Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is actually with great pride that I rise to take a call on this bill, because this is a bill that ultimately will rebalance some of the power imbalance that we see between landlords and tenants.

I want to begin, though, by responding to a couple of points made by the previous speaker, Simon O’Connor. One of the things he went on and on about was the idea of kindness, and that somehow on this side of the House we were being unkind because we were intending to make some changes through Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that the Minister plans to table, and for some reason that was incredibly unkind. The member mentioned that, even though members opposite didn’t actually know what were in the SOPs, they were likely to vote against them. What they would be voting against are provisions to help victim-survivors of family violence to actually be able to leave a tenancy. So that is an incredibly disappointing attitude for members opposite, and I would urge them to perhaps reconsider what kindness actually means.

We had a number of submissions, we had over 1,400 submissions that were made, and there were a few submissions in there from the likes of the National Collective of Women’s Refuges and also Rural Women New Zealand, who made the point very clearly that there were other jurisdictions that had some very strong provisions in legislation to ensure that the rights of victim-survivors of violence were protected through similar legislation. I don’t think, to be fair, that there were any members on the Social Services and Community Committee who would oppose that, but there were some of us on the select committee—particularly those of us who have worked in the sector—supporting victim-survivors of violence who were very keen for those changes to be made as a result of the submitters’ oral and written submissions. I, for one, on this side of the House, am incredibly pleased, and I commend the Minister for taking those changes on board and incorporating them into the legislation.

So we might quibble about the way in which it’s being achieved, but the fact that it’s being achieved through this legislation is the point that I want to make, and it will make life fairer for those who are trying to get out of tenancies but couldn’t do so, because they were victims of family violence and their name was on the lease. Because of the way in which legislation stands at the moment, they are actually unable to get out. So this will actually make things better for them.

Just very quickly, because I think the Minister has outlined the changes that will be brought in as a result of this, the point of this legislation is that we’re seeing an increasing number of people who are renting. Long-term renting needs to become a viable option for them. It is not currently, and to be able to achieve that we need to improve security of tenure, and that’s what this bill does. It aims to achieve a better balance between the rights, responsibilities, and protections for both landlords and tenants. So while members opposite might want to paint or build a narrative that Government members are doing this to somehow be punitive towards landlords, that’s absolutely untrue.

The changes that this bill will bring about—and they’ve been outlined already by the Minister—I’ll just point to one. The ending of no-cause terminations, because we have heard from submitters during the select committee process that many of them are being asked to leave tenancies and landlords, because of legislation that currently stands, don’t have to give a reason for that. So we don’t have data on how many people have been thrown out of their houses for reasons that are possibly not reasons that we would consider fair in the current day. So that’s the kind of change that this bill will bring about. At the end of the day, it’s about the right that everyone has to housing—to have a warm, dry, safe home, and that’s what, on this side of the House, we believe in strongly. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak against the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill in the second reading, and I want to go through the National Party’s reasons why not. But I want to just put on record, you know, our serious concern around the process in this instance, because what happens with a piece of legislation in the first reading is it’s introduced, it goes off to the select committee, submissions are heard, and, as part of the process within the select committee, the select committee has the ability to improve the bill. The member before me talked about a couple of submissions that were part of that process. So it’s somewhat disturbing that if that member was advocating for it so strongly, why that change wasn’t made in the select committee, because that’s where, through that process, Parliament has the ability to ensure, through officials’ advice and through detailed assessment, in some instances, the referral back to submitters so that they have the opportunity to also present their view on the additional changes. So instead, what we have here, 3 o’clock, second to last day of the sitting of the 52nd Parliament, we have a 15-page Supplementary Order Paper dropped on the table literally seconds into the first speaker of the Opposition party. So it is particularly concerning, under urgency, that the Government continues to follow shoddy process around lawmaking, and we’ve seen, unfortunately, on far too many occasions, that’s resulted in legislation coming back to the House for further changes to fix it.

So I do want to start my comments by just reiterating Simon O’Connor’s concern about a shoddy process. This particular piece of legislation, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, in the National Party’s view, unfortunately, alters the balance quite significantly between landlords and tenants. That is a really important relationship and it’s an important relationship to have in balance. What we don’t disagree with is the fact that tenants need to have—because there are more people renting, we do need to have a situation where there is longer rental tenures available. But the difficulty is, with legislation like this, unfortunately, it is tilting the balance too far the other way.

I, actually, had a conversation with a constituent at the airport the other day. He and his wife have one rental property, they’ve saved for a long time to get it, and, unfortunately, this piece of legislation will force them out of the market. Now, this is a landlord. They’re not the fat cats that the other side always says. This is a typical New Zealand landlord—what we call “mum and dad investor”.

Tāmati Coffey: A business owner.

Might have one property, one rental.

Tāmati Coffey: Business.

Oh, the other side don’t like businesses. They hate the idea that anyone could be in business. This person’s not in business; no, they’re a mum and dad investor. They’ve got one property. They pride themselves on their relationship with their tenants and they go above and beyond to support the tenants in that property that they own.

Unfortunately, this particular piece of legislation, 71 percent of the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand members were opposed to the one clause—

💬 Hon Member: Surprise, surprise.

Wait, but wait—71 percent of landlords opposed ditching the no-cause 90-day notice. Same survey, 45 percent of tenants also didn’t agree with it. Their concern was antisocial behaviour of the neighbours of the house they were renting. So this particular bill—and I want to tell you about one of the unintended consequences that I find really disturbing, because what it means is landlords will be far more careful in terms of who they rent their property to, and it is their property—it is their property. So, unfortunately, some of our most vulnerable New Zealanders who are trying to get into a rental property will be shut out of the rental market because of this policy.

