Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. We are hearing a consistent theme here and that is that right across this side of the House the lack of consultation the lack of engagement with the sector has been of real concern to many in the sector both landlords and also tenants and others that have been sharing this concern to us through the submission process. For a party that declares the fact that it's about the people and that it wants to listen to the people hear their concerns and work with them—with over 165 advisory groups and inquiries that are there—why on this bill was the same consideration not made? If we were to read into the regulatory impact statement this is what it declares. The regulatory impact statement does not fully meet the standard because no consultation has taken place and the time constraints have meant the analysis is somewhat repetitive. Clarity would be improved if time were available to address this." That speaks to the heart of the concern that we have on this side which is that not enough opportunity was given to be able to do this. But why the rush when we know that there currently is a review of the Residential Tenancies Act? In fact there is a review at the moment. There's a consultation that's currently taking place. It's called the reform of the Residential Tenancies Act of 1986. Why the rush when that should have been part of the whole of the review? Why the rush when the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act of 2017—again another Act yet to come in with a raft of changes to the tenancy law—is still yet to be tabled in the House? This would also have been able to cover these very issues. So why the rush? One can only say it's for the political expedience of the so-called 100 days to let the people know we're doing something—something small and in reality not something that truly makes a significant difference to the lives of the people that they have of concern. If one reads in the Residential Tenancies Act—in the cover sheet here—one of the important aspects that is supposedly the intent of this bill is that by removing letting fees it's intended to reduce some of the financial stress faced by tenants in securing a rental property. That's not shared by those who are in the sector. So in the submissions and also those who have written through we've got the voices of the stakeholders. From the Property Institute the Chief Executive Officer Ashley Church said this: "the move would provide some relief to tenants struggling with increasing rents but appears to have been made for political purposes and won't make a huge difference in the long-term [to this bill]." So it's a concern to us that when we're talking about the Residential Tenancies Act and the prohibiting of letting fees we again are hearing from the sector that those concerns are not being addressed. Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I think we are experiencing a substantial earthquake and we should take the civil defence advice.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We're interrupting your speech just for a moment. I just think we might be best to suspend the sitting for a few moments while we take some civil defence advice. It is obviously a substantial earthquake. I ask people to clear the gallery and seek shelter upstairs and take advice from the officials up there and for members to go back to their offices and ensure that their staff are safe. So I declare the House suspended until further notice.Sitting suspended from 3.14 p.m. to 3.43 p.m."