Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Acting Minister of Housing) : I will take a very brief call to explain to the Committee that I have tabled a Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 112. I say to members that this Supplementary Order Paper—although it looks like a very considerable Supplementary Order Paper; it is quite a few pages in length—is mainly very technical and minor in its overall impact. Many of the recommended changes are merely corrections to typographical and cross-referencing errors. Some of the recommended changes are drafting changes that reword or re-order, or even move around, clauses. All of the proposed amendments are consistent with the policy intent of the bill, and with the changes recommended by the Social Services Committee. The committee made some quite good recommendations about changes, and I understand that those corrections have been made. I hope that Moana Mackey from Labour has had her assurance about what those changes are, from the officials, because I am happy for the changes to be made available to her. In particular, the majority of the proposed amendments ensure that people who need to use the processes in the bill have a clear idea of what they need to do and how they are required to do it.

The proposed amendments also respond to issues raised by the Retirement Villages Association and the New Zealand Holiday Ownership Council, where recommendations made by the select committee had not been fully implemented in what came back. Examples of changes were in management and governance amendments. The only significant amendment to the management and governance provisions was made to the way in which votes were counted for ordinary resolution. The select committee recommended that votes for an ordinary resolution should be counted according to ownership interests, in addition to there being one vote per unit. This recommendation was not fully implemented, but the amendment that has been put in the Supplementary Order Paper will achieve that implementation. So that is just a brief outline of what the Supplementary Order Paper is trying to do. It is mainly technical and minor.

The Unit Titles Bill is wide ranging in bringing the whole unit titles legislation up to date. When the first legislation of this nature was passed, most people had blocks of units that were three or four units big. Blocks were very small, clustery things; now we have massive buildings in units. So this bill brings into modern parlance things like the duties and powers of body corporates and body corporate managers. It enables the making of joint decision-making body corporate processes to be more manageable, and it provides incentives for participation by unit owners. The bill also has a disputes resolution process, mandatory disclosure, and new ownership structures.

One matter that I think is important from another portfolio of mine, from the portfolio of building and construction, is mandatory long-term maintenance schedules. What happens with these big buildings is that tenants move into them but no one puts up a maintenance schedule with a funding plan of how that maintenance is to be done. Then, 20 years later, places are in a complete state of disrepair but no one is prepared to stump up, or to say how they should have been maintained and who should have paid.

There are a lot of really good things in this bill. I know that the legislation had its gestation when Labour was in Government, and that we have carried on with the major ideas in it. I do not believe that this will be one of the pieces of legislation over which a big fight will occur in the Chamber, but I am happy to let members go ahead with questions and try to get the Committee stage through.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I am happy to stand and take a call on Part 1 of the Unit Titles Bill. I thank the Acting Minister of Housing for his comments. I think he outlined the changes in the Supplementary Order Paper as they relate to the entire bill, not just to Part 1.

Labour would like to put on record our disappointment that we were not given access to the Supplementary Order Paper earlier. I thank the Minister for allowing me to discuss it with the officials and with staff from his office, but having received this Supplementary Order Paper only at question time today, it has been very, very difficult for me to go through what is very technical legislation and make sure that we are happy with everything in it. I have had a talk with the officials, who have assured me that these are minor technical amendments. I note that many a career has been ended by minor technical amendments, but that is all right—I am prepared to take the officials’ word that these amendments merely clarify the intentions of the Social Services Committee at that time. Labour will be supporting them. However, I note that the date on the Supplementary Order Paper is 9 days ago, yet it was made available to the Labour Party—and to other parties, I assume—only today. I put on record my disappointment, given that we are trying to be very conducive to getting non-controversial legislation through the House and that we have supported this bill all the way through.

I do not intend to labour on Part 1 for very long. It is comprised mainly of definitions. However, I will make a comment. There is a major change in the legislation to the definition of a “principal unit”, in response to some of the submitters who came along to the Social Services Committee, some of whom perhaps did not get exactly what they wanted out of this. The issue we had was whether open spaces could be considered a principal unit under this legislation. Certainly the existing legislation, the Unit Titles Act—as the Minister in the chair, the Acting Minister of Housing, has said, it is greatly outdated and was written a long time ago—was very unclear as to whether open spaces could be issued as a principal unit and sold independently of any buildings.

We were alerted to examples of vineyards, orchards, and marinas where the subdivision had occurred under a unit title model, as opposed to under a land subdivision model, which clearly was not the intention of the Unit Titles Act. We had to make a call as to whether we would allow that to continue. Some submitters thought that it should be allowed to occur. In the end, the committee decided that in any future developments it should not be allowed to happen. The one example that we thought merited being allowed to remain as a principal unit was car-parks. Clearly, car-parks are sold on their own as principal units, and we saw no harm in allowing that to continue. But in all those other areas we felt that it was important that open spaces go back to being a land subdivision issue, not a unit title issue.

This is the area where I need a little guidance, maybe from other members who will be speaking on this part, as to the status of the principal units that have already been created and that are open spaces, which in the future will not be allowed to occur. As I understand it, they will remain as principal units. They will not be retrospectively voided by this change that we are making today. I see the Minister nodding, and I hope that is the case; certainly that was the intent of the select committee. This particular part took up a lot of the committee’s time, and I acknowledge, to the number of submitters who were adamant that the open spaces should be allowed to occur, that we listened to their submissions and we took them under advisement. In the end we thought it was perhaps pushing the unit titles structure into an area where it had previously not been intended to move. In the past, open spaces had been allowed to be issued as principal units, but that probably was never the intention of Parliament when it passed this legislation many years ago.

We made a number of other changes to the definitions in Part 1, for the most part simply to clarify the intent of Parliament and the intent of the select committee to make sure that there would be no further confusion as to what we meant in these definitions. In saying that, Part 1, with the exclusion of the definition of a “principal unit”, was relatively straightforward and I will be looking to take calls on further parts when we get into more of the detail of the bill.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) : It is my pleasure to rise and take a call this afternoon on the Unit Titles Bill. Firstly, I would like to sincerely thank the officials who supported us with this bill through the select committee process, and also the submitters who came to the Social Services Committee and made submissions. A lot of them brought some very relevant points that we considered in the select committee deliberations, and they influenced what we did with the bill and what has come forward to the House. I thank them for their submissions. They were very powerful submissions. We realise that many of the submitters put a lot of work, effort, and time into their submissions, and no doubt cost, as well as the costs to come here to make their submissions. We appreciate what they have done towards making this bill the way it is today.

National went into the election on a platform of streamlining and simplifying regulations, and this bill is just one more way of achieving that.

Moana Mackey: Katrina, this was our bill.

KATRINA SHANKS: Labour began looking at this bill in 2004, but it is National that has delivered it in 2010. The bill is before the House now and is being presented by a great Government that, once again, is delivering on its promises. The initial Unit Titles Act 1972 was designed for small residential flats and was applied to a range of complex, large, and mixed-use developments. In 2007 there were 16,500 developments and 95,000 units. As members can see, times have changed, and it looks like over half a million people will be living in apartments, town houses, and high-rise buildings within 50 years, so it important that we get this legislation right. The framework will stand true for a period of time. The bill will provide broader and more adaptable ways of setting up and managing multi-unit living, both now and in the foreseeable future, which is important.

The bill has attracted enormous support throughout the sector and the industry. There has been consultation, and feedback has been highly positive in terms of the direction of the policy initiatives that have been put in place. A range of problems were identified. They included issues with joint decision-making, building maintenance, financial management, governance of developments, information disclosure, consumer protection, and dispute resolution. Those issues have all been addressed in this bill.

One thing I want to touch on is the definition of a “principal unit” in Part 1, which is what we are debating in the Committee stage at the moment. The issue was that the definition was too narrow and would restrict some current use of unit titles, such as car parks. This issue was emphasised by the New Zealand Property Group in particular. The further issue in respect of the definition of a “principal unit” was whether the ability to create open space units would be retained, although many car parks would still be allowed to be created. So there was a change that was needed. The definition of “principal unit” would be widened to include car parks, whether or not they comprised open space. The recommendation did not include changes that would enable other forms of open space units to be created. When we are talking about definitions, it is important that we get those right because they influence everything else going forward.

