Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking on the Residential Tenancies (Safe and Secure Rentals) Amendment Bill. Gee we have listened to a bit of drivel tonight. Comments like National's not interested in seeing people living in homes." "National doesn't recognise that a home is an anchor for a family."—all that tripe. This Government has done a lot around trying to get people into homes—into their own homes. That is what we have been doing. That is what National is about. All these allegations that we are not interested and we are not protecting tenants are just drivel.The worst thing about this bill—I think the member who has prepared this bill simply has not done their homework. I just want to touch on a couple of points. The first thing is the "right of renewal". I note the term "right of renewal" which means that the existing tenant will have the first right of renewal once the fixed term expires. This is because—in the words of the legislation—that will reward good tenants and encourage good relationships. Well if there are good relationships and there are good tenants and good landlords then that will automatically happen. The thing I find most intriguing is that if you refer to section 60B of the existing Act it already provides for that. It provides that there must be notice given by the tenant. If the tenant gives it within 21 working days then there is a roll-over of the provisions. So the provisions are already in the Act.The second thing is requiring landlords to state the criteria of future rent rises. I suggest that the member who proposed this bill has probably never entered into a commercial relationship in terms of rental of industrial or commercial property because commercial rental agreements are always of this nature. They always cover this issue and they are the most contentious part of any tenancy agreement. They normally provide for things like CPI adjustment or market-based rentals. Even if you wrote "market-based rentals" it would not make any difference; they would still be contentious when they were required to have a rental review. I also note that under section 25 of the existing Act it gives the Tenancy Tribunal the right to reduce rents if they are excessive.The third one about ensuring that tenants may no longer be charged letting fees—well sorry section 13A of the existing Act already states that the landlord must state whether tenants are going to pay any of these fees. It has already covered it.The fourth one: create a minimum period of 3 years for a fixed-term rental. People want flexibility. I rent a property; I want flexibility. You could see the perverse case where it would be in the interests of tenants not to actually enter in specified cases. So they could keep their options open knowing that the minimum would be 3 years but that may not necessarily be in the best interests of the landlord. And where there are poor tenants landlords do need to have their appropriate rights to look after and uphold their property.The bill also talks about prohibiting rent rises more than once every 12 months. This is a difficult one this one given the type of tenancy we are talking about here; I am not so sure about that. The repeal of the 42-day notice—I think the member does not understand the current provisions because the current Act requires that 42 days' notice can apply only after an unconditional offer has been agreed and the purchaser requires vacant possession. There are two tests to it so that puts a much longer period on that.I wish this bill had actually focused on more important things such as those relating to methamphetamine in rental properties. I think this is a very important part that could have been in this bill and unfortunately it has not initially—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!ANDREW BAYLY: It could be included in this bill. I would like to see those provisions actually covered because those are the types of things that would protect our tenants particularly around where landlords are required to tell tenants if they are aware of methamphetamine contamination and to make sure that they do not allow people to live in contaminated premises. So I cannot support this bill. I think most of these provisions are already covered in the Act."