SpeechHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia orana Madam Assistant Speaker Dyson. Very quickly at the start could I acknowledge you for the very entertaining and at times moving valedictory speech that you delivered last night and I wish you well for whatever lies ahead. We may be on opposite sides of the political fence but I always respect people who come here to serve their country well and who serve their constituents well and I acknowledge that you have done that. That speech that we've just heard from Marama Davidson the co-leader of the Green Party was absolute nonsense from start to finish and she began insultingly by suggesting that members on this side of the House are in some way haters because of our opposition to this legislation. Well what I hate is a measure that will do great harm to those whose interests it is supposedly designed to protect because the fact of the matter is that many New Zealanders need to be able to access rental accommodation. We all want that accommodation to be of a high standard to be livable to be healthy and to be well heated and we all want the relationship between the landlord and the tenant to be a constructive one reflecting mutual respect where each meets their obligations to the other. But the fact of the matter is that this bill substantially tilts the balance away from that particular outcome. Minister Faafoi acknowledged when he moved the second reading of this bill in his speech about half an hour ago that a large number of submissions have been received: almost 1500. Well whenever that happens it tells you that the measure is controversial and that many people are alarmed about its provisions. He also noted that the members of the Social Services and Community Committee who worked on the bill had to do so during the COVID lockdown via Zoom. Now that is very difficult for the submitters from around the country because they don't have the benefit of the body language and the rapport that can be established by all being together in a room. But more importantly it went absolutely against the indication from the Government when they put us into suspension when they adjourned the Parliament—and all members of Parliament voted for it on the grounds that no non-urgent business would be dealt with while Parliament was suspended under a state of emergency—and they then flagrantly broke that promise. Even though the Leader of the House had told us that there was no public appetite for business-as-usual and we all agreed with that they went ahead and did exactly that. Well I only joined the select committee after they had completed their work. It was the beginning of June when I took on a new responsibility so unfortunately I didn't have a chance to hear the submitters and to ask questions of them. But I have read many of their written submissions and I'd like to read some of the subsequent correspondence that we've received into the record shortly because Government members are here this afternoon trying to categorise this as a good day for tenants but even some of them can see that perhaps it's a worrying day for landlords and I acknowledge in particular that the Hon Ron Mark I think was trying to be balanced in his contribution earlier. Well in fact as a result of this bill it's a very grim day for all New Zealanders. It's bad news for landlords and a very dark day for tenants especially those who are not yet in the market but who will after this bill is enacted need to go looking for rental accommodation because many of them are going to find that that rental accommodation market has shrivelled up considerably. This bill does not balance the rights and obligations of tenants and landlords and the fact of the matter is that this Government—particularly one party within it—has been hell-bent on targeting landlords right from the start. As I've said National wants everybody living in a healthy home and we support measures to do that but you don't do it by enacting punitive legislation which is ideologically blinkered and that will deter good people from making the investment that we all need them to make in rental accommodation. Putting too much too quickly on landlords as this bill will do without any incentives will only lead to fewer people being willing to be landlords in the future and it will mean that those rental properties will become more expensive and therefore less attainable for the people who most desperately need to access them and there will be fewer rental properties on offer. I've spoken to a number of people who have a little bit of discretionary income—people of my age who have had a few decades of work experience behind them and who might have put a bit of money aside who are looking towards their retirement and are wanting to find a good way of investing it. I know some very good people in Hamilton in my electorate of Hamilton West who do just that. They are fine people and they have one or two rental properties. They do everything they can to look after their tenants—and in almost every case of the ones I'm talking about here the tenants respect that and appreciate the relationship and look after the home and that's good. I've been a tenant back in the day. In fact I think I've been a tenant in at least three different properties. We always looked after the property we always respected the landlords and we valued the relationship we had with them and that's the norm. But unfortunately under this bill it'll become less of the norm because there will be fewer properties available. Now as I've said MPs have been inundated with emails and correspondence on this issue and the Government must listen to them. I know they're not listening to us but I do hope that they just might listen to the many New Zealanders who have written to us pleading for some changes to be made. I will start with the opinion piece that was released today by Duncan Garner who is reasonably well-known to people in this House. He is the Newshub breakfast anchorman and he gave an opinion today headed New Zealand landlords are under attack like they have never seen or felt before." He said that this bill "significantly strengthens the hand of tenants … Landlords can't kick tenants out for displaying anti-social behaviour. No no no they will have to prove it not once not twice but prove the tenants are kicking in the walls three times in a 90-day period with written warnings issued." Well by that stage most of those properties would probably be beyond repair. He went on to say "You'll need a legal department and an HR department just to be a landlord. … In trying to achieve their end goal of perceived fairness Labour could fail miserably. If people bail from providing rentals our housing stock doesn't grow. Fewer rentals hit the market and prices skyrocket. Figures already show rents are now $60 a week higher than two years ago." and this Government was in office two years ago. He went on to say "I regard Ashley Church as one of the voices we should be listening to when it comes to property and especially when he says: 'This is the most anti-landlord Government probably in the history of our nation'. We should all sit up and listen because in trying to shut down the odd bad landlord"—and yes there are some there and yes they should be dealt to but nevertheless—"the Government has thrown a 'guilty' net over all rental property owners." Mr Garner concluded by saying "I think the approach lacks sophistication and any sort of insight or knowledge as to the risk of providing a rental. We've had dozens of property owners and landlords write into the show in recent days saying they'd love to help someone who's struggling to rent but it's just not worth the risk right now. … Labour should press pause." said Mr Garner. Now as I say I've got dozens of such messages and there isn't time to read many but I'm going to cherry-pick a few. This is to all MPs from a man who has considerable experience to share and he began by saying "I have never written directly to voice my opinion and concerns regarding the passing of any legislation whatever previously. I am a long-serving landlord of 23 years that within a family trust owns or manages and looks after a portfolio of 28 residential properties in the lower North Island in what has been historically a lower socio-economic area." Hon Peeni Henare: A mum and dad investor—a mum and dad investor. Hon TIM MACINDOE: Oh now we've got the Hon Peeni Henare criticising this person because he's not a mum and dad investor. We have got them from people who own or have investments in large numbers of properties down to those who have one or two. Their concerns Mr Henare are exactly the same and it does him no good whatsoever to dismiss the concerns that have been expressed by being disparaging about the writer. He should instead take notice because this gentleman said "I very early on learnt the value of having good quality housing. I was years ahead of the game with insulation ventilation etc."—presumably Mr Henare would welcome that—"and also with having fair and favourable terms and conditions and attitudes to attract and retain good tenants. I value good quality tenants and our intent and aim at all times is to retain tenants as long as possible and also to establish and maintain a reputation as a good landlord. I have never ever in 23 years terminated or not renewed a tenancy without good reason because it is just not good business to do so. The current RTA regulations are adequate to protect all involved tenants and landlords and even at times in execution and interpretation adjudicators have erred to favour tenants to the detriment of landlords. I am gravely concerned that the proposed amendments of this bill will currently"—sorry—"while primarily bad legislation will make for an unfair and unworkable situation that is not a level playing field." There is much more where that came from. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): This is a split call."