The other little area I would like to touch on in this part of the debate is time-share developments. The New Zealand Holiday Ownership Council supported the bill but said it needed new definitions for time-shares. The Lake Edge Resort body corporate and Richard Martin made very strong, very accurate, formal submissions on this matter. They said that this legislation did not intend to impact them, but, in fact, it did; they had slipped through the net. Because of those submissions, the bill had to deal with the specific operating procedures of time-share developments. If this provision was not included, it would have made running time-share resorts very difficult moving forward. The committee addressed that issue specifically in regard to the voting quorum and the body corporate’s ability to levy. We inserted a new schedule to provide specific modifications for time-share developments that are unit title developments. Other amendments were put in place as necessary for holiday homes and time-shares. It was interesting to consider the bill at the Social Services Committee. I look forward to talking about it further on during this debate. Thank you.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : I will make a couple of comments at the opening stage of the Committee stage of the Unit Titles Bill. I wish to respond in part to comments made at the outset by the Minister in the chair, the Acting Minister of Housing. Even before that, I want to draw it to the attention of the Committee—because the previous speaker, Katrina Shanks, seems to have forgotten this—that this legislation originated from the previous Labour Government. In fact, it was introduced in May 2008 by the Hon Shane Jones, who was the Minister for Building and Construction at the time. Why it has taken such a long time for the new Government to action this legislation is beyond me. The protestations from across the Chamber that this is a busy Government absolutely belie the fact that it was entirely possible for this legislation to be dealt with in an efficient way through the Social Services Committee. Again, I say the reason why it has taken such a long time to emerge from the committee and get to this point in the legislative process is a mystery.

Secondly, referring to the comments of the Minister in the chair, I would like to remind him of the origins of the expression, now said with some humour, “minor, technical amendments”. If I remember this correctly—and I am happy to be corrected by those who have been here much longer than me—the origins of that phrase came from the fourth Labour Government, when Stan Rodger was proposing the State sector bill in 1986, which he referred to as a “minor, technical amendment”. That went down in the annals of Parliament as one of the understatements of all time. I remember writing a 20-page submission on behalf of the Labour Party at the time, opposing the legislation.

I will return to the point. The point is that we have just been delivered Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson, which I understand was ready some 9 days ago, and as far as Part 1 is concerned, it has a number of amendments that we are advised are minor, technical amendments. Although I am happy to proceed on the basis of the advice that the officials have given us—and they have assured my colleague Moana Mackey that they are indeed minor, technical amendments—it is just a cautionary tale to recite some of that ancient history from the fourth Labour Government, which caused it never to do such a thing again. Although there is some humour in that for the Minister in the chair, I still wish to make the point about minor, technical amendments being brought into the Committee at short notice, when it would seem that the Minister had about 9 days to advise us of them. We would like to make sure that the process has some integrity around it and that the amendments are, in fact, minor, technical amendments.

With reference to Part 1, the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 112 amends clauses 3(a), 4, 5(1), 5(2)(a), 5(2)(b), 5B(3), and 6A(b). All of those clauses are in Part 1 of the bill.

As my colleague has said, the Opposition is happy to support this legislation. However, it is important to note two things. The first is that the origins of this legislation lay with the previous Labour Government, which was trying at that time to ensure that the Unit Titles Act was updated to address contemporary building requirements.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) : The Unit Titles Bill, as noted earlier, was introduced into the House by the Hon Shane Jones. I think it was taken over by Phil Heatley, who looked after it for a while, and now the Hon Maurice Williamson is the Minister in charge of the bill.

Although the Labour Party goes along with the bill quite willingly, I have to say that the process has been really poor. The Social Services Committee looked at the bill, came up with its report, and away went the officials. Nine days ago the Government knew what amendments were going to go into this bill—9 days ago. But of course the Opposition did not get them until the day that the Committee of the whole House started its consideration of the bill.

We had promises from John Key when he went around the country electioneering about the things National was going to change—

Hon Darren Hughes: And Tim Macindoe.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Yes. Mr McClay looks away; he is putting his hand up. The trouble is that things have not changed. I know that when Labour was in Government sometimes we did those things, but everything was going to change under National. Things were going to be different.

We have a pile of amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 112. The amendments to clause 5(1) include a new definition of a “unit plan”. That is quite important.

The Act that this legislation replaces, the Unit Titles Act, was passed in 1972. I think things have changed quite markedly since that time. The building industry, the style of housing, and the style of units that people live in are far different from what they were back in 1972.

Todd McClay: You’ve noticed have you?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Yes, I have noticed.

Paul Quinn: Did you notice the leaky housing problem?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Yes, I remember leaky houses. Houses were built using untreated timber approved by a National Government. That was its legislation, and that member should not forget that.

But when we get back to what this bill is about, and when we look at the process, I think we see that the Government should acknowledge that it is guilty for not having gone about it properly. When there is goodwill on both sides of the House for legislation, the quickest way to wreck that goodwill is to try to be secretive until the last minute. That is what this Government has done. That is not good. If it wants people to support legislation and to work in a positive way, it has to bring people into the picture a lot sooner. The National Government must bring the Opposition and other parties into the picture sooner.

I thank the Hon Maurice Williamson because he made his officials available to brief our spokesperson on housing, Moana Mackey, and I think that is fine. But that was only one small step. We needed much more than that. I think the officials were put in a very bad light, which was not their fault but because the Government did not do its job. Obviously we will have a lot to say about a lot of other things in Part 1, but I believe that the Acting Minister of Housing should answer those questions and tell the Committee why it took so long for him to make sure the Supplementary Order Paper was available. Why did that happen? Was it a printing problem? Was it a deliberate move by the National Government? Was the Government too busy dealing with other things, such as mines and wrecking conservation land? I think the Minister should get up, take a call, and tell the Committee why it did not let the Opposition see the Supplementary Order Paper much earlier.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) : I will take a very brief call on the Unit Titles Bill at this stage of its movement through the House. I start by recognising the very hard work that was put in by officials of the Social Services Committee and also the officials who were seconded to the committee and gave us great advice. I think it is also important to recognise that both sides of the House worked very well on this legislation during the select committee’s deliberations.

I also recognise that it was the previous Labour Government that first brought forward this idea and introduced it to the House. The very good news for members of the New Zealand public is they will not have to wait 11 years until it actually enters into law. We have an Acting Minister of Housing, the Hon Maurice Williamson, who has had the portfolio for less than a month, I think, and what progress we have seen! The bill went straight into the House, and it will become law very, very soon.

The Unit Titles Bill is, of course, a technical piece of legislation, and it is important that we get it right. I recognise members opposite for so graciously deciding to read the Supplementary Order Paper today. It sounds as though they have no difficulties or issues with it, so it is good that they are supporting this legislation.

I want to speak about only one aspect of change in Part 1, and that concerns time-share resorts. Richard Martin from the Lake Edge Resort in Taupō made contact with me very early in the process, and, of course, the very hard-working and good MP for Taupō, Louise Upston, was aware that there was a piece of legislation that could have an effect upon time-sharing. Mr Martin made a number of concerns known to me and other members of the committee, and he put in a submission.

Largely, the concerns were that if the Unit Titles Bill was to go through in its current form and time-share resorts were included, then it would be near on impossible for time-share resorts to make any decisions at all.

Let us think of a resort in Taupō where there are 10 units, 52 weeks per unit, and 520 possible owners. A quorum of 75 percent would mean that 375 people would need to turn up to a meeting. The select committee looked at that, listened to the concerns, and made changes, and I think this is good for business, because New Zealand and tourism could do with a bit more investment in time-share accommodation, particularly in my electorate, as well as in Taupō.

I commend the bill to the Committee. I think we have worked very well at the select committee, and once the bill becomes law there will be much greater certainty around unit title developments in New Zealand. Thank you.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) : Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Unit Titles Bill. I have to agree with our spokesperson on housing, Moana Mackey, and other Opposition speakers that there is a bit of concern, and it has been laid on the table, with regard to the last-minute introduction of the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 112. I appreciate the fact that the Acting Minister of Housing, the Hon Maurice Williamson, has given Moana the opportunity to meet with his officials, and I also appreciate the fact that he has had to take over the portfolio from the previous Minister of Housing recently for reasons that are publicly known. But the fact remains that when we consider the Supplementary Order Paper tabled by the Government today—and I understand that it was ready 9 days ago—we see that it is 13 pages long.

We have already heard from other speakers that this is a very technical bill. When quickly going through the Supplementary Order Paper, I have to wonder whether the people who made submissions to this bill, who had genuine concerns about the way we were modernising the Unit Titles Act of 1972, would have had the opportunity to make comments on what is now being amended by the Government.

I look at the Supplementary Order Paper, and I see that the amendment to clause 7B(5) is to omit this subclause and substitute the following subclause: “If the body corporate requests in writing, the authority undertaking the public works must, at its own expense, prepare the new unit plan or amendment to a unit plan, as the case may be.” On the face of it, I ask myself what it means. I ask whether it refers to local territorial authorities and whether it covers all local territorial authorities. There is the case of Auckland, which will be a super-city in the next few months. I ask whether that fact should not be spelt out in that particular clause. Should the local authority pay for public works, as it states, or should the body corporate pay? Those sorts of questions need to be raised.

I note that the Minister said the amendments were very technical, but it is for that reason that people like me are nervous about the substance of those particular amendments. The changes to wording in the series of amendments on pages 5 and 6 are significant, and there are more significant changes later on in the Supplementary Order Paper. The reason I have raised this point is that we must consider that this legislation is the result of a major review that began in 2003, undertaken by the previous Labour Government. After that particular review, this legislation was introduced into this House by the Hon Shane Jones, in May 2008. We acknowledge that significant work was undertaken, and it was done simply because we needed to ensure that we would do things right.

