Paraone Pita: Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Paraone Pita: Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2340] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I preface my contribution to this debate on behalf of New Zealand First by asking what the last speaker’s view would be if he were one of the five flatmates referred to in the judicial decision cited by the sponsor of this bill who now find themselves responsible for the damage caused by another flatmate. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to answer the member’s question which he has asked me directly. [ 
Interruption 
] No I seek leave. I am entitled to seek leave. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member seeks leave to interrupt. Is there any objection? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Phil Heatley 
: So it wasn’t a serious question—you don’t want to know the answer Mr Paraone? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I was putting the leave question. The member should not engage across the floor while I am putting that question. 
Phil Heatley 
: You put— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: If the member wants to remain in the House he had better stand withdraw and apologise—and make no further comment. 
Phil Heatley 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I am seeking leave on the member’s behalf. The member has asked for leave. Is there any objection? There is. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to clarify the record for members in the House. You put the leave and the member denied leave. Leave was denied. That is when I commented. I was not engaging you or any member of the House while leave was being requested. You asked for leave the member denied leave and I commented. I would never interrupt the Chair. It is not my habit to interrupt the Chair and I will never interrupt the Chair. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The point is that I was still speaking. The member is just lucky to remain in the House. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Speaking to this bill I reiterate its intent. It requires landlords to ensure the interests of tenants notwithstanding the arguments against that position as the last speaker mentioned. The bill is meant to provide some form of protection for those tenants who are not directly responsible for any damage caused by a fellow tenant and therein lies the crux of this bill. 
It is also intended to address the issue of tenants mistakenly believing that the landlord’s insurance will cover such damage. In reality insurance companies seek to cover their costs in such claims from all the tenants regardless of direct responsibility or otherwise. However it is important to note that this bill does not absolve tenants from responsibility where there has been intentional damage—they remain liable. 
Of further note is an article in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 last week for which an executive member of the New Zealand Property Investors Federation was interviewed which claims that landlords have indicated strong opposition to this bill on a number of points—and I want to highlight some of those points. First is the transient nature of group flatting situations that can involve tenants coming and going without the knowledge of the landlord. Second the likely consequence of this in the event of a claim could see insurance companies insisting that the landlord not only find the departed tenant but also prove that that tenant was the one who caused the damage in the first place. Third tenants could also blame visitors to the property. These potential situations would make renting to groups a high-risk undertaking and could lead to groups finding it difficult to secure rental accommodation. 
Clearly this bill would impose some extra costs for landlords in terms of their insurance premiums. Landlords believe of course that their tenants and not themselves should be meeting the costs associated with their premiums. Obviously tenants would be paying indirectly through their rent anyway so this is an issue that ought to be examined. 
I understand that the sponsor of this bill has indicated that the Government intends to undertake a general review of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. She feels that it might be appropriate to have this bill included in that process. New Zealand First has always stressed the importance of the people of New Zealand having their say notwithstanding the reported comments that I alluded to earlier and the judicial example given by the sponsor of this bill. 
New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee so that the people of New Zealand and in particular the parties who will be immediately affected by it have the opportunity to have their say. Having indicated our support for the bill going to the select committee I want to make the point that I cannot guarantee that we will support it beyond that.