Hughes Gareth: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Gareth: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9880] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. As a member who is a tenant and a renter I am happy to take a call on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. The bill updates the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Greens will be voting in support of it but we lament the missed opportunity to increase rights for the more than 1 million tenants who reside in New Zealand. 
We support many of the minor changes in this bill to clarify existing law: for example clarifying provisions relating to address for service of documents relating to the tenancy clarifying that landlords must give a reason for terminating a periodic tenancy with less than 90 days’ notice clarifying that an agreement for sale and purchase must be unconditional before a landlord can give 42 days’ notice and requiring a landlord who is overseas for more than 21 days to appoint an agent. 
As the youngest member in this House born only 5 years before the Residential Tenancies Act came into effect I acknowledge that New Zealand’s housing situation has changed substantially since that time. Since 1986 the proportion of New Zealanders renting their homes has gone up. Fewer young people are flatting away from home and more older people with families and children are renting. Homeownership rates have declined to 67 percent from a high of 74 percent in 1991 and they are predicted to drop further still to 62 percent by 2016. 
New Zealand has about 450000 rental properties housing a third of our population. According to the 2006 census one in three households—that is 33 percent—do not own the house they live in. That figure was up from 32 percent in 2001 and 29 percent in 1996. More and more Kiwis are renting because for many purchasing a house is a distant and impossible dream. Housing affordability is a major issue in New Zealand with close to one in three New Zealanders now spending 30 percent or more of their disposable income on housing. 
Demographia’s 2009 international housing affordability survey found that the median house price in New Zealand is 5.7 times the median household income ranking New Zealand in the category of “severely unaffordable” with only Australia worse at 6.0. The bright side of course is that at least we are catching up with Australia in one respect! As I pointed out to the House last night during the debate on the Infrastructure Bill this is an especially pertinent issue for people of my generation. People of my generation see homeownership as an almost impossible dream. It is a struggle for people who come out of university or other tertiary education encumbered by debt. They are conscious they are entering a housing market that has grown rapidly over the last decade mostly to the benefit of baby boomers or those already on the property ladder and it has not been slowed by sensible moves such as a capital gains tax—not on the family home—or reviewing the tax rules around loss attributing qualifying companies. 
Loss attributing qualifying companies allow people to offset their losses on their investment properties against personal income tax. This means that young people trying to get into the housing market are effectively subsidising the tax offsets of those buying investment properties using loss attributing qualifying companies. This is both wrong and pernicious. We cannot rely on the recession as Moana pointed out to make housing more affordable. We need to be more proactive as legislators and regulators. The trend towards less affordable housing will see the number of tenants increase and that makes the changes discussed here today in this House as relevant and as important as ever. 
This bill is an important amendment bill to update the original 1986 legislation. It is important that we strike the right balance between the rights of landlords and the rights of tenants. I would like to take a few minutes to look at a few issues that the Greens have with this bill. I would like to look at the termination of tenancy for boarding-house tenants the issue of letting fees the unfortunate oversight of not addressing the termination of a residential tenancy following the death of the tenant legal representation issues and exemptions for people who reside in camping grounds backpackers hostels and other such places. 
I look first at the termination of tenancies in boarding houses. The security of tenure issues for boarding-house residents that we had concerns about in the earlier stages have been improved somewhat by the select committee but not to the extent that we would have liked to see. It is still better however than the current situation where boarding-house residents have no security of tenure whatsoever. 
New section 66U inserted by clause 47 sets out when landlords of boarding houses may terminate a tenancy: immediately on 48 hours’ notice on 14 days’ notice or on 28 days’ notice. It is good that the select committee recommended amending the criteria to allow 10 days’ consecutive notice that rent is in arrears before giving a tenant 48 hours’ notice of termination where the tenant’s rent is more than 7 days in arrears. Tenants can face legitimate reasons for being in arrears often through no fault of their own. Many boarding-house tenants receive benefits from the State and as Sue Bradford recorded in the first reading debate often this is because of problems caused by Work and Income rather than by the beneficiary himself or herself and such issues take time to work out. In the case of boarding-house tenants who are also mental health clients we concur with Labour’s call for an expectation that proprietors will take the opportunity to refer such individuals to the appropriate mental health services if an eviction is being contemplated. We support the provision of a list of services in each area which should be made available to the proprietors of boarding houses so that they may refer such people to those services before the eviction is effected. 
I turn to letting fees. This bill proposes to remedy the anomaly of real estate agents being able to charge letting fees although property management companies cannot by allowing both to do so. Letting fees on top of a bond rent in advance and other moving costs can be a significant barrier to beneficiaries students and other people on low incomes needing accommodation. The Green Party supports prohibiting letting fees—full stop. 
Provisions in the bill regarding the termination of a residential tenancy following the death of the tenant do nothing to improve the current situation when a caregiver relative is suddenly evicted from his or her home following the death of the family member for whom the caregiver has been caring. Relatives of the tenant living with the tenant should at least have some protection of tenure when the tenant dies. This was one of our original concerns about the bill and it is unfortunate that it has not been addressed properly by the select committee. 
The bill raises from $3000 to $6000 the monetary threshold for the right to legal representation in the Tenancy Tribunal. This continues the current unfair provision that permits a corporate landlord to be otherwise represented by an experienced tenancy manager while the tenant who often knows little about tenancy law and may well have English as a second language is forced to represent himself or herself. This places many tenants at an unfair disadvantage at Tenancy Tribunal proceedings and is an example of where the bill could strike a fair balance but fails to. There is a provision in section 93(3)(b) that permits representation where there is significant disparity between the parties affecting their ability to represent their respective cases. But the problem is that the disparity and the ability of the parties to represent their cases may not become apparent until a case has been partly heard. The Green Party was advised by the Tenants Protection Association about this a while ago and we were told that adjudicators almost never invite a tenant who is disadvantaged in that regard to obtain representation. This was one of our concerns with the original bill and is also noted in Labour’s minority report. This is probably also a good time to raise the excellent and also lacking provision in this bill. The Citizens Advice Bureau recommended that plain-English statements of tenant rights be adopted as part of all tenancy agreements and displayed prominently in boarding houses. 
My last point is that the homelessness survey is due to come out in June and I predict based on Australian similarities that between 20000 and 30000 Kiwis will be officially classed as homeless. Many of these people reside in non-traditional housing forms such as caravan grounds and backpackers’ hostels. This bill fails to address the fact of life in 21st century New Zealand that many Kiwis do not live under stable tenancy criteria. The Citizens Advice Bureau gave some terrible examples whereby non-formal tenants have been abused by the system. I concur with Moana Mackey that we need a select committee inquiry into homelessness. This already occurs in countries such as England and Wales and many states of Australia. It is a good example of where a much-needed updating of this 1980s Act does not go far enough to reflect the facts on the ground in the real world. 
In summary the main criticisms that we raised in the first reading debate were over issues that this bill does not address adequately. However following the changes made by the Social Services Committee—some positive some negative—we still think it remains the case for the Green Party on the balance of evidence to support this bill. Kia ora.