Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): If nobody is seeking a point of order—oh someone is.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I now have a point of order.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify whether or not you gave the call to Mr Seymour because Poto Williams' time had finished or because of the errant point of order that was called out but not stood for.Mr SPEAKER: I did hear someone call for a point of order but nobody stood to progress the point of order. At that stage Poto Williams who was close to her time being completed resumed her seat. At that stage Mr Seymour sought a call and I have given the call to him.Kris Faafoi: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My understanding of the situation is that Poto Williams was still on her feet and still speaking and a member called point of order" and was not intending to take a point of order which caused Poto Williams to sit down interrupting her speech. If he has got a genuine point of order he can stand up and take one but he used that tactic to try to stop—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now—as I said I heard "point of order" called I looked for whether a point of order was going to be taken by anybody—it was not. I noted that Poto Williams resumed her seat—and the member would perhaps not have seen because Poto Williams is directly behind Mr Faafoi and anyway the time was very close to expiring. I have now called Mr Seymour.Kris Faafoi: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just before I address this matter make sure the member understands that I have ruled on this matter. If it is a fresh point of order I am delighted to hear it but if in any way it is an attempt to relitigate—Kris Faafoi: I understand your ruling. My concern is that a point of order was called regardless of whether it was at the end of Poto Williams' time and it was not a genuine call for a point of order.Mr SPEAKER: I accept that a point of order was indicated from someone within the Chamber. No one then sought to progress a point of order. As I have already told the member I think twice now at that stage Poto Williams' time had expired. She resumed her seat. Mr Seymour took the call and I have given the call to Mr Seymour. I hope that is clear to Mr Faafoi.DAVID SEYMOUR: I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to the Residential Tenancies (Safe and Secure Rentals) Amendment Bill. But I have to say I have considerable sympathy for the intentions of the member who brought the bill Metiria Turei and the problem that she is attacking because the fact of the matter is that we have people in New Zealand who are finding themselves tenants in a landlord's market. People are trying to rent property in a market place where there is just not enough property to rent and that leads to increasing rents and insufficient choice of stock for those tenants to rent. It changes the bargaining power between landlords and tenants in such a way that tenants do not have the kind of security of tenure that they would like to have. If you delve a little bit deeper into why that might be the fact of the matter is that there is a shortage of housing in New Zealand and it is not difficult to understand why that is. It is extraordinary and well-rehearsed in this House that New Zealand still has not beaten the 1974 record of 39000 residential dwelling consents. There were actually more homes consented in 1974 when the population of New Zealand was 3 million than in any year since. In the 1970s New Zealanders produced 13 new dwellings for every thousand in the population; today only six or seven are produced. If the output of dwellings halves then do not be surprised if there is a shortage of housing in which people may live and do not be surprised if the competition for quality dwellings becomes very intense and people who have lower incomes find themselves squeezed out. That is the reality and I have got a lot of sympathy for the member trying to address it. The difficulty is that good policies should be judged not by their intentions—and Metiria Turei always professes good intentions—but actually by their outcomes and just about every policy she brings to the House would have catastrophic outcomes if the Green Party was ever in any kind of political power. The fact of the matter is that you actually could do any of the things this bill proposes already. There is nothing to stop a landlord and a tenant signing a contract that says there will be no rent increases more frequently than every 12 months and that the calculation of that rent increase will be on some pre-agreed formula. There is nothing to stop tenants and landlords contracting out of the 42-day allowance for vacation of a house if that is what they want to do. There is nothing in the Residential Tenancies Act or elsewhere to stop landlords absorbing any finder's fees into the rent that they pay going forward. This bill does not allow anyone to do anything that they could not already do if they wanted to. The only way that you are going to get those sorts of provisions is to actually build more homes so that there are more landlords looking for tenants than tenants looking for landlords and it becomes a tenant's market. If this bill was to pass and those restrictions were to become law then I guarantee you all of the new costs all of the new compliance and all of the new bureaucracy will actually be passed on from landlords to tenants. The cost of presenting a formula for calculating rent and all the litigation around that the cost of finder's fees—all of the costs created and passed on to landlords will be passed on to tenants and you just have to ask yourself: who else but tenants are landlords going to pass new costs on to? So the Green Party produces a bill that fails to address the real problem—which is a real problem in New Zealand—which is a shortage of housing and a low output of new homes under our current regulatory and infrastructure funding policies and then produces a policy that does not allow anything new to happen but forces tenants and landlords to do things that they would not otherwise choose to do creating additional expense which will be passed on to tenants hurting precisely the people the Green Party sought to help. What a shame. Thank you."