Like the Rent Appeal Act, the recently introduced Property Law Amendment Bill appears to be a greater advance in the rights of tenants than it really is. The Rent Appeal Act is supposed to keep rents at an "equitable" level, and the Property Law Amendment Bill is supposed to provide a way in which the condition of rental housing in New Zealand can be brought to a better level.

Unfortunately both pieces of legislation suffer from the same fundamental fault. They rely on an initiative being taken by people who are mostly unaware of their rights, and who, even if they know of their rights are too ill-educated or too frightened of the forces of bureaucracy or, at least in the case of the Property Law Amendment Bill, who are too poor to exercise their rights.

No seizure of tenants' possessions

The new Bill makes four major changes in the law relating to landlord and tenant. First it heeds the repeated calls by the Wellington Tenants Protection Association for the abolition of the landlord's right-to seize tenants' possessions for rent. In introducing this clause the Minister of Justice made specific mention of the Rama rent strike, and said that the right of the landlord to levy distress only added fuel to an already inflammatory situation. This statement comes as the first public recognition by a minister of the tenants' right to strike, and although the legislation falls far short of making rent strikes legal, the minister's statement may open the way for further moves towards recognition of this fundamental right.

Repairs to accomodation

Second, the Bill provides for a method by which tenants can force landlords to do repairs to houses to bring them up to a minimum habitable standard. If the rented property is considered by the tenant to be substandard in certain respects he can serve notice giving the landlord a minimum of a month to effect repairs. If the landlord does nothing within the [unclear: period] given, the tenant may have the repairs done and deduct the cost from his rent. If however the landlord gives notice that he contests the necessity for the repairs, the tenant must take the landlord to the Magistrates Court to force him to do so.

Since most landlords are likely to fight tenants' attempts to have their homes upgraded, this reference to the Magistrates Court may be necessary in most cases, and this will deter many tenants from taking advantage of it. Despite the legal aid system, going to law costs tenants money, if only in time lost from work, and also involves people in worry and suspense that many are unwilling to face. This problem could be avoided at least in part if the power to enforce repairs were put in the hands of a less formidable body than a court, and the government were to provide enforcement officers to represent tenants in such proceedings.

The third change in the law is to provide a method for landlords to enforce their rights againts tenants in respect of care of their premises, in a manner similar to that in which the tenant can enforce his rights against the landlord. Unfortunately it is expected that this system is likely to be more effective in the hands of landlords than of tenants, simply because tenants generally have less access to legal advice than landlords. However the rights given to landlords under the Bill, even if they may be more easily enforced than before, are considerably less than exist at present.

Eviction limited

Fourth, the Bill protects the tenant against eviction by a landlord because he has made an attempt to force the landlord to do necessary repairs. If at any time within six months of the tenant applying to have repairs done the landlord wishes to evict him, the landlord must prove that he is taking this action for a reason other than that the tenant has asked to have his home upgraded.

For organised tenants, this Bill will mean a great opportunity to force land-lords to upgrade houses, where formerly there was no easy way by which this could be done. But it falls far short of solving the fundamental problems of the rental house area.

The Bill provides for no more control on rents than there is at present, and in fact any repairs forced on a landlord under its provisions would give the landlord a right to a rent increase under the Rent Appeal Act.

But landlords can still evict

Even more fundamentally the Bill still places no restrictions on the landlord's right to evict for any reason he desires. As long as any tenant can be evicted at one month's notice simply because the landlord wants to sell the property or put up the rent, or, as happens all too often because he does not like the tenants, any legislation to protect the tenant is unlikely to have much effect.

What tenant is going to go to all the trouble of a protracted Court battle, when he knows he can be put on the street for any reason other than that he has enforced his rights? There is no penal sanction against the landlord-bully who "persuades" a tenant to leave through strong arm tactics or harassment.

Abolish landlords

Some of the more militant landlords, led by the Wellington Landlords Association have threatened to bulldoze their houses rather than be forced to upgrade them under these new provisions. They claim that the profitability of their business is threatened. While this claim is farcical under present conditions of enormous capital gain, it points to the only real answer to the problems of tenants.

As long as profit is the main purpose behind the housing of people, no reform can really improve conditions. The government should react to the landlords' threat by moving immediately to nationalise all rented property, thereby recognising that, like health and education services, housing is the responsibility of the State and should be provided on an equal basis for all without any element of profit