Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. We start with Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 20, “Tenancy agreements, bonds, and related matters”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good to see the Minister of Housing, the Hon Chris Bishop, back on a different committee stage bill—welcome back.

My first question is on the definition in clause 4(1). Now, within this, I understand that there’s been a new insertion of the definition of what “keeps a pet” means, and we can discuss that a little bit later. But my first question is: what is defined as “pet”? What I’m seeing here immediately is “pet does not include a disability [assistant] dog”, which has given a specific definition within an Act, but it doesn’t actually define pet more broadly. I do apologise; I haven’t had the time to check the principal legislation to see if the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 already contains a definition of “pet”.

I guess, with this, the bigger question is that people keep different forms of pets. Is there, I guess, a scope or some sort of boundary around what that could look like, whether anything can be considered a pet in this regard as long as the owner themselves declares that that is a pet? That would be my first question. I’m sure other people will have many other questions on this particular section.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I thought I would start by touching on the broader themes around the pet bonds and then specific questions about an amendment that I have put in. I’m keen to understand, from the Minister of Housing’s perspective, what alternatives were explored here. By way of reassurance, I’ll get out from the get-go that we support this part at least. In general, we don’t support the bill as it currently stands, but there are some things in this bill that we are supportive of, and we’ll make that clear throughout.

Pet bonds are one of those. We take the view that we support measures that will look to make it easier for tenants to have pets. That makes sense for us. We know that it’s an issue and that it has been a longstanding one. The question is: are pet bonds the best way to go about it? We don’t know the answer to that, and I don’t think that the Government does, because it hasn’t been tried before, but in general we support it because it’s worth a go.

I am keen to understand what other mechanisms were considered, and what advice or examples overseas did the Minister look at to get a gauge as to how effective a pet bond might be in allowing tenants to have pets? I get the rationale that in having a bond, landlords may be more willing to allow tenants to have pets, because if there are any issues that arise from that, they have a bond there that they can extract from to cover damage, etc., but I think it’s important that we understand the broader work that was done to land on pet bonds and the alternatives that were considered.

Speaking on that, I want to speak to an amendment that I have tabled to insert a new subsection—this is to clause 8—and it, essentially, proposes an exemption for greyhounds. We’re in a situation where, this week, the House has unanimously supported a bill through the House that would look to protect greyhounds as the first step towards banning greyhound racing. What we do know from that is that there are roughly 2,900 greyhounds that will need to be rehomed. On the whole, there has been a broad level of support for this, but then that support inevitably leads to how we’re going to find a home for these dogs. It’s a question that the Government is going to have to grapple with, and it’s one that the Labour Party are more than willing to work with them on to try and find a solution to that. It’s in that vein that I ask the Minister to consider this amendment, because it is made in good faith and it is a genuine attempt to try and address that issue. It seems to me that this is an appropriate way in which to look to solve that.

At the moment, we have a situation where the bill proposes that, outside of assistance dogs, a bond can be placed by a landlord for any tenant that wants to have a pet, but when we’ve got a large number of greyhounds about to be seeking a home, we need to also look at ways in which to assist that. What this amendment proposes is inserting a new subsection that a landlord may not require payment of a pet bond for a maximum of one greyhound which was previously engaged in greyhound racing or bred for greyhound racing for a period of four calendar years following the assent of the bill.

I’ll just walk through the rationale here and the thinking. We don’t want it to be all greyhounds, because we wanted to be reasonable and try and find a pragmatic way forward. We were concerned that if we just said greyhounds, that would include whippets and Italian greyhounds as well. Now, they are quite—

Dr Tracey McLellan: What’s the difference?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: “What’s the difference?” is a very good question. Look, I’m no expert, but they’re not greyhounds. They are kind of like exclusive breeds—you know, they’re fashionable dogs. Italian greyhounds are very, very small. Whippets are in between an Italian greyhound and a greyhound. The point is they’re not used for racing and there’s no surplus. They are bred commercially and people have them, and that’s all good. The point here is to try and limit the scope of this to greyhounds that had been engaged in racing or bred for racing. Any greyhound that was purchased through a commercial breeder wouldn’t count.

The reason we’ve suggested a period of four calendar years is because, once the legislation passes, it looks like greyhound racing will wind down by 2026. Now, I know, with conversations with the likes of the SPCA and Save Animals from Exploitation and other stakeholders that have been engaged in the debate about this issue, they’ve indicated that it could take up to 18 months, two years to make sure that every greyhound gets a home. I thought it would be pragmatic to have a window of four years to account for the period from now leading up to when the ban on greyhound racing comes in, and then an up-to-two-year period after that to help find a home for greyhounds.

Hon Penny Simmonds: Have you mixed up your speech notes?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: No. I mean, this is typical of this Government, isn’t it? We come with a genuine proposal to try and help the Government find a solution to an issue, and Penny Simmonds has a go.

The thing is, after those four years, pet bonds can come in. We’re not saying it’s a ban for the rest of time, and we’re not suggesting that a landlord that allows a greyhound in can’t then bring in or request a pet bond after that period. It’s just a pragmatic way to try and help home greyhounds. It is proposed in good will. We are happy and flexible to work with the Minister. I’m quite happy to have a back and forth throughout this to try and get the details right. We might want to work on the definition; we might want to work on the window, how long that is—whatever they’re comfortable with—but the guts of this is that we have an opportunity through this bill and through this clause to assist the Government in finding homes for those greyhounds that will no longer be in the racing industry.

Thank you, Madam Chair. While I am also waiting for the Minister to respond to my earlier question on the definition of a pet—and I want to speak more in depth to that question—I think, first of all, we also would like to support the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s proposal around rehoming of greyhounds in light of the bill that went through Parliament this week with unanimous support. We too have an amendment of our own on this matter, Amendment Paper 218, which is an amendment by Steve Abel which also says the same thing. We genuinely would like to ask the Minister to consider either or both of these two amendments seriously.

