Heatley Phil: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:664;Page:12203] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I would like to respond to the member in respect of the amendments she has put forward. They have been presented with some thought and consideration and they are genuine amendments. I certainly acknowledge that. I will start with the last one which is the issue about tenants having advocates before the Tenancy Tribunal. It might be worth informing the Committee and those listening and the member that I can give six ways in which tenants can get an advocate who may or may not be legal counsel to assist them at the Tenancy Tribunal so that they are in no way disadvantaged. The first way they can have an advocate is if they ask the other party the landlord for consent. If a landlord consents to the tenant having an advocate then the tenant can have an advocate. 
There is another way and that is if the dispute exceeds the sum under this new legislation which is $6000. So if we are talking about $6000 or more being in dispute then the tenant can certainly have an advocate and in fact can have legal counsel. If the landlord is represented by an advocate or by legal counsel then that is the third way that a tenant can be represented by an advocate or legal counsel. Fourthly if the nature of the issue at stake is quite complex then the Tenancy Tribunal can allow the tenant to have an advocate and perhaps be represented by counsel. So if it is a complex issue the tenant can certainly have an advocate. If there is significant disparity between the two parties the tenant can have an advocate. If there is a large disparity between the tenant’s knowledge and ability to defend him or herself and the landlord’s knowledge and ability then the tenant most certainly can have an advocate. We talk about this as a sort of David and Goliath situation. If a tenant is indeed vulnerable and in a “David” situation he or she can have an advocate. If the person is a minor or has a disability then absolutely he or she can be represented by someone approved by the Tenancy Tribunal. A person who is young or who has a disability can have a representative appointed to help him or her. 
The last way is that the tribunal itself can rule in favour of the tenant having an advocate. It can do so for a reason other than the David and Goliath situation or the complexity of the issue or when the other party has legal advocacy or whatever the other reasons are and it can do so even if none of those reasons is fulfilled. So there is no shortage of avenues for a tenant to have an advocate and that is why we do not believe it is worthwhile supporting the amendment that the member Moana Mackey has put forward although I acknowledge that it is a serious issue and I appreciate the fact that she did bring it forward. 
The other issue she talked about was the issue of tenant liability for damage. Labour would like to reduce the liability for damage accidentally caused by a tenant or by a tenant’s guest to the value of 4 weeks’ rent. We are opposing this Supplementary Order Paper as well because limiting the liability for damage would impose unfair costs on the landlord who did not cause the damage was not the one who allowed the tenant’s guest into the house and was not there when the tenant accidentally caused the damage. Why would a landlord the owner of the property get stuck with the fix-up bill for damage caused by a tenant or a tenant’s guest? National believes in personal responsibility and we believe that it is important that tenants meet their obligations in this regard. In the same way we expect—and this legislation makes sure of it—that landlords who are obliged to fix properties and keep them in a decent state of repair should do so as soon as possible. That of course as one of the previous speakers said is one of my challenges and one of Housing New Zealand Corporation’s challenges in Pomare in the Hutt Valley. 
There is also the issue over the Rugby World Cup. Moana Mackey is rightly concerned about the people who during the Sevens competition were asked by the owners of the property to vacate so that they could have in residence visitors from overseas and within New Zealand who could pay quite high fees for accommodation in Wellington. Moana Mackey is concerned that that might happen with other national sporting events particularly the Rugby World Cup. My challenge to the Labour Party and the member if they are concerned about that is to vote for this legislation because the reason why landlords were previously able to do that in Wellington is that they had to give only 24 hours’ notice for someone to move out. This legislation which hopefully Labour will support means that they will have to give 28 days’ notice before someone leaves the accommodation. Boarding-house operators will be very reluctant to ask someone to leave 28 days in advance of a sporting event because they may very well get 27 days of no rent. So we think it is important to support this legislation to fix that problem of people being asked at short notice to leave in order that overseas tourists can take up their positions in that accommodation and pay a much higher rent. This legislation requires boarding-house operators to give 28 days’ notice not 24 hours’ notice. Had that provision been in place when the Wellington Sevens event was on I do not think we would have seen as many people asked to leave the premises they were living in in order to make room for those travelling with deep pockets from overseas.