Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and I apologise for jumping the gun 5 minutes ago. I do want to start this contribution by just clarifying a couple of things because I have heard it said a lot of times this evening—and I heard it a year ago when we were passing the amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act—that actually the Government is only enforcing a 1978 insulation standard. The way that is described by Opposition members is that that is the only standard that someone actually has to comply with. That is fundamentally not true.Yes if a house was built after 1978 and if it is compliant with those 1978 standards under the residential tenancies legislation passed last year it does not require further insulation. But if the house was built prior to 1978 then landlords will be required by July of 2019 to actually insulate those properties up to the 2008 standard. It is not just a simple carte blanche 1978 as has been described by a number of speakers this evening—and I have heard it bandied around at other times as well. There actually is an aim and a goal particularly for houses post 2008 of course but those prior to 1978 need to comply with the 2008 standard.I have got to say that when I picked up this bill I saw for a start the title and I thought Yes. Yes I can commit to healthy homes. I can commit to us wanting to have young people in New Zealand growing up in houses that are warm and dry. Yes we do want to have people growing up in places that are healthy."Carmel Sepuloni: Cross the floor then Jono—the only way you're going to get it.JONO NAYLOR: Do we accept that 42000 being admitted to hospital each year is acceptable? No it is not. So we have got to take measured steps to ensure that we do bring that down and that is exactly what we did last year with the residential tenancies legislation.What I have had just at the moment though is some people from across the House calling out to me saying: "So cross the floor and vote for this bill." I could be tempted to do that I have to say if I thought this bill was actually going to do what those members say it is going to do. The difficulty is that when you draft a bill and it is 3 pages long like this one it is a little bit light on detail. This is the third member's bill this evening that I have spoken on. The first one was the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill from Chris Bishop—a very good bill. It was very well drafted. It is very easy to comprehend exactly—Carmel Sepuloni: What's that got to do with this?JONO NAYLOR: Wait—just wait. I am getting to it. Be patient. With that bill it was very clear what the expectations of people to comply with that bill would be. It was very clear what the law would be going forward and what would be the standard that was acceptable. With this bill it is very short on some of those details. We had the same with the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill. It had very clear guidelines.So when I hear people saying "Well they are members' bills. We cannot expect them to necessarily have all the i's dotted and the t's crossed and we can sort that out during the select committee process or otherwise." I do not think that is required. I could see from the members' bills put forward by Government members tonight that it is indeed possible to have precise well-drafted and good law for us to be able to follow.When we did the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2016 a year ago it was very clear that the new type of smoke alarms would have to be installed in every rental property by July 2016. That date has come and gone and those now need to be in place. There we go. Compliance—easy. We knew as members of this House what we were voting on when those standards were put in place. We knew that those standards of insulation would need to be in place by July 2019. We knew what the regime would be for enforcement. It was very clear.However in this bill the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) I am not even sure what standard I am voting for. New section 132A in clause 6 is headed "Function of Ensuring Healthy Homes" and what is being said here is: "(a) the standards must describe what constitutes adequate—(i) methods of heating;". Well I know there are very many ways to heat a house. I know of houses that have got heat pumps in them—that is a pretty effective one. I know of houses that have got fireplaces in them. Those can be effective. But what I do not know from this legislation is what is going to be deemed to be acceptable.So what I am being asked to vote for tonight is some sort of blank cheque that says: "We'd like things to be better." What Andrew Little has said in this bill is: "I'd like things to be better. Just don't ask me how good they should be because I don't know because I haven't put it in my bill. I'd just like them to be better. Can you please vote for it to be better and then we'll find some people to run away and figure out what those standards may or may not be." I do not think that is good ins—well it is not insulation. It is not good legislation and it is not good for us as a Parliament to be going round voting for things when we do not know what we are voting for.There is no description of what the standard will be for methods of insulation yet we had in the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act very clear guidelines on what those standards would be and what would need to be done to enforce them.The idea of indoor temperatures has been well canvassed. On any given day you could walk into my house and it may or may not be at the appropriate temperature because someone forgot to turn the gas heater on or otherwise or one of the kids has gone out and left the back door open or whatever it is. It certainly happens a lot at our place—well it used to happen when the kids were at home to be fair. Now there is just me to blame.But what can happen when you get to this bill is that you say: "What's the minimum temperature? What's the right temperature?". Well there are all sorts of world safety guidelines and actually we would have a chance if there was a number in here. If the Government Administration Committee had received information telling it what the right temperature would be or if someone had done some research prior to drafting the bill—there is a novel thought—and had actually proposed a number and given a rationale for it I might have been tempted to vote for it. But at the moment I have got this one line that says: "(a) the standards must describe what constitutes adequate … indoor temperatures;". Well I do not see anything fixed on there that I can actually pin that to and say that I will vote for this or otherwise. Ventilation draught stopping drainage—I could go on and on and on. There are no minimum standards and nothing for us to point to and vote on.There are a number of issues that lead to houses falling into a state of disrepair—into mould-growing or otherwise. I was talking to a landlord recently who had a—Carmel Sepuloni: Try talking to a tenant.JONO NAYLOR: Well I talk to tenants as well. Anyway on this particular occasion I happened to be talking to the landlord—and I have spoken to plenty of tenants as well—who said that 5 years earlier they had completely redone the bathroom in this property. It was all in good condition. They had installed a heat pump for the tenants and it could be adequately warmed. For the first 3½ years there were no issues with mould whatsoever in the bathroom so clearly the design of the house was adequate. The landlord had done what was necessary to ensure that there would be no mould. Miraculously in the last year and a half mould had become an issue in the property. The house is probably—I do not know—a 1980s-built house. There was no evidence of mould beforehand but in the last 18 months yes there is. So what had probably been happening was that somebody had been using the bathroom and not opening the windows afterwards or not turning the fan on while it was occurring—Carmel Sepuloni: Oh those silly tenants!JONO NAYLOR: No well actually on that particular occasion—Carmel Sepuloni: That's what he's saying—those silly tenants. It's all their fault they're getting mould.JONO NAYLOR: I am saying that on this occasion actually the landlord had done everything they could to ensure that the house was in the right condition to be able to be lived in well.So the problem I have with this bill is that it is actually looking to try to hold landlords accountable for some things that they cannot actually be held accountable for. Indoor temperature is one of them. Whether a house is being adequately ventilated is another. So as much as my heart says that there is a lot of good intention in this bill—and good on Andrew Little for having some good intention in bringing it forward—unfortunately though either he or the people who have been helping him out forgot to do the research before putting the bill together. They forgot to actually do some work. They left a bunch of generalities and left the setting of the standards to somebody else to be done at a later date. Nice idea; poor execution. I cannot support it."