Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Thank you Mr Chair. I thought I might take this opportunity to respond to some of the questions from my colleagues and thank my friend and the MP for Rongotai for answering some of them for me. In terms of the question put to me by the Hon Peeni Henare in terms of what a reasonable time for the production of an insurance policy is so that the tenants have the ability to know exactly what their level of coverage is I guess that will come over time through decisions of the Tenancy Tribunal itself. These are new amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) and I guess the obligation of the landlords to supply insurance policies that are pertinent to the tenancy of the tenant is new and I'm sure that we'll get an instance where there may have been some damage done to a property where a tenant hasn't been supplied with the appropriate documentation in terms of the insurance policy and will have some beef with the landlord if those policies haven't been supplied. So I think over time the casework or the caseload or the case decisions of the Tenancy Tribunal will come to a point where they will say what is reasonable and I don't think I want to pre-empt that by making any judgment on that here in the Chamber. Jamie Strange asked in terms of balance—in terms of striking the balance on this within Part 1—between both the tenant and the landlord having been a landlord himself. I think my colleague Paul Eagle's already mentioned the obligations have been clearly made in terms of what the landlord has to do in terms of supplying details of insurance policies. But really I think at the heart of the changes to Part 1 is the rebalancing of the decision of 2016—Osaki—where that Court of Appeal decision I understand has put a lot of the onus on landlords to carry the costs of any tenant liability or damage done by a tenant and now under Part 1 as it stands there are some pretty clear obligations from both the tenant and the landlord and specifically to the tenant will be the amount of the landlord's excess which is why obviously we should be making moves to ensure that the tenants know exactly what that excess is or four weeks of the rent of the tenant. I think it's probably whichever is the largest. But hopefully that answers some of the questions in terms of the balance that was trying to be struck here with tenant liability. I also mentioned earlier that there was another aspect of Part 1 around unlawful residential premises which Part 1 does address. The problem here was that there was uncertainty about what happens to tenants who have rented premises that are unlawful. I'm going to have trouble saying that word for the rest of this debate I think but let's see how I go. I think the most obvious example of that is anyone who has been struggling to find a place to live and has been living in the likes of a converted garage and that wasn't necessarily the purpose of the building at the outset but it might have been the only ability for a tenant to find somewhere to live. My understanding at the moment is that the Tenancy Tribunal doesn't have any ability to rule in their situation and I think another situation that was pertinent to this was after the Kaikōura earthquakes when it was discovered that I think a family was living in a commercial space or an office space just down the road here on Molesworth Street and the ability for them to have any rights under the RTA also wasn't available to them. So what this does here I think is after a couple of High Court decisions known as Anderson and Parbhu clearly clarify a conflict between two court cases or court rulings there around unlawful residential premises. So I guess in a big way seeing as there are only 15 or so seconds to go Part 1 does go towards clarifying a lot of uncertainties both in the space of tenant liability but also around unlawful residential premises which—here we go again—I hope this clarifies.