Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I stand and rise to take a speech on Part 2 and in particular clause 10 where it indicates that schedule 1A be amended: In Schedule 1A after the item relating to section 17 insert: 'Section 17A (Requiring let fee)' ". In particular the penalty cost of $1000 is what it indicates there. In my speech in the debate I'd like to indicate the fact of the cost and the burden that will have on those that are actually inside this sector and in particular those of the property management sector. The reports to us have indicated that in 2017 there were 175081 bonds lodged with 53 percent of those from property managers so we know that the burden already is actually on those property managers. Their role of responsibility is to both the tenant and also the landlord. In particular it's around ensuring that both have the responsibilities before them to be a good tenant and a good landlord—in this case the burden of that cost in regards to Part 2 which is the requirement of the letting fee in regards to that $1000 and the burden that that could cost. But it's the impact that I think has not been talked about and I want to add something extra to the debates that have been happening in the House in regards to this Residential Tenancies Act. Some of the comments in the submissions that relate to that part are from a Wellington property management company that says "If Labour's changes go ahead it's unfortunate but inevitable that some owners will exit the rental market [therefore] reducing the number of homes available for rent" which will then see a rent increase for all of those that are there. I've met many of those that are in our communities—even in west Auckland in Te Atatū—who have said they're now putting their properties on the market. They're afraid of where the direction of this current Government is going not only in regards to the prohibition of letting fees and the burden of costs to that but also to potentially the new Tax Working Group—the capital gains tax that could be there. So this burden is being felt now. When I have spoken to those in Harcourts and even those in Ray White they're now saying that the auction houses are starting to fill and in particular they are with those landlords who have a real concern about the direction that this Government is taking. To add to their point and to give some substance and weight to that a lot has been made by the ministry and the Minister in the example of Scotland who banned the letting fees in November of 2012. My colleague the Hon Louise Upston talked about this but I want to add another component to this debate in regards to that. Tony Williams the managing director of referencing firm UK Tenant Data said "The loss of fees has had a profound effect on the rental sector in Scotland." So while they've removed these fees and while this has been looked at as an exemplar of an approach that can be taken by the current Government initially the ban hit agency revenue resulting in increased fees to landlords and in rents rising to mitigate some of these costs. But what's really interesting is that what is happening years down—now this is post the ban nearly five years down the track or nearly six years we're all aware of the obvious fallout in terms of lost jobs increased rents and so on. But what hasn't been factored in and what is now being realised is the level of which there are a number of properties that are being withdrawn from the property market. So my contribution on Part 2 and to this debate is on the impact that this will have in the long term. We're talking about an exemplar that is being used by the current Government of Scotland and of Shelter and their approach which is to remove the letting fees and yet the impact is quite clear. What they've indicated is the loss of jobs and the increase in rental prices but more importantly now the removal of those homes that had been available inside the property market. I think it's important that we need to be cognisant of that. These are the impacts that they are having and that they will continue to have in this sector and we feel that it's been something that hasn't really been debated. I want to add this extra contribution to this debate because I think it's significantly important because the approach that the Minister has often talked about is that we should have a balanced approach. We should be ensuring that there's a security of tenure for those residents those tenants and at the same time too we should be ensuring that there isn't an added burden of cost on to landlords in their situation of providing the warm dry safe residential properties that are there. So I add these contributions to the Part 2 debate in the committee. Thank you."