So let’s just have a quick look at the housing situation at the moment. So we’ve got 18,000 New Zealanders on the waiting list for the social housing register. On average, they will be on it for 213 days. That is more than three times what it was when this Labour Government came in, and they’ve got their heads down now. Emergency housing grants—the now Minister of Social Development had said the Labour Party’s comprehensive housing plan would mean that there wouldn’t be funding spent on emergency housing grants; four times as many—

💬 Hon Peeni Henare: Who sold the State homes?

—pre-COVID. Oh, and the State houses, 146 by the Labour Party who said they would stop the sell-off of State houses. And those that you want to claim have been built, it’s great that we’ve got more State houses built; half of them were started by National so you can’t claim credit for them.

So, unfortunately, this piece of legislation does nothing to support vulnerable tenants getting into a new property. The balance has been tilted too far the other way. We’ve been listening to landlords, we’ve been listening to tenants, and, unfortunately, this legislation will mean there are fewer properties available and rents will continue to go up.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First, and once again find myself sitting between Bill and Ben, listening to some of the arguments to and fro. I have to say that New Zealand First, being a party of common sense, finds sense in both sides of the House’s argument. When we talk about both sides of the House, I’m talking philosophical beliefs between our coalition partner, Labour, and the Opposition, National. You’re not entirely wrong, either of you, I say to both those parties, but there has to be some common ground found and decisions have to be made. You know, operating as part of a coalition Government, particularly when one is as outnumbered as New Zealand First is currently—we’re going to change that—requires parties to be sensible, requires compromise, and requires respect. If we can’t do that, we would fail in our prime promise, and that is to deliver stable, coherent, reliable, and consistent Government to the nation. That is a greater problem.

So New Zealand First has expressed reservations in this legislation. We’ve been engaged for a number of months with the fine Minister, Minister Kris Faafoi, a Minister whom I absolutely respect for his work ethic and for his commitment. It’s fair to say that we’ve had some strong conversations. There are some areas where New Zealand First has won a few concessions in these negotiations and where we’ve had to accept that to move forward, we have to accept the Minister’s preferred positioning, and we do support that.

We do feel, though, we have a responsibility. From my caucus’s view, the caucus believes we need to ensure that where there are issues that we believe may cause a problem—and one of them’s just been alluded to by the member who just resumed her seat, the Hon Louise Upston—we need to call those out, because these, in a post-implementation review, would have to be the areas that a future Government, whether New Zealand First is part of that or not, must look at. Those are the issues around the 90-day notice question. Those are the issues around whether or not some of the things that we are doing as a Government—and I’m part of that Government and I support the legislation—deliver those business benefits or they fail.

It is a fact that the Government cannot provide all the housing necessary to meet the needs of the people of New Zealand. The last Government—and I listened to the last member’s contribution, and I have to say that for all the National Party Opposition would like to say about the housing situation today, there are a couple of things that are very, very clear. This Government has reduced the waiting lists of people waiting for a doorstep in a shop front to sleep in. This Government has reduced the waiting lists for those New Zealanders living in a Toyota Hiace van. Well, the last Government’s greatest contribution to the homeless was the Toyota van. The greatest contribution was the back seat of a car for a mother and her three children. If that is the type of New Zealand that the Opposition believes is acceptable, then I’m sorry, we, New Zealand First, do not agree.

So no Government is actually able to stand up—well, the Opposition cannot stand up and criticise this legislation on its track record. I’m sorry, you can’t. But, likewise, this Government has to put aside some of its philosophical views and accept that private landlords are an essential part of the overall solution of providing housing for New Zealanders in need.

My caucus has specifically asked me to put on record a concern, and we’ll be clear, we are voting for this legislation; we are supporting Minister Faafoi. But we have a concern that some aspects of this bill may have a counter-effect that some New Zealanders will find themselves shut out of the market because landlords will err on the side of protecting their asset. They’ll be more deliberate in scrutinising who they rent their property through. I can see a windfall for single women in their 50s and 60s. In Carterton, in my office, I have had a large number of women who live alone, whose tenancies have been terminated because their house has been sold. The landlord sold up. There are no community houses in the Wairarapa because the previous National Government sold the entire stock of 585 houses to Trust House for a bargain basement price of less than $20,000 a house. Kieran McAnulty knows; he sat on the board of Trust House. I don’t know what he was—but the National Government sold them, so we have this problem. We depend and rely on private landlords filling some of that gap.

So New Zealand First’s caucus has made it very clear to me that they are going to watch how this legislation actually rolls out on the ground. If there’s a need down the line, and if our fears are proven, there may be a need down the line to look at that again. If our fears are disproven, then Mr Faafoi will be seen to be correct and we will be correct in supporting him with this legislation.

New Zealand First has had a number of gains. We agree with the Minister that the current legislation does not give enough protection to New Zealanders who are renting. But as I’ve just said, we also note that landlords are an essential part of meeting this nation’s housing needs—private landlords. We accept that the economic impact of COVID-19 has put pressure on renters and landlords. One of the things that we’re very pleased about is the allowance for tenants to make minor fitting changes to their properties, such as earthquake bracing, and the requirement for tenants to put the property back to the state it was in prior to the start of their tenancy. We believe some of these things are just common sense.

I want to highlight some of the additional tools that it gives landlords and owners that we made particular effort to support and advocate for during the consultation of the bill. The bill adds an additional option for landlords to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to end a tenancy where a tenant is in minor, but repeated, rent arrears. If a tenant is only five days in arrears three times within 90 days, and the landlord gives him notice of the arrears each time, the landlord can apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to terminate that tenancy. This is a significant improvement over the current situation where landlords can only apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to end the tenancy where the tenant is at least 21 days in arrears—that is a clear improvement, and the House should acknowledge that.

