Ngaro AlfredALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call on this Residential Tenancies (Safe and Secure Rentals) Amendment Bill in its first reading. Can I just put on the record immediately from the start that National will not support this bill. I would like to spend the rest of my time explaining the reasons why. I do acknowledge the member Metiria Turei like all members who put themselves forward in a member's bill with the right intent. I understand the intent of what she is wanting to do through this bill which is around a safe and secure home and ensuring that security of tenure is an important issue for lots of our families and lots of our communities as well. However we cannot support some of that intent.I have to say that we have already had the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill that came through the Social Services Committee. There was quite an exhaustive process to be able to find a balance through that process to address some of those issues. One of those issues that I think that we have been talking about out in the communities and that the member has been talking about is the security of tenure but also the types of homes—are they healthy? Are they well? Are they fit for purpose to ensure that our communities our families in particular and our whānau have a place of lodgings that will allow them to be able to thrive and grow as well? I know the Greens have often talked about this but the whole aspect of the HomeStart programme is about healthy homes and ensuring that we now have over 300000 homes that are fit for purpose in regard to being healthier and warmer.We have to talk about the things that we have done because the member has talked about wanting to do more but she does not often talk about some of the other things that currently exist as well. So those are elements in which under this Government we have ensured that our homes are healthy; that is right across the board. We know that at least 85 percent of our State houses are now warm dry and healthier. The very people that the member talks about in those vulnerable situations actually exist in those homes. This is some of the work that has already been done. The member talks about I suppose the areas of need and of concern—as a Government we have already been addressing those issues as well. So we believe that of the rhetoric around the great concerns this Government has already been meeting those concerns.Let us take the key element of the member's speech when she talked about the rights of the tenant over the rights of the owners of the landlords in respect of their properties. This is a significant principle of issue that needs to be debated because this is what we are talking about. The member is saying that the rights of the tenant in some cases should almost be—and in some cases override—the rights of the owner and of the landlord. Why should they not have the rights to be able to demand the first right of refusal? Why should they not have the right to demand the fact that they do not have to pay the letting fees and so forth? These things are pragmatic and practical and have existed for some time.I can remember that through the submissions what was quite clear was that—and it is not often highlighted—almost 70 percent of the homeownership rentals that exist are actually mum and dad renters who are out there. There was a time when as a country we encouraged the LAQCs (loss attributing qualifying companies) as a way for people to save for their retirement in which they could have a rental property. In fact in most cases it was one or two—right? Under this Government as you will know we have actually changed that legislative framework. We have removed some of the benefits that have existed under that. But that still exists. At least 70 percent of those who have rentals are actually mum and dad investors who do the best to ensure that their homes are cared for that they are healthy that they are warm and that they best suit their tenants as best possible. We know that exists. But we also know that there are landlords that do not provide these properties as well. So I just want to go on record that the member is now challenging a key principle—not only of the law but a key principle of being part of a democratic society—whereby homeowner landlords are challenged by this bill which says that the rights of a tenant should in some cases supersede the rights of the owner. I want to make that clear to those who are listening because that is part of this bill being proposed here tonight by this member as well. As the member said there are six parts. Let us go through them. There are six points to this bill that the member is proposing giving the tenants the right of renewal when a fixed-term tenancy expires and requiring landlords to state the criteria of future rent rises in tenancy agreements.Let us take that first point and let us debate that. This currently exists already: section 60B of the current Residential Tenancies Act sets out that a tenant who wishes to exercise a right under the tenancy agreement to renew or extend the fixed term of tenancy must provide the landlord with written notice no later than 21 days before its expiry. As the member herself has said where there is a good relationship where the house has been looked after where we know that there are 6-monthly maybe a yearly reviews—where the landlord will come and will check the facilities and make sure that everything is fine and there are no problems and will deal with any repairs and maintenance—there has not been an issue. There has not been