Sio Su'a William: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Sio Su'a William: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:12375] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I am happy to make a contribution to the debate on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. My parents uncles and aunts belong to a generation who in the late 1960s and early 1970s were able to purchase their first three or four-bedroom homes in working-class suburbs such as Grey Lynn and Ponsonby and later Otara Otahuhu Mangere and Papatoetoe. The cost was roughly $9000 to $15000 per house. They were able to do that while they worked in the factories that lined the streets of Penrose Mount Wellington and Ellerslie and in the freezing works in Otahuhu. 
There was support from Housing New Zealand loans which at that time charged interest of 3 percent per annum for a 30-year mortgage which is similar to USA mortgages today—not the 8 percent that banks charge today for 3 to 5 years. Today homeownership is almost an impossible goal for many families and I suspect that some members here such as the Hon George Hawkins Ross Robertson and others in similar communities will feel the struggle that families are encountering. 
That same three-bedroom house in Mangere is today valued at about $300000 to $400000. A family would need to be earning about $124000 a year to make weekly mortgage payments of about $500 or $600 per week in order to maintain such a mortgage. In a working-class community such as Mangere where the median income is about $20600 per year and where 81 percent of the population earn less than $40000 a year owning their own home is perhaps one of the biggest challenges that those working families now face. Many of those families will be for ever bound to the hip of a landlord. Statistics show that renters number about 1 million and that number is rising. 
Having a house is a basic human right. It is a basic human right to have a roof over one’s head and to have shelter for one’s family. But economic circumstances low-wage rates high unemployment—particularly under this Government—the increasing cost of living an increase in GST and a lack of educational opportunities due to funding cuts mean that many families in these working-class communities do not have control over their economic circumstances and therefore have no control over securing this basic human right for themselves and their families. 
It does not help that the National Government has decided to axe the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s shared equity scheme a move that my colleague and Opposition spokesperson on housing Moana Mackey has called short-sighted. It seems that the Government will stop funding the shared equity scheme from 1 July—tomorrow. Shared equity is an important part of the housing affordability mix in many other countries. Minister Heatley promised before the 2008 election that he would continue with shared equity at least until his long-awaited Gateway Housing initiative was available but Budget 2010 contained no funding for this so-far mythical scheme. 
The bill on the Table amends the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and other legislation to adopt into law the significant changes in the structure and dynamics of the residential rental market that have taken place since the Act came into force. The fact is that the number of people living in rental housing has increased and there has been a corresponding decline in homeownership rates. The aim of this particular legislation is to encourage the development of a rental market that provides stable quality housing to those who rent their homes to enable landlords to manage their properties more effectively and to clarify and appropriately balance the rights and obligations of tenants and landlords. 
I acknowledge the fact that this work began under my colleague Maryan Street a former Minister of Housing. Labour welcomes the much-needed updating of our residential tenancy laws but we believe that this bill is also a missed opportunity for the Government to fairly protect the interests of the more than 1 million tenants in New Zealand. People who are long-term renters want stability and certainty in their lives and they want the ability to put down some roots. This is important for our communities especially for families so that children do not have to be moved from school to school. Having long-term reliable tenants is also important for property owners who want their investment looked after. 
Although Labour supports much of this bill which was introduced under the previous Labour Government we have concerns about some of the changes made to it by this National Government. These concerns were raised by submitters during the select committee process and they are reflected in Labour’s minority report. 
The first concern I raise is the termination of a tenancy for the provision of short-term accommodation for major events. Labour is disappointed that the National Government voted down an amendment that would have prevented tenants from being evicted from their homes so that landlords can rent the properties out during major events. Moana Mackey’s amendment would have prevented the eviction of a tenant from any rental property including a boarding house for the purpose of making a quick buck by providing short-term accommodation during major events such as the Rugby World Cup. 
Earlier this year boarding-house tenants were evicted en masse so that their rooms could be used during the Wellington Sevens. This put enormous pressure on social services and emergency accommodation providers who struggled to cope with the displaced and vulnerable people. There is already concern in Auckland that the same thing will happen next year during the Rugby World Cup especially with hotels charging such high prices. My colleague Moana Mackey spoke to the Minister months ago and alerted him to this issue. He chose to do nothing about it himself and then voted against Labour’s attempt to rectify the problem. 
Another area of concern is cleansing orders. The Government removed the requirement for landlords to disclose to tenants the fact that a cleansing order has been issued for a property. The Government said that there is already a legal requirement for cleansing orders—for example on a house used to manufacture methamphetamine—to be listed on the land information memorandum report and that the report can be accessed by the potential tenant. It said that the Tenancy Tribunal considers the letting of contaminated houses to be a breach of the principal Act. 
However the reality of this change is that it places the onus on the tenant. The tenant is the one who will have to access the land information memorandum report for a property he or she may wish to lease on the off-chance that it may have been contaminated by the manufacture of P. That is unrealistic especially given the cost of obtaining a land information memorandum report which can be several hundred dollars. Also questions still exist about the consistency of council practices when it comes to cleansing orders and their attachment to land information memorandum reports. 
Given these concerns we feel that the protection of tenants should be paramount and the clause should be reinstated. Unfortunately this Government voted it down. Labour wanted to limit the requirement to disclose cleansing orders to those imposed in the last 5 years. The original bill did not impose a time limit. 
Something that is of concern to me is the requirement for key money. Labour’s proposal to prohibit the collection of key money would have removed a significant upfront financial barrier to some tenants who are trying to find private sector accommodation. It would have reduced the need for benefit advances to cover letting fees and it would have eased the pressure on social housing from those who cannot afford the upfront costs of a bond advance rent and the letting fee. 
Currently the cost of renting a three-bedroom home in Mangere would be about $350 a week—if one was lucky. Landlords want 4 weeks’ rent as a bond plus the first week’s rent in advance plus a letting fee of $350. To move in a family would need to front up with about $2100. These are families who earn less than $40000 a year and they spend all they earn just to pay the bills. Families will end up using loan sharks in desperation to find appropriate accommodation. For that reason I believe along with my colleagues that this bill was another missed opportunity for the Government to right this wrong. 
I say in conclusion that although Labour members support the clarification of the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants and the general updating of tenancy laws we say that the Government has missed an opportunity to adequately protect the 1 million families who rent.