SpeechHon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): 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 $20000 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.