Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): Tēnā koe Mr Chair and thank you for this opportunity. I stand with conviction on this particular bill and I want to in my time on the Governance and Administration Committee consider some of the submissions that were made to this particular bill. Given we're on Part 1 right now if I can bring the Associate Minister Kris Faafoi's attention to clause 6(2B) of Supplementary Order Paper 254 here and it talks about The landlord of premises that are insured may at any time and must within a reasonable time after receiving a request from the tenant for a copy of the insurance policy provide to the tenant under a tenancy agreement a copy of each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant's liability for destruction of or damage to the premises." It doesn't take a genius when they read that to ask the obvious question that is: "What does a reasonable time look like?" I ask that with respect to as it goes on further into the bill it talks about specific areas of damage. I wonder if the Minister in making this bill more robust has considered what a reasonable time looks like.I myself have dealt with insurance companies and the service hasn't always been service of a timely fashion. I have also had other cases that have come into my office as a local MP talking about insurance issues which have dragged on for years. Now while that sounds relatively simple that a landlord or an insurance company can simply provide a policy I wonder whether with respect to the rest of the bill that makes it quite clear around some of the time frames of what liability is for—around four weeks—amongst other things whether or not there is a stronger consideration here on what "reasonable" means in subclause 2B.Look that might be something that can be fleshed out as more cases are brought to the attention of the body that will look after this stuff. But I'm just curious for the purposes of those who are engaged in tenancy agreements with landlords and other things what a "reasonable time" looks like. Because one of the things we have heard talked about—and this I think strikes to why this bill is here—is the power imbalance between landlord and tenant. That was always a big driver and motivation for this particular bill and the power imbalance often is things like withholding information or simply visiting property without the proper kind of notification that's required by law which is why I think it would be dare I say reasonable to expect that in this particular piece of legislation we are able to be far more definitive with the term "reasonable" here. That's just the first question I have for the Minister in the chair at the moment.The other one is around the general principle of responsibility for damage. It says here under clause 49A(1) "Except as provided in section 49B a tenant has no liability or obligation and must not be required to—(a) meet the cost of making good any destruction of or damage to the premises; or (b) indemnify the landlord against the cost of making good the destruction or damage; or (c) pay damages related to the destruction or damage; or (d) carry out any works to make good the destruction or damage." There are a number of questions I have on that one—and the reason being is that while I get the intention of it there seems to be a case to be made on the part of tenants with regard to damage damage more broadly speaking and damage more defined. I say that with in recent times a case that made it into the paper where a tenant was responsible for improvements to the house sought compensation and it wasn't acknowledged. They put a shed on—is the example that was in the media recently. They put a shed on they looked for compensation and weren't eligible for any of it.So now if we apply that same thinking to the way that damage is measured and qualified in this particular legislation I have just got some concerns that I think we might be able to flesh out because I know there are parts later on in the bill that require some more of the specifics. But I just wanted to park that with the Minister to see if he and their team can give it some thought. But I do want to bring it back to that first case around exactly what is a reasonable time frame."