Smith Nick: Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Nick: Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 04 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10814. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): The problems with Mr Little’s bill are firstly that it would have New Zealand homes insulated at a far slower rate than the Government’s policy; secondly that it lacks the details and does not match up to the exaggerated rhetoric that we have just heard from Mr Little; and thirdly its impractical provisions will not work in practice. The bill is a poor substitute for the robust and practical measures that this Government is taking to make our homes in New Zealand warmer drier and safer.There is no disagreement in this Parliament that making our homes warmer and drier provides substantive benefits for children’s health for reducing days lost at school for workers being able to stay at home and savings in families’ energy bills. It is for these very reasons that the Government has had such an active programme addressing insulation in homes. Mr Little and Labour are johnny-come-latelys on this issue when you look at the record. We insulated 30000 State homes in our first 2 years. In our first Budget we announced a programme Warm Up New Zealand to insulate 290000 homes. The bill we currently have in its final stages would insulate another 189000 homes—that is half a million homes altogether. That 500000 figure compares with 50000 under the last 9 years of the previous Labour Government. It is absolutely true that this Government has done ten times more in respect of getting homes insulated.Now this debate is over the detail and I welcome the opportunity to engage and expose the flaws in this bill. The first irony in this bill is that for all the rhetoric of caring more about healthy homes it will take 4 years longer than the Government’s approach to getting uninsulated homes upgraded. Let us optimistically assume that this bill would be passed through the House by the end of the year. Clause 2 specifically says that the bill would take 12 months to come into legal effect. The later clause says that beyond that point the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment would have a further 6 months to set the standard. That means the very first home to get insulated under this bill would be in July 2018 and the last home to get insulated would not be until July 2023. That compares—Andrew Little: You’re making it up.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Read the bill. Read your own bill because the Government’s approach provides that social housing must be insulated by 1 July this year and all homes that are rented must be insulated by 1 July 2019. Even if you take into account the provision in this bill to require newly tenanted homes to be insulated that will provide about 30000 homes per year. So let us take the numbers: on 1 July 2019 this bill would have only 30000 homes insulated and National’s would have 180000. Those who are supporting this bill are actually saying they will have 150000 homes that are currently uninsulated still uninsulated by 1 July 2019.And then we have the exaggerated claims about this bill requiring a better standard of insulation. That is complete rubbish. There is nothing in this bill about the standard of insulation. All clause 6 says is that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment will be required to publish and prepare a standard. I am more than happy to have a debate about the insulation standards the Government is proposing because they make good sense. We are requiring all uninsulated rental housing to be insulated to the latest 2008 standard by July 2019. The debate is over whether homes insulated under an older standard should be upgraded. This does not make economic sense. Those homes built after 1978 have insulation that reduces heat loss by 84 percent and those built after 2001 by 87 percent. The cost of upgrading this insulation to the 2008 standard of 92 percent is not justified because the cost would exceed the benefits. The idea that you are going to have tens of thousands of children not going to hospital because of a few percentage points’ reduction in terms of insulation and heat loss does not withstand scrutiny.It is true that in setting these standards the Government has been influenced by robust cost-benefit analysis. This is important because every cost that we impose on the rental sector is ultimately passed on in rents. Insulating an uninsulated property provides $1.80 of benefit for every $1 that is spent and it makes good sense. But to gain a few extra percentage points of insulation by requiring those properties that are insulated—but not right up to those last few percentage points of the current standard—to upgrade actually imposes more costs on the very families whom we are trying to help than there are benefits. In our approach we are requiring that where insulation is no longer in a reasonable state of repair then it has to be upgraded. And we are also requiring that all tenancy agreements disclose the level of insulation so that over time tenants are better aware and we get those upgrades.The second issue that needs scrutiny in this bill is the claim that there is currently no requirement for heating ventilation drainage and draught stopping. That is false. The existing regulations provide for all of these. Let me quote directly from the Housing Improvement Regulations. “Clause 6—Every living room shall be fitted with a fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating.” And in clauses 14 to 16 it states that every house shall have an efficient drainage shall be free of dampness and that it shall have a proper sanitation system. On ventilation clause 11 requires “Every room … shall be provided with … adequate lighting and ventilation …”. These are the existing regulations. It is just garbage for Labour to claim that these issues in this bill are not addressed in the current law. The only issue not covered in the current regulations but proposed in Mr Little’s bill is the proposal requiring that landlords have to meet a minimum indoor temperature. That is impractical and stupid. A landlord cannot reasonably be expected to maintain a minimum temperature where the tenant controls when the heater is turned on and off—Hon Member: Whether the windows are open.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —whether wood is put on the fire whether curtains are opened or closed or as my member interjects whether windows are opened or closed. The Government is not saying that there is not a problem over slum properties that are not fit for renting. But what we are saying is that the issue is the enforcement and not the standards. That is why the Government’s bill focuses on strengthening enforcement by giving the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment for the first time the proper powers to be able to prosecute some landlords directly. This is an important change not covered in this Labour bill that will actually make far more practical difference to the actual issue of standards and slum properties that concerns this House.My point about this bill is that it is a fake. It does not guarantee healthy homes. It will actually take longer to insulate homes than the Government’s approach. It does not set any standard for insulation and claims in that respect are just puffery. The Government will oppose this bill. I would actually welcome the fact if it goes to the select committee because I tell you that when it comes under select committee scrutiny it will be shown for the fraud that it is and it will become an embarrassment for the Leader of the Opposition. This bill is a very poor substitute for the Government’s detailed and practical measures that will do a far better job of making our rental properties warmer drier and safer.