On antisocial behaviour by tenants—and New Zealand First had strong consultations with the Minister on this—the current legislation has provisions that enable a landlord to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to end a tenancy where the tenant has committed serious antisocial behaviour, which is detailed in the Act. These provisions are retained under the bill—retained. The bill introduces new provisions to deal with repeated antisocial behaviour that won’t meet the same serious threshold as in the current provisions of the Act. That is a clear improvement that advantages the landlord. If a tenant commits three instances of antisocial behaviour within 90 days, and the landlord gives him notice of their antisocial behaviour each time, then the landlord can apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to terminate the tenancy. This shows a pattern of persistent antisocial behaviour that may not meet the same threshold under the current Act. I think this is a valuable tool for landlords.

The other area is in the place of domestic violence. We think we have made serious improvements in that space. There are many reasonable reasons that a landlord can terminate a tenancy: (1) selling the property; (2) moving into the property; renovating the property; allowing a family member to move in; allowing an employee of the landlord to move in; changing it to a commercial premises; allowing for the demolition of the premises; responding to antisocial behaviour; responding to rent arrears; responding to assault; responding to threats of assault; responding to damage or threats of damage. I think, on balance, the New Zealand First caucus has made the right decision. We support this legislation passing through. We will keep a watchful eye on some of those negative consequences that we fear might emerge, but let’s just address that when the evidence is in front of our eyes and at that time.

Kia orana. Kia orana kia koe i Te ‘Epetoma o Te Maori o te reo Kūki ‘Āirani. So it’s Cook Islands Language Week, and I thank you. It’s an honour to speak on this bill, but, alas, for us in the National Party, we oppose this bill. I want to explain the reasons why. First of all, I want to acknowledge the speech that has been made, the parts in which we would totally agree with, by the Hon Ron Mark, and, in particular, the concerns that he’s raised.

If I was to look at this bill with the submissions that have been made, heard those submissions—actually, they go to the weight of the evidence that the member has made in his speech. This should be called the “Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill: I Hate the Landlords”, because that’s actually what it is. The fact is that when we’ve heard some of the submissions, we’ve heard what they’ve been talking about, this so-called balancing the act. But, instead, what it is doing is basically weighting the responsibility back on to the landlords and taking all responsibly off the tenants, and we will prove that point, because, it’s quite clear from the submissions, it was clearly highlighted, the need for this bill was not balanced. It goes to the heart of the comments that were made by the Hon Ron Mark: there is a concern around those tenants.

So we see that, from this bill, what’s actually happened? Has there been an improvement in regards to the tenancies and to the rental incomes and the payments? No, there hasn’t; rents have gone up $50, almost $2,600 more for every tenant that’s currently renting in New Zealand. That’s the average—and that was before COVID-19. So things have not improved; in fact, they’ve got even worse.

I wanted to correct some comments that were made by others on the other side about the great State sell-off that was made there. It wasn’t the great State sell-off. What it was, was a devolution of stock into the community housing sector. This is the sector that’s in our community and, as Ron Mark made the comments about in Carterton—I think it’s called the trusts over there—that was made, and what it did: as a community housing provider, they could provide a better service of wraparound, bespoke means to those that were in that community. We can talk about up in Auckland, out in Tāmaki, and the Hon Peeni Henare would know because he’s been to those homes. The Tāmaki regeneration—over 2,500 homes, they weren’t sold off to private; they were devolved into that housing provider who could provide a better service to them. We think about in Tauranga—what’s been the difference there? Nearly 1,200 homes, again, gone into the asset trust. Why? Because community housing providers could do a better job than what Government could do.

So I want to put that out on record, so that the public could hear: this was not a sell-off of State housing; this was the devolving into a community housing provider who could make a difference. That’s right—who could make a difference; and we know that’s what’s happening there.

But let’s get to this bill. Is it making a difference? The answer is no. Why? Because we know tenants have quite clearly said that this is not making a difference. In particular, it’s the concern—that was also raised by the Hon Ron Mark—about the antisocial behaviour; the 90-day clause that was inside there that gave a protection to tenants who were around, and landlords as well, where there was an antisocial behaviour. I want to read some of the comments that have come out. The New Zealand Property Investors Federation added their disappointment. I’m glad that the Minister has re-entered the House, I look forward to the banter for the brown brothers on the backbench to be able to hear these comments as well.

Here’s what they say—here’s what they say: “the Bill specifically allows tenants to be mildly antisocial.” But the Minister said, and I record this—actually, I want to read his comments first. In his comments that were made on 17 November—that’s last year; last year—2019. So if there were any changes to be made, why were they not made then? We had almost a whole year to see these changes. Five minutes ago, they dropped on our lap. Why? Because there was pressure, I believe, that was made from the outside saying that these changes to this current bill are not worthy. They’re not good enough. They’re putting more pressure on landlords as well. But here’s what the Minister said in his press release: “This is a balanced approach. This will do all things good. That’s really important.”

So why is it, if this is a balanced approach, that the Minister, five minutes in, would decide to drop a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), 15 pages, of all of the changes that could have been made, should have been made, but they weren’t? I won’t use the words of “being, maybe, lazy and inconsiderate” and “not following due process”; that would be unkind. But it seems to be that something’s gone wrong here, and in urgency, finally, we’re getting some of the changes. But are they enough? No, they’re not—they’re not enough because they still do not deal with some of the critical issues.

Here’s what they talk about from the landlord’s perspective. Private landlords will no longer be able to protect people living next door to loud, obnoxious, and potentially violent privately housed tenants. It can already be difficult to manage tenants behaving badly, and this proposal will make it even harder, potentially impossible, while putting neighbours at risk of bad neighbours. But here’s the bit that really cuts: these are private landlords with private homes and private dwellings. But, you see, when it comes to the Government itself, when it comes to Kāinga Ora, here’s what they say: however, this is not the case for Kāinga Ora, Housing New Zealand, and social housing providers who will still be able to end a tenancy without having to give notice—without having to give notice.