The representative from Auckland and I have some nervousness about this Supplementary Order Paper because a lot of legislation has been rushed through in recent times, particularly with regard to the Auckland super-city. A lot of legislation has been rushed through. It has been our experience in our electorates that whenever Governments rush through things of this nature, there are bound to be mistakes. Who ends up paying for those mistakes? It is the public. I have to say that is of concern at this particular time.

I do not know why it is difficult for members on that side of the Chamber to acknowledge the fact that significant work was undertaken by a Labour Minister and a Labour Government. I want to put that view on the table. It is OK for this Government to take credit for this bill, and we are supporting it, but it also needs to be acknowledged that significant work was undertaken by some people in Labour.

I finish off by highlighting again that some other amendments on pages 10 and 12 contain significant changes to wording. The way that the Government has introduced this particular Supplementary Order Paper today, at the last minute before the Committee stage, does not bode well for the spirit of cooperation. Thank you.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to Part 1 be agreed to.

• Amendments agreed to.

• Part 1 as amended agreed to.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) : It is a great pleasure to take a call to support the Unit Titles Bill as an Auckland MP. As many speakers have already noted, in many ways Auckland will be most affected by this legislation. The growth of multi-united residential areas, in particular, is a feature of the Auckland landscape. When we look forward to 2050 or 2060, it is estimated that about 500,000 people in Auckland—about a quarter of the population—will be living in the units this bill is addressing. So it is very appropriate and very timely that we are addressing it today. It is 38 years since the original Act was passed in 1972. As previous speakers have said, this piece of legislation was begun under Labour, and its passage is continuing in a cooperative spirit under the current Government.

I will speak on a couple of areas in Part 2. A couple of the real improvements to the legislation come through the fact that a body corporate will own common property. That is important because it basically enables the body corporate to act on behalf of all the other unit holders and for the good of the development as a whole. This bill very much updates what was there before. It defines “common property”; it broadens the definition to include building elements that will affect more than just one unit, so, in a sense, the corporate owns the common property. What that means—and I think it is important—is that if an apartment block, for example, needs a new lift, a roof repair, or a piece of major reconstruction or change that will cost a large amount of money, there is a responsible body that is able to take care of that repair or redevelopment. That is very important, because otherwise it would fall on just one of the unit holders to have to do that, but this way the cost is shared and the benefits to the apartment block, in this case, are shared across all the units.

Another provision that is useful is that large staged or mixed-use title developments will be able to be layered. That means that if there is, for example, a multi-use type of development, we are able to have a smaller subsidiary group, which will be able to have its own body corporate to manage its own interests. It is very important for a mixed-use building—perhaps a car park, a shopping centre, and an apartment block together—that people who have a common interest in a particular aspect of the operation can exercise those rights. So it really does protect the rights of people, particularly people who have been badly affected individually by decisions that have been made, and it gives them a great deal of protection within the body corporate.

One other thing that I will touch on is the fact that body corporate decisions no longer need to be unanimous. I think that is a good provision. It eliminates the possibility of many of the decisions that need to be taken by the body corporate being held up by non-resident owners, who often object to something that will benefit all the people in a particular apartment block. The change to the legislation means that the great majority of the people can benefit. Thank you.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I am happy to take a call on Part 2.

Paul Quinn: Just one?

MOANA MACKEY: No, more than one, I tell Mr Quinn; the excitement is only just beginning.

Part 2 is a substantial part of the bill. The Social Services Committee certainly received a number of submissions on it, and, again, I would like to address some of the concerns that submitters raised, and give some of the reasons why the select committee dealt with the issues in the way it did.

The first issue concerned clauses 28 to 31, which cover ownership and utility interest. We had a large number of submissions on that issue. The ownership interest is the interest that is assigned, by a registered valuer, to the principal and accessory units in a unit title development, and it is based on a unit’s relative capital value. That ownership interest can be used to determine a range of things, such as the owners’ share of common property or their voting share in any unit title development—so it is obviously very important—as well as any contribution they make to the capital improvement fund.

The second part of that is the utility interest, which is also assigned to principal and accessory units, and in this particular area of interest the body corporate can vote to change the calculation of who pays what to a more fair and reasonable apportionment of the costs in that unit title development, and to assess unit owners’ contributions for operational and maintenance expenses. Under this piece of legislation both of those interests may be assessed at any time, as long as 3 years has elapsed since the last reassessment.

I think it is fair to say that most submitters were generally supportive of what the bill was attempting to achieve there, and they supported any moves to apportion operational and maintenance expenses more fairly amongst the owners of unit titles, as well as to have time periods provided for reassessment. Obviously, some submitters thought that 3 years was too long and some thought 3 years was too short, but in the end the select committee had to balance the need not to put too much burden on a body corporate to be continually reassessing the apportionment of those costs with the need for those reassessments to be updated regularly, because the costs would change over time.

Some submitters raised the question about whether it was fair that unit title owners whose units attracted a higher capital value should shoulder more of the expense, given that they benefited from having that higher capital value during resale. That was something we considered. Some submitters felt that there was not enough regulation of how that reassessment would be calculated. They wanted to see far more stringent rules put around how the reassessment could be calculated, and what kinds of tests had to be met to make sure that that was done fairly. Some people thought that after the deposit of the initial unit plan, no more assessment should be allowed—that once people had bought into a unit title development, and had been told what their costs would be, then those costs should not be allowed to be reassessed, because they were, essentially, the costs that people had bought into. Those were all the kinds of issues that the select committee had to consider under advisement.

We were given lots of examples where people felt that the legislation had been unfairly used. One of the main examples was about who had to pay for the maintenance of a roof. Should it be the people who own the top units, should people in the top units have to pay more and the people in the rest pay a little bit less, or should everyone pay the same? Well, clearly everyone benefits from having an adequate roof on the top of a unit title development, but those are the kinds of issues that bodies corporate will need to come to grips with, and we needed to provide a framework in which they can do that with the utmost flexibility, according to the wide range of unit title developments that exist in New Zealand. It is incredibly important that bodies corporate are able to apportion those expenses fairly, and it is fair to say that in the past some of them have felt that they have not been able to do that under the existing legislation. One of the examples that officials gave us was of the situation where there is a lift, an elevator, in a building. Should the people on the ground floor, who do not benefit from having that lift in the building, have to pay for its maintenance, or should everyone in the unit title development—

Hone Harawira: Just riveting, Moana; just riveting!

MOANA MACKEY: I know it is riveting. I say to Mr Harawira that he can always leave. He does not have to be here if I am boring him—again.

Paul Quinn: Don’t get personal.

MOANA MACKEY: I am not getting personal. He just said that he finds this boring; it is actually incredibly important legislation, I tell Mr Quinn, that affects hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders. It took the select committee a long time to go through the legislation technically, so if Mr Harawira finds it boring he can leave. He does not need to stay in the Chamber.

Hon Maryan Street: He’s done it before—gone walkabout.

MOANA MACKEY: He has done that before, as my colleague said; it is what he did on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. I believe that submitters who raised genuine concerns deserve to hear why we did not address some of the concerns they raised, and the reasons for that. That is why I am talking about their concerns, I tell Mr Harawira, but he can feel free to leave the Chamber at any point—or stand to make a contribution.

Those were the issues we had to weigh up, and I believe that the select committee came to a fair and reasonable position. We did not want to encumber bodies corporate with too much regulation and be overly prescriptive, because of the range of bodies corporate out there.

That leads me to clauses 61 to 66, which deal with the establishment and constitution of bodies corporate. At the moment a body corporate is automatically created once a unit plan is deposited, and the body corporate, as I have said, is responsible for a range of maintenance functions for the common property and for the whole development. A number of submitters from very small developments felt that because of their developments’ size, it was unfair that they should be made to form bodies corporate. That is something we considered at length, but the fact is that under this legislation we have to do it this way; otherwise, we undermine the whole thing. A body corporate is automatically created once a unit plan is deposited; if the developer selects to subdivide the land under unit title law, then that is just the way it is. People buy into a unit title development knowing that, and we on this side of the Chamber think that that is fair enough. A body corporate at any time later can decide to cancel its unit plan and re-subdivide the land, re-subdivide the buildings, and move to an alternative scheme. That is an option available to a body corporate later on. But we certainly considered the issues and concerns raised by members from very small developments.

One of the purposes of this legislation is to reduce the costs on bodies corporate overall, and they will be reduced. Members of small developments who had concerns about the costs being overly burdensome on them because there were so few people to shoulder those costs, can take heart that costs will be reduced because of this legislation. As well, developments that comprise nine or fewer units will not be required to form committees, and they may opt out of auditing requirements. So the legislation does allow certain compromises for small developments but, overall, if a developer deposits a unit plan and decides to create a subdivision under a unit title, then a body corporate will be formed, and even small developments will need to go alongside that.

