Beaumont Carol: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Beaumont Carol: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3841] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill is a Government bill that reintroduces many aspects of a previous Labour bill but with some changes that we find very unpalatable. In speaking to the bill I indicate as previous colleagues have said that we will be supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee. But during that process we will be scrutinising a number of issues very very carefully. Of course that scrutiny will be made difficult by the shortened period of time that this bill will have at the select committee. This is an example of a number of other situations where we have seen an abuse of the select committee process by the Government. So straight up front I again raise some concerns about the process that is being used by the Government when it is dealing with legislation. 
In this particular case we are talking about legislation that is very complex and of fundamental importance. As my colleague Dr Rajen Prasad said this bill recognises changes to the residential rental market since the Residential Tenancies Act came into force in 1986. Those changes are very very important and fundamental demographic changes that for example reflect the increase in the proportion of people who live in rental houses and the consequent decline in homeownership rates. As I said earlier this evening when speaking on the previous bill that was before the House this is an issue of affordable housing. The fact that more people are in rental housing is a direct consequence of the lack of affordable housing. I explained to members opposite earlier that the previous Labour Government put in place many initiatives to try to change that trend to make sure that housing was affordable and to make sure we provided a range of different ways that people could purchase their own home. Certainly I would challenge the current Government to consider that matter. There is a need to ensure that housing ownership is affordable for more New Zealanders. 
In preparing for the discussion on the earlier bill I looked at a very interesting article which I would recommend to the members opposite called “A shortage of living room” by Geoff Cumming and published in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on Saturday 2 May. In that article he goes into quite a lot of analysis of what is going on with regard to the housing market looking at a number of initiatives around affordable housing. He concludes that the Minister of Housing Phil Heatley must have ordered a go-slow in terms of affordable housing. And of course he draws our attention to the attitude of the Prime Minister John Key to affordable housing. In Mr Key’s own electorate he stopped I think 500 affordable houses being built because he did not want them to be in his neighbourhood thank you very much. 
The lack of affordable housing is one of the important changes that have happened that require a review of the principal Act. The other change—again Dr Rajen Prasad started to discuss this—is the increase in private sector landlords in the period since 1986. There are more private sector landlords and many of them as Dr Prasad said are indeed small landlords if you like: people who maybe have one property—like my mother—that is rented out. It is important that that is protected. That rental property is their investment in which they have often invested their life savings. So the issue is about having a balance. 
The important thing here though as well as having that balance and protecting the landlord’s property is the very very fundamental nature of housing: the fact that housing is where people live. They live and bring up their children there. Providing stable housing is something that we have long valued in this country; indeed over 70 years ago the Labour Government brought in State housing in direct recognition of the fact that having decent-quality housing was a fundamental right for New Zealanders. We recognised that that was important. We did not want people to live in slums; we did not want them to live in squalor. 
Nikki Kaye 
: Well the State houses are slums. You left the State houses as slums. You couldn’t repair them for 9 years. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: Well actually there was significant investment by the previous Government in upgrading State houses. I would be very happy to go through the statistics with the members opposite. Although I have already done that earlier this evening if members would like me to do it again I am happy to do so. I ask members opposite whether I should go through it again. Perhaps I could go through those statistics again except that there are some very important— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Come and visit them in Panmure! 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: There are certainly I say to Councillor Lotu-Iiga houses in Auckland that need updating renovating and maintenance. There is no doubt about that. [ 
Interruption 
] We can actually agree on something; that is fabulous. We can all agree that the housing stock in New Zealand is not perfect and there is indeed a need for greater investment. That is fantastic. Let us agree on that. 
Going back to the bill I say one of the fundamental principles outlined here is the need to provide stable housing. Now why is that? Providing stable housing for people is important in a number of different respects. It is important in terms of people’s health. Having a roof over their heads having somewhere to live and not having to live outside in the elements—all of those are basic rights. There is also a whole series of social needs that go with having stable housing. They include attachment to one’s community: building up contacts friendships and links with community organisations. For children having stable housing is really important because that also provides them with stability in terms of their education. They can go to the local school stay there and build up their own social networks. So providing stable housing is a very fundamental matter. 
This bill tries to provide clarification of the rights and obligations of both tenants and landlords and that is important. But it is also important not to pretend that this is a level playing field. It is a bit like the employment relationship. There are two parties but the consequences of kicking tenants out of a property are much more dramatic for them than any consequences that landlords face as are the consequences for an employee if the employer kicks somebody out of a job. Those people lose their house or their income. 
Debate interrupted.