps not have seen, because Poto Williams is directly behind Mr Faafoi, and, anyway, the time was very close to expiring. I have now called Mr Seymour.

💬 Kris Faafoi: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Can I just, before I address this matter, make sure the member understands that I have ruled on this matter. If it is a fresh point of order, I am delighted to hear it, but if in any way it is an attempt to relitigate—

💬 Kris Faafoi: I understand your ruling. My concern is that a point of order was called, regardless of whether it was at the end of Poto Williams’ time, and it was not a genuine call for a point of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I accept that a point of order was indicated from someone within the Chamber. No one then sought to progress a point of order. As I have already told the member, I think twice now, at that stage Poto Williams’ time had expired. She resumed her seat. Mr Seymour took the call, and I have given the call to Mr Seymour. I hope that is clear to Mr Faafoi.

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to the Residential Tenancies (Safe and Secure Rentals) Amendment Bill. But I have to say I have considerable sympathy for the intentions of the member who brought the bill, Metiria Turei, and the problem that she is attacking, because the fact of the matter is that we have people in New Zealand who are finding themselves tenants in a landlord’s market. People are trying to rent property in a market place where there is just not enough property to rent, and that leads to increasing rents and insufficient choice of stock for those tenants to rent. It changes the bargaining power between landlords and tenants in such a way that tenants do not have the kind of security of tenure that they would like to have.

If you delve a little bit deeper into why that might be, the fact of the matter is that there is a shortage of housing in New Zealand, and it is not difficult to understand why that is. It is extraordinary, and well-rehearsed in this House, that New Zealand still has not beaten the 1974 record of 39,000 residential dwelling consents. There were actually more homes consented in 1974, when the population of New Zealand was 3 million, than in any year since. In the 1970s, New Zealanders produced 13 new dwellings for every thousand in the population; today, only six or seven are produced. If the output of dwellings halves, then do not be surprised if there is a shortage of housing in which people may live, and do not be surprised if the competition for quality dwellings becomes very intense and people who have lower incomes find themselves squeezed out. That is the reality, and I have got a lot of sympathy for the member trying to address it.

The difficulty is that good policies should be judged not by their intentions—and Metiria Turei always professes good intentions—but actually by their outcomes, and just about every policy she brings to the House would have catastrophic outcomes if the Green Party was ever in any kind of political power. The fact of the matter is that you actually could do any of the things this bill proposes already. There is nothing to stop a landlord and a tenant signing a contract that says there will be no rent increases more frequently than every 12 months and that the calculation of that rent increase will be on some pre-agreed formula. There is nothing to stop tenants and landlords contracting out of the 42-day allowance for vacation of a house if that is what they want to do. There is nothing, in the Residential Tenancies Act or elsewhere, to stop landlords absorbing any finder’s fees into the rent that they pay going forward. This bill does not allow anyone to do anything that they could not already do if they wanted to. The only way that you are going to get those sorts of provisions is to actually build more homes so that there are more landlords looking for tenants than tenants looking for landlords and it becomes a tenant’s market.

If this bill was to pass and those restrictions were to become law, then, I guarantee you, all of the new costs, all of the new compliance, and all of the new bureaucracy will actually be passed on from landlords to tenants. The cost of presenting a formula for calculating rent, and all the litigation around that, the cost of finder’s fees—all of the costs created and passed on to landlords will be passed on to tenants, and you just have to ask yourself: who else but tenants are landlords going to pass new costs on to?

So the Green Party produces a bill that fails to address the real problem—which is a real problem in New Zealand—which is a shortage of housing and a low output of new homes under our current regulatory and infrastructure funding policies, and then produces a policy that does not allow anything new to happen but forces tenants and landlords to do things that they would not otherwise choose to do, creating additional expense, which will be passed on to tenants, hurting precisely the people the Green Party sought to help. What a shame. Thank you.

I grew up in a State house. It is something that I am very proud of, and the fact that a number of Labour Governments sought to ensure that a family like mine could have an affordable home is something that I want to make sure I protect as a right for low-income Kiwi families. That is one of the fundamental reasons why I am here. The beauty of having that State home, for me and my family, was having an anchor in our community. It meant we were not moving around from school to school, and it meant we got to know the neighbours well. We ended up becoming very close friends with neighbours, and we had a sense of community. These kinds of things allegedly mean nothing to the National Government because not only is it speaking against security of tenure with private rentals, we have seen its actions with State homes.

