Beaumont Carol: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Beaumont Carol: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9883] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill and like my colleague Moana Mackey and the speaker from the Greens Gareth Hughes I want to talk about some of the concerns. 
Labour clearly agreed that there was a need to update the Residential Tenancies Act because significant changes have been made to the structure and dynamics of the residential rental market since that Act came into force. 
Before I talk about the number of people living in rental housing I will note the aims of the legislation: firstly to encourage the development of a rental market that provides stable quality housing to those who rent their homes; secondly to enable landlords to manage their properties more effectively; and thirdly to clarify and appropriately balance the rights and obligations of tenants and landlords. 
All those aims are very worthy. The question is whether we have the balance right and whether the bill provides the level of stability and quality we would like. I think it is fair to say from Labour’s point of view that although this bill is an improvement it does not quite get all the way there. Housing is a matter of fundamental importance to people. The right to shelter is one of our most fundamental rights—the right to be out of the weather to have a roof over our heads. They are very important things so it is important to try to get housing legislation right. 
There is a range of broader health social and educational implications in having the sort of stable rental market that this legislation is meant to promote. Clearly these rental properties become people’s homes. They may not own them but they are their homes. They live there with their families and they are part of the community where they are living. We want people to be stable in terms of their children’s education. There are all those factors so it is fundamentally important to get this legislation right. 
The bill explicitly talks about balance and it is fair to say that in terms of the various provisions it is debatable as to whether the balance is quite right. Like other members I agree that landlords’ investments in their property are important. It is important that the money they have put in is secured that the property they own is well looked after and maintained and that they retain important rights to that. 
It is fair to say that a significant number of the people who own rental properties are small investors. They quite often are people who are slightly older than me and they have often invested their superannuation savings into a rental property. So for them it is significantly important that that balance is right and that their investment is protected. But for tenants as I have already said those rental properties are where they live. They are their homes where they raise their families and go about their business. 
Those two things are not a level playing field. The consequences of people losing the right to be in their homes is very very significant if they do not have somewhere else to go or even if they do because there is a big upheaval in having to move from one property to another. As I said Labour supports this bill although we do have a number of concerns and at a later point we will put forward a number of amendments. 
As I said the purpose of the bill is to update the 1986 Act as there have been a significant number of changes in the rental market since 1986. The number of people living in rental accommodation is significantly higher. The number of people who can afford to buy their own home has diminished. We now have the reality that the rate of homeownership has declined to 67 percent from a high of 74 percent in 1991. There are about 450000 rental properties which house about a third of our population. So renting is now a significant form of accommodation for New Zealanders and we need to ensure that the legislation is updated to meet that. 
The bill itself as others who were on the Social Services Committee have identified has a great number of provisions. There is a significant number of changes including provisions relating to fixed-term tenancies refunded bonds landlord responsibilities the right of entry to premises termination of tenancy renewal or extension of tenancy and as others have talked about in some detail provisions relating to boarding houses. So a wide range of areas have been covered in this bill. 
As Moana Mackey mentioned there was quite a short time frame in which to consider fundamentally important legislation that contains a range of significant provisions. I think that is of concern. We should not be rushing through provisions in tight time frames when we need to seriously contemplate what they mean for people and for their standard of living. There were 59 submissions on the bill and 35 of them were heard by the Social Services Committee. It is positive to hear that the members of the committee worked hard together to try to get the bill in as good a form as they could. 
I want to mention housing shortages in New Zealand particularly in the area where I live in Auckland. Recently I was privileged to attend the launch of  
A Road to Recovery: A State of the Nation Report from the Salvation Army. 
 The report talked about new housing building activity having plunged to a 20-year low. It looked at the consequences of this in Auckland with the combined effect of population growth from within our own population and from migration and it talked about the burgeoning housing shortage in Auckland. I think it is important to note that as part of this discussion. 
As I mentioned earlier the issue of housing affordability is also particularly important when we talk about the housing market. It seems somewhat ironic to be standing here now talking about this bill in view of the fact that yesterday we talked about the Infrastructure Bill which of course is about repealing legislation that the previous Government put in place. I am referring to the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act. That Act tried to ensure that local authorities had the ability—they were not required but they had the ability—to put in place more affordable housing. 
Chris Tremain 
: It did nothing. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: A member across the House mentions that it did nothing. Actually there was virtually no time for that to be identified. A far better response would have been to analyse it. Certainly the Human Rights Commission indicated that there was an absence of compelling evidence that the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act was counter-productive. The commission noted that the Act’s repeal would have the effect of reducing the supply of affordable housing. It regretted the Act being repealed without anything else being put in its place and I think that is a sad indictment on this Government. 
Debate interrupted.