So to the public out there, how is this fair, that the implication of this bill will make it harder for private landlords with a private dwelling to be able to give a 90-day notice, but when it comes to Kāinga Ora, Housing New Zealand—at the whim of a choice, without giving due cause as to the reasons why, they can terminate a tenancy just like that? So how can it be just? That’s the reason why this bill should be called “I Hate the Landlords Bill”—“I Hate the Landlords Bill”. How do we prove that? New Zealanders want housing solutions but what are we getting? We’re getting the situation where we’re pitching the landlord versus the tenant. It’s meant to be balancing this, but it’s not. We want change, but this is the sort of change that is impacting the cost.

I’ve been talking to landlords over the weekend. Here’s what they said: this Government, with what it’s imposing there’s more cost, more imposition upon them, making it harder and harder. They’re not seeing anything any different that’s coming through for them.

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: Stick up for the brothers, Alfred.

Oh, I’m sticking up—ha, ha! Landlords will not be able to end a periodic tenancy without reason. The legislation sets out specific, specified reasons that a landlord may use to end a periodic tenancy as well. It just seems to get worse.

The case is this. The proof is in the pudding when you look at the numbers. Still today, what we see happening in this country at the end of 2017, at the end of nine years of National, the waiting list was 5,000.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: People were sleeping on the streets.

There were 5,000. That’s right, people were sleeping on streets. And you know what? Homelessness has only increased. So you can say it all you like. What’s happening—[Interruption] You can put him in a motel, but guess what! That does not solve the problem. But here’s the bit that you got to suck up—and here’s this: 18,000 people are now on the waiting list—prior to COVID-19 lockdown. How does that now sit with you? There were 18,000. You’ve had three years to prove the point. Nothing’s happened. Rents have gone up $50 on average; $2,600 to the cost of a tenant. Has it made a difference? Of course it hasn’t. So that’s the reason why when we look at this bill, this bill is not only inconsiderate right across the board to landlords but it is also not making a difference. There is nothing in here to tell us why it’s going to improve the conditions, and the only way you can improve the conditions is if you create greater capacity and supply into a market of demand.

We’re not seeing that. We won’t see that. Why? Because even the Hon Ron Mark, one of the coalition members of your Government, said it, and I noticed as soon as he was speaking, there was silence of the lambs. No one could speak—right?—because he was speaking truth into that situation. What’s going to happen? We’re going to have less private dwellings into the marketplace and the Minister knows it—he knows it, too.

So these proposed changes include the ability for tenants to modify their houses. Here’s another one. So now they’re going to be able to modify their house, right, and, again, without seeking permission of the landlord—of the landlord. Is it going to make a difference? Is it going to make a difference? Don’t worry, we’ve got the committee stage; we’re here for the long haul like you are—we’re going to keep going on this. This is just the entrée. This is just the entrée. It’s got to get better. There’s more to come—there’s more that’s coming.

So, this is just the start. We are concerned. We are now going through some of the amendments. They don’t look like this SOP is truly making a difference. I just want to put on record that if we had had, inside the select committee, throughout that process of over a year, that the Minister had put on there the conditions around family harm—what do you call it? Family violence—of course, we would have supported that amendment. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do. When Priyanca Radhakrishnan talked about that and she championed it, why was that not put in then? Why are we here now? You see, we support that initiative but, again, a little too late—a little lazy—a little bit of slumber, and now we’re at this place in urgency not doing the right thing. We cannot support this bill. It won’t be good and, again, all it is is hitting on the landlords, and I think that will not bode well in our communities.

The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill is vital to help to rebalance the power imbalance that has stood its ground for far too long in this country, that has seen harm for far too many people. Everyone should be able to live a life of dignity whether they rent or own a home. Choosing to rent and having to rent should not mean that we create a whole entire second-class citizen community in our country simply because those people are at the whim of a ramped-up housing market, which has seen unaffordable house prices, which has seen insecurity; people having to move from their communities, move their children from school several times over a few years if not during the year; people not having any sense of security whether they are going to be able to live in their home for very long or not; people not being able to put down roots in their community, form relationships and networks in their very own neighbourhoods. That imbalance has created that impact on thousands and thousands of people, in fact, for generations and decades.

We believe that housing is primarily a home for people to live in and put down roots. We recognise the benefits of cohesive and connected communities of healthier quality lives for everyone, and this means treating housing as a fundamental human right and a public good, and not just as a way for the rich to get richer while we have thousands of people who can’t even find a home to live in at all. So this is an essential and important necessary step to rebalancing that power, to moving us away from a country that has let rampant speculation harm the lives of thousands and thousands of people who are already struggling in our communities.

So, yes, I’m very proud to stand here in support of those people. And that does not mean creating the false divide that the previous speaker was also alluding to. That side of the House likes to create these false divides, likes to drum up the hating this bill and hating that bill, when, in fact, they are the only people, the only group of MPs in here, who are drumming up that divide. This is about supporting communities, not hating on other communities. This is about recognising that we have got some work and some fixing up to do that. We all should surely understand and have that social contract amongst ourselves that we can indeed be a country that supports people to live in affordable and secure homes, that sees the benefit of families being able to feel and breathe out a sigh of relief that they can plan their lives and can at least rely on the home that they are living in, whether they rent or own it. So this bill is absolutely part of and an essential first step in the solution to rebalance that.

I understand that we had 1,436 submissions on the bill from 1,246 submitters, and I appreciate the work of the select committee during lockdown to allow the hearings and the oral submissions to continue to be heard.

I wanted to acknowledge that this is the second reading of this, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. After having come through the Social Services and Community Committee, some amendments were made to improve the bill to make sure that, yes, we are making sure renters, people who rent, have a fairer go, have an actual decent shot at living a decent life, as well as balancing the requirements for property owners to be able to maintain a reasonable security for themselves in the property that they own.