In terms of the pet part, the reason I asked for the definition is that when we are looking at clause 16—when it goes to “When tenant may keep [a] pet”, more specifically—there is nothing in there on not allowing landlords to prohibit a pet as not being suitable for the property without first providing relevant evidence that a pet would not be suitable for such a property because of its size or type or premise or other form of prejudice. We have an Amendment Paper on this—Amendment Paper 220—that would prevent arbitrary discrimination based on stereotypes of the type of animal and prevent landlords from using these grounds baselessly. This is a part of a new section 42F that we are proposing.

Along the same lines of that, another Amendment Paper—No. 224—is also on clause 16. This ties back to clause 4, when I’m referring to the definition of a pet. It also clarifies that a pet being not suitable for the property due to a propensity for causing damage does not include reasonable wear and tear. Again, I think for many of us who do have pets, it’s a general fact that sometimes your pet—your cat, your dog, whatever—doesn’t quite do what you tell it to do and may act up. However, that shouldn’t be a reason, if it’s a genuine wear and tear of the property. Amendment Paper 224, on clause 16, which is also part of introducing a new section 42F, would also prevent propensity for causing damage to be misused for minor and reasonable wear and tear of a property. I would like the Minister to provide some clarification or at least some certainty—if the Minister isn’t going to consider the amendment—to give reassurances that tenants are not going to be arbitrarily ruled out because the landlord thinks the pet is unsuitable, and that the tenant isn’t going to be unduly punished for reasonable wear and tear just by having a pet.

The next point I want to address is around the other lack of clarity in terms of the definition, and again, this comes from the definition of a pet under clause 4. Now, in clause 4 the definition of a pet is very specific in terms of what he has ruled out, particularly with regards to “does not include a disability assist dog”. However, there is nowhere in clause 8 or clause 16 that talks to whether a disabled person would be ruled out for having a disability assistant dog. My colleague Ricardo Menéndez March has Amendment Paper 219, which includes a clause to emphasise, for the avoidance of doubt, that the landlord may not prohibit a tenant from keeping a disability assistant dog which is not a pet. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on those three amendments, as well as my question earlier on the definition of pet.

Thank you, Madam Chair—some good questions raised by members so far. Let me deal with them.

In terms of the first contribution from Lawrence Xu-Nan, in terms of the definition of “pet”, I’m advised that no country, when it comes to tenancy law, defines “pet”, basically. It’s deliberately left as open as possible because people with a definition of pets—I mean, members can think through the logistical challenges with that. However, the bill makes it clear that disability support dogs are exempt from the pet bond. To, I think, address his concerns: if you are disabled and have a support dog, the landlord cannot charge a bond for that. The bill makes that clear. I think most people would agree that is the right thing to do, and so the definition of “pet” explicitly excludes a support dog. The whole point of that is to make sure that a bond can’t be charged for it. In terms of the definition of “pet”, we deliberately left that open.

In terms of his other point around possible discrimination against people on the grounds of what particular pet they have or suitability, I think the key point here for him and everyone to bear in mind is quite a significant change to the law, which is at new section 42E, particularly subsection (4). What we’re doing is reversing what we have at the moment. If the bill passes, the landlord will not be able to refuse consent to have a pet without reasonable grounds or attach an unreasonable condition to the consent. That is sort of buried in the scheme of the legislation, but that is the kind of core operative thing: landlords can’t now refuse consent without reasonable grounds for tenants who wish to have pets.

It’s, essentially, a reversion of the status quo, and so it reverses the presumption. You’re allowed a pet and you can have a pet as a tenant. Thousands and thousands of New Zealanders are tenants, and thousands of them either have pets or want to have pets. I think members broadly agree with the proposition that we want to make it easier for tenants to have pets, and so we are taking quite a significant step in saying that’s fine. Landlords can only refuse consent with reasonable grounds.

In terms of what that means, there will be guidance published by the bureaucracy—officialdom—about some suggested definitions about what “reasonable” means, but ultimately this will be worked through the tribunal, and there will be cases in which landlords refuse consent and tenants challenge that through the tribunal. That’s appropriate because, ultimately, they are the arbiter of tenancy law; that’s the appropriate appeal authority, so to speak, when it comes to tenancy law and that’s completely right and proper.

In fact, the bill, in other parts, makes some changes to the operation of the tribunal, which is a good thing. We’re comfortable with how it’s drafted at the moment. I think we’ve got the balance right, and I think it will provide a lot of benefits for tenants who want to rent but also want to have a pet. We know that hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders have pets, and they’re a very important part of stability and social life for many people—friendship, fellowship, mental health; very, very important. That’s why we’re doing this. To recognise that pets can cause damage and to try and incentivise landlords to be encouraging of pets, encouraging of tenants to have pets, we have put in place that pet bond provision.

Now, the Hon Kieran McAnulty asks about what other countries do. The truth is there’s a variety of different approaches, broadly in line with what the Government’s proposing around not unreasonable withholding of consent. Some countries give nearly an absolute right to have a pet; other countries have a slightly softer approach. It varies depending on the law and the jurisdiction. Western Australia, I’m advised, has pet bonds, and so we think this is a good step forward.

In terms of the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s amendment around greyhounds, we had a good look at it and I’ve had a conversation with Mr Abel, who has a similar proposal as well. We’ve had a good look at it. I can advise the Government will not be supporting it, and I do want to explain why. It goes back to the point I made before around the incentive to take a tenant who wants to have a pet, that the quid pro quo of allowing pets or making it easier to have pets is the bond for the potential damage, the extra two-week bond that can be charged—Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ll just finish this point briefly. The quid pro quo is the extra two weeks that can be charged. If you exempt the ability to charge the bond, it may actually be counterproductive and have the sort of perverse effect of incentivising landlords to encourage tenants to have pets that are not greyhounds. If you exempt greyhounds out of the pet bond provision and say you can’t charge a bond for a greyhound—and look, I love greyhounds as much as the member who suggested the amendment does.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I don’t know about that.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that’s possibly true. I don’t have one, so that’s a good point. But we thought about it. I love greyhounds.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: You can get one now.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, indeed, and there’s quite a few to get. There’s a bit going on in our house at the moment, so we might just wait. I’m not sure my family would be too keen on me committing to that on the floor of Parliament. We’ll see.

