Labour's no-cause eviction idea worries property managers

Some property managers are wary of Labour removing no-cause evictions if it leads the next government.

The concern was reported on 9 October 2026. Labour has not yet released detailed housing policy, so the detail is not public.

Under the current law, landlords can end a periodic tenancy, a rolling rental with no fixed end date, without giving a reason by giving 90 days' notice, according to RNZ. It is a bit like a rolling gym membership. No-cause termination of periodic tenancies was restored at the beginning of last year.

A Labour spokesperson said the party had publicly opposed the no-cause eviction changes and had pledged to fix it. The spokesperson said details on further housing policies will come in due course.

Chris Matthews, associated with property management platform Tenancy.co.nz, said he understood Labour's policy to change the Residential Tenancies Act again would be revealed this month. That would mean October 2026.

Matthews said property managers he speaks to see no-cause endings as a useful tool for persistent anti-social behaviour. He also said tenants need security and protection from unfair termination.

Sarina Gibbon, director of Tenancy Advisory, said Labour's plans would be hard to judge until its policy detail was clear. She said problems with the previous ban stemmed not from removing no-cause termination itself but from the replacement criteria for ending a tenancy, which created unintended consequences.

Labour is led by Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, MP for Remutaka. The party lists its priorities as good jobs that pay well, healthcare you can rely on, affordable homes for all, and action on the cost of living.

The broader context here is familiar at the Beehive. Tenancy law is changed by amending the Residential Tenancies Act. The principle can be put in one sentence. The workability sits in the termination grounds, notice periods, evidence thresholds and Tribunal processes that replace a broad power.

In my view, Gibbon's distinction is the one officials and the Press Gallery will test first. Removal is only half the question for people who draft, advise on or litigate these rules. The other half is what a landlord must instead prove, and how quickly and reliably the Tenancy Tribunal can deal with behaviour that falls short of the existing fault grounds but still affects neighbours or other tenants.

Looking at what this means for the campaign, Labour has put down a marker without locking in design. It has opposed the restoration and promised a fix. It has not published drafting. That leaves property managers pricing political risk rather than responding to a bill, and it leaves tenants' advocates similarly waiting to see how strong any new security of tenure would be in practice.