Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chairperson Tolley. It's my pleasure to open the batting on behalf of the Opposition on the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) and I will be begging your indulgence: it will probably take me more than one call just to lay out the Opposition's position. It's appropriate that that be done in the clause related to the title because I think the title is aspirational progressive and everything Labour stands for.In my research into the genesis of this bill and the journey that it has been on I have been looking at the Hansard of the first and second readings of the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) and also the Hansard of the previous Government's Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2) passaged last year by the Hon Nick Smith. And it rather saddened me I have to say with the amount of venom and hyperbole that was injected into the discussion by the then Opposition that somehow if one did not support this bill—which was then in the name of Andrew Little—those parties did not care for the 42000 children suffering every year from preventable illnesses as a consequence of cold damp homes and the 15 children who die of preventable diseases who also live in those cold damp homes.So I want to put on the record two things: one my absolute agreement and my party's absolute agreement that it is not acceptable for children—for anybody—to live in those conditions and that we as a Parliament should do everything that's practically possible to improve their lot and to prevent that situation from occurring; and secondly to express a hope that in this committee of the whole House we can have a detailed analytical technical examination of this bill and what it will do without that sort of rhetoric. I don't think it's helpful and I think we're better than that. The Prime Minister has talked about a kinder Parliament and it will be robust but it serves no purpose for us to politicise poverty and cold damp homes.So it was with that in mind that I looked to this legislation and whether or not we could support it to the degree that it improves the lives of New Zealanders particularly those vulnerable New Zealanders. In clause 1 we have the title and it is a lofty aspiration: a healthy homes guarantee. There are two very strong words in there: Healthy" and "Guarantee."Hon Andrew Little: "Homes" is pretty strong.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well they're all homes. They've got people in them.Dr Deborah Russell: Cars have people in them.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well is the Government so lacking in ambition that they want a healthy cars guarantee? I thought it was their ambition to get people out of cars? So we'll get to that in a minute.But it is for a healthy home and it's guaranteed according to the title—lofty. So I looked to the bill to decide to determine the degree to which it is going to achieve that goal and I am disappointed to note that there isn't a single thing in it that will do a single thing to achieve that goal. And worse than that Legislation 101 says that if you are going to bring a bill to the House primary legislation that gives the Government the power to amend secondary legislation or introduce secondary legislation that comes with a responsibility.It is a responsibility to at least inform the House at the committee of the whole House what that regulation might look like. It was what the previous Government did when we introduced the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill and the Hon Nick Smith brought details of the draft regulation that would be brought which then became the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations. We were able to determine how effective the legislation change was because we knew what the regulation would look like.The Health and Safety at Work Bill the bill that I was famously lampooned for because of worm farms and lavender growing that came out of my efforts to inform the committee of the whole House as to what those regulations would look like. A good thing some would say; we made it better as a consequence. I say that not for self-denigration although it probably has achieved that goal but simply to point out that it is vital that this House this committee understand what on earth we're doing. And the reality is we have no idea. We had no idea when the bill was first introduced—that was the advice the officials gave to Mr Little—we are none the wiser given the fact that the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the Minister's name which has completely rewritten the bill and has taken out some of the sillier things that were in it when it started thanks to the advice of the officials—and I have to acknowledge the Minister has made the bill somewhat better in form because of taking the advice of his officials but no better in substance and we are none the wiser about what this will do.Now I draw the committee's attention to the departmental disclosure statement which contains a regulatory impact analysis and a very important question is asked in this. It says: "Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this Bill?" And the answer is no: "a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) was not provided at the time the Government decided to adopt the Bill." To the extent that the impact analysis is available" it says at 2.4: "MBIE prepared some analysis of the Bill's potential impact after it was adopted as a Government Bill. See heating and … standards for residential rental properties MBIE 10 November 2017 (accessible at: … [the following URL])." Well I've got a message for the committee and for the Minister: this is what you get when you go to that URL [Holds up printed sheet of paper]—"We're sorry but that page does not exist." There is nothing.The very minimal thing that they could have done is point to the URL that creates a link to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) website and the page doesn't exist. We are no more informed—in fact we are less informed—about what on earth we're doing here. I would love to be able to guarantee that homes were healthy. And when I asked the Minister in question time yesterday whether he intended to inform the committee—Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The Opposition refused the opportunity to debate this as a whole and are debating it clause by clause. It sounds very much as if—[Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The point of order will be heard in silence.Hon Ruth Dyson: —this speaker is speaking to clause 6 rather than the one that's before the committee at the moment.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Speaking to the point of order—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I don't need any help thank you. I thank the member for that point of order; however I did consider it while the Minister was speaking and he spoke for quite some time in his first call—in fact over four minutes—in quite a general way before he came to the details of the bill so I felt that in fairness I had to give that same opportunity. But I can assure the member that when we come to the actual clauses they are very tight and very narrow but perhaps the opportunity on the title is there to be a little bit broader.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The chief Government whip has just indicated that leave was sought and denied.Hon Ruth Dyson: No I didn't.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That's exactly what she said when she got up.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): She said "the offer."Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I was at least misled.Hon Ruth Dyson: I did not say that leave was sought. I said they declined the opportunity. I had a conversation with the senior whip made that offer and he said no.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I will continue to speak to the title because I think this is fundamental to what we're doing here. What the Opposition want to do is determine whether or not we are guaranteeing healthy homes. I restate: not only are we none the wiser we are less well informed now than we were when the bill was introduced two years ago because what we don't know is how this intersects with current legislation and regulation.I am really very keen to get from the Minister in the chair Phil Twyford what we are doing here. How are we going to guarantee healthy homes? What is the regulation going to have in it? We know the titles and indeed it doesn't give us any clear steer about what those sections are going to do in order to achieve our goal of healthy homes because all six of the criteria that are laid out in the bill—which were deleted and then reinstated at heating insulation ventilation moisture ingress draught stopping drainage and then any other thing—already exist in regulations formed under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.We can debate the merits or otherwise of a strengthening of the insulation standards for example—and I remind the committee of a certain Opposition spokesman on housing Phil Twyford running around this House and into the press gallery with pieces of insulation saying that the bill that the Government was passing last year was simply not good enough and that this is what we should be requiring. Well I ask the Minister in the chair: is that what we're debating here? Because we cannot tell. We cannot tell if this bill does nothing—in which case we will oppose it—or is a Draconian imposition on landlords that could drive rents up in which case we will oppose it.So I do tell the Minister that the Opposition has not changed its position but we would really benefit from an explanation about which part of this we argue. Is it irrelevant innocuous and do-nothing or is it a Draconian imposition on the landlords? Please advise."