Parliamentary Debate on Residential Tenancies Bill: Clauses 1 to 3
In a recent parliamentary session, members convened to discuss Clauses 1 to 3 of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. The debate primarily focused on aspects related to the bill's title, commencement dates, and principal act provisions.
Government’s Approach to Amendments
The discussion began with Hon Chris Bishop, Minister of Housing, who outlined the government's approach encapsulated in Amendment Paper 213. The aim is to provide certainty regarding when legislative changes will take effect. Under the current bill framework, key modifications concerning tenancy terminations were initially set to commence six weeks after Royal assent. However, the amendment proposes a fixed commencement date of January 30, 2025, for these changes to ensure clarity and predictability for all stakeholders involved.
Bishop further explained that other amendments aimed at enhancing clarity and efficiency are scheduled to take effect on March 20, approximately three months post-Royal assent. This structured timeline is designed to offer a clear roadmap for officials, landlords, and tenants navigating the new legislative landscape.
Legislative Focus and Title Reflection
Labour's Hon Kieran McAnulty voiced concerns about the bill’s title, arguing it does not accurately reflect its substantive focus on tenancy termination changes. He proposed renaming the bill to "Residential Tenancies (Termination of Tenancies) Amendment Bill" to better capture its primary intent.
McAnulty emphasized that while provisions for pet bonds are included in the legislation, they do not constitute the main purpose of the bill. He expressed apprehensions about the implications of making it easier for landlords to terminate tenancies, suggesting this could potentially lead to increased homelessness and housing instability—outcomes at odds with the government's stated goals.
Public Interest and Legislative Coherence
Hon Carmel Sepuloni from Labour raised questions regarding the staggered implementation approach. She queried why provisions like pet bonds, which enjoy broad public support, have yet to be assigned a fixed commencement date while less popular measures such as tenancy terminations are prioritized for early enactment.
Sepuloni sought further clarification on when family violence provisions would come into effect and questioned the rationale behind setting January 30 as the priority date for tenancy terminations. She highlighted the need for coherence in legislative implementation, given the varying levels of public support among different sections of the bill.
Parliamentary Votes and Legislative Outcomes
The debate concluded with a series of votes:
- Closure of Debate: Ayes: New Zealand National (49), ACT New Zealand (11), New Zealand First (8). Noes: New Zealand Labour (34), Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand (15), Te Pāti Māori (6).
- Clause 1 Agreement: Followed the same voting pattern as the closure.
- Amendments to Clause 2: Minister's amendments agreed upon with Ayes: New Zealand National (49), ACT New Zealand (11), New Zealand First (8). Noes: New Zealand Labour (34), Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand (15), Te Pāti Māori (6).
- Clause 2 as Amended Agreement: Followed the same voting pattern as the minister’s amendments.
- Clause 3 Agreement: Resulted in Ayes: New Zealand National (49), ACT New Zealand (11), New Zealand First (8). Noes: New Zealand Labour (34), Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand (15), Te Pāti Māori (6).
The legislative process moved forward with these amendments agreed upon, setting the stage for further scrutiny and discussion as the bill progresses through Parliament. This debate underscores ongoing tensions between policy intentions and practical implementation challenges in New Zealand's housing sector.