Turei Metiria: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 24 May 2016. Volume:714;Page:11115. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I want to address my Supplementary Order Paper 172. It is quite comprehensive and I will need to take a number of calls to describe its parts and why we think they are necessary.What we have in New Zealand now in the rental arena is that we have moved from what used to be about 80 percent of New Zealand homes being owned and occupied by the owner and about 20 percent being rentals. That proportion has significantly changed over the last 20 or 30 years to much more of a 60:40 kind of proportion. This has put renters at a severe disadvantage because the law has been designed around a very narrow set of residential tenancies mostly in relation to State housing actually from way back.So there has not been a significant upgrade in the rights of long-term renters in our law and we see the effects of that through the failure of our systems including enforcement by the Tenancy Tribunal to make sure that rental homes are up to standard and are actually warm and safe and dry for families to live in. This is why in part we have such a major problem with poor-quality housing because our law does not allow for tenants to be able to require landlords to take action. And although we do have the Tenancy Tribunal for example which is established for that purpose as the proportion of tenants increases and the supply of rental housing decreases—we know we do not have enough for everybody who needs it—then tenants become increasingly vulnerable to landlords who are in it for a quick buck who are not committed to making sure they are professional landlords and are doing a good job and maintaining their homes to a high standard. When it comes to looking at anything like a warrant of fitness approach to New Zealand’s rental housing it is also important to improve the rights of the renting families who are in those homes so that they can genuinely hold their landlords—and often their property managers—to account for the minimum standards that are set in the law.The first of the amendments on my Supplementary Order Paper 172 is to clause 6. Clause 6 is about changes to the tenancy agreements. There are a number of changes that the Government wants to make and I have a number of additions to them. These additions are about improving—they are a start; they are not the full story—the rights of tenants so they have some ability to hold their landlords to account both for standards but also to protect their tenancy so that they are not kicked out if they complain about poor-quality housing or a landlord’s failure to meet the standards.The first of those additions is that a tenancy agreement must include a statement saying that when the tenancy terminates the tenant has the right of renewal. This is particularly important for families. There are many many thousands and thousands of New Zealand families now who will never own a home. They are permanently locked out of the homeownership pathway. They will always be renting—raising their children from little babies; through to when they eventually retire—they will always be renting. In those circumstances it is critical that families are able to secure themselves a long-term tenancy. In New Zealand the tenancy agreements are generally for about 12 months so we do not have the kinds of long-term tenancies that you see in other places where renting has been part of the culture for longer particularly in places in Europe. This provision to enable a tenant to have the first right of renewal means that that tenant can stay in their house. If the landlord is wanting to get rid of them because they want to put up the rent or they want to do something else with the house well actually that house is now the home of the tenant. If it is better for the tenant and their family that they stay in that home—their kids are going to the local school they have got access to local work and they have built themselves a life in that community—then they should have the right to stay. That is the first change.The second change is that the tenancy agreement must include the calculation that the landlord intends to use to increase the rent. One of the major problems that we hear from renters is that their rents are going up every 6 months and they have absolutely no idea what is going to happen. We heard a terrible story Marama Davidson and I in Christchurch just last week about a woman who was renting a home. It had earthquake damage. The Earthquake Commission was finally going in to do the repairs. She had to move out. The landlord told her that if she wanted to move back in she would have to pay another $250 a week in rent so she is now effectively homeless as a result of the earthquake. This is because there are no protections for tenants as a result of the earthquake. So this woman and her family are now having to find themselves a new home. This change would at least prevent the landlord from being able to say: “Well we’re going to massively increase your rent for you to be able to stay.” The rent calculation would have to be set into the tenancy agreement so that tenants know how much extra rent they can expect to be paying and when it is.We would also under this Supplementary Order Paper restrict the number of times that a landlord could put up the rent—no more often than once every 12 months. That still seems to me a bit harsh on tenants but landlords would not be able to put up the rent more than once every 12 months. This gives the tenants certainty—how much the rent is going to go up by and when it is going to go up and they can plan for that. It means they can plan their finances. They know the rent increase is coming. It is not going to come as a surprise. It is not going to come rapidly time after time. They have got some control over it.We would also change the tenancy so that is for a fixed term of 3 years as a default. That again is to help provide tenants with greater security. We are advocating these changes because one of the concerns that often gets raised is that if you have a warrant of fitness even one as minor and as miserable as is in this bill the tenants’ rents will go up. They need more protection and there is not sufficient protection. The policy settings to provide sufficient protection are pretty tricky; it is not easy to find a solution to this. We need to get on the policy road of better protecting tenants’ rights so that they can deal with these kinds of changes and make sure that tenants are secure in their homes.One other thing we would do is get rid of the 42-day notice. There are stories after stories after stories of landlords who issue a 42-day notice to tenants saying that their kid wants to live there or their auntie wants to live there. No such thing is really happening. The tenants have no comeback. They get 42 days’ notice to leave their home. These are people’s homes. If you are a landlord you own a house. If you live there it is your home.We need to make sure that people are warm and safe and dry and secure in the homes they are raising their families in. There is a very significant list of what a comprehensive warrant of fitness would look like. This is a list that has come directly from the research that was prepared by the recipient of the Prime Minister’s Science Prize. I have a great deal of confidence—and clearly the Prime Minister has a great deal of confidence—in the research the skill and the veracity of this warrant of fitness list given that it came from Philippa Howden-Chapman who was the recipient of the Prime Minister’s Science Prize. I think this would be a great way if we agree to the list in this bill to recognise not only her skills as a scientist but actually the work that she does.There are some basic things in here because they are not provided for in the law such as adequate cooking facilities. Those of us who live in our own home or have had the benefit of living in a high-quality rental property might not think that is important. But last night I was told a story by a group of students who said that their land agent refused to replace their stove. All they had to cook on was a gas element and a skillet—for 12 months. The land agent said the stove was a non-essential item and refused to replace it. You can say that they should go to the Tenancy Tribunal but then they risk losing their home because they have no security of tenure. So you cannot expect people in very vulnerable situations to hold landlords to account for this if they have to argue their case before a tribunal. We have to make it mandatory that the basics are provided: adequate food preparation and storage areas potable water—there is no requirement in the law for drinking water to be in the home. Hot water—there is no requirement in the law for that. A functional toilet a bath or a shower—there is no existing requirement in law for those.Fixed space heating is also in this list and it is essential. It has to be adequate for the house. One of the critical issues we have found from the Emma-Lita Bourne tragedy was that this was a home that had a fixed space heater in it but it was in the lounge in a two-storey cold concrete block terraced house. The heating got nowhere except—