Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)

This clause 2 on the commencement is even more remarkable than the title in its duplicity.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: You’re remarkable!

Well, the member interjects. Let me just take him through it. The bill that was introduced by Andrew Little reads—this is the bill we have before us—that the provisions in this bill will come into effect “5 years after the date … the Act receives the Royal assent”.

💬 Hon Member: Five years?

Five years. Righty-o. We passed a law that said that all homes that are tenanted need to be insulated by 1 July 2019—roughly 18 months away. Now, how can members like Mr Little; the Minister in the chair, Phil Twyford; and the members over the other side of the House—who want to trot round the Parliament and the country, and say, “We’re the ones about healthy homes.”—want, in this bill, to do it in five years, rather than 18 months? Isn’t that kind of bizarre? Doesn’t that sort of contradict everything that members opposite stand for?

And here’s the funniest part. I’ve read through the Hansard from when my bill was introduced. I’ve got a speech—I’ve got the exact words from Mr Twyford. He said at that stage, in response to a bill that requires all 180,000 uninsulated tenanted homes to be done by 1 July 2019, “that is [excessively] far too long”. He says it’s a “massive loophole”. He says it’s disgraceful—disgraceful—that the Government is going to allow until 1 July 2019.

I could quote the comments from Mr Kris Faafoi. I note he’s in the House. He said at the time that 1 July 2019 was way too slow, and that it was not nearly ambitious enough. Now, I’m not sure what’s changed, Mr Faafoi.

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: The Government.

Oh! Hey, I’ve got the answer. Kris Faafoi has said what’s changed is the Government. I’m reminded of that famous comment from Steve Maharey: “Well, that’s just what you say in Opposition.” That is the integrity and the standard that this Government has set itself in week number two—week number 2. I have never—and I’ve been through a few Government changes—seen a Government—

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: You’re responsible for the last one.

Ah, just been around a while, mate. Won my seat a few times; been here a while. I’ve never seen a Government become so cynical and so duplicitous so early in its term.

What’s extraordinary: guess what date the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper chooses for the bill to come into effect—1 July 2019. That rings a bell—it rings a bell: it’s the current law. The current law provides for the insulation of homes to be put in place by then. So I simply say: this bill doesn’t do anything. It’s like an emperor with no clothes. Mr Little says, “Oh, no, the detail’s not in the bill; the detail will be in the regulations.” The problem with that is this: the existing law allows all those regulations to be passed.

There are the Housing Improvement Regulations—if the Government wants to amend those and change the standards around what might be required in a heating device or for ventilation or any of those, that’s fine. He can do that. If the member wants to change the insulation standards, the powers already exist to do that. So the nonsense of this bill is it adds absolutely nothing to what the Government could do right now. Here’s the truth: you’ve got a new Government, it hasn’t done its homework, and it hasn’t got anything to do, even in the second week of its Parliament, and so we get nonsense bills of this sort, which have got grandiose titles, that do no more than choose a commencement date that is absolutely identical to what is already in the law of the land.

Again, I state, on 1 July 2019, National’s law will require every one of those 180,000 homes to be insulated. What does this change? Absolutely nothing, and I question why we are wasting the—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, it’s a pleasure to follow the Hon Dr Nick Smith in discussing the commencement of this bill. The reason for that is that Nick Smith was part of a Government that did more than any other Government in our history to create healthy homes in our country, which is of course the name of this bill and what we are debating tonight.

The last Government provided subsidies to insulate 290,000 private homes across New Zealand, making them healthier, and it insulated every State house in the country that could be insulated. All of that happened within the space of five years, which is exactly the amount of time that this bill will take to be enacted in this House. That goes to show what can be achieved in five years, unlike this bill.

Madam Chair, I seek your indulgence for a moment. I just want to read part of the explanatory note of this bill, which says: “Landlords already have obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act with respect to the properties they let out. However, there is no guidance about the specific standards they must meet to ensure warm and dry accommodation. This Bill amends the Residential Tenancies Act to require the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment to set minimum standards for heating and insulation in rental properties within 6 months.” So my question to the Minister in the chair is: why not wait?

He said himself that he is going to be reviewing the Residential Tenancies Act next year. If it is going to take 6 months for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to work on regulations, why not include that in that review? He could have done that over the next six months and brought a bill to this House with the detail in it. We don’t know what we’re debating. My question to him is: if the regulations will take six months to determine, why not include them in the review next year, when we know what we’re voting for, rather than us voting blindly for what the regulations might be?

