Sio Su'a William: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Sio Su'a William: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9879] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 First I take this opportunity to join with the rest of the House in acknowledging the passing away of Lady Raiha Mahuta. Lady Raiha was well known in Mangere and was deeply respected for her advocacy for Maori and for Tainui. She was also known particularly to the kaumatua and kuia of Te Puea Marae. On behalf of the people of Mangere I pass on my sympathies and condolences to the people of Tainui. As we say in Samoa “ 
Ia manuia lau malaga” 
which is to say “Farewell and may you have a safe journey beyond the veil.” I do that because in Te Puea Marae there is housing for the elderly. That is organised by one of the local community organisations that work very closely with the marae in recognition that there is a growing population of Maori as well as Pacific people who need good-quality warm housing particularly in winter. There is a group of Maori and Pacific people who will be affected by the changes that the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill brings about. 
Labour is supporting this bill and we are doing so because our past Ministers of housing have done significant work on the bill with the intention that the rights and obligations of both the landlord and tenants are clarified and that there is some balance in this process. The intention is also to enable landlords to manage their properties more effectively and take responsibility for them. 
However I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague Moana Mackey Labour’s spokesperson on housing when she highlights the significant changes that this Government has introduced into this bill—changes we would argue that the Government needs to reconsider. Appropriately Moana will be making recommendations during the Committee stage that will highlight the need for the Government to listen to ordinary tenants who will be affected by those changes. 
Some of the background that I want to highlight will give an indication to the House of the hardship that certain clauses will cause for vulnerable tenants. For example the Government recently announced its welfare reform policy which stereotypes beneficiaries as not wanting to work. In reality many of those beneficiaries are looking for work. I know that in Mangere people consistently come into the office and line up in order to try to find appropriate housing. The fact of the matter is that housing in the private sector is generally unaffordable particularly if someone is on a low income. Also Housing New Zealand Corporation is probably one of the biggest landlords in Mangere and other parts of Manukau City so the letting fee that the Government has now decided to put back into the legislation will have a detrimental impact on many of those vulnerable communities. 
The Government says the issue of letting fees is complex and difficult. Instead of focusing on how the legislation will impact on vulnerable communities the Government says: “Let’s allow all property managers and real estate agents to charge a fee.” It argues that this will encourage competition but we do not accept that argument. In fact the members of the select committee who heard submissions on this issue believe that “… allowing all letting agents to charge letting fees …” would “… result in reduced choice of housing for people unable or unwilling to pay a letting fee”. 
Our position is that we support removing the unfair advantage that real estate agents have over property management companies whereby real estate agents can charge tenants a letting fee but property managers cannot. We believe that removing that letting fee would fairly allow an equal economic environment and it would probably remove the barriers to some tenants finding appropriate accommodation. Prohibiting that letting fee would reduce the need for benefit advances to cover letting fees for some families especially in light of recent Government reforms to the welfare system which may disadvantage sole parents. It will also reduce pressures on social housing from tenants who can afford private sector tenancy costs but not the costs of bond and letting fees as my colleague Moana Mackey has mentioned. 
I emphasise that removing the letting fee ensures that all property managers can compete on an even playing field with real estate agents. As the property management companies submitted they were primarily motivated by the concerns about anti-competition in the market. So their view was that it should be removed or put in place for all. I would have thought that a Government that talks about wanting to look after the vulnerable and wanting to support those in need would look at removing it but instead it put it back in. 
The further issue I raise concerns boarding houses and vulnerable tenants. In my electorate there are several boarding houses. We understand from those who made submissions that one of the ongoing issues that proprietors of boarding houses have to cope with is boarders with mental health issues. Those people also suffer disproportionately if evicted. So it is our desire that every effort be made to resolve a situation first with eviction being used only as a last resort. We heard from social organisations that said it was probably preferable for proprietors to be able to make connections with them as they can help to deal with situations where people with mental health disabilities may pose a risk to others. But the point is that the eviction of people with mental health disabilities should be the last resort. We want to be able to provide some support for that group in our community. 
Moana Mackey has raised the other issue I want to emphasise and it has to do with representation at the Tenancy Tribunal. Clause 63 amends section 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act which sets out the circumstances in which a party may be represented by counsel or by the Tenancy Tribunal. With clause 63 the Government seeks to raise the monetary threshold from $3000 to $6000 in terms of the amount involved in a dispute before one has the right to be represented by a lay representative or counsel. Most of the people who will take up grievances with the Tenancy Tribunal are dealing with matters where less than $3000 is in dispute. We want to see this threshold removed altogether or lowered for the sake of vulnerable tenants. We appreciate the fact that the tribunal was established to provide a low-cost and expedient resolution of disputes but we do not believe that that should override the right for many vulnerable tenants to have a fair hearing. Some of those tenants will not be comfortable unlike you Mr Assistant Speaker and others to sit in a tribunal situation. Many of them have never experienced that. 
So again I emphasise that if this Government is genuine about helping vulnerable people then it needs to look seriously at making the appropriate amendments to the bill rather than putting more pressure on vulnerable workers as it has done with the more recent reforms to the welfare system.