O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Depending on where this bill goes I will be interested to see the Supplementary Order Paper from that member Metiria Turei that allows landlords to exempt themselves from the law if they decide it you know sort of takes their fancy. I also notice around the whole talk of children and unhealthy homes that this is from a political party that supports the increase of smoke in homes through smoking cannabis—so I find you know contradictions without even getting on to other sorts of moral issues where children are just gotten rid of because it is inconvenient. But you know let us just not let that get in the way.Can I acknowledge the member Andrew Little who has put this bill forward. I think the intention is correct and I think listening to the various speeches in the House tonight that there is no difference in the sense of the intention to try to do what is best to improve the housing quality. The problem is that good sentiments alone make bad law and this is a very bad piece of proposed law—least of all is the fact that it actually takes up about a page and a half of paper. When you listen to everyone who has been standing up tonight particularly those in support of it you would think that this was some comprehensive approach to housing that would be reflected in the paperwork itself—and particularly when you listen to several members of the Opposition talking about standards.I have flicked through these I think 900 words multiple times. There are no standards. This is a lazy member's bill. I just want to point out that it is actually not so much an ad hominem on Andrew Little but we are having a bit of a habit coming into this House of members' bills regardless of political sides actually that sort of expect that a little cursory bit of work should then be flicked on to a select committee to try to make substantive changes. That is lazy law-making and this is a perfect example of it. So the standards are but sentiments—but sentiments.It has been asked that officials go away and come up with a whole array of standards to do with heating installation indoor temperature ventilation draft stopping and drainage. It was noted by my colleague Nick Smith earlier on that a number of those are already addressed in law and in regulations. One standard that is not addressed is around of course the indoor temperature. Maybe it is the geography background that I have. Temperatures in Invercargill are slightly different from what they are in Inglewood and slightly different from what they are in Rotorua and perhaps in Whangarei or where some of my family are initially from in Tangiterōria. How are we going to create regulations that are manageable for something like this?I think about where I live in Auckland—effectively in a dell. Drainage is a nightmare. I know that the council itself has spent millions and millions of dollars trying to fix the drainage. Regardless of that spend there are still major drainage problems. In fact I and most of my neighbours almost got flooded the other day. How is that going to be written up into standards in a way that is feasible and applicable? And I think that for responsible lawmakers—and I would like to think of myself as one—I would like some greater sense of direction from the member of how these standards might look before I and others are asked to vote on it. That is not to take away from officials. We trust them in a whole range of areas to go away and write up regulations and to write up standards but by and large good legal process provides some indication of where this is going to go. And I have just given two examples—again around indoor temperature and around drainage—that I think begin to indicate some of complexities that are at work here.Then we step into what is effectively a heavy-handed approach and I just want to use indoor temperatures. We just have to step back for a second and imagine how this is going to look. Basically we are saying there is going to be an inspectorate—well I assume there is going to be an inspectorate—of people walking around into homes measuring temperatures. How on earth is that going to practically work if you forget to close the window and you all of a sudden drop under whatever the temperature is? What is going to happen and are there appeal rights? You will come back again? Who is going to pay for that? So it is incredibly impracticable right from the start.It also is one of those occasions where—we heard it unfortunately from Andrew Little when he started—this sort of gets mired ultimately in sort of a rhetoric a moralising if you will. He started by saying: Which side will you choose?". Which side will you choose? Well that fits very much into I would argue a progressive left-wing mentality because actually I choose both sides. I choose both sides in this because actually this is not the simple classic progressive stuff. It is so tiresome really but it is the sense of every landlord is evil and every tenant is good or on the reciprocal in corollary every tenant is bad and every landlord is good. That is simplistic nonsense. In fact most tenants are fantastic. OK I have been a tenant most of my life. I hope with my landlord speaking they will say the same to me.Most landlords are good people but listening to the rhetoric here tonight you would think every person who is a landlord is a slum landlord and that they could not give a tinker's cuss about their landlords because that is the argument that is required for people who want us to choose sides. But I choose both. I choose a Government that has actually worked to ensure that tenants are able to work with landlords to have homes that do have insulation. No one on the Opposition tonight has spoken about the agreement between National and the Greens when we came to power in 2008 to insulate all of the State homes. I have heard nothing from the Opposition tonight about the Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes programme through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to enable landlords to take responsibility along with Crown funds to actually insulate their homes. There is none of that "both sides" cooperation. No we have fallen back to the usual boring jejune even germane rhetoric.Kris Faafoi: Oh my God; we've got 3 minutes of more of this drivel to go.SIMON O'CONNOR: I know. I will give you a dictionary afterwards so you can understand some of those basic words.Dr Megan Woods: Oh my God how patronising.SIMON O'CONNOR: So basically—oh yes patronising. That is right. Once again it is all about sides—good and bad.Dr Megan Woods: Come on you can do 10 minutes. Come on!SIMON O'CONNOR: I could actually. I could probably switch into Latin for you.So the ultimate element we have got here is simple sides: bad landlords and good tenants and actually most are working and cooperating together. We also have heard very clearly that all the standards the Government has put into place and actually—Kris Faafoi: 2 minutes 40 to go.SIMON O'CONNOR: Thank you very much. Are you sure you do not want to give me another minute?Dr Megan Woods: Yep! Positive!Kris Faafoi: Sit down!SIMON O'CONNOR: No not at all. So there is already a number of great initiatives that the Government has put in. We have already touched on a couple of those. There is also the whole changes that are coming through in a bill that the Government has at the moment which is addressing this step by step—enabling particularly the landlords to come on board. What is proposed here other than being incredibly light and without substance is a heavy-handed approach that is demanding of landlords for no other reason—and of course what is going to happen? It does not take a genius. I suggest even some on the other side—Kris Faafoi: No you're not one. That's right. You're no genius!SIMON O'CONNOR: I have 2 minutes to go. No I am definitely not a genius; usually geniuses are mad. There is a cost to this and all costs come with consequences. I for one can see that actually we will see homes close. I have seen that in my own electorate. Look rightly those places closed which is fantastic. Actually they should be closed down but the consequence of that which the Opposition ignores is that when they close there is therefore a change in supply and this piece of legislation is going to facilitate that further. And of course we would have had more moralising from the other side about what should be done because of course coming back to the usual element the Opposition feel that only it knows what is best. Everyone else is wrong; only it is right.The irony of all of this coming right back to the start is a page and a half of supposed legislation that is then couched in moralising terms and we are hearing some of it here. We actually have not had a debate tonight from the other side. We have had ad hominems we have had the usual rhetoric we have had moralising shallow attempts and we have had the playing the "child" card. As I said at the start if we want to start talking about children why is it that Opposition parties in this House want to support the likes of cannabis smoking and other drugs in homes and they moralise about children?Marama Davidson: Oh my goodness! Really?SIMON O'CONNOR: Really.Marama Davidson: Really?SIMON O'CONNOR: Yeah really. Because that is a contradiction.Marama Davidson: Seriously? Those are the children? Really?SIMON O'CONNOR: Those are the children yes. Those are the children because when you work in the community and voluntary sector that is where the harm is done. And I think we can be very proud in this Government for actually holding a consistent line including in my own electorate when you look at the likes of Glen Innes where actually someone mentioned State houses earlier—2500 old damp State homes are being transformed as we speak into 8000 new homes; some in the private sector some in the social sector. What an amazing situation there and I would just like to point out that this was opposed by the other side.Kris Faafoi: Sit down. You've wasted 10 minutes of my life.SIMON O'CONNOR: You will get it back."