That is why I commend this piece of legislation because it looks to give some of those simple things to families who are looking to rent homes. Whether the Government likes it or not, there are a hell of a lot more people facing the reality of being lifetime renters. They cannot get themselves on the property ladder because house prices have gone up so much, or it is so difficult for them to get a deposit that they face never being able to buy a home. I met someone in my community last week who admitted to me that although he and his wife were trying as hard as they could—and I do not want to say too much because I do not want to identify him, because I visited him last week—they had given up to the fact that they were going to be lifetime renters.

The National Government has spent tonight painting a picture of tenants as the worst possible kind of person that you could have: the people who leave rubbish behind and do not fulfil their obligations as good tenants. But there are a hell of a lot of people out there who are good tenants. There are a hell of a lot more people, and that will grow. Unfortunately, as long as this Government keeps the policy settings as they are, good hard-working New Zealanders face the reality that they cannot buy a home. So, in that respect, more and more people need some protection. For that reason, this is a great piece of legislation, to make sure there is some security of tenure for those people who feel like perhaps—and yes, most landlords are good, but despite what their residential tenancy agreement says, if a year after they get into it the market is so flooded with people wanting to get into homes, they could find themselves in a situation where the landlord says: “Actually, out you get. I’ve got somebody else that can go in that home.” That is what we need to make sure does not happen. It has to be enshrined in legislation to give some of those basic protections to tenants who are looking to sign up for a tenancy.

Again, I go back to my first point: a home is an anchor for a family. If they are not moving from community to community, their kids are going to the same school. They are in the same class, following their mates. They have got a local doctor. They have got a local sports club. They are feeling part of the community. Maybe their parents work in that community. That is the kind of thing that is the absolute building block of a good New Zealand family. If you do not have that—if you are moving around; if your child is going from class to class, school to school, which could happen if you do not have security of tenure, then it is going to be harder for that child. It is going to be harder for that family to make, what I think, is a good start out in life.

I think it is time for this Government to start looking after people who are struggling to make ends meet. It is not always people at the bottom of the heap, on the lowest income; it is people on good incomes who are struggling to get a deposit together and, therefore, cannot buy a house. Like the person whom I met last week, who was saying “Hey, we’re on good incomes, but we’ve got family commitments to make and we can’t rub a deposit together.” So how about the Government thinks about those people, and, unfortunately, there are more of them who need some protection to make sure that their families can be anchors in their communities so their families can have the start in life that I got and, hopefully, be successful. Why can the Government not do that?

It is a pleasure to be talking on the Residential Tenancies (Safe and Secure Rentals) Amendment Bill. Gee, we have listened to a bit of drivel tonight. Comments like “National’s not interested in seeing people living in homes.”, “National doesn’t recognise that a home is an anchor for a family.”—all that tripe. This Government has done a lot around trying to get people into homes—into their own homes. That is what we have been doing. That is what National is about. All these allegations that we are not interested and we are not protecting tenants are just drivel.

The worst thing about this bill—I think the member who has prepared this bill simply has not done their homework. I just want to touch on a couple of points. The first thing is the “right of renewal”. I note the term “right of renewal”, which means that the existing tenant will have the first right of renewal once the fixed term expires. This is because—in the words of the legislation—that will reward good tenants and encourage good relationships. Well, if there are good relationships and there are good tenants and good landlords, then that will automatically happen. The thing I find most intriguing is that if you refer to section 60B of the existing Act, it already provides for that. It provides that there must be notice given by the tenant. If the tenant gives it within 21 working days, then there is a roll-over of the provisions. So the provisions are already in the Act.

The second thing is requiring landlords to state the criteria of future rent rises. I suggest that the member who proposed this bill has probably never entered into a commercial relationship, in terms of rental of industrial or commercial property, because commercial rental agreements are always of this nature. They always cover this issue, and they are the most contentious part of any tenancy agreement. They normally provide for things like CPI adjustment or market-based rentals. Even if you wrote “market-based rentals” it would not make any difference; they would still be contentious when they were required to have a rental review. I also note that under section 25 of the existing Act it gives the Tenancy Tribunal the right to reduce rents if they are excessive.

The third one, about ensuring that tenants may no longer be charged letting fees—well, sorry, section 13A of the existing Act already states that the landlord must state whether tenants are going to pay any of these fees. It has already covered it.

