Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this most excellent piece of legislation. The one point that I really noticed while listening to all of the most excellent contributions on this piece of legislation was the statement made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith when interestingly he openly admitted that the committee appointed under the previous National Government was in fact stacked with those individuals who were directly intertwined in the meth-testing industry. So it's really good to have that acknowledgment from the members opposite that that was a fundamental flaw in the last regime because it was that flaw—it was that high standard that was set under the previous Government—that ended up picking up the consuming or the ingesting of methamphetamine as well as the manufacturing. It is on that point in particular that the chief scientist also appointed under the previous Government—Peter Gluckman—has identified that the consuming of methamphetamine is not harmful. It is not harmful and there is not significant residue left in a property whether it be rented or owned to cause any long-term health problems. It is only when you have clandestine laboratories for the manufacture of methamphetamine that that leaves enough residue to cause problems and harmful health issues for those residing in a property subsequently. So it is this legislation that puts right that wrong and it is important to acknowledge the damage done to the lives of New Zealanders as a result of that problem created under the last National Government. So what it did was create an industry that was able to financially benefit from charging individuals for tests that were not required and I'd just like to quote. I looked at that and the Real Estate Institute has just recently reported last month that before this legislation was introduced and before Peter Gluckman gave his report 30 percent of new homeowners going into hire property were requesting a meth test. That has now dropped to 3 percent—3 percent—of people now requiring a meth test. So an industry that was here in New Zealand is now shifting to Australia because it was a false industry. It was an industry set up for testing for methamphetamine that was not required and it is good to see that that has changed and turned around. There has been a high level of uncertainty amongst landlords as to when to test and how to test and so it is good to see that this legislation clarifies the responsibilities for both landlords and tenants in relation to when testing is required and a baseline that can be done in that space. So the Governance and Administration Committee has recommended that the bill is amended to address contaminants generally not just methamphetamine specifically and that was a key change picked up through the select committee process. This will provide for a more practical regime which is flexible enough to address the health risks of other harmful substances. It's a really important point to note in this space of particularly illicit substances the vast nature into which those compositions can change. One of the big problems that Parliament always has to deal with is how to enable legislation to change quickly enough to be able to effectively prosecute when required and to have the law in place already because as new chemical arrangements happen it's about the legislation consistently catching up to be able to do that. So what this legislation does is it puts in a regulation-making power which means that any contaminant that is identified as being harmful to health will be able to be dealt with by regulations and these will do a number of things. They will set maximum acceptable levels for these contaminants. It will also impose requirements for landlords to test for contaminants in certain circumstances it will prescribe methods for taking samples for testing and for contaminants it will also prescribe contaminant processes and the last one which is also important is it will prescribe a way in which goods left in contaminated premises should be dealt with by landlords and how that is gone about. So it's important to clarify how those issues will be dealt with. Until the regulations are made—so until this bill is passed—the status quo will continue and tenants and landlords will still need to go through the current process which is the Tenancy Tribunal if they wish to terminate their tenancy or seek damages because of contamination of a property. So that is an area that has been hugely contentious for New Zealand not just in the space of Housing New Zealand properties but also for private landlords and for the purchase and sale of properties. It is important to note as I have already briefly stated that in an area where you are preying upon the vulnerable by enabling them to be unnecessarily charged and interrogated and sometimes prosecuted through the whole process for the benefit of a private industry which was charging people for testing that was unrequired this bill clarifies that area clearly and sets up a new framework that is fair to both landlords and tenants. But that's not all this piece of legislation does. It also clarifies a few other areas. It also amends the definition of residential premises" and that is important as well. It will ensure that those premises that are used or are intended for residential occupation are covered by the Residential Tenancies Act and this is regardless of whether they can be lawfully occupied for residential purposes. This change will confirm that once and for all the Tenancy Tribunal has full jurisdiction over all rental premises lawful or otherwise. This is necessary because there has been recently a lack of clarity before the courts—in terms of where the judges have the right to make a call—and proceedings in the Tenancy Tribunal the District Court and the High Court. These changes will ensure that tenants are accorded the full rights and the full ability to have the protection of the law and the Residential Tenancies Act and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment can take appropriate action against landlords who rent out non-compliant properties. As a Government that is fixed and firm in its view of increasing the standard of warm dry safe homes for New Zealanders this is another element of delivering those promises to enable every New Zealander to have the best possible quality residential premises whether they're renting or buying a home. This bill also sets out the orders of the Tenancy Tribunal to make sure that if a house is found to be unlawful for residential use it gives the tribunal the ability to make orders appropriate to the different circumstances of any particular case. Lastly the bill also sets out the rights and responsibilities where there is contamination of a rental property as I have already discussed. It has been a real privilege to be involved in the development of a bill and I do acknowledge that this bill had its inception as a member's bill in the name of Andrew Bayly and it has gone through a considerable process. This bill was originally introduced to this Parliament under the previous Government and Labour supported this bill at its first reading because we thought it was worthy of that consideration. But through the process there have been considerable changes to this bill to strengthen it and enable it to respond to a market that has had a whole range of issues that have really looked at some of the vulnerabilities of tenants and to use what has been going on to make sure that tenants' rights are fully protected and spelt out clearly—there has been so much going on in the housing market. Particularly in terms of enabling those renting to have access to a warm dry home and ones where they know what their rights are and that they have sufficient notice if there are any issues in terms of damage in terms of contamination—to have those rights and responsibilities clearly spelt out in the law is very important. The last issue I'll touch on is that the bill clarifies the ability for tenant liability and that is also a critical part of ensuring that tenants know their rights and landlords are clear what those rights are. That will put forward a clearer way for the future. I'm proud to have such an excellent bill receive its third reading and I commend this bill to the House. Bill read a third time."