That may actually be—perhaps could have—a perverse outcome. We think the better approach is to allow landlords to charge pet bonds. I’m fully on board with his desire and drive to make sure that we rehome those roughly 3,000 greyhounds that will need a home in the next 20 months or so as the industry closes down. I appreciate the drive. We had a good look at it, because we kicked it around a bit, but we won’t be supporting his amendment.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for the response to that. I understand where he’s coming from, but I would still like to use this opportunity to try and work through a few things and see if we can find a way through.

It seems to me that the Government’s position is that what we’re proposing will work as a disincentive to landlords. What we’re trying to do is incentivise people to take on a greyhound, and make it easier and more practical. If the Government is concerned around the position that landlords may take, would he be open to any provision that, if there were to be damage caused under this scenario we’re talking about, where the tenant has been exempt from having to pay a pet bond, there is also another provision available to the landlord to be able to claim more if there’s damage within that four-year period? They won’t be disadvantaged, because they will have the protection and the provision to be able to go beyond the cap of damages. The tenant won’t be disadvantaged, because they won’t need to front up with the bond, but it still preserves the landlord’s ability to seek damages.

Hopefully, that would then address the concerns the Government’s outlined—the perverse outcome that he’s described—because, ultimately, the landlord would still have that provision available to them if there’s damage, but it means that the tenants won’t have to front up with two weeks’ rent from the get-go.

Now, I have a few questions around the level of the pet bond and talking about what’s in the regulatory impact statement. I’ll come to those later. I will just refer to the fact that it does indicate that, for lower-income people, this could be a barrier even if the landlord was willing to take on pets. If the Government was willing to at least explore extra provisions available to landlords solely in this specific instance, we might be able to achieve what we’re trying to, making it easier for people to take on a greyhound but addressing the concerns that the landlords have.

I’m going to continue on this and just say that, having been on the select committee, there was a lot of support for the pet bond provision. However, there were some concerns raised and I think now is the time to flesh them out a little bit.

I am interested in what the Minister was saying about not being able to define a pet and interested to hear that overseas jurisdictions do not either. I’m wondering whether tenants will have the opportunity to challenge the landlord charging a bond if the pet is deemed to be such that really damage would not or could not or is unlikely to be caused. I’m thinking about things like a caged bird, perhaps, that is maybe not even kept in the house. I’m wondering whether a tenant would be able to challenge the idea that they would be charged for having a pet or made to pay the bond if, really, when things are weighed up, the pet is not really deemed to be one that is a risk or will cause any damage.

The other question comes a little bit off the back of something that Kieran McAnulty was saying, and that is around those families that financially struggle. I wanted to check with the Minister whether or not the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD) housing products—particularly access to support for bonds—is going to be extended to the pet bond as well, and whether that will come into effect at the same time that this bill comes into effect. Many of those whānau that Kieran McAnulty referred to earlier struggled to pay the bond in general but, like many whānau, do enjoy the company and what is part of their family is actually a pet. I’m wondering whether MSD has included that in their housing products support, and I believe it is a recoverable product anyway. It’s something that they have to pay back, but I’m wanting to know whether or not access to bonds through MSD will be extended to pets.

I also wanted to touch on the issue raised around assistance dogs and support Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment on this. One thing that was really clear when we were going through the select committee submissions was that there was real concern that there would not be a differentiation and that landlords would not know the difference between an assistance dog versus a pet, and that disabled people or those that have assistance dogs would get caught up in this. Now, I do recognise that Part 1 does say “not include a disability assist dog” within this; however I think it needs to be re-stipulated, and Ricardo’s Amendment Paper 219 goes quite some way to doing that. I think it would provide assurance to the disability community that they’re not going to be discriminated against with their assistance dogs and go through the rigmarole of having to negotiate and argue with a potential landlord about their situation and their assistance dog and why it is not to come under the pet bond provision.

Those are just a few points that I wanted to make for now. If the Minister could respond to those, that would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on the last point, in terms of disability, I’ll also acknowledge the concern that the member raises around what was heard at select committee. I think it’s pretty clear in the bill, which will become the Act, assuming it passes, and there’ll be clear guidance issued from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and Tenancy Services around that, so we’re comfortable with where we’ve landed there.

In terms of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)—good question—I am advised that tenants may be able to apply to MSD for bond grants to cover a pet bond or part of a pet bond in an application for recoverable assistance under the housing support products, but bond grants will only be allowed up to a maximum of four weeks’ rent per grant for both the general and the pet bond. MSD will cover up to four weeks of recoverable assistance in total.

In relation to Hon Kieran McAnulty’s point, I mean, we can have a think about it. I think the key point is just really what I said before, which is we want to get the balance right between encouraging landlords to not look askance at greyhounds because they can’t charge a bond. The simplest way of doing that is allow them to charge a bond. I appreciate his point that we’ve got all these greyhounds to be rehomed, but I genuinely think the best way of doing that is this bill, plus a wider community effort, which is a subject of a bigger discussion around the shutting down of the greyhound industry and making sure we can rehome the dogs. There’s a whole lot of other things that will need to be worked through, which I’m not responsible for, although I’m interested in it.

Just as a follow-up, it’s quite disappointing that the Ministry of Social Development housing product for bonds has not been extended to cover a pet bond. My understanding is—and the Minister can correct me if I’m wrong—that, generally, most people will expect to pay four weeks’ bond. That’s certainly what I’ve seen. The Minister’s stating that that can also be inclusive of the pet bond is a little bit disingenuous for those that are in the situation where they need to seek out housing products, because they would then be limited in terms of it actually being, potentially, the four weeks’ bond for the house plus the two-week pet bond, but not actually any additional housing support or housing product support to cover this pet bond.