So what the bill actually does—some of what the bill actually does—that is positive for everyone is increase the security of tenure for tenants who are meeting their obligations—I will repeat that: who are meeting their obligations—by removing a landlord’s right to use no-cause terminations to end a periodic tenancy agreement. That is one of the most substantial changes that we should have been working through in this House decades ago. So I’m celebrating that we have arrived at this place.

We want to prohibit the solicitation of rental bids by landlords. There are too many stories about how that has been pushing rentals up, rental prices up, where families knowing they can’t even afford to pay any rent that might be advertised, but knowing that they’re at the back of the line—who are the families who have been most harmed by rental bidding? It is the very families who know that they will be the last choice, whether it is a mother with young children, whether it is a person with a disability, whether it is simply because they know that they are at the whim of whatever race favour that landlord might prefer—and, by goodness, yes, that has absolutely also been happening. So those families who feel that they will not get to the front of any rental line will be protected by outlawing that rental-bidding ability in our current law.

We are limiting rent increases to once every 12 months to give, again, some certainty for people who rent, who know they won’t be whopped more regularly by an increase in rent. I want to make one particular thing very clear. Alongside this Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, which is helping to make things fairer for people who rent—that’s it. That’s what this bill is doing. It’s not hating on property owners; it is making things fairer. We cannot defend the power imbalance that we have let lie for far too long. That is indefensible. So we are wanting to support people who rent more—a good thing.

Alongside that and to help prevent—so there’s a couple of things. Alongside this bill, we absolutely do need to and have been ramping up the provision of public housing. In this not even three years yet, in this term alone of Government, we have built more public and State homes than any term of Government has since the 1970s, and that is what will help to mitigate the availability and the incentive for property owners to move on and to get out of owning property for rental purposes.

Now, another thing is that, actually, we do, as a country, need to move away from our massive reliance on homes as a tradable commodity. There are far more productive uses for people to be able to invest their funds in. It has not been good for social cohesion to allow homes and houses to be used as that nest egg. There are far better progressive causes that are going to equip us for a modern economy that we need to be moving our country and our investors towards. We cannot continue to rely on housing and investment speculation for that cause, because housing is a fundamental human right. Once we get that sorted, yes, then people may want to continue to invest and use housing as a tradable commodity. But we’ve got to get the provision right first so people can just live a decent life. That’s what this bill is about.

I will pick up—last little bit—and salute the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing), who I believe is going to bring forward an improvement again regarding domestic violence and making sure that people who are living with violence are able to end and leave their tenancies quickly and more urgently than they would otherwise under an ordinary contract arrangement. Now, that is incredible, and I am so pleased to see that we will be making that amendment. All homes should be safe. All families should be able to live free from violence. And where we can support people to be able to transition from violence and into safety, we absolutely should be doing everything that we can. So I applaud the Minister for bringing that to us and I look forward to supporting that clause and that amendment officially.

What else did I want to—oh, look, it’s nearly finished. I think I’m just going to say again that we cannot be a country that defends the power imbalance that has dominated the way we treat housing for generations. That power imbalance has harmed people. That is a reason for us to be able to correct that power imbalance. And that is what this legislation is about—

The member’s time has expired.

Kia orana, Madam Assistant Speaker Dyson. Very quickly at the start, could I acknowledge you for the very entertaining and, at times, moving valedictory speech that you delivered last night, and I wish you well for whatever lies ahead. We may be on opposite sides of the political fence, but I always respect people who come here to serve their country well and who serve their constituents well, and I acknowledge that you have done that.

That speech that we’ve just heard from Marama Davidson, the co-leader of the Green Party, was absolute nonsense from start to finish, and she began, insultingly, by suggesting that members on this side of the House are, in some way, haters because of our opposition to this legislation. Well, what I hate is a measure that will do great harm to those whose interests it is supposedly designed to protect, because the fact of the matter is that many New Zealanders need to be able to access rental accommodation. We all want that accommodation to be of a high standard, to be livable, to be healthy, and to be well heated, and we all want the relationship between the landlord and the tenant to be a constructive one, reflecting mutual respect where each meets their obligations to the other. But the fact of the matter is that this bill substantially tilts the balance away from that particular outcome.

Minister Faafoi acknowledged, when he moved the second reading of this bill in his speech about half an hour ago, that a large number of submissions have been received: almost 1,500. Well, whenever that happens, it tells you that the measure is controversial and that many people are alarmed about its provisions.

He also noted that the members of the Social Services and Community Committee who worked on the bill had to do so during the COVID lockdown via Zoom. Now, that is very difficult for the submitters from around the country, because they don’t have the benefit of the body language and the rapport that can be established by all being together in a room. But, more importantly, it went absolutely against the indication from the Government when they put us into suspension, when they adjourned the Parliament—and all members of Parliament voted for it on the grounds that no non-urgent business would be dealt with while Parliament was suspended under a state of emergency—and they then flagrantly broke that promise. Even though the Leader of the House had told us that there was no public appetite for business-as-usual, and we all agreed with that, they went ahead and did exactly that.

Well, I only joined the select committee after they had completed their work. It was the beginning of June when I took on a new responsibility, so, unfortunately, I didn’t have a chance to hear the submitters and to ask questions of them. But I have read many of their written submissions and I’d like to read some of the subsequent correspondence that we’ve received into the record shortly, because Government members are here this afternoon trying to categorise this as a good day for tenants, but even some of them can see that perhaps it’s a worrying day for landlords, and I acknowledge in particular that the Hon Ron Mark, I think, was trying to be balanced in his contribution earlier.

Well, in fact, as a result of this bill, it’s a very grim day for all New Zealanders. It’s bad news for landlords and a very dark day for tenants, especially those who are not yet in the market but who will, after this bill is enacted, need to go looking for rental accommodation, because many of them are going to find that that rental accommodation market has shrivelled up considerably.

