SpeechHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Kia orana. Kia orana kia koe i Te 'Epetoma o Te Maori o te reo Kūki 'Āirani. So it's Cook Islands Language Week and I thank you. It's an honour to speak on this bill but alas for us in the National Party we oppose this bill. I want to explain the reasons why. First of all I want to acknowledge the speech that has been made the parts in which we would totally agree with by the Hon Ron Mark and in particular the concerns that he's raised.If I was to look at this bill with the submissions that have been made heard those submissions—actually they go to the weight of the evidence that the member has made in his speech. This should be called the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill: I Hate the Landlords" because that's actually what it is. The fact is that when we've heard some of the submissions we've heard what they've been talking about this so-called balancing the act. But instead what it is doing is basically weighting the responsibility back on to the landlords and taking all responsibly off the tenants and we will prove that point because it's quite clear from the submissions it was clearly highlighted the need for this bill was not balanced. It goes to the heart of the comments that were made by the Hon Ron Mark: there is a concern around those tenants. So we see that from this bill what's actually happened? Has there been an improvement in regards to the tenancies and to the rental incomes and the payments? No there hasn't; rents have gone up $50 almost $2600 more for every tenant that's currently renting in New Zealand. That's the average—and that was before COVID-19. So things have not improved; in fact they've got even worse. I wanted to correct some comments that were made by others on the other side about the great State sell-off that was made there. It wasn't the great State sell-off. What it was was a devolution of stock into the community housing sector. This is the sector that's in our community and as Ron Mark made the comments about in Carterton—I think it's called the trusts over there—that was made and what it did: as a community housing provider they could provide a better service of wraparound bespoke means to those that were in that community. We can talk about up in Auckland out in Tāmaki and the Hon Peeni Henare would know because he's been to those homes. The Tāmaki regeneration—over 2500 homes they weren't sold off to private; they were devolved into that housing provider who could provide a better service to them. We think about in Tauranga—what's been the difference there? Nearly 1200 homes again gone into the asset trust. Why? Because community housing providers could do a better job than what Government could do. So I want to put that out on record so that the public could hear: this was not a sell-off of State housing; this was the devolving into a community housing provider who could make a difference. That's right—who could make a difference; and we know that's what's happening there.But let's get to this bill. Is it making a difference? The answer is no. Why? Because we know tenants have quite clearly said that this is not making a difference. In particular it's the concern—that was also raised by the Hon Ron Mark—about the antisocial behaviour; the 90-day clause that was inside there that gave a protection to tenants who were around and landlords as well where there was an antisocial behaviour. I want to read some of the comments that have come out. The New Zealand Property Investors Federation added their disappointment. I'm glad that the Minister has re-entered the House I look forward to the banter for the brown brothers on the backbench to be able to hear these comments as well.Here's what they say—here's what they say: "the Bill specifically allows tenants to be mildly antisocial." But the Minister said and I record this—actually I want to read his comments first. In his comments that were made on 17 November—that's last year; last year—2019. So if there were any changes to be made why were they not made then? We had almost a whole year to see these changes. Five minutes ago they dropped on our lap. Why? Because there was pressure I believe that was made from the outside saying that these changes to this current bill are not worthy. They're not good enough. They're putting more pressure on landlords as well. But here's what the Minister said in his press release: "This is a balanced approach. This will do all things good. That's really important." So why is it if this is a balanced approach that the Minister five minutes in would decide to drop a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 15 pages of all of the changes that could have been made should have been made but they weren't? I won't use the words of "being maybe lazy and inconsiderate" and "not following due process"; that would be unkind. But it seems to be that something's gone wrong here and in urgency finally we're getting some of the changes. But are they enough? No they're not—they're not enough because they still do not deal with some of the critical issues. Here's what they talk about from the landlord's perspective. Private landlords will no longer be able to protect people living next door to loud obnoxious and potentially violent privately housed tenants. It can already be difficult to manage tenants behaving badly and this proposal will make it even harder potentially impossible while putting neighbours at risk of bad neighbours. But here's the bit that really cuts: these are private landlords with private homes and private dwellings. But you see when it comes to the Government itself when it comes to Kāinga Ora here's what they say: however this is not the case for Kāinga Ora Housing New Zealand and social housing providers who will still be able to end a tenancy without having to give notice—without having to give notice. So to the public out there how is this fair that the implication of this bill will make it harder for private landlords with a private dwelling to be able to give a 90-day notice but when it comes to Kāinga Ora Housing New Zealand—at the whim of a choice without giving due cause as to the reasons why they can terminate a tenancy just like that? So how can it be just? That's the reason why this bill should be called "I Hate the Landlords Bill"—"I Hate the Landlords Bill". How do we prove that? New Zealanders want housing solutions but what are we getting? We're getting the situation where we're pitching the landlord versus the tenant. It's meant to be balancing this but it's not. We want change but this is the sort of change that is impacting the cost. I've been talking to landlords over the weekend. Here's what they said: this Government with what it's imposing there's more cost more imposition upon them making it harder and harder. They're not seeing anything any different that's coming through for them.Hon Kris Faafoi: Stick up for the brothers Alfred.Hon ALFRED NGARO: Oh I'm sticking up—ha ha! Landlords will not be able to end a periodic tenancy without reason. The legislation sets out specific specified reasons that a landlord may use to end a periodic tenancy as well. It just seems to get worse. The case is this. The proof is in the pudding when you look at the numbers. Still today what we see happening in this country at the end of 2017 at the end of nine years of National the waiting list was 5000.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: People were sleeping on the streets.Hon ALFRED NGARO: There were 5000. That's right people were sleeping on streets. And you know what? Homelessness has only increased. So you can say it all you like. What's happening—[Interruption] You can put him in a motel but guess what! That does not solve the problem. But here's the bit that you got to suck up—and here's this: 18000 people are now on the waiting list—prior to COVID-19 lockdown. How does that now sit with you? There were 18000. You've had three years to prove the point. Nothing's happened. Rents have gone up $50 on average; $2600 to the cost of a tenant. Has it made a difference? Of course it hasn't. So that's the reason why when we look at this bill this bill is not only inconsiderate right across the board to landlords but it is also not making a difference. There is nothing in here to tell us why it's going to improve the conditions and the only way you can improve the conditions is if you create greater capacity and supply into a market of demand. We're not seeing that. We won't see that. Why? Because even the Hon Ron Mark one of the coalition members of your Government said it and I noticed as soon as he was speaking there was silence of the lambs. No one could speak—right?—because he was speaking truth into that situation. What's going to happen? We're going to have less private dwellings into the marketplace and the Minister knows it—he knows it too. So these proposed changes include the ability for tenants to modify their houses. Here's another one. So now they're going to be able to modify their house right and again without seeking permission of the landlord—of the landlord. Is it going to make a difference? Is it going to make a difference? Don't worry we've got the committee stage; we're here for the long haul like you are—we're going to keep going on this. This is just the entrée. This is just the entrée. It's got to get better. There's more to come—there's more that's coming. So this is just the start. We are concerned. We are now going through some of the amendments. They don't look like this SOP is truly making a difference. I just want to put on record that if we had had inside the select committee throughout that process of over a year that the Minister had put on there the conditions around family harm—what do you call it? Family violence—of course we would have supported that amendment. Why? Because it's the right thing to do. When Priyanca Radhakrishnan talked about that and she championed it why was that not put in then? Why are we here now? You see we support that initiative but again a little too late—a little lazy—a little bit of slumber and now we're at this place in urgency not doing the right thing. We cannot support this bill. It won't be good and again all it is is hitting on the landlords and I think that will not bode well in our communities."