O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): My speech is going to be a little different from some others because I am actually going to stick reasonably close to what is actually in the bill. New Zealand First supports the purposes of the bill and will vote for it to go to the select committee for examination. The only criticism I actually have of the Government over this bill is why it took so long to bring it before the House because some of the problems addressed by the bill have been around for quite some time. Those purposes are firstly to expand liability for careless damage to rental premises caused by a tenant or a tenant's guest; secondly to define the rights and responsibilities of the parties where there is methamphetamine contamination in a rental premise; and thirdly to divine residential tenancies that are so substandard that they are to be made unlawful for residential use.I am glad that the bill addresses the problem of methamphetamine contamination because that is a problem as I have just said that has been around for some time. I think it is actually the single worst problem in the residential tenancies market. This bill will give landlords access to their properties to test for meth and tenants would be able to terminate their tenancy if the test results show unsafe levels of meth.I am glad also that the bill addresses the problem of liability for careless damage caused by tenants and by tenants' guests because that is also a problem that has been around for some time. Tenants will be liable for the cost of their landlord's insurance excess up to a maximum of 4 weeks' rent for each incident of damage caused by the carelessness. I think that is a very fair and appropriate provision and I am glad to see it there.Most of all I am glad that the bill strengthens the law for prosecuting landlords who tenant unsuitable premises. The housing crisis caused by the ineptitude of the National Government has caused as we all know a distressingly large number of people to be forced to live in cars garages industrial buildings warehouses under bridges and so on and so on. It has therefore been an opportunity for unscrupulous landlords to rent that kind of accommodation to people who cannot afford better or who cannot find suitable accommodation. One of the effects of Government mismanagement of housing has been to cause rents to rise hugely forcing people to continually look for cheaper and cheaper and worse and worse accommodation. Christchurch is an exception to that simply because of the sheer magnitude of the insurance money that has gone into that city to provide more and better housing and also the city council has been pretty good about making land available. But generally the market has become a paradise for bad landlords and a disgraceful standard of rental accommodation at the bottom end.Moving on to the bill itself it defines the term unlawful residential premises" as those that are used for accommodation for a person but cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes and where the landlord fails to comply with his or her obligations set out in the bill in relation to legal impediments to occupation at the start of a tenancy and ongoing compliance with building health and safety legislation. That is exactly as it should be. Properties that do not reach a reasonable standard should be declared unlawful to rent to any person.I am pretty pleased also to see that if the Tenancy Tribunal finds that premises are or were at any material time unlawful residential premises then there are some pretty good practical sanctions provided for in the bill. One of those is that the bill limits the liability of the tenant to pay rent arrears or damages or compensation to the landlord. So if a tenant is living in very substandard accommodation they simply can stop paying the rent knowing that it will not be enforceable by the Tenancy Tribunal. That is a very good sanction on a landlord—a very practical and direct one—that I think will work very well.The tribunal can also make an order for the landlord to actually repay rent paid by the tenant. That is a step that I had not thought of and I think that would be an even more powerful sanction on bad landlords. The tribunal can make a work order to require the landlord to take the steps available to fix any legal impediment to occupation and to comply with the applicable building health or safety legislation. Again it is a very practical measure. So I thoroughly approve of all three of those measures and it is one of the main reasons why New Zealand First is pretty pleased with the bill.Of great importance: the landlord must not provide premises that are meth contaminated. If the landlord knows that because of tests carried out in accordance with regulations to be established and the premises have not been properly decontaminated and the landlord nevertheless goes ahead and lets it there will be an amount payable for contravention of up to $4000. Again that is a pretty significant sanction and it is deserved where a landlord knowingly lets a property that is meth contaminated because of the danger presented to the tenants concerned.The rights to end a tenancy of a contaminated property are also well defined in the bill. It allows the landlord the right to enter the premises for testing and to take samples and the notice for that is 48 hours but not more than 14 days and the time of the day is specified as well. The tenant must be informed of those results within 7 days—so they must share the information. The bill also provides similar sorts of provisions in the case of boarding house tenancies. That is good to see as well.If the tests show that any part of the premises is methamphetamine contaminated either party can then terminate the tenancy. If it is the landlord they need only give 7 days' notice and if it is a tenant then just 2 days' notice is required. That is appropriate for premises that are as dangerous as they would be if they were contaminated with methamphetamine. In addition to that the rent abates unless of course the tenant is responsible for the contamination in the first place.As I have said I think these are pretty good practical measures which probably should have come in some time ago but it is good to see them finally getting here before the House. It is also good to see that there will be regulations brought down in due course to prescribe a maximum level of methamphetamine permissible for premises and also to provide for the testing of premises for the presence of methamphetamine and to prescribe the decontamination process.Unlike the Greens I actually think this is a pretty good and pretty well-rounded bit of legislation. It is quite narrow in its scope but it covers areas of problems that have been coming up for so long. Just about every MP in this House would have had people come to them describing these kinds of problems. I just wish it had been done a lot sooner but I am very pleased to see that this bill is before the House now and I look forward to looking at the bill in much greater detail in the select committee where we will make sure that it actually does do the things that are claimed of it which I have spoken about this evening. For all those reasons New Zealand First will not have any hesitation in voting for the bill to go to the select committee and I do look forward to dealing with it there for the benefit of both tenants and landlords—for the future."