Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): Thank you Mr Chair. Can I thank the Minister Kris Faafoi for his timely response. I do agree that there is space in the future—as is the case that he's building—for a far better determination to be made and I respect that in Part 1 we are trying to achieve something rather considerable here.I've got just a couple of points that I want to make quickly to see if we can get a bit of clarification at least for my purposes. The Minister in the chair talked briefly about that ability for tenants to terminate residency by giving no less than two days' notice to the landlord. I recall hearing the submissions on this and why this kind of thing is done—because of the kinds of slums that have been seen in places like South Auckland and dare I say in other places around the country. This one is perhaps a little bit more operational and can hope to flesh out: well how do we look to support both the tenant as well as the property owner?The reason I say that is because in the housing shortage who in their right mind with a family would look to leave a residence? We might accept by law that this residence is unlawful and that these aren't healthy conditions for a family to live in but I'm curious as to whether or not support or other mechanisms are considered by the Minister to put in place to make sure that perhaps we can remedy the unlawful aspects of the residency by supporting the tenant in one way shape or form—giving some guidance perhaps not just around the legislation but around how they might be able to bring a place that has minor legal issues to make it a lawful residence for families or for a tenant. So that's one side.On the other side is for the tenants about whether or not there is support there because two days' notice to shift from one place to another in somewhere like Auckland and other places around the country where it's difficult because of the shortage in the housing market—where are we going to house these people? What are we going to do with these people and their families when they recognise that this shed or whatever it might be—this unlawful premises—might not be the right place for them and their family at this point in time? So I'll park that one there.The other one—and I'm seeking a bit of guidance from the Minister and perhaps even others in the House in particular because of the Minister's work in Christchurch. In section 49C in clause 7 it talks about the Landlord not insurer to benefit from tenant liability for careless damage". I get that. I wonder if in the cases of Christchurch where there have been issues with insurance and things like that—not just from the earthquake event itself but off the back of it—there are any exceptional circumstances here that might actually give say Christchurch for example I don't know a different look on what insurance might look like for them. I'm not too sure which is why I leave that one with officials and the Minister.While I get much of this bill in respect to my electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau I know there are issues in places like Christchurch around insurance the relationship around tribunals and property in general after the tragic event of the earthquake all those years ago. So look I'll just park that one there and if the Minister either can at least give some sort of thought or direction that might help my understanding of what that looks like then I'd find that hugely beneficial.The other one was just around the support and what that might look like for both tenant as well as landlord in the ability to terminate residence or tenancy in an unlawful property."