Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Mr Chair thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No. 2). I do wonder how much of this bill is associated with meth—and I know that in Part 2 it is certainly alluded to—and also the aspects around insurance because the rising use of methamphetamine is a huge challenge in our society. I look forward to—once we I assume get to Part 2—a discussion on that. We've also heard from the Hon Judith Collins examples of parties examples of challenges where tenants haven't looked after property and the importance of providing certainty as an aspect of protection around that.I have been both a landlord and a tenant so I feel like I'm able to speak from both sides of the spectrum here. As a landlord—my wife and I at one point had a couple of rentals there—it can be challenging at times; often you can sort of lay awake at night because you are thinking about that investment. It is important that there are consequences if the tenants don't look after that building. At the same time the majority of tenants are law abiding the majority of tenants look after the buildings; the majority of landlords are law abiding the majority of landlords treat their tenants in a proper fashion. However obviously we need laws where there are disparities. This is a common-sense piece of legislation that deals with that disparity that sometimes happens.I've got a question for the Associate Minister Kris Faafoi if he wouldn't mind addressing it. I am interested in how this bill strikes the balance between keeping landlords cost-neutral and incentivising tenants to take care of their properties. If a bill leans one way too far then we can have unintended consequences. So I am interested in how this bill does strike that balance because it is quite a delicate balance—Andrew Bayly: Put some passion into it.JAMIE STRANGE: —that needs to be struck. Ha ha! I could increase the volume like the member opposite does.If we have a look at the insurance aspect here—if there is no insurance what happens in that case? Who pays if damage is caused to a property if the property isn't insured? The bill clearly outlines the fact that the landlord must talk to the tenant about their insurance policy so that the tenant is quite clear on that outlining those terms—and that's common sense; it's important for the tenant to understand that to appreciate that. But what happens if there is no insurance and damage is caused to a property? What happens in that case?This bill provides an aspect of certainty for landlords and it also provides an aspect of certainty for tenants because everybody knows the ballpark that they're playing in everyone knows that there's certainty there's clarity. Certainty is absolutely important in our society—to have a strong rule of law we need certainty.Hon Member: Are you sure?JAMIE STRANGE: I was recently over in the UK—and I can give you an example of uncertainty dare I mention Brexit to the member opposite who will understand that I know. Where uncertainty exists there is a lack of confidence—and so hence the importance of certainty; and this bill provides that certainty. But if the Minister could just elaborate on how the bill strikes the right balance—the right balance between landlords having the aspect of cost-neutral and incentivising tenants to take care of the property.Another question I have for the Minister is: how does this bill link in to the wider reforms that the Government's undertaking around housing? I'm thinking of banning letting fees and progressing reform of the Residential Tenancies Act. So how does this bill link in with that aspect there and that wider reform? The Healthy Homes standards preventing thousands of children from going to hospital—how does this bill link in with the wider reform? Because bills don't stand in isolation; they're always linked to a wider suite of policies.So just a couple of questions there for the Minister and I look forward to his response. Thank you.