Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): I have got to say that actually where Metiria Turei perhaps has got some things right is in actually trying to look out for the rights of other people. I have got no issue at all when people are looking out for the rights of others and making sure that people get a fair go. However I have got to say that this bill is not the right way to go about it. We always want people to have a fair go. We want to recognise that people have rights but I will tell you something that is not talked about enough around New Zealand and that is actually about responsibilities.I want to start my contribution by reading an excerpt from an email that I received in the last week or so. This is from a local landlord who said: We want you to view a house"—I haven't had a chance to see the house—"left for the landlords to repair and clean up. The tenants have finally left the house owing 7 weeks' rent. We need to repair damaged kitchen cabinets oven dishwasher light fittings handrails broken windows carpets and sailcloth. We need to dispose of many bags of rubbish and boxes of clothing left lying on the deck and out on the lawn. Over the last 3 months we've tried to get the tenants out of our house but as landlords we have no power because of the legal requirements under the Residential Tenancies Act."There are two sides to a coin and the particular things that this bill is talking about actually go no way to help any of the people who are being talked about. We talk for a start about the default setting being 3 years for an agreement. Most landlords I know would love to sign somebody up for 3 years. That would be great. That would give them 3 years' certainty of rent. The people I have spoken to usually have trouble finding tenants who want to sign up for 3 years.But the default does not need to be there at all because there is provision already for a landlord and a tenant by mutual agreement to set a term either as a periodic term or for 12 months or for 18 months or for 2 years or for 3 years or for 10 years if they want to. That is the benefit of a default. Therefore it sounds nice it sounds rosy but it does not deliver anything in particular.There is talk in this bill of trying to abolish letting fees.Hon Member: What's wrong with that?JONO NAYLOR: You could do that. There is nothing wrong with it necessarily per se except that of course a landlord is going to recoup the cost through the rent anyway. Landlords probably will not pay for the letting costs and so people will have choices around that. It is only then going to hide the cost of the letting fees inside the rent and it will achieve nothing other than of course for the promoters of this bill to make themselves feel good in that they can look like they have saved people some money when they are still going to pay it anyway through their rent.Landlords are generally good people. There are some rogue landlords out there and we do need to make sure that there are protections in place for tenants. But we cannot just put all of the expectations on landlords to carry all of the risk all of the time. From time to time somebody will need to sell their property. If we are going to do away with the 42 days' notice—at the point of sale I might add. It is only at the point that the sale goes unconditional that somebody is going to get 42 days' notice. It is ample time. It is an appropriate time. Generally landlords are not buying and selling all of the time.Mr Twyford talked about the inappropriateness or the insecurity that people have because of the 90-day warning that somebody can give that they have it hanging over their head that they may be booted out of their house at any time. The landlords I speak to do not want high turnover in their rental properties. They want good tenants who will pay their rent good tenants who will look after the property like it is their own and if you are looking after a property if you are paying your rent the chances of your landlord booting you out for no good reason on a 90-day notice are very very low.Again as I say I applaud attempts by people to make people's lives better. But as I said this bill will not do that. This bill is misguided. This bill will not deliver any benefits to New Zealand and therefore I cannot support it."