Street Maryan: Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Street Maryan: Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2747] 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 In my right of reply I want to raise a couple of points particularly with regard to some of the speeches and media comments that have been made recently around this bill which have completely got the wrong end of the stick. I thank the member who has just resumed his seat for drawing attention to one of those confusions that has been presented in the public domain. 
First of all I say that this bill in no way diminishes the responsibility of tenants that exists anyway under the Residential Tenancies Act. Tenants have responsibilities. Under section 40(2)(a) of that Act they shall not “Intentionally or carelessly damage or permit any other person to damage the premises;”. Further to the point that my colleague the Hon David Parker made a moment ago I want to describe how personal responsibility as a tenant under the Residential Tenancies Act fits with the intention of this bill. 
This bill is really about insurance—as Gordon Copeland has just said—and insurance companies know their business. It goes like this: as homeowners we might pay insurance to cover damage done to our property. Landlords as I am advised by representatives of the insurance industry already pay a loading of some 30 percent on top of what ordinary homeowners who live in the houses they are insuring would pay by way of premiums. So landlords already pay a 30 percent loading on top of an ordinary homeowner’s insurance. If I burn down my house which I own and insure accordingly the insurance company does not come after me to recover costs. If however I am a tenant and I burn down the property I am renting then the insurance company through its powers of subrogation is able to come after me to recover costs. 
That is the thing that Judge MacAskill stated was patently unfair in the Dunedin case. I cite that case because it was revisited in a brief item on Television One last night. The mother of the young man interviewed in that programme who is now overseas said that he was her son and that she had contacted me when she heard that this bill was in the offing. She said that her son was a second-year university student and he did not have sufficient belongings to have a household contents insurance policy. That situation is typical of many students and of many people who are low-income earners or beneficiaries and who would have few belongings to insure. For a period of 4 years he was pursued by the insurance company through the District Court and the High Court and finally he had a debt of $67000 plus interest to pay to the insurance company. He was absent from the house at the time the damage was caused. 
This bill would simply put tenants on the same footing as homeowners. Why should insurance companies get it both ways? They get an additional loading from the landlord on premiums for properties they own and properties they rent out. If insurance companies are then to go after tenants for the recovery of costs they are getting it both ways. That is not fair. 
 The other point I need to stress is that in my consultation with insurance representatives there has been an assessment to say that were there ever to be any increases to insurance premiums as a result of this bill—and that is by no means an instance of cause and effect—then the increase is likely to be closer to $10 per annum than it is to $100 per annum. So I suggest that if insurance companies seek to increase premiums they are simply using this bill as an excuse to do so. Insurance companies should operate for tenants in the same way as they operate for other customers of their policies.