Foster AndyANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thanks Madam Speaker. Look we've heard quite a lot of hyperbole already in this debate and how radical this discussion that we're having is but the reality is that we've actually had this discussion before in this House probably not that long ago when the roles were reversed and the direction of the legislation was reversed so it's not particularly radical. This is something which was signalled quite clearly in the campaign and signalled quite clearly in the coalition agreement that this was the thing that the Government was going to do and the Government is doing exactly what it said.I look across the House there and say that you guys should try that because it would have done you a lot better than some of the things that you did actually do when there were a lot of hidden agendas that you didn't tell the public about and you then proceeded to embark upon.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not you" Mr Foster. Don't use the word "you".ANDY FOSTER: Oh sorry Madam Speaker; it wasn't you—DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's OK. Keep going.ANDY FOSTER: We've been accused of being disingenuous by the Hon Kieran McAnulty but this is very very clear. This is exactly what we said we were going to do and it's exactly what we are doing.It's interesting that when you read the regulatory impact statement there is clear difference between the submissions which were made by the landlords and people representing landlords and people representing the tenants—clear difference between those two parties about what the best arrangements are between them.It's also clear that the advice that we're getting actually is nuanced and there is no parallel universe to test the advice and say "Well if you do it this way it's going to work better than this way." or "If you do it this way it's going to work better." So this one is a balancing act. Obviously on that side of the House they're falling on one side of the argument; on this side of the House we're falling on the other side. But the great thing here is what we're going to do is we're going to go out to the public with this piece of legislation and we'll give the opportunity for the public to have their say. What I hope is instead of going backwards and forwards and backwards and forwards somewhere we might have the collective wisdom to be able to find the right arrangement. Because the reality is that the vast majority—if we had good tenants and good landlords we wouldn't need to be involved in this at all. The vast majority of people are good tenants and good landlords but there are some who are not. Sometimes the tenant needs to be protected against the landlord; sometimes the landlord needs to be protected against the tenant.We heard over there from the Green Party that so often tenants are kicked out for no reason. But as a landlord why would you kick a good tenant out? What is the purpose of doing that? If they're a good tenant they're paying their rent they're not damaging your property why would you kick them out? That is completely stupid and is against your best interest.Look we know that the Labour Party didn't set out to demonise landlords but the reality is you look at the kind of legislation they've passed you look at the approach they've taken and time and time again from that side of the House we're hearing the arguments against the deduction of interest against the cost of running a business. Every other business is able to do that but poor landlords they're not able to do it according to that side of the House—there's something wrong with that. But while they probably didn't set out to demonise the landlords what it looks like is that's exactly what they are doing. You know the funny thing is that what landlords are doing is they've responded to that and they have withdrawn from the market. The funny thing is that what that has done is it has driven up rental costs so it has actually not been in the best interests of the tenants. So what I'm saying is that we need to find a balance and find a way through this and that is exactly what the idea of the legislation is to do because it opens up the conversation again to be had.A good tenant is worth their weight in gold to a landlord. It gives you security. It means that you know that the hard-earned money that you put into that property is going to be looked after well. It means you know that there is going to be a secure income coming against that property. I cannot see why a good tenant will be kicked out by a good landlord. This legislation the legislation which we're bringing in really is about dealing with the problem relationships which there are from time to time and if all relationships were good we wouldn't need to be involved in this. The problem is that they are not.The debate has been had and sadly we're all going to have to do it all over again so my appeal to submitters and my appeal to us in this House is to see if we can find a middle ground that is a sustainable way forward for both landlords and tenants and for "New Zealand Inc." because if we don't do it it is not going to be good for anybody.The final thing I'd like to say in the last few seconds I've got—Kieran McAnulty talked about house building. The reason that house building has dropped off is a very simple one. It's the economy—the cost of building has gone up like that. The value of houses went down like that. What do you expect to happen? Lots of developers have pulled out of the market simply because they cannot make the numbers work. Similarly a lot of landlords have pulled out because they can't make the numbers work with the kind of regime that is in place at the moment and without that interest deductibility. I commend this bill to the House."