a problem. I am not sure about the dilemma—the member's proposal wants to require in fact that now the tenant should have the right to dictate to and determine for the owner. That is the key principle that is being challenged here. I would like to remind other members of the House to remember that by supporting this bill that is actually what we are doing: we are removing the rights. Security of tenure—we would all agree that is important. It happens by goodwill. It happens by caring for the property. It happens because there is a relationship of trust that exists.Metiria Turei: No it doesn't.ALFRED NGARO: That exists and we know that is there. That is currently there. I just want to say that the member has turned around to try to use this as a way of challenging that.Let us look at some of the other areas that the member is wanting to address in her bill's six points. Ensuring tenants may no longer be charged a letting fee—she has called this an injustice. She has called it an injustice when the reality is the administration cost—whether it be that people have a property manager or have a real estate agent that would do that for them—the letting fee is an administration fee that is used to administer that proportion of that rental agreement.What is the harm that we are doing here? The member is now not only wanting to remove the rights of the homeowner but also wanting to put on them the extra burden of the letting fee—the administration costs. She laughs but she probably knows—I do not know—she could be a rental owner herself. The reality is that we are putting the burden back again on the homeowner. I just have a feeling that there are a lot of New Zealanders out there who will not like hearing what this member is wanting to propose because it is a real challenge to the democratic right of any homeowner in this country. It is a really interesting debate that we are having. I will be interested to what the other members have to say as well.Let us also talk about the fourth point: creating a default minimum of 3 years for fixed-term leases prohibiting rent increases more often than once every 12 months and repealing the 42 days' notice. It just gets a bit concerning when the member wants to propose this. The reality is that we have heard from for instance community housing providers who have taken on rental properties—who now through the devolution of that stock into their care know some of the challenges that they have when they have tenants in their properties who do not care for and look after them. This bill is weighted so far on to the tenant that you have to say it has removed any rights or any responsibilities that come to the landowner—I keep saying landowner"; it is a homeowner as well. Such a change would risk unintended consequences and we believe would create higher rents as well.Section 13A(1)(m) of the Residential Tenancies Act which this bill would repeal states that the tenancy agreement must include "a statement (if applicable) that the tenant shall pay any fee or other charge for services rendered by any solicitor or letting agent relating to the grant … of the tenancy;". Again what I get concerned about is that this member is proposing—remember that we said that 70 percent of those rentals are actually owned by mum and dad investors who may have one or maybe two properties but on average they have one; they are people who are wanting to use this for an ability to be able to care for themselves when they go into retirement—to take away their owners' ability to be able to make their decisions around how they rent the property and whom they rent the property to and is putting all the security on tenants.Metiria Turei: Oh Alfred.ALFRED NGARO: They may moan and groan but here is the reality that exists out there. You can talk to all the advocates around tenancy but I guarantee you will not be talking to those who are the homeowners.Metiria Turei: Yeah I did.ALFRED NGARO: I would be interested to hear that because that is not what we are hearing on the ground. That is not the chatter we are hearing from all those out there who say that this bill is ridiculous. Hon Ruth Dyson: Name one of them.ALFRED NGARO: We have already this year through the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2016 passed an ability to make a difference that we know is quite critically important. We talk about the member over there who is talking about that. What has made a difference? We are now ensuring that we are forcing the insulation of homes and the mandatory ability to have smoke alarms in there. There is a balance that exists to ensure that landlords take care to make sure that the home is warm and dry it is healthier and it is fit for purpose to meet the needs of their tenants. We look at this bill and again we hear the intent of the member but I cannot applaud. I cannot support this bill and the issues that the member is trying to raise.I have to say we have already had quite an exhaustive examination. Members on the opposite side know—they have been through it. We have heard the submissions. We have heard them talk about the fact that the burden of costs will eventually go back on to the tenant. That is the burden of costs. The member has not considered that. In fact there is a fairy-tale world where everything should be well. But that member should know that landlords have talked about those tenants who have ransacked the house and they have had to pay the costs and yet the member still wants to believe that everything is bright and rosy. We do not commend this bill. We do not support this bill to the House."