The rights and responsibilities of unit holders are set out in clauses 67 to 71, and I alluded earlier to the fact that submitters wanted us to be clearer about the circumstances under which a body corporate was responsible and the circumstances under which an individual unit holder was responsible. So we amended clause 122 by adding a subclause that makes it clear under what circumstances the body corporate will be responsible for repairs and maintenance, and under what circumstances the unit holder will be responsible. Unit owners must repair and maintain their own units so that they do not cause harm to other unit holders in a development. In general, when the property is common, then it is the responsibility of the body corporate to recover money expended for repairs, except in the situation where a unit holder has caused damage to the property by his or her actions. In that case, that unit owner will be held responsible. That was not clear in the earlier legislation and, again, we heard a number of cases—a number of horror stories, actually—where the lack of clarity in the existing law had put a financial burden on people who clearly were not responsible for those elements.

Again, one of the most important aspects of clause 122 is that it makes it clear who is responsible for the expenditure that is carried out in a body corporate. I think we have managed to do that in a way that is flexible enough to encompass the range of body corporate sizes and structures that exist in New Zealand, without putting too unfair a regulatory burden on them, and without putting in place strict regulatory systems that some may find too inflexible to deal with in their own personal situation. As I said, we have amended the legislation to make it far clearer, particularly when there is that interaction between the unit owner and the body corporate about where exactly the responsibility lies for expenditure.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : I take a call on the particular clauses in Part 2 of the Unit Titles Bill that deal with bodies corporate—that is, clauses 80 and following. I address them because that issue was one of the inspirations, I suppose, for some of the amendments to this legislation in the first instance when it came to the previous Labour Government out of the review that had been called for by us in 2003. By the time the legislation emerged, and the review had been conducted in a comprehensive way and then considered carefully, it was very clear from the numbers of submissions and representations from people that the experience of those who were locked into body corporate arrangements—apartments in Auckland and elsewhere—had proliferated over the last 10 or so years. These people, having been locked into those body corporate arrangements, found themselves held hostage by the requirements for bodies corporate to make unanimous decisions, and the movement of everybody jointly in order to receive any benefit from joint decision-making.

The counting of votes is outlined in clauses 84 and 85. I do not need to rehearse the words on the page; suffice it to say that in circumstances where one party in the body corporate held out against improvements that were going to benefit everybody, because that party had to shoulder an equal portion of the financial burden of that improvement, then nobody could benefit because of that party’s holding out. These provisions in the bill we are currently debating are useful improvements. Although there are still protections around bodies corporate that relate to the number of people who must be present in order for a general meeting of the body corporate to be quorate, and that require that a majority must be voting in an ordinary resolution in the body corporate, one really important change is that special resolutions of a meeting of the body corporate do not require 100 percent agreement but may be passed by 75 percent of the eligible voters. Only the vast majority is now required, so no longer is it possible for people to be held hostage by recalcitrant members of a body corporate who do not see the collective good as something to which they should contribute. This is an improvement, and it is significant when we think of the numbers of apartment blocks that have proliferated in the last decade, in particular in Auckland. It now becomes essential that we have this kind of provision, which is a wee bit more flexible.

The other two clauses that I wish to refer to in this part are to do with the long-term maintenance plan and the long-term maintenance fund. The Minister who was in the chair earlier, the Acting Minister of Housing, referred to these clauses in his opening comments, and they are very sensible. They are important improvements because, again, they relate to the duration of somebody’s investment in one of these multi-unit apartment buildings.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) : I rise, along with my colleagues, to support the Unit Titles Bill, and will address my comments specifically to clause 122, but let me join my colleagues in making some general statements.

This bill is a long-overdue modernisation of the law in relation to unit titles. As David Shearer said, it is particularly so in Auckland where we are seeing huge growth in the number of people living not in the half-gallon, quarter-acre pavlova paradise, but in multi-unit dwellings, townhouses, and apartment buildings. This is a long-overdue change to the rules that will make it much easier for people to own property and live together in apartment blocks. It is not just about the convenience for people who are living in these dwellings, but we must make it easier and more desirable to live in multi-unit dwellings; we can develop our cities in medium-density and high-density ways.

I will comment, particularly, on the issue of leaky homes, which is something that has bedevilled this country for almost a decade. During the time of the previous Labour Government members on the opposite side of the House had a great deal of sport. They campaigned up and down the country raising expectations about how easy it would be to solve the problem of leaky homes. They generated very unrealistic expectations amongst owners of leaky homes, and the New Zealand public generally, that a National Government would solve the problem. A National Government would come and fix it, would remedy the problem, and would do it at the stroke of a pen. Well, I think the Acting Minister of Housing is finding that the problem is a lot more difficult and intractable than I imagine colleagues like Nick Smith thought when they were campaigning on this issue in Opposition. PricewaterhouseCoopers has estimated that the national cost of the leaky homes problem is in the region of $11.5 billion. Some estimates go as high as $20 billion, and up to two-thirds of that burden rests in Greater Auckland.

I will move now to make some direct comments about clause 122. Members will see that clause 122 is particularly relevant to the leaky homes problem. The deficiencies in the legislation governing multi-unit dwellings have created a judicial and bureaucratic nightmare for the owners of leaky homes. It has been enormously difficult for people to get a resolution of the problems of leaky homes because of the current rules, which are a nightmare. I am sure there would be very few members in this Parliament who have not been approached by members of the public in their electorates and elsewhere with heart-rending tales. Often they are people who live in multi-unit dwellings who have been unable to get their apartments or townhouses repaired because of disputes with other members of the body corporate.

If we put politics aside, I think we would all agree that we need to move beyond litigation with the leaky homes problem. We have to find solutions that are about fixing and repairing dwellings and helping people solve the problems. It is very clear that the courts have not been able to deliver timely and cost-effective results for New Zealanders affected by this problem. There will always be arguments about fairness because of the difficulty of apportioning liability amongst the different players, but we must get to the point of repairing the houses.

Clause 122 is, I think, an unambiguously good and constructive contribution to solving this problem. It takes a common-sense and pragmatic approach. The clause imposes an obligation on body corporates to maintain, repair, or renew all building elements and infrastructure in a building that relate to, or serve, more than one unit. It defines very broadly what a building element is and that it can include external and internal components, or any parts of a building and land that are necessary to the structural integrity of the building. Obviously, this can include roofs, balconies, decks, cladding, and other things, but it certainly includes the exterior of buildings. I think this is a common-sense resolution of an issue that has been at the crux of a heck of a lot of litigation in recent years. When there is a leaky building problem or a weathertight problem that affects, say, the roof or the exterior wall, but immediately affects only the unit title immediately adjacent to the leak, no longer will that person be solely responsible for fixing the problem, because it should be the responsibility of the body corporate.

There has been litigation in this area. In Young v Body Corporate 12006 the High Court took a pretty common-sense approach ruling that the body corporate would and should be allowed to contribute to costs. But in the Sunset Terraces case the High Court found the opposite and took a very literal and hard-line approach. The judge said that there was a clear distinction between individual responsibility for individual units and the body corporate being solely responsible for common property. So clause 122 really follows the approach that the High Court took in the Young case. I think this is a practical, fair, and pragmatic contribution to solving the problem of leaky homes. It is very worthwhile.

I will finish with a question that I would like to pose to the Acting Minister of Housing, and, hopefully, he will be able to take a call when he is back in the chair and answer it. The Home Owners and Buyers Association of New Zealand, which members will know is one of the most active advocates for the owners of leaky homes, posed the question that my colleague Maryan Street made some comments about, and that is to ask what amounts to a fair voting threshold. In the bill we see that special resolutions can be passed by a 75 percent majority of those in attendance, but for those in attendance the quorum can be as low as 25 percent of the unit title owners. By my calculation that means that a special resolution could be passed by as little as 19 percent of the unit title owners. I know that the bill needs to solve the problem of hold-outs, and I think that Maryan Street made the case for that very well, but my question is why 75 percent of 25 percent. What is the basis for that calculation? I would be interested to know whether the Minister has a view about whether 19 percent of the unit title owners is a sufficient number for the passing of a special resolution. Thank you very much.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I want to take a final call to address two areas that I think are important and need to be commented on. One area is the issue of long-term maintenance regimes, which the Acting Minister of Housing alluded to in his opening comments. This was an area where we received a large number of submissions and it was probably one of the more contentious parts of the Unit Titles Bill. I think it is incumbent on this Committee to explain to the members of the public why the Social Services Committee went down the route that it did.