It disadvantages them. Even those who are financially struggling enjoy the company, as I said, of a pet, and I don’t think that they should be excluded from being able to do that. This is a recoverable assistance product, so it is something that those families would need to pay back. My expectation would have been not that it would just be included in the current housing product provision but that it would actually be extended to ensure that not only could they pay the general bond but also be able to pay the cover for a pet bond if they chose to take that up. I do want to put to the Minister that I am concerned that no consideration has gone to extending that housing product and ask the Minister whether or not this is something they could turn their minds to or perhaps something that we may need to look at making an amendment for.

Well, Ministers have turned their mind to it, and we’ve decided not to. We’ve thought about it, we’ve looked at it, and we’ve decided not to do that. To just repeat what I said before, which is that within the four weeks, the pet bond can be inclusive, and there’s a variety of tenancy arrangements out there—one-, two-, three-, four-week bond requirements; four is the max—and there’s a variety of different arrangements out there. The status quo for now, or the position as of now, is that the recoverable assistance under the Housing Support Programme can include a pet bond, but the max is four weeks for both.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I begin my contribution, I just want to thank the Minister of Housing for attending the event that I co-hosted with Paulo Garcia last Thursday evening, the parol celebration that we had with the Philippine Embassy and the Bulwagan Foundation—and the colleagues across the House who also attended.

Hon Chris Bishop: Magandang umaga.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Great. I have a couple of questions to do with clause 14A and clause 16.

My question around clause 16 revolves around new section 42E(1), which it inserts. My question around clause 14A—which amends section 26, replacing “6 months” with “1 year”. I think it’s a good change. My understanding is that section 26 gives effect to section 25, which, basically, enables the Tenancy Tribunal to give an order to force the landlord to charge market rent if someone’s getting overcharged. It’s been changed from six months to one year. I think that’s a good change. I think it’s a change that we do support, in the sense that it gives the people who’ve been overcharged more security, but I just want to explore with the Minister why the change from six months to one year—was a longer period considered?

I also want to ask about clause 16 and the new section 42E(1) that it creates. It says, “If the tenant makes a written request to the landlord for consent for the tenant to keep a pet on the premises, the landlord must respond in writing within 21 days of receiving the request.” My first question is: is that standard days or working days? The other component of the question is: what other days were considered within that? Why was 21 days picked? Is there perhaps an option to reduce the amount of days? Twenty-one days seems like quite a long time to wait for an answer if you’re wanting to keep a pet. Yeah.

I was just wanting to make a very short contribution to ask these questions of the Minister. Thank you.

Just very, very quickly on the question of the six months to one year, the residential tenancy laws are amended quite frequently, and it’s just an opportunity to improve the situation—so, more fair, as the member, I think, acknowledges. Our view was that it was a better situation, so we’ve taken the opportunity.

Members will see as you go through the bill that the main thing is the no-cause terminations and pet bonds, but there’s a suite of other quite sensible system changes and pro-tenant moves, frankly, throughout the legislation. We just took the opportunity as part of the vehicle that is this bill.

I’m sorry, I was getting an answer on the first one, so I missed the second part of his question. Just very briefly, what was it?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): If the member would like to re-ask. It was around working days—

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, no, the other one.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, the other one.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What was the other one?

It was around the working days. Do you want me to re-ask that?

Hon Chris Bishop: Yes, and the thing you got on to as well for the last point.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Great. So my question is around clause 16, which is inserting new section 42E, and is about the changes it makes for the written consent for tenants to keep a pet. It says, “If the tenant makes a written request to the landlord for consent for the tenant to keep a pet on the premises, the landlord must respond in writing within 21 days of receiving the request.”

My first question was: is that working days or just calendar days? My second question is: what other dates were considered as part of that and was a shorter period considered, because 21 days seems like quite a long time to be waiting on a reply from a landlord? I think people who make decisions to get pets—they’re not taken lightly. I am a tenant, but if I was looking to get a pet, I would probably like an answer quicker than 21 days. I’m keen for an answer on that.

It’s 21 days, not working days—to answer that. As to “Why 21?”—I mean, is there an argument for 28? Sure. Is there an argument for 14? Sure. You’ve got to put a number at some point. There’s no science to it, and it’s not rational in that sense; it’s just what we think is reasonable. This provision hasn’t been used before. Let’s get it into law, and if it—I mean, seven days, I think, would be too low. You can make an argument for two. Equally, there would probably be landlords who would say that a month, which is basically 28 days, would be fine as well.

Look, let’s see how it goes—I mean, this will probably be an iterative process. This is quite a change to New Zealand tenancy law around pets. There will be wrinkles we need to work through as part of that. The tribunal will play a part in that, but also Parliament may have to respond to tribunal rulings, as well. One of the things this bill does, for example, is in relation to smoking in properties, which deals with a somewhat unusual view from the Tenancy Tribunal a couple of years ago.

It will be a bit of an iterative process; that’s totally appropriate. You’re not going to get everything right the first time, so if it looks like we need to go down to 14 days, we’re happy to have a look at that. Equally, the feedback may be that it may need a bit more time. There’s no science to it. Three weeks—21 days—I reckon is pretty reasonable for a tenant to say, “I want to have a pet.” Landlords are busy people; equally, so are tenants. Let’s just see how it goes. We’re open to change if it doesn’t work.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your answers. It’s great to be here. I’m really keen to have a good, robust discussion with you about this bill. Because I missed the first part, I’m going to start, but just cut me off if this has already been covered. Thankfully, there are lots of areas that we can go into. I want to ask a question about the evidential basis behind this bill, because, from following this bill through the select committee process, it became apparent to me that it seems like there was a decision that you arrived at, Minister, that you decided—no-cause evictions coming back to New Zealand. As you do—as you’re the Minister.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll just point out this is Part 2—if we can keep to Part 1.

