Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity this afternoon to speak on the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill. I do want to ask a few questions of the Minister in the chair Phil Twyford but before I do I want to respond to some of the contributions that have been made this afternoon.I want to start with the contribution by the Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick. In her speech she said that she was one of five renters in this House and suggested that perhaps because of that she has more of a moral right to speak on this legislation than those of us who do own our own home. If that's the case I have to ask the Green Party: what about dairy farmers in mid-Canterbury what about truck drivers in South Canterbury and what about drainlayers in my electorate of Rangitata? Is she suggesting to them that they're the only ones that can speak on legislation that affects them because that's essentially what she's saying in the House today by saying that only renters should be able to have a view on this bill.The second point she made which I thought was even more disappointing—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I didn't call the previous speaker to order but just because a previous speaker has spoken about a particular item which is not relevant to the bill does not give subsequent speakers the opportunity to—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Of course it does.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No it doesn't—Speakers' ruling 45/1. So I would encourage you to come back to the bill. Thank you.David Seymour: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Madam Chair I strongly reject and contest your assertion that my speech was not relevant to the bill. I was very careful to tie my contribution precisely to the sections of the bill being debated.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. I wasn't suggesting that your whole speech wasn't relevant; I was suggesting that the portion where you referred to the previous speaker's contribution was not in line with the bill. Thank you very much for your contribution.ANDREW FALLOON: Thank you Madam Chair.As luck would have it I was just coming round to Part 1 of the bill which refers to the substantial provisions of the bill. I want to ask some questions of the Minister who has been making some contributions this afternoon and I thank him for that. In the bill it defines a letting fee as any fee or charge" and I ask the Minister how that would relate to an additional fee on top of rent—if a letting fee was not payable how that would relate if an additional fee was put on to the rent for perhaps the first year of a rental agreement.I say that because I was a renter up until just a few years ago I'll have Chlöe Swarbrick know and as part of my 12-month fixed-term tenancy we had an agreement that a higher fee be charged at the start of our tenancy rather than at the end. The reason for that is because we had a number of university students in the flat who were working during the university year. So we had an agreement as part of our tenancy agreement to have a higher fee at the start of the year than at the end of the year. So I ask the Minister if that was to be the case if for example in lieu of a $300 letting fee it would be permissible under this legislation to have a $10 a week additional charge for the first 30 weeks of the tenancy—because this legislation I don't think at the moment is very clear on that at all when it refers to "any fee or charge".The second question I have around that is it refers to any "letting agent or any other person". In his contribution the Minister earlier suggested that a property manager works for the landlord and I don't think there'd be too many people in this House who'd disagree with that. But the question then comes: if that fee is to be shifted from a relationship between the property manager and the tenant to the property manager and the landlord that fee would have to be recouped somehow and the fee would be recouped by the property manager charging the landlord. So I ask the Minister if that was to be the case that landlord would have to recoup that fee from the tenant? In fact the Minister did allude to that fact in his contribution. He admitted I think for the first time that I've heard him say it—he said that it'd be better for the tenant if it was incorporated within the rent. I found that quite interesting because up until this point the Government have suggested that it wouldn't lead to an increase in rent and now they're saying that it perhaps will.So I ask the Minister to perhaps rethink his comments he made about Nick Smith's comment which was that it would incentivise short-term rentals rather than longer-term rentals. I'll come back to my $10 a week example: if a fee is to be recouped by $10 a week of course that would punish longer-term tenants—Hon Member: Forty bucks a month.ANDREW FALLOON: —because they're being paid as my colleague says an additional $40 a month for a far longer period of time than they are if they're a short-term tenant. So I ask the Minister to rethink those comments because I don't think he's quite understood what Nick Smith has had to say. Of course it will incentivise shorter-term rentals rather than longer-term rentals if someone is charged $10 a week for a longer period of time."