This legislation originally had a mandatory long-term maintenance plan requirement and a mandatory requirement to create a fund to pay for that long-term maintenance plan. We received a large number of submissions that expressed support for the mandatory regime, and we received a large number of submissions that opposed it. Although all submitters were supportive of the concept of long-term planning and saving, the matter on which we had contention was about whether a body corporate should be forced to do that or left to its own devices to do it. The mischief, I guess, that led to these clauses being put into the legislation was that in the current situation the body corporate is not required to, and often does not plan in advance for the repairs and maintenance of parts of the building. Where there is significant capital development that needs to be done, it can mean a one-off charge to residents that is unaffordable, and that causes them enormous anxiety. We then have the situation that my colleague Maryan Street referred to, the situation when people hold out on their vote. We have changed that voting threshold, in relation to the times when someone will say “I know that the roof needs replacing.”, or “The outside needs repainting or re-cladding, but I simply cannot afford this cost; therefore I am going to vote against it.” One of the things we have tried to do is put in place a requirement to make bodies corporate think longer term, and allow a fund to be set up that saves for these developments that will have to happen, over time in the life of a building, so that unit owners are not confronted with large, one-off levies that they refuse to pay, cannot pay, or struggle to pay.

We looked at three main options for what we could do. The first option was that we could stick with what we were going to do, which was that the long-term maintenance plan and the fund would both be mandatory. The second option was that we would make the long-term maintenance plan mandatory, and the fund would also be mandatory but we would include an ability to opt out, by special resolution of the body corporate. The third option was that we would make both the maintenance plan and the fund mandatory, but both would have that opt-out provision by special resolution of the body corporate.

I think we went down the middle route, by saying that the bodies corporate should be required to have a long-term plan—we are talking about 10 years here. Bodies corporate should be required to plan long term, they should be required to have a fund, but we would allow bodies corporate to opt out by special resolution of the bodies corporate, if they felt that it was ridiculous that they were being required to save large amounts of money. Again, that comes back to the entire reason for this legislation, which is that the range of developments that are currently covered by unit titles law are so diverse that we need legislation that is flexible. I think that that was a very, very good decision by the select committee. We will require maintenance plans to be there, and we will require the funds to be there. But in those unit title developments where the owners decide, in fact, that they do not need to be saving so much, for whatever reason, or that they could do it in some other way, then they will be able to do that. I think we have found a good compromise there.

The only other issue I will raise in Part 2—and there were a large number of issues in this part, but I certainly do not want to delay the passage of this legislation—is an issue about easements that was raised with me. It was raised with me specifically by someone who was sitting there listening to the debate on unit titles, and heard no one mention easements. It was an issue of extreme importance to that person. So if the person is still out there listening to this debate on the Unit Titles Bill, then I say that I am going to talk about easements. I thank the officials for their advice on this matter. The question that I was asked—

Chris Tremain: They’ll be gripping their seat as we speak.

MOANA MACKEY: —I tell Mr Tremain that he can even get my Hansard later, and relive this experience—concerns the issue where private owners have an easement over a unit title development, and the only way they can get to their properties is through that easement. So they are not part of the unit title development; they do not have any rights on that body corporate, but they have an easement, and they are not able to get to their property without that easement being there.

Clauses 48 and 49 of the legislation deal with easements. They make it clear that the deposit of a unit plan has no effect on any easement or covenant to which the base land is subject, or on any easement or covenant that is pertinent to the base land. I have spoken to officials about that, and they have assured me that where an easement currently exists, that right would be upheld. I also asked them what would happen to an easement allowed on land not in a unit title development and the land subsequently went into unit title development. I am assured that even though that situation is not covered by this legislation specifically, it is covered by the Land Transfer Act. Again, the right of that easement is there, and permission would be needed from the people who relied on that easement in order for it to be taken away. I thank the officials for their advice on this matter, and with that I will sit down.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to Part 2 be agreed to.

• Amendments agreed to.

• Part 2 as amended agreed to.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) : I will take a short call on Part 3 of the Unit Titles Bill this evening. I was speaking, when I spoke last, about the 75 percent and 25 percent provisions—the change in the threshold—in terms of coming to an agreement with the body corporate. I was saying I thought that that was a good decision, in the sense that it allowed and enabled the body corporate to move forward and make decisions about property, without needing absolutely everybody to reach a unanimous decision, because essentially one owner could have held up the entire process. I acknowledge my colleague Phil Twyford’s question about why the threshold is set at 25 percent, and I hope that an answer on that may be forthcoming in the next little while. But at least in this modern day and age, that provision enables the great bulk of the people who are involved in the body corporate to be able to move on and make decisions about their particular property.

I guess the counter to that, though, is the need to ensure that the 25 percent of voters—and it may not be 25 percent; it may be much less than that—do have some sort of a process, ability, or avenue for redress, should they disagree with what is being brought forward. That is really what I would like to look at in the next couple of minutes. Basically, we need to have a robust process to ensure that those who disagree with the majority can apply to have their views heard through, preferably, mediation, but certainly the adjudication of the courts. There was some discussion on how this is to happen, remembering that for much of the last 38 years the High Court was the body that heard a lot of those disputes. Considerable work has gone into this by the officials, who have looked at a range of different options and different bodies that would be able to take care of disputes. They looked at the disputes tribunal, for example. It was considered not to be the best option. It was a possible option but it certainly was not the best option, because the disputes tribunal did not really offer any incentive to resolve disputes. In addition, many of its decisions were not necessarily very transparent, and were not published.

What was decided upon was that the Tenancy Tribunal would better fulfil the objective of establishing a more holistic and effective disputes resolution service. It would be quick, accessible, and credible, and it was proven. The Tenancy Tribunal has a very good record in resolving disputes from both landlords and tenants, and in this case could be extended to a body corporate. The Tenancy Tribunal has a demonstrated approach to dispute resolution. It has information, education, and mediation services, etc. The process is also very easy to understand and follow, particularly as it is nearly always the case that the people who take their cases to the Tenancy Tribunal are not lawyers, but are people who seek good and fair redress to a problem that they have. I think that that was a good decision. We are looking at the Tenancy Tribunal in the first instance taking the role of mediating any disputes, particularly—as I was saying before—those between the 75 percent majority and the 25 percent who perhaps disagree, and enable that to go forward in a way that will be to the benefit, and certainly to the satisfaction, of all concerned.

I once again acknowledge the hard work of the officials on this very technical legislation and, once again, the cooperation that has occurred between members on both sides of the House, both during the term of the previous Government and into that of this Government, as well. I acknowledge Mr Phil Heatley, who brought this legislation to Parliament just a few weeks ago.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to Part 3 be agreed to.

• Amendments agreed to.

• Part 3 as amended agreed to.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I will take a short call on Part 4 of the Unit Titles Bill. It is about disputes resolution. I want to comment on the decision of the Social Services Committee in terms of whether the Tenancy Tribunal, the High Court, or the District Court would be the appropriate forum for disputes resolution. Clauses 155 to 159 make clear that this bill extends jurisdiction for non - title related disputes—that is an important distinction—under $50,000 to the Tenancy Tribunal. That is an important change. Currently, those disputes would have to go to court, which can incur far greater cost because court lawyers are involved, whereas that is not the case at the Tenancy Tribunal. The Tenancy Tribunal can also hear cases far more quickly.

The primary concern that submitters raised was that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have the experience in unit title law to be able to adequately fulfil that function. That was certainly something that the previous Government considered and something that the current Government has considered. We are assured by officials that the very competent individuals who manage and run the Tenancy Tribunal will be well trained and well briefed in this law so that they will be able to pick up that role. And it does make sense; the Tenancy Tribunal is a very efficient forum. It is able to come to agreement on disputes involving lesser amounts of money far more easily than the courts. So non-title related matters under $50,000 will go to the Tenancy Tribunal. The District Court will hear any matters transferred from adjudication, any appeals on decisions that are made by the Tenancy Tribunal, and any claims with a value of between $50,000 and $200,000.

In what I think is another good move, the District Court will replace the High Court as the court of first instance. That is another important move to make dispute resolution much faster and far less costly.

The High Court will now retain jurisdiction only over title issues. To clarify, title issues are disputes that relate to the title of the land—for example, over redevelopment, cancellation of a unit plan, or conversion to unit title tenure. Those disputes will remain with the High Court, as will any claims with a value of over $200,000. Those are very, very good moves, which will make it far easier to resolve disputes far more quickly.

I acknowledge concerns raised by submitters who did not feel that the Tenancy Tribunal would have the skills to carry out this function. I feel confident from the assurance that we were given about the training those individuals will receive that that will not be the case. They will be adequately trained. I am sure that in the long-run members of the public will see the overwhelming advantage in terms of both the speed of resolution and the cost of resolution in transferring that amount of work to the Tenancy Tribunal, and in making the District Court the court of first instance instead of the High Court.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to Part 4 be agreed to.

• Amendments agreed to.

• Part 4 as amended agreed to.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : Members will have to excuse me, but I have screeds and screeds of paper in front of me. Because the Opposition wants to facilitate the passage of this legislation as quickly as possible, I am struggling to find where I am up to in my notes.

Chris Tremain: Page 159.

