Mackey Moana: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mackey Moana: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9876] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand and finally take a call on the second reading of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. The chair of the Social Services Committee Katrina Shanks did a very good job of chairing the committee and this is very interesting legislation. I think all members of the committee worked particularly well together. 
But this was another bill that had to pass very quickly through the select committee. We reported back in September last year and it is now nearing the end of March. So Katrina Shanks can talk about delays in getting this bill passed but the fact is that we have sat here and passed ridiculously useless legislation while this very very important legislation has languished on the Order Paper. I particularly took offence that boarding-house tenants who were finally being given tenancy protection under this legislation had to wait over the Christmas break for that protection to be extended to them. I also mention the fact that during the Rugby Sevens tournament that was held here in Wellington in February boarding-house tenants were evicted so that landlords could put people who had come to the sevens in those boarding houses. Had we passed this legislation before Christmas that may not have happened. It is hard to say; the protections we put in place for the boarding-house tenants are not as extensive as they are for other rental tenants. 
I was not going to say this until the member Katrina Shanks got up and extensively criticised Labour for not passing this legislation fast enough: it should have been passed last year. Labour started the work on this legislation. It is important legislation. 
Katrina Shanks 
: In 2004. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Labour does not work with shoddy legislation I say to Ms Shanks. When we redraft a major piece of legislation that affects some of our most vulnerable families we want to do it properly—and we did. That is why this legislation will pass today in the House with 100 percent support. The time was taken to do it properly and I make absolutely no apologies for that. 
This bill was introduced by Labour. The Government took it and made changes to it that in Labour’s view have worsened the legislation. But overall there is no doubt that it is a major improvement on the status quo. That is why Labour will be supporting it and why we will be moving Supplementary Order Papers in the Committee stage in an attempt to bring it back to where it was when we introduced it in terms of fairness. 
I will touch on a few areas that were probably the most contentious at the Social Services Committee. The first was the issue of representation at the Tenancy Tribunal. The original Labour bill allowed for advocates to be used in the Tenancy Tribunal particularly with tenants who do not understand the process are uncomfortable with it may have English as a second language or may simply be terrified of the process and not understand their rights. It may actually speed the process up to have someone there with them who can explain the rules what can and cannot be litigated in the Tenancy Tribunal and to be there as a support person particularly where people are up against a professional tenancy manager or Housing New Zealand. During the submissions we heard cases from people who had to go up against Housing New Zealand who could hardly be considered to be laypersons in respect of the Tenancy Tribunal. 
What this bill does is make it even worse. Not only does it remove the right for those tenants’ advocates to be in the tribunal but also it raises the monetary threshold so the automatic right to be represented kicks in from $3000 to $6000. Although that might not seem like a lot of money to some people to many of our most vulnerable people particularly in boarding houses most of their issues will be less than $3000 or $6000 worth because often they own nothing. They want to be represented at the Tenancy Tribunal by someone who has the ability to help them ensure that the process is fair. Although we certainly appreciate that the tribunal was established to provide low costs and expeditious resolution of disputes the desire for speedy results should not overrule the right of a tenant to have a fair hearing. We also understand that there is a concern that if a professional or even a lay advocate is brought in on one side the other side might reciprocate and it starts building up. That ignores the reality that professional tenancy managers and Housing New Zealand tenancy managers are already involved in this area. They are professionals and they know what they are doing. It is an unfair balance. We simply think that the playing field should be level. 
The second issue is letting fees. Currently real estate agents have an unfair advantage over property management companies because real estate agents can charge tenants a letting fee but property managers cannot. We certainly agree that that is unfair. This bill balances that out by stating that both can charge a letting fee. Labour believes that we should balance it out by saying neither of them can charge a letting fee to tenants. Certainly the property managers we spoke to just wanted a level playing field. They did not want to charge tenants for the letting fee. It was not about income; it was just about getting equality. The reality is that a letting fee on top of a bond is a huge barrier for people who are trying to get into a tenancy. We do not believe that tenants should be charged a letting fee where a landlord has engaged a tenancy service in order to help them fill a tenancy. We were told that they are acting for the tenant because the tenant is the one who is getting the help. We made the comparison to real estate fees where the person who is selling the house is always the one who pays the fee regardless of whether there is a strong housing market or a weak housing market. They are the ones putting their property out there. They will always get charged the fee no matter what the demand is from buyers. We disagree with that measure very very strongly given the huge financial barrier that it provides. 
We see it even more at the moment. If we look at studies of homeless families who have gone into a housing crisis we see that one of the hardest things about getting back into housing is all the upfront costs—moving all their things payment of bonds and letting fees. If we can remove that letting fee that is one small barrier that we are taking away for tenants who are trying to get into a tenancy. 
This bill removes the proposed requirement for a landlord to reveal that a cleansing order had been held on for example a P house. I have received correspondence from people who are actually really concerned about that. I have asked for some information from local government experts. The Social Services Committee was told that cleansing orders are automatically done by the council they have to meet certain requirements and then the order is given showing that there is no more danger. The landlords are asking why they should have to tell people about that if there is no more danger. I have been told that there are no standards for them. They are done on an ad hoc basis and people are genuinely concerned that there may be cleanups that have not been done up to standard. Certainly that is something that I think we need to look at in the Committee stage. Maybe the select committee was not given the full information about that particular clause in the legislation. 
Finally I will come to the issue of boarding houses. That is probably the most important part of the legislation. I think it is such a shame that it has taken so long for us to debate this in the House at the second reading. I sincerely hope that we will have the Committee stage and third reading next week so we can finally get this legislation passed because we need to bring boarding-house tenants under the protection of this law. I read the Minister’s first reading speech and I was concerned that he was under the impression this would solve all the issues for boarding-house tenants. That is not true. This will provide tenancy protection for boarding-house tenants. It does nothing about the state of the boarding houses and the standards that boarding-house owners are required to keep their properties up to. 
During the select committee we had a submission from the New Zealand Coalition to End Homelessness. I congratulate the coalition on its inaugural AGM which I went to in Auckland this morning. Coalition members put an offer out to select committee members to come with them and have a look at boarding houses in Wellington. My colleague Grant Robertson and I took them up on that offer. I certainly hope that other members did as well. It really opened my eyes to some of the absolutely disgusting properties that are out there on the boarding-house market at the moment. Frankly it kept me awake at night. It is truly appalling. We saw some of that in an exposé about boarding houses in Auckland. I reiterate to members that this bill deals only with tenancy protections. I think there will be some who argue that we did not go far enough in this legislation. Maybe we will need to come back and address that down the track. Maybe we need to provide longer times because boarding-house tenants tend to be more transient and the tenancies are shorter. Therefore the protections under this law are not the same for them as for those who have a regular tenancy. We may need to revisit that in the future. I certainly would not rule that out but I hope we managed to address it well enough here. The fact is that this is only part of the problem; there is a whole lot more that needs to be done in the areas of boarding houses and homelessness generally. 
Again I urge members of the Social Services Committee to see that we need a select committee inquiry into the pathways into homelessness in New Zealand. Every single sector group out there is calling for it. It is not something that should be done by Housing New Zealand because of the huge amount of distrust that exists between Housing New Zealand and some of those people who have had negative experiences. A select committee inquiry would do an awful lot of good in that area. The sector is crying out for it and I do not understand why members of the Government which holds the majority on that committee keep blocking a select committee inquiry. I urge them to support it and to rapidly move this legislation through the House.