Faafoi KrisParts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): I thought if I opened proceedings just with a number of thanks—first to the two colleagues from the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party who I've liaised with most in order to get the bill to this stage that it is in now. So can I acknowledge the Hon Ron Mark and Marama Davidson for their pragmatism but also sticking very close to the principles that their parties were pushing for with this bill as it is now. A number of people have made comments that there is a need for change—I think I've even heard that to my left. But the fact of the matter is that this piece of legislation is well over three decades old from an environment where 25 percent of New Zealanders were renting and we're now as I say in 2020 where over 30 percent of people are now renting homes—600000 households—and it is time for change. So to the Hon Ron Mark and Marama Davidson can I thank them for their pragmatism and their patience during the process to get the bill to where I think we have struck the right balance in ensuring that we have made sure that security of tenure for tenants and security of peace of mind around rents is secured for tenants but also making sure that the protections that most landlords would like to have enforced when they do have trouble with tenants is within this piece of legislation. I don't want to get Mr McKelvie in any trouble with his whips but he was right: the vast majority of people will have no problem with this piece of legislation because despite this debate being had at the extremes most people who live in rented accommodation and most landlords have extremely good relationships. But there is no debate that this decades-old piece of legislation and the conditions within it needed to be amended.So in that respect too can I acknowledge those who have advocated both for tenants and for landlords. Andrew King from the Property Investors' Federation—who I met with a number of times and disagreed with on many occasions—I would like to point out for those who are opposed to this legislation fought hard for the landlords. At the end of the day we disagreed on quite a number of points but he was reasonable during those conversations. For the likes of the tenants' organisations—I don't want to single out any but they obviously have been fighting for decades to make sure that these amendments that we're making within this bill are right.I know a lot of the debate in this committee stage will be focused around the removal of the 90-day no-cause terminations. So I just wanted to get on the table nice and early that the stats that we have available to us say that 3 percent of terminations use the no-cause termination ability through the current Act—3 percent. So 97 percent of terminations of tenancies happen when a reason is given. Now I can understand why landlords might want to protect that but in all reality a small minority of cases where there are terminations use this course and I think in 2020 when more people are renting and are going to be lifelong renting on this side of the House we believe if they are going to have their termination ended they deserve to know a reason why and it should be a valid reason why. Because while only 3 percent of people might have this thrust upon them 100 percent of people who are in tenancies have that hanging over them at every moment that they are in their tenancy. So that security of tenure for those tenants is not there and 35 years after this piece of legislation when the situation has changed on this side of the House we believe that that needs to change.