Sepuloni Carmel: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSepuloni Carmel: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 24 May 2016. Volume:714;Page:11122. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I am going to focus on a different aspect of this bill. I am looking at clause 17 in Part 1 “Section 661 amended (Landlord’s ongoing obligations)”. This clause is in relation to compliance in respect of smoke alarms and the compliance issues imposed on the landlord by regulations. The issue I have which I want to ask the Minister about is that when we were going through the select committee process the regulations for smoke alarms had not yet been determined. As I go through the regulatory impact statement in relation to smoke alarms again we seem to be presented with two options but again a decision seems not yet to have been made about what the regulations will look like. So when we are considering these compliance issues we do need to know what the regulations are in order to know whether or not we actually agree with the regulations and then therefore agree with them being imposed on the landlords.When considering the regulations I do want to bring up that there was much discussion around the smoke alarm regulations particularly in relation to having a period of time where landlords would still be able to use battery-powered smoke alarms. The issues that were raised by us on the select committee and also by some of the submitters were the issues with families being able to actually take the batteries out of the smoke alarms for other technical devices. It may seem ridiculous and some people might say—I would not say this—that it would be irresponsible of those people living in those homes. But you can imagine where there are low-income families then when you need a battery for another more urgent device you will take it out of a smoke alarm possibly. So the issue around that was that there was more of a push for the photoelectric alarms. They have long life—10 years.But in one of the options that we were presented with through the regulatory impact statement they would not be required unless the current alarm or the existing alarm which could be one of the battery-powered ones that I am talking about needed to be replaced and at that point the expectation would be on the landlord to put in a long-life 10-year photoelectric alarm. It is really difficult for us to envisage how that could possibly be monitored but that is what is in option 1 in the regulatory impact statement. So I would really like the Minister Dr Nick Smith to speak a little bit to that.I guess option 2 which we are presented with in the regulatory impact statement is even more concerning. Option 2 would involve the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) educating landlords and tenants on the benefits of installing smoke alarms and ensuring that the alarms continue to work over time. This option as quoted in the regulatory impact statement “is essentially the status quo as the Fire Service currently runs a public information programme. It would not be a good use of taxpayer funds for MBIE to also conduct an education programme. Fire Service public information programmes have had relatively limited effect on reducing the incidence of residential fires among high-risk groups including low-income tenants.”From my perspective option 1 is better but given the problems with the battery-powered smoke detectors that we are talking about I still think it is an issue. So I really want to know how far along the Minister has got with considering the regulations for the smoke alarms so that when we vote for this bill when are considering this clause we will know absolutely what the compliance issues are going to be for the landlords and what regulations are going to be imposed on the landlords because at the moment that is not clear at all.I am going through the bill and I am wondering whether there are other clauses too—and maybe the Minister could enlighten us on this—in this bill that have regulation considerations that have not actually been entirely thought through yet. I think we need to know that. I think my colleagues and I will be going through this bill with a fine-tooth comb just to see where those areas may exist because it is as I said very difficult to agree with parts of the legislation when you are not even entirely sure what the regulations will look like. Thank you.