SpeechRESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed.Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call—not a long call because I think there's been a lot of debate that's been had in this third reading around this bill. So as I stated in the second reading I rephrased and reframed the bill the Residential Tenancies (I Hate Landlords) Bill" and that's really clear. Now some may say that that's a bit harsh but when you look at the comments that have been made from a number of landlords when you look at the comments in submissions—we had 1436 submissions—a number were opposed to this bill. Even the tenants themselves talked about the 90-day removal notice around properties and in particular the recent Real Estate Institute of New Zealand survey showed that 45.4 percent of tenants actually disagreed with and were against the removal of the 90-day notice compared to 40 percent that were in support. So it's quite clear that this is a bill that hasn't had the full support of the whole entire sector and community and so that's the reason why we oppose this bill.We also too want to put on record the fact that the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing) the Hon Kris Faafoi introduced five minutes into his speech a 15-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which in effect was talking about issues around family violence. We would have supported that provision if it was included in the process. The Minister cannot stand in this House and say that they have been working for a long time when in his PR this bill came into the House on 17 November 2019. We've had almost 12 months in place to be able to do the work and it hasn't been done. Hence the point I made when we were in the committee of the whole House stage to the Minister around clause 54 of the bill—the new clause that he's put in there—that when there's a tenant and it's been requested that they be removed from the tenancy within two days they can be removed on the grounds of family violence. So we understood that there was a calculation that was put there and what the calculation clearly showed was that discrepancy between the two-week period the cost that would be incurred would be upon the landlord. Again that furthers our point in the reasons why we believe that this bill is unfair in regards to the pendulum of responsibility for the landlord.Now I know that Marama Davidson spoke in the House on this bill. She talked about equalling the opportunities. But actually if she looked at the facts only 18 percent of tenants have been removed from properties in regards to those tenancies—only 18 percent in a period of over three years. We know there are bad landlords we know there are those that have not acted appropriately in certain cases but it is not the case right across the board. We have good landlords we have good tenants who have been operating. But this tool is a blunt tool that will impact and affect a whole lot of other landlords and tenants that are inside of our communities as well.So we do oppose this bill. It is unfair. It is unfortunate that the Minister could not have during the select committee process introduced this earlier on so that we could through the process put this through a select committee a robust process.Another point that was made through the SOP was in regard to the fact that if there's an assault upon the landlord by the tenant then the landlord has grounds to dismiss the tenancy agreement with their tenant but the tenant has 14 days—14 days. Now for a tenant where there was family violence they have two days in which they can be removed. But for a tenant who actually assaults a landlord they're given a 14-day period of grace. Where is the equity of opportunity for the landlord? There isn't one. So landlords now are going to be threatened by tenants in this situation who've assaulted them and again what has this Government afforded to them? They've afforded them 14 extra days to the tenant. Andrew Bayly: And you've got to still front up with the evidence.Hon ALFRED NGARO: And that's the difficulty that we're faced with as well.So we have to say on this side that we have reframed this bill the "Residential Tenancies (I Hate Landlords) Bill" for good reason. The evidence shows it in the submissions that are there and we've seen this happen time and time again. I look forward to some of the speeches—I may not be here to hear it—but we oppose this bill in the House."