Heatley Phil: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:664;Page:12205] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I will again respond to Moana Mackey’s amendment to clause 9 because it concerns a serious issue and she is taking it seriously. She is not trifling with the Committee at all. Methamphetamine manufacture within some properties including rental properties is a problem. It is something that the Minister of Police is certainly getting on top of but it does happen from time to time. 
It is worth explaining to the Committee what the process is when a meth lab is discovered in a property. The manufacture of methamphetamine is illegal so if anyone is caught manufacturing methamphetamine two things have to happen: firstly that person is busted by the police; secondly the police inform the local district council which has to—having been informed and the police have to inform the district council—issue a cleansing order. The council documents that a cleansing order has been placed over the property. So after a methamphetamine lab is found in a property the police have to go to the council. The council then registers a cleansing order against the property. Once there is a cleansing order the cleansing order goes to the owner of the property. The owner in this case a landlord has to have the property decontaminated to a particular standard—in other words the property is clean to a standard that people can live in it. So there is a process for when methamphetamine labs are discovered. 
In some cases a property cannot be cleaned and it needs to be destroyed. We have seen that happen a few times and in fact we have seen it happen to State houses a couple of times. I think it may have even been in Chris Tremain’s electorate of Napier. The problem of compulsory disclosure of a landlord having to disclose to a tenant that the house had previously been used for methamphetamine manufacture may very well drive landlords and owners of properties not to declare to the police or the local council that they have been used as a meth lab. We prefer that the processes in place incentivise the clean-up of properties used for methamphetamine production. We must incentivise that clean-up or otherwise the destruction of that home. The only way to do that is to have an easy process which we have: on discovery of a meth lab the police find out about it; then the police take action through the courts against the perpetrator the police inform the district council the council issue a cleansing order and the property is cleansed to a very high standard or is otherwise destroyed. That is why we will not support Moana Mackey’s amendment. 
I also note for members that renting out contaminated premises is a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act and the Tenancy Tribunal can terminate the tenancy and award punitive damages to tenants should they be put in unhealthy and unsafe contaminated conditions. So there is a belt and braces approach to this problem. We want to incentivise the reporting of discovery of methamphetamine or other drug manufacturing labs. We do not want to disincentivise reporting of methamphetamine or other drug manufacturing labs within the rental community. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Moana Mackey to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to insert the following subclause after subclause (1): 
(1AA)Section 13A(1) is amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (n): 
“(na)whether an owner or occupier of the premises has been ordered or required under this Act or any other enactment (including but not restricted to section 41 or 82 of the Health Act 1956 or section 124(10)(c) of the Building Act 2004) in the last 5 years to cleanse the premises and if that is the case the nature and date of the order or requirement and the steps if any that have been taken to comply with the order or requirement; and”.