Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill: Detailed Examination of Pet Ownership Provisions
In a recent parliamentary committee stage discussion, lawmakers scrutinized Part 1 of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, focusing on tenancy agreements, bonds, and related matters. The debate unfolded with significant issues concerning pet ownership rights, greyhound rehoming, impacts on lower-income tenants, and procedural aspects in landlord consent.
Clarifying Pet Definitions
Dr. Lawrence Xu-Nan from the Green Party initiated the discussion by questioning the absence of a comprehensive definition for "pet" within clause 4. He expressed concerns about potential arbitrary discrimination against tenants based on pet stereotypes or types, urging amendments to prevent such exclusions. In response, Minister of Housing Chris Bishop clarified that no country typically defines "pets" in tenancy law, allowing flexibility while explicitly excluding disability support dogs from the definition for bond purposes. He emphasized new sections aimed at ensuring landlords do not unreasonably withhold consent for pet ownership.
Greyhound Rehoming Debate
A significant portion of the debate centered on an amendment proposed by Labour's Hon Kieran McAnulty, which sought to exempt greyhounds rehomed after the racing ban from pet bonds for four years. This measure aimed at facilitating their placement into homes and preventing discrimination against these animals. However, Minister Bishop opposed this amendment, arguing that permitting landlords to charge a bond would incentivize them to accept tenants with pets more readily. He acknowledged the importance of greyhound rehoming but indicated future legislative discussions might explore alternative solutions.
Impact on Lower-Income Tenants
Labour's Hon Carmel Sepuloni raised concerns about lower-income tenants' ability to afford pet bonds, questioning whether support from the Ministry of Social Development would extend to cover these costs. She highlighted that without such measures, many prospective pet owners could be unfairly excluded. Minister Bishop confirmed no plans for extending this support, noting existing provisions allow a combined general and pet bond up to four weeks’ rent.
Landlord Consent Process
The debate also scrutinized the procedural aspects of landlord consent for pet ownership. Francisco Hernandez from the Green Party questioned the 21-day period landlords have to respond to tenants' written requests for keeping pets, suggesting it might be excessive and advocating for a reduction to 14 days. Minister Bishop defended the current timeframe as reasonable but acknowledged that feedback post-implementation could prompt adjustments.
Legislative Outcomes
Despite the vigorous debate, several proposed amendments were not agreed upon. These included various exemptions and clarifications regarding pet bonds and discrimination against certain pets. The votes on these amendments resulted in:
- Amendment by Hon Kieran McAnulty: Not agreed to (Ayes: 55; Noes: 68)
- Other Amendments Proposed by Steve Abel, Ricardo Menéndez March, Tamatha Paul (Green), and Arena Williams (Labour): All not agreed to (Ayes: 55; Noes: 68)
Ultimately, Part 1 of the bill was approved with support from New Zealand National (49 votes), ACT New Zealand (11 votes), and New Zealand First (8 votes). It faced opposition from New Zealand Labour (34 votes), Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand (15 votes), and Te Pāti Māori (6 votes).
The debate highlighted the complexities in balancing tenant rights with landlord concerns, particularly around pet ownership. As the bill progresses, further discussions are expected to shape its final form, reflecting ongoing negotiations between fostering inclusivity for tenants and ensuring practical safeguards for landlords.