The fourth one: create a minimum period of 3 years for a fixed-term rental. People want flexibility. I rent a property; I want flexibility. You could see the perverse case where it would be in the interests of tenants not to actually enter, in specified cases. So they could keep their options open, knowing that the minimum would be 3 years, but that may not necessarily be in the best interests of the landlord. And where there are poor tenants, landlords do need to have their appropriate rights to look after and uphold their property.

The bill also talks about prohibiting rent rises more than once every 12 months. This is a difficult one, this one, given the type of tenancy we are talking about here; I am not so sure about that. The repeal of the 42-day notice—I think the member does not understand the current provisions, because the current Act requires that 42 days’ notice can apply only after an unconditional offer has been agreed and the purchaser requires vacant possession. There are two tests to it, so that puts a much longer period on that.

I wish this bill had actually focused on more important things, such as those relating to methamphetamine in rental properties. I think this is a very important part that could have been in this bill, and, unfortunately, it has not initially—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

It could be included in this bill. I would like to see those provisions actually covered, because those are the types of things that would protect our tenants, particularly around where landlords are required to tell tenants if they are aware of methamphetamine contamination, and to make sure that they do not allow people to live in contaminated premises. So I cannot support this bill. I think most of these provisions are already covered in the Act.

New Zealand, take note: if you want decent, fair tenancy laws in this country, you must change the Government in 2017. There is no doubt that the only way that thousands of New Zealand families—450,000 households in this country—will get a fair deal for their rental agreements, their tenancies, is if you change the Government. These National members have proven, themselves, tonight that they think that a home for New Zealand families—the right to a home, for New Zealand families—is “tripe”. That is what they have said tonight: that the right to a home, for New Zealand families who have to rent, is “tripe”. This is what National believes. It is a shocking admission from the National Government tonight that it does not believe that families who rent are entitled to a decent home. National thinks it is fine for families who rent, who are struggling every day to pay the rent and the power bills, and to put food on the table, to have fewer rights, so that some wealthy people can get away with having all the power. That is what the National Government has told New Zealand tonight. New Zealand: if you want fair tenancy laws, we must change the Government in 2017.

In the few minutes that I have left I do want to say some thankyous. First of all, of course, to my Labour colleagues, my New Zealand First colleagues, and my Māori Party colleagues, who have not spoken tonight, who—as I understand it—will be supporting this legislation. It is very clear that this is the side of the House that believes that New Zealand families—all New Zealand families—deserve a fair go with their housing, with their right to build a home.

I also want to thank Andrew King and Terry le Grove from the New Zealand Property Investors Federation. I have had numerous meetings with them over the last 6 months to talk about the provisions of this bill, to work through the issues that they have as landlords. We have built a really good relationship over this last little period of time. We have been sharing information about what tenants need, what landlords need, and what is happening on the ground. I have really appreciated their input and their support for the provisions in this bill. They were committed to this bill going to a select committee. They had no problem with that, because it gave them also a chance to talk about the kinds of issues that landlords face in New Zealand.

Landlords have issues too—good landlords have issues too, which we could have resolved. But the National Government has stopped that conversation from happening. National has stopped landlords from being able to come to the select committee and talk to us about the kinds of issues that they are dealing with. Like the issue of methamphetamine—I offered the member Andrew Bayly the opportunity to bring that issue to this bill, in the select committee. Like the issue with the Osaki case, which has raised serious concerns for landlords. I detected that we needed to talk about that as well, alongside improving the rights of tenants to be able to make the house that they pay huge amounts of money for—

💬 Marama Davidson: Huge.

—huge amounts of money for—to make that house their home. Why is it that National has decided that only some families are entitled to a home? Why is it that National has said that only a select few families are entitled to build a home in their communities, when we know that a stable home means stable employment for the grownups in that household; when we know that a stable home means stable education for the children in those households; and when we know that a stable home means good health and well-being for all of the people in that household? Why is it that National says that that is only the entitlement of the wealthy few? Because that is what National has said tonight.

New Zealand, I urge you. We have families who are in dire crisis in housing. There are thousands who are homeless and moving from place to place, desperately trying to find a decent place to live that they can afford, where they can put down some roots and take care of their children. The Green Party has put forward a bill, which is supported by Labour, by New Zealand First, and by the Māori Party, that would help deliver that stable housing for you. The block, the barrier, the hammer that has stopped that from happening has been the National Party. We cannot continue to allow National to lock our families out from the decent, fair treatment that they deserve. So, New Zealand, I am asking you, when you get the opportunity next year, in 2017, vote to change the Government. Thank you.