Legislative Update: Key Debates on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill

In a recent parliamentary committee session, members engaged in a detailed debate over Part 3 of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. This section pertains to clauses related to the Tenancy Tribunal and administrative matters, as well as Schedules 1 and 2. The discussions highlighted several critical issues central to the reform of tenancy laws.

Jurisdiction Over Family Violence Disputes

The debate commenced with Hon Kieran McAnulty from Labour raising concerns regarding Clause 31(3), which limits the Tenancy Tribunal's jurisdiction over disputes involving family violence. McAnulty emphasized the need for clarity on alternative avenues available to tenants if landlords dispute evidence related to such claims. He stressed the importance of providing reassurance and support in these serious situations.

In response, Housing Minister Chris Bishop clarified that this amendment addresses issues concerning dependents of victims of family violence not covered by previous legislative changes enacted around 2019-2020. While acknowledging that the tribunal would not directly assess these matters, he indicated that other bodies are presumed to handle them. Bishop expressed openness to future amendments based on practical outcomes and feedback.

Tribunal's Discretion on Paper Decisions

The discussion then turned to Clause 33, which allows the Tenancy Tribunal discretion in deciding cases based solely on written submissions. Duncan Webb from Labour raised concerns about potential literacy challenges faced by tenants, suggesting that oral hearings might be more appropriate in certain cases to ensure fairness. Minister Bishop explained that paper-only hearings are intended for simpler matters, with more complex issues requiring oral proceedings. He assured the committee that termination cases always necessitate a hearing to maintain procedural integrity and fairness.

Communication via Email

Peeni Henare from Labour addressed Clauses 34 and 35, which concern the use of email as an official method of communication between parties involved in tenancy agreements. Henare highlighted real-world challenges with email delivery and advocated for considering additional forms of communication to accommodate diverse tenant circumstances. Minister Bishop justified the emphasis on emails due to their reliability compared to physical addresses, particularly when tenancies have ended long ago. He noted that safeguards ensure current and appropriate use of email addresses.

Extension Beyond Family Violence Provisions

Carmel Sepuloni, Deputy Leader of Labour, questioned why protections for victims of violence within rental properties were limited to family members. She suggested extending these provisions to cover other cohabitation scenarios where non-family members might be vulnerable. Minister Bishop acknowledged the concern but noted that such a broadening was not part of this amendment bill. He expressed willingness to consider it in future legislative efforts if necessary, indicating an openness to evolving tenant protections as societal needs change.

Definition and Interpretation of 'Transmitted' in Email Communication

Duncan Webb raised concerns about potential ambiguities in Clause 35(2) regarding the term "transmitted" for email service. He warned that such vagueness could lead to disputes in tribunal cases, complicating matters further for tenants. Minister Bishop recognized the point but indicated that addressing this issue might exceed the scope of the current bill. He suggested future legislative reviews to refine such definitions, signaling a commitment to ongoing legal precision and clarity.

Liability for Pet Damage

Kieran McAnulty criticized Clause 48 concerning pet damage liability, arguing it unfairly places the burden on tenants to prove when damage occurred if landlords claim awareness at a later date. This provision, he argued, could be exploited against tenants. Minister Bishop defended the clause as necessary for addressing issues arising from new pet-related provisions in tenancy law. He acknowledged potential challenges and expressed openness to revisiting the issue based on practical feedback.

Conclusion: Voting Outcomes

The committee's debates concluded with votes that saw Part 3 of the bill passed, supported by New Zealand National (49 votes), ACT New Zealand (11 votes), and New Zealand First (8 votes). Amendments proposed by Tamatha Paul to Clauses 31 and 33 were rejected. Schedules 1 and 2 also received approval, reflecting a broad consensus on these legislative components, with similar voting outcomes as Part 3.

The debates underscored the intricate balance lawmakers must strike between innovation in tenancy law and safeguarding tenant rights. As Parliament moves forward with this legislation, ongoing dialogue and adaptation will be crucial to ensuring that New Zealand's residential tenancies system remains fair, efficient, and responsive to all stakeholders involved.