Landlords - Will the state give up the ground it has taken?

[Sanya]

Megan Woods emailed all landlords and tenants on March 27th advising that all non-essential parliamentary business was to be suspended, including all business currently before select committees. This included the RTA amendment bill.

Fast forward to today, and an email went out asking when people wanted to be contacted to give their oral submission!

There seems to be a push on to get "unpopular" legislation through right now. Another bill (unrelated to property, just mentioning to highlight this is not an isolated case) around giving voting rights to prisoners is also being pushed hard by Andrew Little.

Well that is interesting. I do agree with you. Now is a great time to advance contentious legislation. The quantity of submitter 'hearings' will sink like a lead balloon and the Gov is going to do what it wants anyway - just faster.

Labour's "year of delivery" was underwhelming, but Labours chances in the upcoming election are looking good. Jacinda's popularity is high and only going to increase as her party feeds New Zealand during this crisis. The state looks set to take more ground with RTA and other changes.

[Perry]

Please, can someone (anyone) explain to me how any legislation can be 'passed' while parliament is in recess?

[Sanya]

Please, can someone (anyone) explain to me how any legislation can be 'passed' while parliament is in recess?

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that.

My understanding is that select committees and other parliamentary processes continue. This means proposed changes to the RTA can (and based on Nick G’s post above is) be advanced to a point where bill change recommendations (if any) can be made during the next reading to the house once it convenes again.

I imagine – and I could be wrong – that Labour will hit the after burners and rush to get this bill into legislation before the next election. I’m picking it will be law at some point in July. Labour can then go to the polls having delivered on its promise to over 1 million New Zealanders who rent that they have made the rental market fairer and more secure. This achievement they will claim will be accretive to the Government's other improvements to renting, including the banning of letting fees and the healthy homes guarantee.

[Perry]

My understanding is that select committees and other parliamentary processes continue.

If that's so, I wonder how they are maintaining the 'social distance' requirements?

I imagine that Labour will hit the after burners and rush to get this bill into legislation before the next election. Labour can then go to the polls having delivered on its promise to over 1 million New Zealanders who rent that they have made the rental market fairer and more secure. This achievement they will claim will be accretive to the Government's other improvements to renting, including the banning of letting fees and the healthy homes guarantee.

Well, let us hope that the counter-points are stridently made, as well.

* The reduction in private residential rental numbers;

* The general increases in rent of those which remain;

* The gigantic 30,000 'affordable' houses deficit;

* The enormous costs to taxpayers of motels for emergency housing, etc., consequent upon Labour's overall 'affordable' housing failures;

* And so on . . .

Doesn't matter if the plug on the wall is labelled HOUSING or THE ECONOMY

Labour has never learned and never will.

[Keys]

Please, can someone (anyone) explain to me how any legislation can be 'passed' while parliament is in recess?

I suspect that it may have something to do with the emergency powers which they have given themselves due to the pandemic.

[Sanya]

If that's so, I wonder how they are maintaining the 'social distance' requirements?

Just before the lockdown, parliamentarians moved quickly to pass a number of immediate measures which included “emergency measures” changing the RTA, special arrangements for select committee meetings [they can meet by electronic means and remotely] and an agreement to liberalise the proxy voting rule in order to reduce the number of members of Parliament needed in the House when sitting. See https://www.parliament.nz/media/6334...l-20200325.pdf

Well, let us hope that the counter-points are stridently made, as well.
* The reduction in private residential rental numbers;
* The general increases in rent of those which remain;
* The gigantic 30,000 'affordable' houses deficit;
* The enormous costs to taxpayers of motels for emergency housing, etc., consequent upon Labour's overall 'affordable' housing failures;
* And so on . . .

Yes. It’s a case study in cause and effect.

Labour in their clouded, ideological minds, thought they could layer regulation upon regulation on landlords and it wouldn't affect rents. And when it did affect rents [up over $60 per week during Labour’s term] and exacerbate rental shortages their answer is to pile on even more regulation which further reduces landlord return on capital and property rights. Landlords will have to price in these risks or exit the market which leads to higher still rents and reduced rental supply.

[Perry]

Labour in their clouded, ideological minds, thought they could layer regulation upon regulation on landlords and it wouldn't affect rents. And when it did affect rents [up over $60 per week during Labour’s term] and exacerbate rental shortages their answer is to pile on even more regulation which further reduces landlord return on capital and property rights. Landlords will have to price in these risks or exit the market which leads to higher still rents and reduced rental supply.

That sounds very similar to observations made by Peter. (flyernzl)

Of course, if we look at history, every single attempt to control a market, regulate supply, impose price controls and subsidise everything and everybody has always inevitably lead to failure, shortages, corruption, disaster and eventual collapse. But we are different. From Vogel to Muldoon, we have long history of trying to outfox the market. Admittedly that has never worked in the past. Regulations have always begat more regulations. Subsidies have always become more complex and byzantine. The market has always won in the end. But it might just possibly work next time. Surely we should give it a go. After all, King Canute was not a Kiwi.

When fixing a non-existent problem does not work with legislation / regulation, the socio-commies answer is always, add more legislation / regulation. Never, but never, do the socio-commies ask themselves if perhaps the first set of ideological legislation / regulation efforts may not have been appropriate, withdraw them and start afresh.

A bit like the Privacy Commissioner's half-baked and legally-flawed knee-jerk response to what questions may be asked on a tenancy application form.

As for "clouded, ideological minds" what was going on the contractile vacuole, vacuum-between-the-ears head of Labour's Health Munster?

Do something stupid once might be tolerable. Even marginally excusable. To be asinine twice shows just how bad the loudest-noise, empty-vessel Munster of Health is. Dr of what, I wonder? Perhaps he has a PhD in Stupidity, all the media-reported self-flagellation notwithstanding?

[Sanya]

That sounds very similar to observations made by Peter. (flyernzl)

What a brilliant post by flyernzl. There should be a like button in this forum.