Alexander Marc: Estimates Debate —  
Alexander Marc: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7179] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to address the issue of housing. I notice that the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill is Government order of the day No. 11 at the moment and it looks like it is speeding up the Order Paper which is a good thing because it is timely. For too long landlords have been disadvantaged in terms of the law and their ability to recoup the costs of their investments because of very lax tenancy laws and the inability of the tribunal to action some of the judgments made by it. 
There are 315000 rental housing units in New Zealand of which 230000 are privately owned. That means that a rather large and substantial proportion of the New Zealand public have skimped and saved their money throughout their lives to buy an investment property to let. They are being responsible and for many of them that property is their retirement fund. The inability of the law to protect the integrity of that investment is something that needs to be looked at. I look forward to working with the Minister to try to push through a few amendments to try to balance what has so far been an imbalance. 
I look now at some particular issues. The 4-week bond should I think be completely between the landlord and the tenant to decide depending on the kind of tenant. This is part and parcel of accepting a certain risk with a certain type of tenant. There may well be situations where a tenant with a good track record could prove financial hardship so that the landlord might forgo the need for a bond. In another case a tenant with not such a good history might be asked for a slightly larger bond in order to satisfy the landlord that there is some protection on the property. 
Another issue is the landlord’s right to enter an abandoned property and relet it without a tribunal order. It is a frustrating expensive and protracted bureaucratic procedure for the innocent landlord to enter an abandoned property and relet it without going through the tribunal. It makes no sense. I turn now to the matter of fines for such things as wilful desertion breaking lease breaking the agreement or failing to attend the tribunal or mediation. Right now people can walk away from mediation and they accrue no fine—no penalty at all. In fact the penalty actually accrues on the landlord. That is wrong. That issue has to be addressed. 
In terms of going after tenants who wilfully damage property or do not pay the rent Work and Income the courts and the Inland Revenue Department must be made to hand over details of where those people are. Why is it that rent arrears will not be paid for by Work and Income but emergency accommodation will be paid for by Work and Income? That makes absolutely little sense when we are talking about tenants who abrogate their rights to a property run off and leave behind a whole stack of debts yet can front up happy as Larry collect another amount of taxpayer-funded money and move into another home while having no sense of accountability for the home they have just moved out of. That makes absolutely no sense either. There are no teeth in the legislation. 
If we have a look at the obligations that are set out for landlords and tenants we quickly find that there are 12 obligations on landlords—one is an obligation on both landlord and tenants which is that there will be no changing of locks and that makes sense—and only one obligation on tenants which is not to refuse entry to the landlord. That makes no sense whatsoever. In some circumstances for example a landlord who wants to use force to enter his or her premises—sometimes because it is abandoned—is liable according to section 48 to a fine of up to $500 or 3 months in jail. That is plainly ridiculous. Entry without a tribunal order can also attract a penalty of up to $1000 or 3 months in jail. That is clearly crazy and all out of proportion with the obligations of both tenants and landlords. 
Stephen Franks 
: And you support those people. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: No I do not support this bill at all. I do not support it unless we can make some decent changes. We will try as much as we can. 
Stephen Franks 
: As much as you can but you will vote for it. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Not necessarily. Why is it not possible for there to be direct deductions of rental payments by Work and Income directly to landlords? That would take away the opportunity for some tenants to abuse the money they have been given through the taxpayer in order to find accommodation. That makes absolutely clear sense but it has not been done at all. I refer to the 90-day termination notice which is found in section 51 of the Residential Tenancies Act. Troublesome tenants who are noisy or irritating to other tenants in a close-by block can be very difficult to remove. Good tenants have been known to leave premises because of bad tenants who play music at loud decibels all through the night destroy the property and so on. The law is causing landlords potential losses of rent. If the Government argues that rental property is a business then the law should not intentionally hinder or delay due process of recovery or countenance losses sometimes of considerable amounts. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I want to talk about two things one of which is compensation. Currently there is no compensation for a landlord for rental arrears or for damaged or stolen goods—and nearly all the offences are directed at the landlord—no fair and reasonable compensation for abandonment wilful damage arrears leaving premises without notice etc. At present a lease to stay for a certain duration is worthless. Tenants can and have walked out of a lease with no redress for the landlord—all other courts allow this but not the Residential Tenancies Act. Once the application has been made for arrears etc. and a further amount for compensation and interest on the outstanding rent has been made—after all that—a tenant can bring exemplary charges against the landlord but it is very limited with a landlord on a tenant. This is permitted in commercial leases in the District Court under section 20 of the Disputes Tribunals Act. All other avenues of redress permit this apart from the Residential Tenancies Act. That needs to be addressed. 
The Residential Tenancies Act is in dire need of review to protect landlords from being victimised by a small minority of irresponsible and unscrupulous tenants. Why are there 12 obligations on the landlord with fines of up to $3000 and 3 months in jail? One obligation applies to both landlords and tenants yet only one applies solely to tenants. It is ridiculous to inflict so many provisions on landlords who have for the most part scrimped and saved to have such an investment in the first place and not impose an equivalent number of provisions—provisions in order to safeguard the investment—on the tenant. How can it be right that a tenant’s failure to pay rent does not negate the tenancy agreement? There are no fines for tenants if they desert or abandon a property or fail to attend a tribunal hearing. How therefore can redress be sought? Why is the landlord liable for property in an abandoned premises whereas there is no obligation on the tenant to be liable for damage to the landlord’s property? 
How come Work and Income does not address the rent arrears of tenants who abscond yet will pay an emergency accommodation grant so that those scoundrels can get their foot in the door to prey on yet another unsuspecting landlord? Most important why is it that the Inland Revenue Department the courts and Work and Income will all share information on a tax matter but will not do so when money is owed to individuals such as landlords? Is there a double standard there? I suggest that there is. The bottom line is that we need a register to vet tenants. We need a register that gives accurate and up-to-date information to prospective landlords and is backed up by legislation with teeth. The opportunity is coming up. Let us seize the moment and do something to redress the imbalance and look after the landlords for once and for all.