TAMATHA PAUL: Yeah, I guess the evidence that I’m talking about underpins every part of this bill, so that’s—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. Well, it’s fair to ask about evidence, but if you’re referencing things, make sure you’re in Part 1.

TAMATHA PAUL: Yep. I guess, focusing on the evidence behind this part in this bill, I want to understand how you arrived at this bill and what evidence underpins these particular parts that we are discussing currently. To me, it seems like you had an objective that you wanted to achieve, but then it seems that we’ve worked backwards to find the evidence to create the basis for the bill. What I want to understand is: what is the evidence? In my view, the regulatory impact statement that underpins this bill and these parts was uncharacteristically not as detailed as other regulatory impact statements that there have been prepared by the officials. I felt the evidential case wasn’t particularly strong, which is unlike that particular ministry.

I would love for you to stand up and tell us what the evidence is behind it, particularly given that there isn’t a lot of support for this bill, with 97 percent of submissions being opposed, and then 53 percent of property managers and landlords being opposed to this bill as well. If there’s not the support there—not this kind of overwhelming call from landlords and property managers for this—then why was this pursued as a political objective if that evidence is not there? I think you get what I’m getting at, so I’ll give you a chance to respond.

The member’s talking about stuff in Part 2. We’re actually on Part 1, but I’m happy to address the point if we want to do it as all parts as one.

Hon Members: No.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No? OK. Well, OK. We’ll, I’m going to be—

Tamatha Paul: It’s still relevant to Part 1, Chris.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, not really, because you’re basically talking about—I mean, OK. The evidence for pet bonds, which is Part 1, is really clear. I think the member would probably agree with me that there are a lot of tenants who wish to have a pet who can’t have a pet. I think most reasonable people realise that’s been a bit of a gap in the law. The law’s been unclear. Probably most people would agree it’s been too hard to have a pet, so the evidence underlying it is that we want to make it easier, and I think most people broadly accept that.

The member wasn’t here, but we’ve traversed the provisions around not being able to unreasonably withhold consent and the quid pro quo of that being the ability to charge up to two weeks for a pet bond.

Tamatha Paul: Point of order, Mr Chair. Aren’t you not supposed to mention when a member isn’t in the House? Isn’t that a thing, a convention?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Technically yes, but it’s more for when it’s a pointed comment. I’ll take it on board. You are technically right, yes.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I’ve amended my amendment to try and address your responses, and to be honest, this is exactly how a committee stage should work. It’s really good to see that you are, as you said, at least willing to consider it. In responding to your concerns that the original proposal might have a perverse outcome, primarily focused on the disincentive that this may prove with landlords who would be less inclined to take on a pet if the bond wasn’t there—I get that; there’s some logic there.

What I’m proposing is to add wording to my amendment on clause 8, inserting a new section 18AA(1B), so that during this period—the four-year proposal, after which, obviously, a pet bond can be issued—“Tenant liability for pet damage caused by a greyhound as defined above”—so, those that have participated in racing or have been bred for racing—“could be extended by up to two weeks’ rent to account for the lack of a pet bond.”

From the landlord’s perspective, if they allow a greyhound or a tenant with a greyhound, they actually—if there’s damage caused—are able to claim more than they would otherwise, to account for the fact that there was no bond. In essence, if there’s damage caused, the landlord has the ability to claim that, but the exemption of the pet bond allows more people to take on a greyhound without having to stump up with two weeks’ rent. You incentivise people to take on a former racing greyhound, and you incentivise landlords to allow those people to take on a greyhound, knowing that if there is damage caused, they can claim up to what they would have been able to do if there was a pet bond.

I’m hoping that the Minister will see that this addresses his concerns. It’s consistent with the intent of the pet bond. It will assist the Government in the challenge that it now has in terms of finding residences for former racing greyhounds. I hope it’s seen as a bit of a win-win. Like I say, I’m genuinely approaching this with goodwill, trying to be pragmatic, happy to work on specific detail. I’m not going to die in a ditch on wording or whatever. I’m just trying to find a way to make this work.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I haven’t seen the revised amendment. I’m happy to have a look at it and see it in its full context. I suppose my point would be that, if you exempt greyhounds from the pet bond rules and you’re not allowed to charge an upfront bond—so that tenants don’t have to pay an upfront bond, so it’s more likely that a landlord will take on a tenant with a greyhound or it’s more likely that tenants will go and get greyhounds as they’re more likely to be able to have a home with a pet in it—but then you say at the back end of it that you can charge up to two weeks for damage, why not just have a two-week bond, because that two-week bond is meant to cover the damage? Maybe I’ve misunderstood the member’s point, but why don’t you just charge a pet bond?

The reality is that there’s going to be a hell of a lot of greyhounds that need a home. There’s going to be people that want to take on a greyhound but can’t front up with two weeks’ rent to issue a bond immediately. I know that for a fact because I’ve had people contact me saying, “This is great. I want to take a greyhound, but my landlord won’t let me”. That’s not uncommon, right? That’s the whole point of a pet bond. If the rationale is true that if we allow landlords to issue a pet bond, then they will be more forthcoming to the idea of a pet, it actually doesn’t address the instance that for some people they won’t be able to front up with two weeks’ rent.

Now, I actually agree with your argument that, in general, if this was a proposal across the board, it’s counterproductive and sort of misses the point—I get it—but this is specific for former racing greyhounds and greyhounds bred for racing. We know there are people that would take them but can’t afford the bond. We know that there are landlords that will allow them if the tenant pays a bond. Exempting tenants from the bond if they adopt a former racing greyhound deals with that issue. Extending the potential liability if that greyhound causes damage addresses the potential barrier to a landlord taking it on without a pet bond. I think it’s a pragmatic response to both realities.

