Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. I think we've had a bit of a go on Schedule 6 but I just want to finish off before I start turning to some of the other schedules. The first thing is I know the Minister is not very good with numbers but no one ever quoted and I certainly didn't quote—Hon Kris Faafoi: What about the employment numbers? Ha ha!ANDREW BAYLY: —anything to do—3.8 percent for male unemployment 4.2 for female and 4.0 right? So Auckland District Law Society—Hon Kris Faafoi: Stop using Goldie's calculator!ANDREW BAYLY: —I didn't hear and didn't quote anyone who said that Auckland District Law Society 27.5 was 50 to 60 percent. I don't know where you've plucked that number. You obviously didn't listen. What I suggested to him the association said it was between 20 and 40 percent. But the—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I am ready for the member to now address the bill.ANDREW BAYLY: But the issue is even with the Auckland District Law Society clause which underpins the approach that the Government wants to take there are issues with that because the definition of Can I enter the premises or not?" is one of the core parts of that. So for instance we heard from Michael LeRoy-Dyson who is a business owner in Auckland who owns the Attic Backpackers. He has one of those clauses and yet there's still a dispute with his landlord because the landlord is saying because you can physically enter the premises you should be required to pay the rent. And so now you're back down into this situation. This is the whole thing about fair proportion. The issue about fair proportion and the proposal that the Government has put up is that if you've got disputing landlords and tenants it doesn't matter what you say if you just use a bland holistic approach one that's ill defined—which this is—you're going to lead to a whole lot of issues. And that is simply—we arrive 18 months later because the Minister hasn't been able to actually put forward a proposal that means anything. Eighteen months later the situation we're talking about now is that there are disputes between landlords and tenants and we've got a Government that wants to ride roughshod over that and put up a solution that actually makes it quite difficult for warring landlords and tenants. Yet the Government's view is: "We'll just impose the ability to go back and you can be retrospective about it." I think that aspect of it is totally wrong. But the question I now want to ask because I'm not sure that it's been addressed is: given that we're in a dispute situation there's clearly a landlord and a tenant that has not been able to resolve it and that's why you've chosen to do—why the Minister's chosen to do this change.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The Speaker has not chosen.ANDREW BAYLY: Yeah I realised that. The Minister has chosen to put up this clause. What is the ability to actually resolve this matter quickly? If there's a dispute over fair proportion what happens next? Because obviously there will be a long situation where there's been a dispute around that. Does the landlord or does the tenant have to go to mediation? Do they have to go to arbitration? Who pays for that? Is there any money? Because when this proposal was put up last year there was an amount of money set aside for it I think $40 million of which I think only a few thousand was actually drawn down. What is the situation? Because again I'll remind the Minister these are situations where these businesses are burning cash or probably burnt through all their cash. They are running out of cash. They don't have time. They certainly don't have money to go to expensive mediation or arbitration processes or in fact be able to take their case to law to courts. So what is the support that the Government's offering to put up to help these processes be resolved quickly? And is there any monetary support to that? And are there any time limits on the amount of time that the arbitrators or the mediators have to take to resolve this? Or is it just that we'll leave it up to it and hope the process works that way throughout? And in the meantime the businesses go broke if they can't pay their rent. So it'd be very very useful if the Minister can be a bit more clear about it because I think the time of this is going to lead to more businesses going broke when they shouldn't be if there was a proper proposal put up to support them with their rent check."