Faafoi KrisHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Madam Chair. It's always great to see the galleries full. Minister notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority of landlords and tenants are good people who look after the property and look after each other and respect their rights and obligations the fact of the matter is—as all MPs I'm sure will be able to attest—that there are some dreadful situations out there. At the moment the perception is that the law is already heavily weighted on the favour of tenants where there are issues of antisocial behaviour and damage to property. In my political career I can think of a number of landlords—and they're certainly not wealthy people. They're mum and dad investors as the Minister has just described them. They have done their best to provide a rental property for somebody or for a family who has needed it only to find that that property is damaged that the neighbours are abused and that all sorts of terrible things are happening yet their ability to evict those tenants and put right the damage and get a better family in there is already very challenged and it is their strong view that this particular measure will make it even worse. So my next question to the Minister is: what is his message to landlords who are already the victims of significant property damage and who will now face the prospect of that damage intensifying because of the time frames that are built into the new bill while their rights and ability to reclaim their property are eroded?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): What I would say to them is they've actually got more certainty now because I think what they found is—Hon Tim Macindoe: They don't see it that way.Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well if the member would like to read the bill perhaps then he may differ his opinion because the amendments in the bill make it very clear that if there are three instances of either antisocial behaviour for example or repeated late payment of rent then the landlord is able to seek the termination of that tenancy as of right. I think one of the frustrations that landlords have had for years is that going to the Tenancy Tribunal can be a bit of a lottery around the threshold for termination around some of those issues. So there is criteria now quite clear for landlords that if you do have three incidents of antisocial behaviour or three incidents of rent being late then you have the right to go to the Tenancy Tribunal to say That's it." because of the repeated behaviour. Frustration has certainly been one of the issues that has come through from landlords within the select committee process and obviously correspondence through to us.The member said "perception" in his question and that perception of the Act as it stands now is incorrect that landlords are powerless to deal with some of these things because the issue that has caused the most concern that we are trying to deal with is the absolute power of the landlord to say "That's it." with no good reason. So they may have the perception but the reality of the law is that they have the ability to end a termination without having to evidence any good cause.Hon Tim Macindoe: I'm talking about people that have had that experience; it's not a perception.Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well I would say—and the question was what I would say to them. It's actually clearer in the legislation now the threshold for termination. What we've had in the past is landlords again trying their luck in the lottery of the Tenancy Tribunal dependent on what the behaviour was or late payments of rent. Now it is codified within the amendment bill what that regime is. If the tenants don't meet the regime then again the landlord has the right to go to the Tenancy Tribunal and say "I'm terminating this tenancy.""