Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure tonight to stand and support my colleagues on this side of the House in opposing the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) in its second reading. This does not mean that I am opposed to healthy homes—no. In fact what it means from this side of the House is that we support healthy homes but in a very practical sense that is achievable and does not impose added cost to the tenants of those homes.I do note that this bill was referred to the Government Administration Committee on 4 May 2016. That may explain why it has fallen behind and has not kept up with where the Government actually is at the present point in time. But it is clear that things have moved substantially in the intervening period thanks to this National-led Government. Under this progressive and responsible Government substantially more is already being done than this bill seeks to deliver. We are already doing it.We have already insulated 30000 State homes. We are walking the talk with our own housing stock as responsible landlords—more than any Government in our country's history. We have subsidised ceiling and underfloor insulation for 290000 private sector homes through the Warm Up New Zealand programme. Further to that changes to residential tenancies legislation will see the retrofitting of insulation for a further 180000 homes by 1 July 2019—not 2023 as proposed by this bill. Altogether it will be for 500000 homes—10 times what the previous Labour Government achieved. That amounts to a total investment in insulation of $116 million for Housing New Zealand stock and $450 million for Warm Up New Zealand grants—a total of $566 million invested into insulation.Another programme under way is the Healthy Homes Initiatives led by the Minister of Health the Hon Jonathan Coleman. We have seen 11 district health boards across New Zealand refer 2838 people for insulated drapes floor coverings beds ventilation and heating and this programme on its own is credited with the 45 percent drop in rheumatic fever since 2012. We know that investing in warm dry safe homes is absolutely essential and vital to the health of Kiwis especially their children and we will continue to ensure that they get our support.The difference between the two programmes is that one funds insulation and the other funds a bit of insulation but a whole lot of bureaucracy and diverts funds into inspectors who will then be able to go into people's homes to take the temperatures and that will most certainly increase the costs. I know one couple—and I have had this debate with them in the past because one likes their room really warm and the other one likes their room very cool. How is an inspector going to equalise that problem for that couple? Whether they as tenants wish to pull the drapes whether they turn on the heater or close the doors is entirely up to them not a temperature inspector.Mr Little when he introduced his bill earlier tonight called it symbolic" and it is symbolic. It is symbolic of the approach that will most certainly increase costs for tenants. There is no way that you can increase the bureaucracy in something like this without imposing costs. That will inevitably be passed on to the tenants. That in turn will put pressure on already pressurised housing stock. But we are focused and determined that that will not happen. In fact this Government actually did consider a full warrant of fitness scheme back in 2013 and trialled that experiment on its own Housing New Zealand Corporation stock. But the cost of that programme was back then $100 million a year. It was very clear that that cost would have had to be passed back on to the tenants so that programme was abandoned for that reason.I would like to quote from the New Zealand Property Investors Federation executive officer Andrew King who noted during the discussion on this bill: "We have been saying for years that a full rental property Warrant of Fitness actually isn't in the best interest of tenants. It is expensive to administer and comply with and would no doubt be added to over time with the potential to take some properties out of the rental pool." That is not an outcome that this side of the House supports and as a result we will not be increasing costs to our tenants.We have already moved to provide hundreds of thousands of tenants with greater protection through strengthened protection. We have provided for smoke alarms which are estimated to save an average of three lives a year. We are in agreement that Kiwi families deserve warm dry safe home—no one disagrees with that—but we must do it in a way that does not have negative consequences.In a former role—and I note tonight that the last three speakers from this side of the House as former mayors have all had the same role—we would have all participated with the Crown entity the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA). I know from my own personal experience in dealing with EECA through its very enthusiastic advocates—I am sure my one Mike will remember coming to the West Coast—that EECA promotes these packages that support home insulation.There is very clear data now that supports the home insulation packages and the biggest beneficiaries of those are in the health sector with absolute reduced numbers of admissions for respiratory illnesses and that is a direct result of insulating homes and making them warmer and drier. That data is absolutely stark so there is no question about the impact of that. But EECA is actually running those programmes on behalf of the Government and the Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes programme which I have referred to earlier offers the grants for insulation and retrofitting to make those homes warmer drier and healthier.As a matter of interest to people who hear us talking about these insulation programmes but may not know how to actually access them the grants are available for homeowners and landlords and grants of 50 percent of the cost of insulation are now available as well for low-income earners and landlords with low-income tenants. These Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes grants are limited and will finish by the end of June next year so I do encourage not only tenants to encourage their landlords but people on low incomes and landlords with low-income tenants to take the best advantage of these grants as they are available right now. If the house was built before the year 2000 and if you own the home and have a community services card or your tenant has a community services card then these grants are available. But also if you have high health needs you are also eligible for these insulation packages. If you simply have high health needs—yes. Yes in summary my colleague Matt Doocey earlier tonight gave a very inspiring speech and used the rugby analogy of looking at the scoreboard. That is what I would like to finish on—looking on the scoreboard—and the numbers do speak for themselves: 500000 homes insulated $566 million invested in warm dry safe homes. Numbers speak for themselves."