MOANA MACKEY: I thank Mr Tremain very much. We are on to the general provisions. The only issue in this part that I want to talk about is minority relief.

Chris Tremain: Just here to help.

MOANA MACKEY: Oh, Mr Tremain is just here to help; I thank him very much.

The minority relief provisions in the Unit Titles Bill are very important, and I want particularly to refer to the issue that my colleague Phil Twyford raised earlier, which had been raised by the Home Owners and Buyers Association of New Zealand. The association was concerned that when we have a quorum of only 25 percent, and now 75 percent of voters can make a decision, that means that 19 percent of unit title holders will effectively be making a decision. This point was picked up by the Social Services Committee. It is a shift in power from the minority, who in the past were able to hold up any changes, to the majority. Because of that, there are minority relief provisions in this legislation. It also became apparent, when we were having our discussions, that when we have small developments there may need to be provisions for majority relief, as well.

We have attempted in this bill to provide clarity around the disputes processes that minority shareholders can rely on if they feel they have been hard-done-by, or that a decision has been made unfairly. We have added a new subsection to the provision currently in section 42 of the Unit Titles Act, to allow for majority relief as well in the case where we have a small development of, for example, three owners. In that case the 75 percent threshold starts to become very, very few people indeed. The new subsection allows for a decision to be made where 65 percent of the owners agree, as opposed to 75 percent. In the case of a unit title development that has three units, in order to have 75 percent agreement we would have to have 100 percent agreement, which is certainly not what we intended. That majority relief now drops that down to 65 percent.

We also had to address issues around time-share developments and issues that were raised by retirement village associations. We thought we had done this in the select committee. We were then contacted by the Retirement Villages Association, which told us that it was worried that we had not done this and that there was still too much overlap with its own legislation. We apologise for that. The select committee thought it had managed to completely separate out the provisions of the two Acts. Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson makes the changes to ensure that what the select committee and this Parliament had intended does in fact happen. Again, I say particularly to those submitters who were really concerned about the drop in the threshold for making decisions from 100 percent to 75 percent of owners, and about what that might mean in terms of the rights of a minority to voice their concerns, that they need to look at the provisions for minority relief set out in clauses 191 to 195 of the bill. I think we have struck a good balance.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to Part 5 be agreed to.

• Amendments agreed to.

• Part 5 as amended agreed to.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I am happy to take a call on the title and commencement of the Unit Titles Bill. Certainly, the Labour Opposition is keen to see this legislation progressed as quickly as possible. The commencement cannot come soon enough, as far as we are concerned. However, I would make the point that this bill was reported back from the Social Services Committee some time ago.

Given this legislation’s importance, it is disappointing that it has taken as long as this for it to come back to the House. In fact, we moved through this legislation with utmost haste at the select committee. We made sure we considered it properly, but we were very, very mindful that we needed to get the bill back to the House as quickly as possible. It is disappointing that it has now sat on the Order Paper and not been progressed. Certainly, in terms of the commencement, we hope that we will be debating the third reading of this bill next week, and that it will not disappear into the ether again, like it did after the select committee deliberations and after its second reading.

I can think of no better title for this bill than the Unit Titles Bill. I think that that sums it up. This legislation will update a very important area of our law, and one that has not been updated for a very, very long time. The bill clarifies and streamlines the laws around unit title development. It will make it easier for body corporates to know exactly what they need to do, and it will make it easier for them to plan for what they need to do. The bill should be progressed as quickly as possible.

• Clause 1 agreed to.

• Clause 2 agreed to.

• Bill reported with amendment.

• Report adopted.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) : It is a pleasure to continue my call on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill tonight. The bill is long overdue to be modernised in order to meet the needs of our current environment. The original Act came in 23 years ago, and the residential tenancies market has undergone significant change in that period. Both landlords and tenants have been keenly awaiting reform to the tenancy laws since the previous Labour Government commenced a drawn-out, long-winded review in 2004. This bill is important because it will affect one-third of New Zealand households. One-third of New Zealanders live in rented accommodation. Private rental housing has a significant impact on housing in New Zealand and social and economic outcomes much more than it did when the original legislation came before the House in 1986.

A review of the Act commenced in 2004 and identified five primary issues with the current Act: insufficient compliance enforcement and dispute resolution; lack of knowledge about landlord and tenant rights and obligations; mixed capacity to manage properties and tenants; variable standards of rental housing; and lack of stable tenure for longer-term tenants. Those were the five primary issues identified by a review of the original legislation.

Changes to the Residential Tenancies Act were proposed by the previous Government as early as 2004, but no tangible progress was ever made. In fact, the sector has been left in limbo for a very long time. This Government is focused on progressing modifications to the legislation in order to make a difference, to make a change, and to deliver on our promises. We want to give certainty to a sector that has been waiting for years for amendments to be made to the Residential Tenancies Act. The changes will make a difference to many people. Those people are generally our most vulnerable people; many of our most vulnerable are renting houses or flats, and trying to get ahead week by week.

This Government wants to see landlords able to manage their investment portfolios in a way that optimises their return, and enables them to be responsive to demands, responsive to the environment that they are in, and responsive to the changes in our economy. But the Government also wants to see tenants have access to suitable rental accommodation, and able to make informed choices about where they live, how long they live there, and what they are paying for. This legislation has to work for both our tenants and our landlords so that both parties can come together to form a renting environment that is healthy for all. We want to see a rental market that is efficient, responsive, and well informed. This bill goes a long way to delivering that vision.

One of the main initiatives in the bill is to provide protections for vulnerable tenants who live in boarding houses. They are currently not covered by the tenancy legislation. The most vulnerable tenants had fallen into a void. This bill brings boarding-house tenancies under the umbrella so that the minimum rights and obligations of people living in boarding-house accommodation are clear, adequate, and readily enforceable.

I thank the officials and the submitters who came forward during the select committee process. We had many, many submissions from many groups, individuals, and non-governmental organisations, and from landlords in the sector as well. They all added considerable depth and knowledge to what we learnt in the Social Services Committee, and because of that, many changes were made to the initial legislation to make it a much better bill for all—landlords and tenants alike. This has been a short call. Thank you very much.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I am happy to stand and finally take a call on the second reading of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. The chair of the Social Services Committee, Katrina Shanks, did a very good job of chairing the committee, and this is very interesting legislation. I think all members of the committee worked particularly well together.

But this was another bill that had to pass very quickly through the select committee. We reported back in September last year, and it is now nearing the end of March. So Katrina Shanks can talk about delays in getting this bill passed, but the fact is that we have sat here and passed ridiculously useless legislation while this very, very important legislation has languished on the Order Paper. I particularly took offence that boarding-house tenants, who were finally being given tenancy protection under this legislation, had to wait over the Christmas break for that protection to be extended to them. I also mention the fact that during the Rugby Sevens tournament that was held here in Wellington in February, boarding-house tenants were evicted so that landlords could put people who had come to the sevens in those boarding houses. Had we passed this legislation before Christmas, that may not have happened. It is hard to say; the protections we put in place for the boarding-house tenants are not as extensive as they are for other rental tenants.

I was not going to say this, until the member Katrina Shanks got up and extensively criticised Labour for not passing this legislation fast enough: it should have been passed last year. Labour started the work on this legislation. It is important legislation.

Katrina Shanks: In 2004.

MOANA MACKEY: Labour does not work with shoddy legislation, I say to Ms Shanks. When we redraft a major piece of legislation that affects some of our most vulnerable families, we want to do it properly—and we did. That is why this legislation will pass today in the House with 100 percent support. The time was taken to do it properly, and I make absolutely no apologies for that.

This bill was introduced by Labour. The Government took it and made changes to it that, in Labour’s view, have worsened the legislation. But overall, there is no doubt that it is a major improvement on the status quo. That is why Labour will be supporting it, and why we will be moving Supplementary Order Papers in the Committee stage in an attempt to bring it back to where it was when we introduced it, in terms of fairness.

I will touch on a few areas that were probably the most contentious at the Social Services Committee. The first was the issue of representation at the Tenancy Tribunal. The original Labour bill allowed for advocates to be used in the Tenancy Tribunal, particularly with tenants who do not understand the process, are uncomfortable with it, may have English as a second language, or may simply be terrified of the process and not understand their rights. It may actually speed the process up to have someone there with them who can explain the rules, what can and cannot be litigated in the Tenancy Tribunal, and to be there as a support person, particularly where people are up against a professional tenancy manager or Housing New Zealand. During the submissions we heard cases from people who had to go up against Housing New Zealand who could hardly be considered to be laypersons in respect of the Tenancy Tribunal.