This bill does not balance the rights and obligations of tenants and landlords, and the fact of the matter is that this Government—particularly one party within it—has been hell-bent on targeting landlords right from the start. As I’ve said, National wants everybody living in a healthy home, and we support measures to do that, but you don’t do it by enacting punitive legislation which is ideologically blinkered and that will deter good people from making the investment that we all need them to make in rental accommodation. Putting too much too quickly on landlords, as this bill will do, without any incentives will only lead to fewer people being willing to be landlords in the future, and it will mean that those rental properties will become more expensive and, therefore, less attainable for the people who most desperately need to access them, and there will be fewer rental properties on offer.

I’ve spoken to a number of people who have a little bit of discretionary income—people of my age who have had a few decades of work experience behind them and who might have put a bit of money aside, who are looking towards their retirement and are wanting to find a good way of investing it. I know some very good people in Hamilton, in my electorate of Hamilton West, who do just that. They are fine people, and they have one or two rental properties. They do everything they can to look after their tenants—and in almost every case of the ones I’m talking about here, the tenants respect that and appreciate the relationship and look after the home, and that’s good.

I’ve been a tenant back in the day. In fact, I think I’ve been a tenant in at least three different properties. We always looked after the property, we always respected the landlords, and we valued the relationship we had with them, and that’s the norm. But, unfortunately, under this bill, it’ll become less of the norm because there will be fewer properties available.

Now, as I’ve said, MPs have been inundated with emails and correspondence on this issue, and the Government must listen to them. I know they’re not listening to us, but I do hope that they just might listen to the many New Zealanders who have written to us, pleading for some changes to be made.

I will start with the opinion piece that was released today by Duncan Garner, who is reasonably well-known to people in this House. He is the Newshub breakfast anchorman, and he gave an opinion today headed “New Zealand landlords are under attack like they have never seen or felt before.” He said that this bill “significantly strengthens the hand of tenants … Landlords can’t kick tenants out for displaying anti-social behaviour. No, no, no they will have to prove it not once, not twice, but prove the tenants are kicking in the walls three times in a 90-day period with written warnings issued.” Well, by that stage, most of those properties would probably be beyond repair.

He went on to say, “You’ll need a legal department and an HR department just to be a landlord. … In trying to achieve their end goal of perceived fairness, Labour could fail miserably. If people bail from providing rentals, our housing stock doesn’t grow. Fewer rentals hit the market, and prices skyrocket. Figures already show rents are now $60 a week higher than two years ago.”, and this Government was in office two years ago.

He went on to say, “I regard Ashley Church as one of the voices we should be listening to when it comes to property and especially when he says: ‘This is the most anti-landlord Government probably in the history of our nation’. We should all sit up and listen because in trying to shut down the odd bad landlord,”—and, yes, there are some there and, yes, they should be dealt to, but nevertheless—“the Government has thrown a ‘guilty’ net over all rental property owners.” Mr Garner concluded by saying, “I think the approach lacks sophistication and any sort of insight or knowledge as to the risk of providing a rental. We’ve had dozens of property owners and landlords write into the show in recent days saying they’d love to help someone who’s struggling to rent but it’s just not worth the risk right now. … Labour should press pause.”, said Mr Garner.

Now, as I say, I’ve got dozens of such messages, and there isn’t time to read many, but I’m going to cherry-pick a few. This is to all MPs from a man who has considerable experience to share, and he began by saying, “I have never written directly to voice my opinion and concerns regarding the passing of any legislation whatever previously. I am a long-serving landlord of 23 years that within a family trust, owns or manages and looks after a portfolio of 28 residential properties in the lower North Island in what has been historically a lower socio-economic area.”

💬 Hon Peeni Henare: A mum and dad investor—a mum and dad investor.

Oh now, we’ve got the Hon Peeni Henare criticising this person because he’s not a mum and dad investor. We have got them from people who own or have investments in large numbers of properties, down to those who have one or two. Their concerns, Mr Henare, are exactly the same, and it does him no good whatsoever to dismiss the concerns that have been expressed by being disparaging about the writer.

He should, instead, take notice, because this gentleman said, “I very early on learnt the value of having good quality housing. I was years ahead of the game with insulation, ventilation, etc.,”—presumably, Mr Henare would welcome that—“and also with having fair and favourable terms and conditions and attitudes to attract and retain good tenants. I value good quality tenants, and our intent and aim at all times is to retain tenants as long as possible, and also to establish and maintain a reputation as a good landlord. I have never ever, in 23 years, terminated or not renewed a tenancy without good reason, because it is just not good business to do so. The current RTA regulations are adequate to protect all involved tenants and landlords, and even at times in execution and interpretation, adjudicators have erred to favour tenants to the detriment of landlords. I am gravely concerned that the proposed amendments of this bill will currently”—sorry—“while primarily bad legislation will make for an unfair and unworkable situation that is not a level playing field.” There is much more where that came from.

This is a split call.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to talk on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. Let’s be very, very clear here: one of the goals of the Labour Party, of this Government, is to make sure that we have people in their own homes. Ideally, homeownership has got to be the goal, for people to be able to have their own castle, their own kingdom to be able to do whatever they want in them, but, unfortunately, in this day and age, homeownership is actually just a pipedream for many. Therefore, we have to look after people that are in tenanted arrangements. We all know—many of us have been tenants before; some of us have even had the privilege of being landlords—for the majority of landlords in this country, nothing will change. For the majority of landlords, where there is nothing to worry about, where there’s a good, convivial relationship between landlord and tenant, they will have nothing to worry about. But there are some out there for whom we need to make sure that we’re sharpening up our tools to make sure that we’ve got a fair, balanced situation going on.

