Swarbrick Chlöe; Woods MeganCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Thank you Mr Chair. In addition to the comments and the questions of my learned colleague and mate Ricardo Menéndez March—that is in reference to an earlier point in the debate from the member of Tāmaki for those who are not following along at home and the officials who are having to listen to this debate. I heard from the Minister that the rationale or one of the core parts of the rationale for this extension and particularly in relation to paragraph 12 was the fact that apparently the kind of 5 to 10 percent of properties still outstanding or predicted to still outstand to comply at that 1 July 2023 deadline is largely because the tenants in those Kāinga Ora properties are kind of particularly hard to reach for lack of a better kind of definition.To that effect I did really want to drill into whether there were alternative approaches that were considered beyond just extending the time frame because I think as we've already canvassed in this debate quite thoroughly as also identified in the regulatory impact statement there's not really all too much in the way of a penalty for a lack of compliance even if you get to that Tenancy Tribunal stage if you can demonstrate as a landlord that you've attempted to comply. So I'm just wondering what kind of consideration was given to those alternative supports around for example trying to support those Kāinga Ora tenants to perhaps understand that these things are part and parcel of a healthier outcome for them with regard to their homes.But also and the countervailing point if this is kind of part of the rationale then how is it that the Government can be certain that with these tenants who are concerned about the spread of COVID-19 a pandemic that is not going away anytime soon an extra year on the time frame is going to get us there? Why were there not other ways of attempting to get that compliance up considered or contemplated or included in this legislation?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Just in regard to—I think I've already addressed the issues around compliance and penalties that the member who's just taken her seat has raised in earlier answers to questions. But in regards to questions that were raised in the contribution before that in terms of whether or not there were considerations given to different approaches whether or not there were considerations for further support for those tenants that were in these homes one of the things I do want to make clear is that all of that 5 to 10 percent isn't vulnerable tenants; I said a component of that 5 to 10 percent so I wouldn't like any member in this Chamber to misinterpret that.But one of the things that we are operating is an escalation service. Obviously our tenancy managers have intimate knowledge of tenants—their vulnerabilities their needs their requirements what their health concerns may be—and I think many of us who are constituent MPs know that we're often communicating with Kāinga Ora about the needs of particular tenants and what their needs may be. I know that it's something that my office has—since all the time I've been an MP it's been one of the critical pieces of work that has continued through and I know for many colleagues that that will be the bread and butter of their constituent clinics as well.In terms of the compensation I think that we always work with tenants on their particular needs. This wasn't a consideration and the modelling wasn't given to that in terms of what the additional health costs would be. I think we kind of need to give probably some pause for thought on exactly what we're talking about. We're not talking about a 0 percent compliance; we're talking about the fact that in the time since we've been in Government we've gone from a requirement to have 0 percent of Kāinga Ora homes compliant with some kind of healthy homes standard to the fact that we now have 84 percent of our public houses either compliant or having the builders working on them at the moment making them compliant. And by the time we get to July of next year given we're doing 600 to 700 homes a week we'll be getting pretty close to 95 percent of those homes that will be compliant.But I'm not content as a Minister to say 95 percent is near enough. If I now know that we can't meet that target—I'm hearing from private landlords they're not going to meet those targets—I think we have to do something. I don't want to knowingly put people in the position of breaking the law given that what we're dealing with is not people just choosing not to comply with these standards that these are standards that people have got into the 80 and 90 percents around in the midst of the fact that we have had a global pandemic that had lockdowns that went with it and supply chain constraints of some of the critical pieces of equipment that were required to make these homes compliant.