If tenants wouldn’t have an issue fronting up with a bond, I don’t think there’d be a need for this, but we know that there are people that will. It’s in the regulatory impact statement. There’ll be some people that simply cannot afford the bond, so it’s logical that, if that is a fact, there will be people that would love to take on a greyhound but can’t afford the bond. Look, we’re not talking about thousands of people here. It might only be a couple of hundred, but when we’re trying to find homes for 2,900 greyhounds, this is a practical way to help to get there.

I get what he’s saying. One practical problem is that the pet bond system won’t be operational until late next year anyway. There’s a bunch of back-end stuff that the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment is in the middle of: quite a large upgrade to the tenancy system. It’s pretty antiquated, to be honest. As I understand it, the bond system is called Bond 2000, which gives you a sense about when it was built. It’s 24 years old—so credit to the last Government, which kicked off a process of upgrading it; it’s probably overdue. Actually, the first stage of it went live a couple of weeks ago, and there’s other stuff happening. The pet-bond system won’t be operational until probably late 2025, early 2026. That’s OK, but we do have an issue in the next year or so around these greyhounds.

I think we’re unlikely to support the amendment. I understand what he’s trying to do. What I will give him a commitment on is that there is going to be further legislation around greyhounds which has been signalled by the Deputy Prime Minister next year. I’m not the responsible Minister; I’m happy to try and facilitate some constructive conversations around how we might look at this issue of rehoming in the context of tenancy law, in the context of that legislation. I’m just reluctant to commit to something here on the floor of the Chamber that we just haven’t thought through; that’s not a great way to make law.

I’m happy to go away and consider it properly, and it may be when we legislate in the new year around greyhound racing generally—which I hope the Opposition will support as well—we can do some maybe other wider changes around tenancies in relation to greyhounds. I’m getting a little bit ahead of the Government and the Cabinet here, but it’s pretty clear we’ve got 3,000 dogs to rehome, as the member knows, and we want to make sure we do right by those dogs. I’m happy to look at it in that context. I’ll keep looking at it, thinking about it, but I think we’re unlikely to support his amendment. But I acknowledge the issue.

Thank you very much. I thank the Minister for the response. I would encourage him to at least seek advice on this now. I thank him for his commitment to consider this later, but just to address his concerns around the pet bond thing not being up and running for a while, that’s all good because greyhound racing isn’t set to be banned until 2026 and the proposal in the first part of this is for a period of four calendar years to account for that. Whether this is in or not, we’re still going to be facing the same problem, but we’re certainly going to be facing it in greater numbers from early 2026 onwards as the industry starts to wind down.

Now, we don’t know how long this debate will go on for. It’s possible that you might get advice on this and a response, potentially, from coalition partners on this before we finish the committee stage. That’s possible. It might be that your officials look at this and go, “Oh yeah, we can make that work.”, and then—given the goodwill that was shown in Parliament yesterday towards the greyhound issue—it might be that your coalition partners see the logic in this as well. Who knows? It’s worth a crack.

I just wanted to go back to the issue around bond support through the Ministry of Social Development’s housing products and my concern that they are not being extended to ensure that pet bonds can be covered on top of the existing general bond. I’m referring to the regulatory impact statement, where it looks at impacts on others—Government, consumers, etc. It does make it really clear in the regulatory impact statement that lower-income tenants, including beneficiaries and pensioners, will be disproportionately impacted by the upfront costs of pet bonds.

Again, I’m still disappointed that no consideration has been given to the extension of housing product to support pet bonds to beneficiaries or those on low incomes. I wanted to put forward an amendment but it doesn’t seem to be within the scope of this, so I’m unable to do that.

The other thing is that the Minister has said that the pet bonds won’t be up and running for quite some time. I would ask the Minister whether he would consider going away and having a discussion with the Minister for Social Development and Employment to see whether or not that recoverable assistance—they do pay it back—can be included. I’m concerned that there are some landlords who have allowed pets already and have charged a pet bond. Some beneficiaries and those on lower incomes have been able to keep pets in rental properties but, actually, that ability is going to decline for them because once this is introduced, yes, it will mean that more tenants are able to keep pets in general, but it will be fewer in terms of those on lower incomes or a benefit.

The other thing I want to point to is a submission made by the Citizens Advice Bureau and their comment on the pet bond. Although they were pleased to see that landlord will have to provide a written response to the tenant’s request to keep a pet, and where consent is refused will have to provide written reasons for the refusal, they are anxious about the workability of proposed section 42F, “Reasonable grounds for prohibiting tenant from, or refusing tenant consent for, keeping pet”, in clause 16. They say that the broad categories of “(a) the premises are not suitable for the pet or pets … (d) the pet or pets are not suitable for the premises” invites subjective assessment by the landlord. They also state that the legislation as drafted already deems these to be reasonable grounds for refusal but there are no requirements that the decisions about suitability are on reasonable, objective, evidenced-based grounds, and they are concerned that this could lead to more disputes that require the involvement of the Tenancy Tribunal.

With reference to that particular section, I would like to know from the Minister what is the workability of that proposed section, and has he received any advice that this particular section could lead to more disputes that require the involvement of the Tenancy Tribunal as a result of these changes?

I just saw the Minister get up, so I was going to let the Minister respond first.

Hon Chris Bishop: I’ll let you go first.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: OK. Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, I just want to go back to something the Minister said before, regarding disability assist dogs. I thank the Minister for mentioning that, yes, the bill does make it clear that people do not need to pay a pet bond if they have a disability assist dog, but one thing the Minister said that kind of got me a little bit alert was around the fact that we think that this bill has the right balance.

The problem is that this bill has no balance, because by not including “disability assist dog” under the definition of pet, nothing in clause 8 or clause 16 includes it. If that isn’t supposed to be the Minister’s intention, if we can get the Minister just to explicitly state that, actually, yes, disability assist dog is not part of the definition of pet and absolutely this does include disability dogs, and disabled people should not be discriminated against because of the fact that “disability assist dog” is not part of the definition, ergo not covered under clause 8 and clause 16.