So what does that mean? It means some good policies in favour of the tenants—absolutely. Let’s make sure that we’re looking after tenants that are in houses like this. Limiting rent increases to once every 12 months—that is absolutely fair. That is fair—one rent increase every 12 months. To improve tenant security by removing a landlord’s ability to throw people out of their homes without giving them a valid reason—that there is incredibly fair; good for landlords as well, giving landlords new tools to deal with antisocial behaviours and rent arrears. That was something that many landlords came forward and said, “We need a mechanism to be able to deal with this.” That’s what this bill does. And here’s something that’s actually good for both parties concerned: making rental properties safer, making them more livable by adding minor fittings such as brackets to secure furniture against earthquake risks, or even baby-proofing—putting up a baby gate. Many tenants live in fear of hanging a baby gate up, in fear that they’re going to get offside with their landlord.

So that’s exactly what this does, and it’s also going to improve compliance with the law by introducing new tools so that direct action can be taken against parties—either party—who aren’t meeting their obligations. I absolutely commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to make this contribution on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill.

What a shocker of a bill. This is absolutely the politics of envy—very clear and evident in this bill. Not only is it a shocker of a bill, what a shocker of a process that the Minister has just tabled in the last hour, this 15-page Supplementary Order Paper. Look, no one here would dispute that we want to address the issue of domestic violence, but to put this down at this last minute is absolutely shocking—shocking to the process and shocking to our democracy.

I would just like to outline what the current situation is that renters are facing at the moment. It has already been traversed in this House that rents have gone up on average by $50 a week more, under this Government. That’s $2,600 extra a year that renters are paying. Not only that, but the Government has not even raised a comment about the social housing register wait-list of 18,000, under this Government. The Government wants to quickly claim credit for the 3,000 social homes, but fails to mention that half of those were signed or under way under the National-led Government.

So, again, as I said, this bill is very, very clear. It’s actually not about trying to balance, as the previous speaker, Marama Davidson, said, a power imbalance—trying to address a power imbalance. What actually will happen is that this bill will penalise, actually, the most vulnerable in our society—those members, those families, who want to get into rental property. This bill, which is supposed to—you know, the Government’s plan was to address the housing situation and to make housing more affordable; this bill actually does the opposite of that. So they will force rental homes off the market, in this bill, but, actually, this bill is heavy on stick and has absolutely no carrot in it whatsoever. If we look at some of the changes that were made, the biggest one, I think, that had the biggest opposition from submitters, was the three-month termination period. It is absolutely unreasonable, the changes that have been made under this bill.

I just want to touch on the submitters. There were just under 1,500 submissions made on this bill. I, as a member of the Social Services and Community Committee, was party to the Zoom submission process during lockdown. So during lockdown, while everyone was at home with their families, concerned, the submitters had to dial in to Zoom to make their submission. It was very, very clear—and there are members in this House who were also sitting in on those submissions—the frustration that was voiced by many of the submitters at having to go through this process on this important piece of legislation whilst they were in lockdown. Actually, these were just mums and dads—they were mums and dads who rang in to make their oral submission on this bill.

I remember one in particular was a mother who actually had her baby on her lap. She was trying to rock her baby and make her submission, because we all had our children at home with us at that time. So it was a stressful period for many families at that time during lockdown, and then having to make a submission on a very important piece of legislation that affects them and their property—it affects their property rights. Because, ultimately, this is what it is: it is an attack on private property rights, and the worst thing, the scariest thing, about this bill is the socialism creep. It definitely is an example of that—politics of envy creeping in again, under this Labour Government, on hard-working New Zealanders, working hard. They’ve got property rights but, clearly, are being undermined, under this Government, and it will not serve those families that we know are vulnerable in the community. It will not help them in any way in getting any closer into getting a good rental home for themselves. I do not support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Hon Tim Macindoe quoted Duncan Garner as someone who has written in about this bill, about his objection. Now, let me say what Duncan Garner quoted this morning on The AM Show: “Tenants will be able to pass their tenancy on to their friends or whoever is standing over them demanding the use of the house to set up a tinny operation, and the landlord gets no say in the transfer.” Does it sound like fearmongering? Perhaps the members opposite can refer him to clause 43B, where that clearly says “prior written consent [needed] of the landlord”, so the Opposition members are better at doing their homework and reading the Supplementary Order Papers, reading the bill properly, rather than getting their supporters to allow this fearmongering. I commend it to the house.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s kind of the time of the electoral cycle when you look across the House and you don’t know who’s going to be here next week and who’s not, but I want to acknowledge you because I know that you and Clayton Mitchell and Gareth Hughes are in safe territory, because for the next six weeks you’ll have a very peaceful time not having to worry about where you’re going to be on 20 September. But I do think that there are plenty in the House and some of us who may well not be here, and we’re at the mercy of the population for the next six weeks.

I just want to comment on the Minister, as well, because I’ve noticed in my time in this House that Ministers are usually pretty confident when they put legislation to the House, and so they don’t generally have to barrack the Opposition every time they criticise it. I notice Minister Faafoi is a little nervous about this, so perhaps he’s not quite as confident in this legislation as he should be.

I suppose I wanted to just comment on one or two other things before I get on to the bill itself. I listened to Ron Mark with interest. I’ve noticed Ron Mark sitting on the fence on quite a few of his speeches in the last few weeks, and he was firmly on the fence today. I didn’t know which side he was going to fall on for quite a while. He did fall on the side of the Government in the end. I don’t know how he got to that point, though, because his arguments certainly didn’t back that perspective.

Last of all, I want to just comment on a couple of comments that Marama Davidson made which actually are absolutely pertinent to this bill, because she made the comment that the New Zealand investment market lacks opportunity to invest elsewhere, and I think she’s right. I think that’s what’s driven the kind of penchant we have in New Zealand for investing in residential rental property. Private investors have for a long time been attracted to residential investment property as a proposition, because it is a much easier and more understandable form of investment than any other we have in New Zealand. It’s created some of the challenges we have today, because most of the people who invest in this sector—I think something like 70 percent of them—are what we might term mum and dad or family people who have a little bit of money left over who want to invest for their retirement. They buy a house and they put it into the rental market. Now, we have a system in New Zealand now which we didn’t have some years ago, where we have a large number of property managers in that rental market. Many people use them, but, of course, there’s a cost to that, and so when you’re sailing a little close to the wind, as many people do who invest in rental property, it makes it more difficult.

