McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the third reading of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. It could well be—you never know in this day and age—the last time I stand to speak in this House. Who knows what'll happen? I just wanted to make a point before I got through it because the Hon Nathan Guy today gave me a sheepskin. He's optimistic that I'll come back so I just hope I do and don't have to leave that sheepskin here for someone else to use.I've listened to the speeches from the other side of the House with interest actually and I just want to remind Kiritapu Allan that you're only on the right side of history in this House when you're on the right side of the House. The great thing about this House is that other than conscience vote bills every piece of legislation that comes through this House seems to get changed. I've never seen a conscience vote topic changed in my knowledge or reversed I guess in my knowledge but everything else does. So you only have a place in history for a short time.But I do think that our opposition to this bill—and I didn't sit through the select committee stage—is much more around the parameters of what it might do to the market than what it's going to achieve for its landlords and its tenants. I think we all share the aspiration that tenants and landlords alike should be able to operate in circumstances that are equitable and that give both a fair go I guess for want of a better word. I think the risk of this piece of legislation is that it will result in perverse outcomes particularly applying to the tenants. I think that we could end up with higher rents because as I said in my second reading speech one of the first things that gets factored into these sorts of discussions is risk and the moment you lift the risk on a landlord it's going to lift the risk ratio that they need to calculate with the rent. So I think it could well end up in higher rents.The next thing I think that could force rents up is the fact that we're taking the—and I agree with it to some extent—rental bidding out of the system. What that'll do in my view is put a higher initial rental price into the marketplace. So that's got the potential to lift rent. I don't know whether it'll happen or not but it's one of those sorts of things you've got to assume could well happen. So I don't know whether enough consideration was given to these issues in the course of the select committee process. I know the select committee process was fraught simply because we were getting used to a situation which interestingly I think has become established now and from my perspective I quite like the ability to operate the select committees remotely because it saves a lot of time. To use a David Seymour term it stops us flying around the country a fair bit as well. So there are actually some advantages in it but at the time this was going through the House I think a lot of us had difficulty getting to grips with that process and I always think that it's quite nice if you can see someone on the other side of the House so you know what you're looking for.So I think it was put through the House in a rush under difficulty. It's being rushed through the House now and I just want to comment briefly on the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) because I think a lot of the aspiration of that SOP that was put forward by the Associate Minister of Housing even though it was put on the Table as the Minister spoke and consequently our first speaker Simon O'Connor had no knowledge of it other than the little piece of information he gleaned from the Minister as he spoke which I think's a little bit odd and probably unfair. But none the less a lot of the things that were contained in the SOP I think are worthy causes. It's how you put them together that's the important bit. Whether they've been put together in a manner that's sustainable I've got my doubts and the reason for that is that they were never considered by a select committee. I think that's unfortunate. [Bell rung]So there are a few things that—I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How many minutes have I got?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Fifty seconds—49 seconds; still going.IAN McKELVIE: Oh I apologise Mr Speaker—I thought I had a full call.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No this is call No. 9—a split call.IAN McKELVIE: I'll have to accept the fact that I've only got another 36 seconds Mr Speaker. Given that—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'll give you an extra 20 seconds because I've used up a bit of time.IAN McKELVIE: So we've had three—I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We've actually had three five-minute calls in a row.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No—no we haven't.IAN McKELVIE: OK thank you Mr Speaker. I'll accept your ruling. With that I will just reiterate the fact that we can't support this bill and I'll sit down.Kiritapu Allan: We don't mind giving him another couple of minutes at your discretion.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Are you taking a point of order?Kiritapu Allan: Nah not really. Let him finish his speech.