My question to the Minister is around the written consent, and I’m kind of following on from what the Hon Carmel Sepuloni said in terms of reasonable grounds. I think one of the things is—well, two things. Number one is that, although in new section 42F there’s a list of what is considered reasonable grounds—and we’re looking at new subsections (a) to (f)—there is no mention in this bill of what unreasonable grounds may be. I think it is important, if the Minister wouldn’t mind, enlightening the committee by giving a couple of examples of what he considers to be unreasonable grounds for prohibiting tenants from keeping a pet. That’s my second question.

The third question I have is around one of our amendments—and this is Amendment Paper 225, by my colleague Tamatha Paul—around the list in new section 42F. Now, one of the other things that I think the Hon Carmel Sepuloni put very nicely from the Citizens Advice Bureau is: what is the workability of some of these reasonable grounds? But, from my perspective, just going a little bit deeper, what was concerning, and what we’re hoping to address with Amendment Paper 225, is the fact that the list is non-exhaustive. It says, “include the following (for example)”. What is going to go beyond this particular list, which I feel is already quite exhaustive? What are some of these additional examples that the Minister can think of for reasonable grounds for a prohibition that is beyond what is listed here in (a) to (f)? If there isn’t, I would ask the Minister to consider the Amendment Paper, which changes the phrasing from “include the following (for example)” to “are limited to the following” and make (a) to (f) an exhaustive list. That is my third question.

I think my last question is sort of, I guess, a consequence of a tenant being denied consent to keep a pet under new section 42E. We know that there are good tenants, there are good landlords—all of those—but we also do see some horrible cases where landlords do use the power that they may have to deny certain rights to the tenant and use the legal system or the tribunal system as a way of doing that. I want to know: what is some of the scope around if a landlord refuses and the tenant challenges that? Yes, new sections 42E(5) and (6) are very clear on committing an unlawful act, but that will only stand if the proposed or the potential tenant takes them, presumably, to the Tenancy Tribunal. That is an extra burden, again, on the potential tenant. What are some of the mechanisms to prevent some of that? Those are four questions for the Minister. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve sort of covered these issues about three or four times now. Just very briefly—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Not necessarily.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I just—the member’s really worried about the definition of “pet” in relation to disability dogs. I’ve addressed this three times now, but for the absolute avoidance of doubt: the definition of “pet” in the bill expressly excludes disability assistance dogs as defined in section 2 of the Dog Control Act 1996. It’s a standard drafting practice where a definition typically applies to the entire Act. The exclusion of disability dogs as pets is relevant to the pet bond provisions, the pet consent provisions, and the pet damage liability provision. As I said—I’ve said it twice now—guidance issued at the time the bill passes, available online, makes it clear that the pet provisions cannot be applied to disability assistance dogs. We’ve thought about it, covered it off, said it three times now. I think we’ve dealt with that issue.

In relation to his points around new sections 42E and 42F—this is about reasonable grounds. The word “reasonable” is used in the Residential Tenancies Act over 140 times, OK? It’s the basis of tenancy law, largely, and so it’s used extensively.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: And abused extensively.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, it is used extensively. I think the member suggested at one point that we make the provisions in section 42F exclusive and exhaustive. I don’t think he actually wants that. Section 42F includes without limit—so it makes it clear, essentially, some examples of where reasonable grounds for prohibiting a tenant from keeping a pet in a tenancy agreement would be. These are things I think most people would think are pretty reasonable: premises that aren’t suitable for the pets because of the size of the fencing, tenancy hasn’t complied with relevant bylaws related to pet, pets not suitable due to the number, propensity for causing damage. People might be able to disagree about some bits of it.

Well, I think it’s a non-exhaustive list for a reason: because it’s one of these things where lawmakers can’t always envisage every different scenario that might possibly happen, because we don’t have the wisdom of Solomon. We don’t have the wisdom of Solomon, and the law needs to be general to allow for a range of different circumstances. The aim of section 42F is to outline some non-exhaustive examples of unreasonableness, but, ultimately, the test of that is through the Tenancy Tribunal. That is just the status quo. As I say, “reasonable” is in the Act, I’m advised, over 140 times.

I mean, there will be—I think this deals with the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s point as well—tribunal cases as a result of the pet provisions, and that’s entirely appropriate. My advice to landlords and to tenants is as it is for everything in tenancy law, which is: things are always better when people don’t go off to court. No landlord wants to be stuck in the tribunal and no tenant wants to end up in the tribunal complaining about their landlord and fighting through the tribunal. It’s time-consuming, it’s expensive, it’s mentally taxing, it’s a nightmare for everybody. No one wants that. My general advice to everybody—and I say this all the time when I meet with landlords and I meet with tenancy groups, which I do—is just be reasonable; just act with compassion and common sense. Life would be a lot simpler if everybody just was reasonable.

Now, I’m a reasonable guy—I’m a reasonable guy—but clearly not everybody is reasonable, otherwise, life would be a lot simpler. They aren’t, and that’s why we have the court system and that’s why we have the tribunal system. If everyone followed the law, life would be good, but they don’t, so we have things to make sure that rights and obligations are enforced. So we have a tribunal.

Will there be tribunal cases as a result of the pet laws? Of course there will. Because it’s not been legislated before in New Zealand and it’s new, and we’ll just work our way through. That’s fine. I’m comfortable with that. If there’s some really weird tribunal rulings coming out, well, as I said to the Hon Kieran McAnulty, this will be an iterative process. We won’t get everything right the first time. It’s new to New Zealand law. It’s the right thing to do. I think broadly people support that. We may have to come back and legislate in the future. That’s OK; Parliament legislates all the time. It’s all good, and we’ll do that.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Carmel Sepuloni—we will be looking for new material.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Actually, a lot of the questions that I asked previously were responded to, except for one, and so I am going to re-ask it. Given that the Minister of Housing has said that there will be a longer lead-in time for introducing the pet provisions, is he going to go away and talk to the Ministry of Social Development about extending the housing product that will support lower-income New Zealanders and beneficiaries to get access to additional bond to cover the expense for the pet bond, given that his own regulatory impact statement does state very clearly that it is low-income New Zealanders and beneficiaries that will be disproportionately and negatively impacted by a pet bond being introduced?