The other thing that’s happened in the course of this Government’s term is that they put two or three pieces of legislation in place which I think have had perverse effects on the rental market. One was the Overseas Investment Office changes, which, effectively, prohibited overseas purchase of houses in New Zealand. That, effectively, dampened the market and created a much tighter rental market. The next thing was the ring-fencing of losses, which certainly tightened the market up again, and the other one was extending the brightline test. All these things put more pressure on the rental market and, to a large extent, have caused some of the increase in rental prices that we’ve heard about already today. I think this bill will do the same thing, and the reason it’ll do the same thing is because almost all rental—most commercial things are calculated on a risk-based proposition, and I think this bill puts more risk at the hands of the property owners. That will inevitably, in my view, lead to higher rentals being charged.

There is another clause in this bill which I think will lead to a higher rental price being quoted, and that’s the fact that you can no longer—and I’m not sure it’s a good or bad thing—change the rental quote during the course of a negotiation. I think that’s a reasonably strong thing. The problem is it will cause landlords to put a higher upfront price on those rentals. You’d have to think, as a consequence of some of those changes, it will lessen the number of landlords in the market.

For those electorate MPs in the House—and there aren’t that many—we get a lot of inquiry—or complaint, I suppose—about rental properties of varying types through our offices. Most of them, interestingly, in my case, relate to the Government or community housing trusts; they don’t relate to private landlords. So we’ve got a bill here which in some ways has created two types of landlord, the private landlord and everyone else, because the rules don’t necessarily apply in the same manner to the housing corporation or to community trusts as they do to private landlords. That’s really differentiating between the two, and I’d have to say that, in my time, I’ve seen many more people mistreated by Housing New Zealand than I have by private landlords in this sector. I think that that’s one of the challenges we have, and I think that it’s very hard to put in place legislation that tidies up the mistreatment of people when we’re dealing with probably 1 or 2 percent of both tenants and landlords in this instance.

Most people are never going to have a problem with this piece of legislation, because if you think about the objective of a tenant and a landlord, the objective of almost every good landlord—not all of them, but almost every good landlord—is to have a tenant in residence for as long as you can. It costs no money to change, and from a tenant’s perspective, if they’re happy with the house, they want to stay there as long as they can. That’s the perfect situation. So this piece of legislation should have no real impact on those people. The problem is it’s the problem landlords and the problem tenants that are challenged in this situation, and it’s very hard to put in place a piece of legislation that equally protects the landlord and the tenant, and I think that’s where this bill struggles. I also think that it would be difficult to put a piece of legislation in place that satisfies everyone with respect to that. I do, however, think, though, that this puts a significantly greater risk on the landlords and, as a consequence of that, is going to lift the cost of rental even further.

I also listened to Ron Mark with interest because, as I said, he sat on the fence and he wasn’t sure which side he was going to fall, but one of the things he talked about was the issue of community housing trusts and how poor they were as landlords, and I don’t agree with that. I mean, as I said earlier, we do get a little more complaint through our offices around community housing and Government-provided housing, but I don’t agree with his point, because, actually, we have some very good community housing trusts. He talked about the Wairarapa trust, which owns a large number of housing in the Wairarapa, all of them run on a community basis. They, like many other community trusts round New Zealand, provide a very good structure in behind which gives support to those tenants, gives support to the people around them, and I think they do a pretty good job—I think it’s a pretty good model for a rental process. But back to the point of this bill, I do think that there’s some challenge in this, and I do think we’re going to see landlords leaving the market. As Ron Mark again said, the Government cannot provide all the things for all people.

Just the last comment I want to make—and a couple of people have commented on it—anyone who thinks that the Government’s lowered the number of people sleeping on the streets should come for a walk with me round Wellington in the morning. I’ll tell you what, there’s a large number more people sleeping on the streets now than there were some seven or eight years ago, and I don’t think we’ve done anything yet to improve that situation. I also don’t think we’ve taken the people, as someone said earlier, out of the Toyotas, because they’re still out there.

So I think we’ve got a long way to go with respect to providing a better environment for renters and for people in the industry, and we need to in future look after those landlords who provide good opportunity for tenants. I think that this bill doesn’t do that; I think it creates a threat to some of our landlords, and I think it’s very unfortunate. So that’s really my contribution. I think that it’s unfortunate that we go to this length to try and achieve something, and I don’t think it will succeed. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand in support of this bill which is going to make a huge difference to many New Zealand families. Over a million New Zealanders are actually in a rental, and about 43 percent of New Zealand children are growing up in a rental home. In the context of the acute housing shortage that we’ve inherited, what we find is a huge number of New Zealand families are paying a huge amount of their family income in rent. What we also know is that when a property is advertised, we get many, many groups turning up to view the property, and that extra $10 a week, $20 a week, $30 a week that sometimes tenants have to commit to in order to secure the property then has to come out of the family income week after week as time goes on. I think, in the context of families on low incomes with children, what that means is that income has to come out of things like the food budget, things like turning off the heater over winter, and it has a huge impact on family wellbeing.

So what this bill does is it, basically, provides more certainty for tenants, because what it means is that they can only have a rent increase once every year. It also means that the landlord has to advertise what the cost of that rent is when they rent the property out, and, basically, they’re not allowed to encourage or invite people to enter into bidding contests, which means that you can turn up to a property viewing and know the rent that would have to be paid for that property. So it’s an important bill, and I commend it to the House.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Social Services and Community Committee by majority be agreed to.