What this bill does is make it even worse. Not only does it remove the right for those tenants’ advocates to be in the tribunal, but also it raises the monetary threshold so the automatic right to be represented kicks in from $3,000 to $6,000. Although that might not seem like a lot of money to some people, to many of our most vulnerable people, particularly in boarding houses, most of their issues will be less than $3,000 or $6,000 worth, because often they own nothing. They want to be represented at the Tenancy Tribunal by someone who has the ability to help them ensure that the process is fair. Although we certainly appreciate that the tribunal was established to provide low costs and expeditious resolution of disputes, the desire for speedy results should not overrule the right of a tenant to have a fair hearing. We also understand that there is a concern that if a professional or even a lay advocate is brought in on one side, the other side might reciprocate, and it starts building up. That ignores the reality that professional tenancy managers and Housing New Zealand tenancy managers are already involved in this area. They are professionals and they know what they are doing. It is an unfair balance. We simply think that the playing field should be level.

The second issue is letting fees. Currently, real estate agents have an unfair advantage over property management companies, because real estate agents can charge tenants a letting fee but property managers cannot. We certainly agree that that is unfair. This bill balances that out by stating that both can charge a letting fee. Labour believes that we should balance it out by saying neither of them can charge a letting fee to tenants. Certainly, the property managers we spoke to just wanted a level playing field. They did not want to charge tenants for the letting fee. It was not about income; it was just about getting equality. The reality is that a letting fee on top of a bond is a huge barrier for people who are trying to get into a tenancy. We do not believe that tenants should be charged a letting fee where a landlord has engaged a tenancy service in order to help them fill a tenancy. We were told that they are acting for the tenant, because the tenant is the one who is getting the help. We made the comparison to real estate fees where the person who is selling the house is always the one who pays the fee, regardless of whether there is a strong housing market or a weak housing market. They are the ones putting their property out there. They will always get charged the fee no matter what the demand is from buyers. We disagree with that measure very, very strongly, given the huge financial barrier that it provides.

We see it even more at the moment. If we look at studies of homeless families who have gone into a housing crisis, we see that one of the hardest things about getting back into housing is all the upfront costs—moving all their things, payment of bonds, and letting fees. If we can remove that letting fee, that is one small barrier that we are taking away for tenants who are trying to get into a tenancy.

This bill removes the proposed requirement for a landlord to reveal that a cleansing order had been held on, for example, a P house. I have received correspondence from people who are actually really concerned about that. I have asked for some information from local government experts. The Social Services Committee was told that cleansing orders are automatically done by the council, they have to meet certain requirements, and then the order is given showing that there is no more danger. The landlords are asking why they should have to tell people about that if there is no more danger. I have been told that there are no standards for them. They are done on an ad hoc basis, and people are genuinely concerned that there may be cleanups that have not been done up to standard. Certainly, that is something that I think we need to look at in the Committee stage. Maybe the select committee was not given the full information about that particular clause in the legislation.

Finally, I will come to the issue of boarding houses. That is probably the most important part of the legislation. I think it is such a shame that it has taken so long for us to debate this in the House at the second reading. I sincerely hope that we will have the Committee stage and third reading next week so we can finally get this legislation passed, because we need to bring boarding-house tenants under the protection of this law. I read the Minister’s first reading speech, and I was concerned that he was under the impression this would solve all the issues for boarding-house tenants. That is not true. This will provide tenancy protection for boarding-house tenants. It does nothing about the state of the boarding houses and the standards that boarding-house owners are required to keep their properties up to.

During the select committee we had a submission from the New Zealand Coalition to End Homelessness. I congratulate the coalition on its inaugural AGM, which I went to in Auckland this morning. Coalition members put an offer out to select committee members to come with them and have a look at boarding houses in Wellington. My colleague Grant Robertson and I took them up on that offer. I certainly hope that other members did, as well. It really opened my eyes to some of the absolutely disgusting properties that are out there on the boarding-house market at the moment. Frankly, it kept me awake at night. It is truly appalling. We saw some of that in an exposé about boarding houses in Auckland. I reiterate to members that this bill deals only with tenancy protections. I think there will be some who argue that we did not go far enough in this legislation. Maybe we will need to come back and address that down the track. Maybe we need to provide longer times, because boarding-house tenants tend to be more transient and the tenancies are shorter. Therefore, the protections under this law are not the same for them as for those who have a regular tenancy. We may need to revisit that in the future. I certainly would not rule that out, but I hope we managed to address it well enough here. The fact is that this is only part of the problem; there is a whole lot more that needs to be done in the areas of boarding houses and homelessness generally.

Again, I urge members of the Social Services Committee to see that we need a select committee inquiry into the pathways into homelessness in New Zealand. Every single sector group out there is calling for it. It is not something that should be done by Housing New Zealand, because of the huge amount of distrust that exists between Housing New Zealand and some of those people who have had negative experiences. A select committee inquiry would do an awful lot of good in that area. The sector is crying out for it, and I do not understand why members of the Government, which holds the majority on that committee, keep blocking a select committee inquiry. I urge them to support it and to rapidly move this legislation through the House.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) : First, I take this opportunity to join with the rest of the House in acknowledging the passing away of Lady Raihā Māhuta. Lady Raihā was well known in Māngere and was deeply respected for her advocacy for Māori and for Tainui. She was also known particularly to the kaumātua and kuia of Te Puea Marae. On behalf of the people of Māngere, I pass on my sympathies and condolences to the people of Tainui. As we say in Samoa, “Ia manuia lau malaga”,which is to say “Farewell, and may you have a safe journey beyond the veil.” I do that because in Te Puea Marae there is housing for the elderly. That is organised by one of the local community organisations that work very closely with the marae, in recognition that there is a growing population of Māori as well as Pacific people who need good-quality, warm housing, particularly in winter. There is a group of Māori and Pacific people who will be affected by the changes that the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill brings about.

Labour is supporting this bill, and we are doing so because our past Ministers of housing have done significant work on the bill, with the intention that the rights and obligations of both the landlord and tenants are clarified, and that there is some balance in this process. The intention is also to enable landlords to manage their properties more effectively and take responsibility for them.

However, I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague Moana Mackey, Labour’s spokesperson on housing, when she highlights the significant changes that this Government has introduced into this bill—changes, we would argue, that the Government needs to reconsider. Appropriately, Moana will be making recommendations during the Committee stage that will highlight the need for the Government to listen to ordinary tenants who will be affected by those changes.

Some of the background that I want to highlight will give an indication to the House of the hardship that certain clauses will cause for vulnerable tenants. For example, the Government recently announced its welfare reform policy, which stereotypes beneficiaries as not wanting to work. In reality, many of those beneficiaries are looking for work. I know that in Māngere people consistently come into the office and line up in order to try to find appropriate housing. The fact of the matter is that housing in the private sector is generally unaffordable, particularly if someone is on a low income. Also, Housing New Zealand Corporation is probably one of the biggest landlords in Māngere and other parts of Manukau City, so the letting fee that the Government has now decided to put back into the legislation will have a detrimental impact on many of those vulnerable communities.

The Government says the issue of letting fees is complex and difficult. Instead of focusing on how the legislation will impact on vulnerable communities, the Government says: “Let’s allow all property managers and real estate agents to charge a fee.” It argues that this will encourage competition, but we do not accept that argument. In fact, the members of the select committee who heard submissions on this issue believe that “… allowing all letting agents to charge letting fees …” would “… result in reduced choice of housing for people unable or unwilling to pay a letting fee,”.

Our position is that we support removing the unfair advantage that real estate agents have over property management companies whereby real estate agents can charge tenants a letting fee but property managers cannot. We believe that removing that letting fee would fairly allow an equal economic environment, and it would probably remove the barriers to some tenants finding appropriate accommodation. Prohibiting that letting fee would reduce the need for benefit advances to cover letting fees for some families, especially in light of recent Government reforms to the welfare system, which may disadvantage sole parents. It will also reduce pressures on social housing from tenants who can afford private sector tenancy costs but not the costs of bond and letting fees, as my colleague Moana Mackey has mentioned.

I emphasise that removing the letting fee ensures that all property managers can compete on an even playing field with real estate agents. As the property management companies submitted, they were primarily motivated by the concerns about anti-competition in the market. So their view was that it should be removed or put in place for all. I would have thought that a Government that talks about wanting to look after the vulnerable and wanting to support those in need would look at removing it, but, instead, it put it back in.

The further issue I raise concerns boarding houses and vulnerable tenants. In my electorate there are several boarding houses. We understand from those who made submissions that one of the ongoing issues that proprietors of boarding houses have to cope with is boarders with mental health issues. Those people also suffer disproportionately if evicted. So it is our desire that every effort be made to resolve a situation first, with eviction being used only as a last resort. We heard from social organisations that said it was probably preferable for proprietors to be able to make connections with them, as they can help to deal with situations where people with mental health disabilities may pose a risk to others. But the point is that the eviction of people with mental health disabilities should be the last resort. We want to be able to provide some support for that group in our community.