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I have a new question related to pet bonds. New section 18AA(3), inserted by clause 8: “If the landlord lawfully increases the amount of the rent, the landlord may require payment of a further sum of pet bond not exceeding the amount by which the rent payable for 2 weeks has been increased.” I know the Minister is trying to find a balance here, but we’ve established through various exchanges that for some people the level of pet bond may well be a barrier to them being able to have a pet, even if the landlord is willing to do so.

My question around this relates to what will potentially be an annual increase in the pet bond. Now, we already have in the material here that at two weeks, the average national weekly rent is $1,160, and that’s 2.9 times the median pet damage awarded by the Tenancy Tribunal in recent decisions, of $402.50. The amount of damage isn’t actually linked to the rent, and so if there’s a provision where the pet bond is likely to increase on an annual basis alongside rent increases, that doesn’t actually mean that the median pet damage is likely to increase at a similar rate every year.

If the median pet damage is $402, and two weeks’ rent is pretty much three times that, with the potential for an annual increase, my concern is that for some tenants they will rummage up the two weeks’ pet bond but they may struggle to absorb the increase in rent. Now there’s going to be an additional amount on top of that as the pet bond increases.

I’m not disputing the rent increases. That’s a discussion and argument for another time, possibly at another part of this bill, but in this one, I’m not sure that’s necessary and I can’t see how this inclusion would act as an additional incentive to landlords, when they’ve already got the bond, which is already three times the damage. If the rate of damages was going up at a similar rate, I could understand, but linking it to rent increases means that the discrepancy between the weekly rent—i.e., that’s linked to the bond; two weeks’ rent for the bond—and the damage is just going to over time steadily grow.

If we look at the advice that was provided around the three weeks’ rent—and I’m pleased the Government didn’t go there; they did say they were trying to find a balance—it demonstrates that that would be too high and it wouldn’t be effective. But, over time, with this provision in here, we will get to that point and we would end up in the situation that the Government has been advised not to do. I’m keen to hear from the Minister the rationale behind this and whether he would be willing to consider adjusting this so that we don’t have an increasing discrepancy between the two.

I’ll just deal with that point because it’s a good one. Firstly, in relation to the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s point, we’ve made a decision not to do that. She’s asked me to go away and talk to the Ministry of Social Development. I’ve done that. We’re not doing that at this time.

In relation to the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s point, basically, this replicates what is the existing law for general bonds. If you are a landlord and you increase the rent lawfully, say $20 a week, technically you can require a bond payment—the bond that has already been lodged—because you’d be increasing it. You might be charging $500 a week, you might charge four weeks’ bond—$2,000—and you increase the rent to $520. Technically, you can require an additional bond payment on top of that to reflect the maths around four weeks. I’m advised most landlords don’t do that. I don’t know, there’ll be plenty of tenants and former tenants in the Chamber. Certainly my time renting and flatting, I had the landlord increase the rent but never had the landlord say, “Oh, actually, also you need to go chuck another $20 or $40 bucks with tenancy services to reflect the four weeks”. That just remains what was lodged at the time of the initial bond.

The provision in new clause 18AA just replicates that provision for general tenancies without pets into the pet bonds, but I’m advised that most landlords don’t do that, and my expectations would be that the same thing would happen. It just replicates what the existing law was.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on my amendment. This hasn’t been discussed in the committee stage, and I appreciate the Minister’s engagement on the issue of greyhounds. This is a new solution to the same problem, but an entirely different approach.

Because the Minister has really helpfully outlined for the committee what the problem would be with the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s approach to add on, essentially, an ability for a landlord to claim back more costs if the damage was caused by a greyhound, thus eliminating the risk of discrimination by landlords against tenants for those who own greyhounds, the suggestion here is to prohibit discrimination against tenants who own greyhounds.

This is something which is pretty common in the law. There are lots of things that landlords can’t ask their tenant and can’t be required for their tenant to explain to them and also can’t then make decisions about whether their tenancies can continue based on those factors. My amendment as it is drafted now would add in a prohibited grounds of discrimination if someone owns a greyhound.

That’s a good point from the Minister that we don’t want to accidentally cause a situation in the law where it’s cheaper and therefore easier for a landlord to limit their risk to pet damage by making sure that if there is going to be a dog in the property, it’s not going to be a greyhound. This would simply not allow them to ask the breed of the dog and it would mean that it was prohibited grounds if they did know that the dog was a greyhound—some simple changes there which the House is probably ready to take a policy position on because it’s quite simple and it would amend the law in a way which also doesn’t require any further work to be done to bond $2,000.

As the Minister said, one of the concerns he had with the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s amendment is that there is some work to do by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment here to get the system up to speed. Because this amendment is drafted in a way that means the landlord may not require the payment, there is no need for the payment to be made in the first place, and therefore there’s no requirement for the payment to be paid back. It doesn’t hit the system at all. If we do it this way with a prohibited grounds of discrimination, no money’s changing hands and there’s no system requirement to push it out.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment inserting new subsection (1B) to his tabled amendment to clause 8 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 8 be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8 inserting new subsections (1A) to (1AC) be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 218 be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 219 be agreed to.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendments to clause 16 set out on Amendment Paper 220 be agreed to.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendment to clause 16 set out on Amendment Paper 224 be agreed to.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendment to clause 16 set out on Amendment Paper 225 be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 16 new section 42E(1) replacing “21 days” with “14 days” be agreed to.