Consultation on proposed RTA changes

[artemis]

Another set of very pointed questions in the House from Ms Collins today on the current consultations. Link to transcript below.

This answer from Mr Twyford indicates better ways are to be found to get rid of 'rogue tenants' faster, and that 90 day notices are apparently only used for these 'rogue tenants'. La la land.

Hon Judith Collins: Will proposals to end no-cause terminations and end fixed-term agreements make it almost impossible for a landlord to move on from a difficult tenant?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, because we've made it very clear. We've heard landlords tell us that many of them rely on no-cause, 90-day terminations to get rid of rogue tenants and we've said to landlords in meetings all around the country that while we want to get rid of 90-day terminations because we don't believe in the 21st century it's justifiable for one party to be able to cancel a contract for something as important as someone's home without having to give any kind of justification, if we're going to do that, then we're going to try our best to find new ways that landlords can get rid of rogue tenants in a practical and timely way.

And this patsy question which says there are only 6,000 rentals in New Zealand, followed by blaming landlords for 40,000 children hospitalised every year. No wonder if they are crammed in to 2,000 homes. Perhaps that is the expected number of rentals as landlords exit the market.

Mr Twyford should have been better prepared since it was a patsy he knew was coming. Signs of stress?

Kieran McAnulty: What other changes is the Government making to ensure families have warm, dry, and secure rental homes?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we know that rental homes are more likely to be older and of poorer quality than owner-occupied homes. Approximately 2,000, or more than one-third, of rental properties have no insulation. Many are cold, damp, and mouldy, and cause respiratory illness, toxic reactions, and allergies that see more than 40,000 children bundled off to hospital every year. We do not accept that this is OK in the 21st century. The healthy homes guarantee standards, which we are now consulting on, will set minimum standards to ensure that families in this country have warm, dry homes.

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/HansS_20181018_050850000/2-question-no-2-housing-and-urban-development

[Perry]

Liar, Liar, Liar

The healthy homes guarantee standards . . . will . . . ensure that families in this country have warm, dry homes.

Not if those families own their own homes, they won't.

You're a bare-faced liar, Twitford and it's well past time people nailed you on that.

[naveengoel]

Landlords/Investors- Protest the proposed change to Residential Tenancies Act

I, on behalf of 60 persons have made detailed ( 35 pages) against the proposed reform of the Residential Tenancies Act.

I am sure you would agree that the proposed reform is not in public interest or in the interests of Landlords or tenants. As I have shown in my submissions, based on empirical evidence in other countries and views of renowned economists including Nobel laurates, this kind of rent control only :

1. Increases housing shortages.
2. Increases rents
3. Deteriorates the quality of housing stock.
4. Results in Non-optimal utilisation of housing ( “Old Lady Effect”)
5. Decreases labour mobility and hence decreases productivity, leads to poorer quality of life.
6. Results in more discrimination and nepotism.
7. Increases litigation.
8. Punishes the low quality tenants the most as they find it hardest to get properties on rent.

All members should protest to MBIE by 21 October. I am happy to email my submissions to anyone who wants but cant figure out how to pst such detailed submissions on this forum

[Nick G]

Twyford was notably the only speaker at the conference to not field questions.

[Keys]

Why did you post this a couple of days before the close off? And, you have only just joined. Make another 9 posts and you will be able to put a URL on here with a link to your could based submission. Thanks for your effort though.

[AlFa]

1. Increases housing shortages.

Unlikely. Mom&Dad investors will sell up to large professional landlords

1. Increases rents

It's good thing for a business

1. Deteriorates the quality of housing stock.

How's that? Higher rent will compensate any increased maintenance

1. Results in Non-optimal utilisation of housing ( “Old Lady Effect”)

There's no rent control so far

1. Decreases labour mobility and hence decreases productivity, leads to poorer quality of life.

Can you elaborate?

1. Results in more discrimination and nepotism.

Sorry I'm starting to lose you here. If I own 50 properties where would I find 50 relatives to fill them and main question - why would I do this?

1. Increases litigation.

TT as is screwed towards tenant. Don't see it's changing

1. Punishes the low quality tenants the most as they find it hardest to get properties on rent.

Phil will host them (or nearby carpark which is likely) so why you care?

[Perry]

I, . . . this kind of rent control

I missed that bit. Where is there mention of rent controls?

[Perry]

One thing that strikes me as a bit odd is the lack of counter-points from National. I know they're a bit distracted at the moment and Collins has asked Dhil Twitford a few questions in parliament, but any long, loud vocal efforts to show they're opposed have not got any significant attention that I've seen.

It's also a shame that the NZPIF seem so wimp-like in the face of the changes. It's been suggested herein that all LLs issue 90 day notices or some other type of 'strike' action. It worked for teachers and nurses. Such a call to militancy would seem a good way to raise its profile and perhaps attract more members to its fold? There's often talk of 'behind the scenes,' but there's an old adage that goes: don't tell me how busy you are - show me what you've achieved.

[artemis]

One thing that strikes me as a bit odd is the lack of counter-points from National. I know they're a bit distracted at the moment and Collins has asked Dhil Twitford a few questions in parliament, but any long, loud vocal efforts to show they're opposed have not got any significant attention that I've seen......

I would say that National is keeping its powder dry atm. No point in going off half cocked when results of the 'consultation' are not known, and government decisions have not been made. National has said publicly that 2018 is for finding out what people want and gathering other information, 2019 for policy development and 2020 to take policy to the public.

Ms Collins is very sharp, and her oral and written questions on housing matters will not be random. A smiling assassin? I would say so.

[Learning]

One thing that strikes me as a bit odd is the lack of counter-points from National. I know they're a bit distracted at the moment and Collins has asked Dhil Twitford a few questions in parliament, but any long, loud vocal efforts to show they're opposed have not got any significant attention that I've seen.

Why would National oppose this? Who are going to be the winners and losers in the long run?

The bigger and well established LL's (Largely Nat supporters) will easily be able to make the required changes and they'll increase the rents accordingly. Over leveraged LL's (mixed voters) will sell up. Tenants (largely Labour supporters) be all happy with their win for about 10 minutes until they realize how worse off they are financially. Many will be forced to downgrade or even become homeless.

Next election National tell the down trodden and disillusioned tenants how Labour has stabbed them in the back while congratulating the battle hardened LL's for weathering the Labour assault. National cant lose this fight.

[Perry]

National cant lose this fight.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

If they aint with us, then they're agin us.

[Learning]

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

If they aint with us, then they're agin us.

They'll gain 10 disillusioned, poorer tenant, ex-Labour voters for every "you didnt earn my vote" would be Nat voting LL they lose.

[Learning]

Ok maybe not 10 but no less than 3.

[Perry]

The bigger and well established LL's (Largely Nat supporters) will easily be able to make the required changes and they'll increase the rents accordingly.

And all those proverbial mum and dad investors who don't have to - but feel obliged to - sell up because of Labour's comrade commissariat set-up?

According to all the talk on the matter, they make up the largest number-by-grouping of LLs in NZ. If that's so, it's quite a sizeable voting block, I suspect.

[Learning]

Exactly. The more mum and dad investors and tenants, allienaneted by Labour the better for National. National just need the token grumbles from Ms Collens to claim the "I told you so" point scoring which they'll exaggerate at every opportunity.