Moana Mackey has raised the other issue I want to emphasise, and it has to do with representation at the Tenancy Tribunal. Clause 63 amends section 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act, which sets out the circumstances in which a party may be represented by counsel or by the Tenancy Tribunal. With clause 63, the Government seeks to raise the monetary threshold from $3,000 to $6,000, in terms of the amount involved in a dispute, before one has the right to be represented by a lay representative or counsel. Most of the people who will take up grievances with the Tenancy Tribunal are dealing with matters where less than $3,000 is in dispute. We want to see this threshold removed altogether or lowered for the sake of vulnerable tenants. We appreciate the fact that the tribunal was established to provide a low-cost and expedient resolution of disputes, but we do not believe that that should override the right for many vulnerable tenants to have a fair hearing. Some of those tenants will not be comfortable, unlike you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and others, to sit in a tribunal situation. Many of them have never experienced that.

So again I emphasise that if this Government is genuine about helping vulnerable people, then it needs to look seriously at making the appropriate amendments to the bill rather than putting more pressure on vulnerable workers, as it has done with the more recent reforms to the welfare system.

GARETH HUGHES (Green) : Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. As a member who is a tenant and a renter, I am happy to take a call on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. The bill updates the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the Greens will be voting in support of it, but we lament the missed opportunity to increase rights for the more than 1 million tenants who reside in New Zealand.

We support many of the minor changes in this bill to clarify existing law: for example, clarifying provisions relating to address for service of documents relating to the tenancy, clarifying that landlords must give a reason for terminating a periodic tenancy with less than 90 days’ notice, clarifying that an agreement for sale and purchase must be unconditional before a landlord can give 42 days’ notice, and requiring a landlord who is overseas for more than 21 days to appoint an agent.

As the youngest member in this House, born only 5 years before the Residential Tenancies Act came into effect, I acknowledge that New Zealand’s housing situation has changed substantially since that time. Since 1986 the proportion of New Zealanders renting their homes has gone up. Fewer young people are flatting away from home, and more older people with families and children are renting. Homeownership rates have declined to 67 percent, from a high of 74 percent in 1991, and they are predicted to drop further still to 62 percent by 2016.

New Zealand has about 450,000 rental properties housing a third of our population. According to the 2006 census one in three households—that is, 33 percent—do not own the house they live in. That figure was up from 32 percent in 2001 and 29 percent in 1996. More and more Kiwis are renting because, for many, purchasing a house is a distant and impossible dream. Housing affordability is a major issue in New Zealand, with close to one in three New Zealanders now spending 30 percent or more of their disposable income on housing.

Demographia’s 2009 international housing affordability survey found that the median house price in New Zealand is 5.7 times the median household income, ranking New Zealand in the category of “severely unaffordable”, with only Australia worse, at 6.0. The bright side, of course, is that at least we are catching up with Australia in one respect! As I pointed out to the House last night during the debate on the Infrastructure Bill, this is an especially pertinent issue for people of my generation. People of my generation see homeownership as an almost impossible dream. It is a struggle for people who come out of university or other tertiary education encumbered by debt. They are conscious they are entering a housing market that has grown rapidly over the last decade, mostly to the benefit of baby boomers or those already on the property ladder, and it has not been slowed by sensible moves, such as a capital gains tax—not on the family home—or reviewing the tax rules around loss attributing qualifying companies.

Loss attributing qualifying companies allow people to offset their losses on their investment properties against personal income tax. This means that young people trying to get into the housing market are effectively subsidising the tax offsets of those buying investment properties using loss attributing qualifying companies. This is both wrong and pernicious. We cannot rely on the recession, as Moana pointed out, to make housing more affordable. We need to be more proactive as legislators and regulators. The trend towards less affordable housing will see the number of tenants increase, and that makes the changes discussed here today in this House as relevant and as important as ever.

This bill is an important amendment bill to update the original 1986 legislation. It is important that we strike the right balance between the rights of landlords and the rights of tenants. I would like to take a few minutes to look at a few issues that the Greens have with this bill. I would like to look at the termination of tenancy for boarding-house tenants, the issue of letting fees, the unfortunate oversight of not addressing the termination of a residential tenancy following the death of the tenant, legal representation issues, and exemptions for people who reside in camping grounds, backpackers hostels, and other such places.

I look first at the termination of tenancies in boarding houses. The security of tenure issues for boarding-house residents that we had concerns about in the earlier stages have been improved somewhat by the select committee, but not to the extent that we would have liked to see. It is still better, however, than the current situation where boarding-house residents have no security of tenure whatsoever.

New section 66U, inserted by clause 47, sets out when landlords of boarding houses may terminate a tenancy: immediately, on 48 hours’ notice, on 14 days’ notice, or on 28 days’ notice. It is good that the select committee recommended amending the criteria to allow 10 days’ consecutive notice that rent is in arrears before giving a tenant 48 hours’ notice of termination, where the tenant’s rent is more than 7 days in arrears. Tenants can face legitimate reasons for being in arrears, often through no fault of their own. Many boarding-house tenants receive benefits from the State and, as Sue Bradford recorded in the first reading debate, often this is because of problems caused by Work and Income rather than by the beneficiary himself or herself, and such issues take time to work out. In the case of boarding-house tenants who are also mental health clients, we concur with Labour’s call for an expectation that proprietors will take the opportunity to refer such individuals to the appropriate mental health services if an eviction is being contemplated. We support the provision of a list of services in each area, which should be made available to the proprietors of boarding houses so that they may refer such people to those services before the eviction is effected.

I turn to letting fees. This bill proposes to remedy the anomaly of real estate agents being able to charge letting fees although property management companies cannot, by allowing both to do so. Letting fees on top of a bond, rent in advance, and other moving costs can be a significant barrier to beneficiaries, students, and other people on low incomes needing accommodation. The Green Party supports prohibiting letting fees—full stop.

Provisions in the bill regarding the termination of a residential tenancy following the death of the tenant do nothing to improve the current situation when a caregiver relative is suddenly evicted from his or her home following the death of the family member for whom the caregiver has been caring. Relatives of the tenant living with the tenant should at least have some protection of tenure when the tenant dies. This was one of our original concerns about the bill, and it is unfortunate that it has not been addressed properly by the select committee.

The bill raises from $3,000 to $6,000 the monetary threshold for the right to legal representation in the Tenancy Tribunal. This continues the current unfair provision that permits a corporate landlord to be otherwise represented by an experienced tenancy manager while the tenant, who often knows little about tenancy law and may well have English as a second language, is forced to represent himself or herself. This places many tenants at an unfair disadvantage at Tenancy Tribunal proceedings and is an example of where the bill could strike a fair balance, but fails to. There is a provision in section 93(3)(b) that permits representation where there is significant disparity between the parties affecting their ability to represent their respective cases. But the problem is that the disparity and the ability of the parties to represent their cases may not become apparent until a case has been partly heard. The Green Party was advised by the Tenants Protection Association about this a while ago and we were told that adjudicators almost never invite a tenant who is disadvantaged in that regard to obtain representation. This was one of our concerns with the original bill and is also noted in Labour’s minority report. This is probably also a good time to raise the excellent, and also lacking, provision in this bill. The Citizens Advice Bureau recommended that plain-English statements of tenant rights be adopted as part of all tenancy agreements and displayed prominently in boarding houses.

My last point is that the homelessness survey is due to come out in June and I predict, based on Australian similarities, that between 20,000 and 30,000 Kiwis will be officially classed as homeless. Many of these people reside in non-traditional housing forms, such as caravan grounds and backpackers’ hostels. This bill fails to address the fact of life in 21st century New Zealand that many Kiwis do not live under stable tenancy criteria. The Citizens Advice Bureau gave some terrible examples whereby non-formal tenants have been abused by the system. I concur with Moana Mackey that we need a select committee inquiry into homelessness. This already occurs in countries such as England and Wales, and many states of Australia. It is a good example of where a much-needed updating of this 1980s Act does not go far enough to reflect the facts on the ground, in the real world.

In summary, the main criticisms that we raised in the first reading debate were over issues that this bill does not address adequately. However, following the changes made by the Social Services Committee—some positive, some negative—we still think it remains the case for the Green Party, on the balance of evidence, to support this bill. Kia ora.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I congratulate Katrina Shanks on her chairmanship of the Social Services Committee. I also congratulate the other members of the committee, who interacted well with each other. In particular, I would like to congratulate Moana Mackey on the research she has done and the contribution she has made to this debate.

The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill adequately addresses a number of issues that have been raised over the last few years about deficiencies in the Act, and tackles some new problems, too. An example is the contamination of premises though the manufacturer of methamphetamine. The bill requires landlords to declare that contamination has been detected in a house, and to have it cleaned prior to a tenant taking up residency. I recently had a situation in my electorate of a family becoming quite ill as a result of living in a house that had not been cleaned because the contamination had not been discovered.

The bill provides the ability to take matters before the Tenancy Tribunal to argue strongly for it to extend provisions and entitlements to tenants that had not previously been available to them, and to hold landlords to account on behalf of tenants who are vulnerable. That is a good measure.

I commend the bill to the House.

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 450,000 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.