I came to this place to debate good legislation. I saw Duncan Webb in the House earlier tonight. I’m sure that’s the reason he came here as well. Unfortunately, this is not good law and not good policy. I’m sorry to say this is a poor way to create legislation. There is no guarantee of healthy homes in this bill, and the Government have us voting blindly on what the regulations might look like. It’s a Clayton’s bill—it’s the sort of bill you put up when you don’t have a bill. This bill should be withdrawn until the Labour Government have done their homework. They haven’t done that yet, and that’s been the case across the last few days of debate in this House. They haven’t done the work. Time and time again—and I’m sure we’ll see this over the next few weeks—they’ll bring legislation forward—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It is pretty clear that this is a debate that is clause by clause in this legislation. We are now on clause 2, which is about the commencement of the legislation. What we’re hearing from the honourable member is a very wide-ranging—I wouldn’t say dissection of the bill but a glossing over of it, but nothing about commencement. He’s used 3½ minutes of his time already, and we haven’t heard about commencement, and that’s what this debate needs to be about.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It’s OK, Dr Smith, I can rule on this. Members, I am allowing this member to be a little more free-form in this debate, given that he is a new member to the House. But I do take your point on board, and I would encourage the member to be much more specific about the commencement provisions within this clause.

I thank Madam Chair for her guidance, and I also thank the Hon Andrew Little. He perhaps missed it: I did actually refer to the commencement of this bill. It’s not coming into force for five years, and in that time, this party, when we were in Government, insulated hundreds of thousands of homes.

In that time, what they are talking about is talking about it. They’re not talking about insulating homes; they are talking about talking about it. The Minister in the chair—I’d like him to take a call, because I want to hear from him why he won’t include in his review next year exactly what we’re debating. We wouldn’t need a bill, we wouldn’t need a commencement of a year, or five years, or 10 years if he was to bring that forward to next year and, instead, have the debate as part of the Residential Tenancies Act review, which he has promised next year, rather than creating a bill that’s stand-alone, pushing this through. It does nothing. It’s a Clayton’s bill. It’s the sort of bill that you bring forward when you’ve got nothing better to talk about.

💬 Clayton Mitchell: Go for the hat-trick—hat-trick!

I thank the member opposite. I’m sure he’d like to take the credit for it, but, unfortunately, this is a bill that the entire Government benches are responsible for, and it’s not a good bill. That’s why we will be opposing it. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: Come on, guys. Be a bit more enthusiastic.

Well, actually I was waiting for the honourable member up there. He looked like he was about to take a call. But look, Madam Chair, it is clause 2 and it is about the commencement. I don’t want to labour the point, but it is significant—

💬 Hon Member: I see the pun.

Ha, ha, that’s right. But the point that has been made, and the Hon Nick Smith made it, is that we are talking about five years. I want to also point this out, because the Hon Andrew Little for whom this bill was the Zephyr Mark II Bill, said—and he spoke very passionately—that it is about time that we do something for those who are vulnerable. He actually talked about the fact, the importance, that if we’re going to care for those who are in need—they talked about the homes, they talked about the fact that there are young children out there. In fact, they used figures like 42,000 children, and so forth. Well, if it’s that important, then why are we waiting five years? Why are we waiting five years?

It’s actually quite a simple point. Why are we sort of prolonging the aspect of being able to get on and do the business? The Minister knows this. He’s actually spent, as the spokesperson for housing, almost six years—I think that’s probably the period that he was the spokesperson for housing; he knows these issues—advocating for them very strongly. So if he knows what they are, he knows what the regulations are—and also, as Andrew Falloon has said, he has also promised there’s going to be a review of the Residential Tenancies Act too for next year, and he knows these things—why are we waiting five years for the commencement of this?

Now, there’s silence on the other side, because I sense even they over there realise actually it is way too long. You see, you are only going to have to wait another 2½ years when the nation will ask you this question: you went out and you promised these things, that you would make these houses warm and dry. You turned around and said you’re going to do the big KiwiBuild—sorry, “KiwiBuy” scheme now, not KiwiBuild but “KiwiBuild and Buy”; it’s a combination, a sort of fried rice thing going on. Now all of a sudden there’s the back tracking, right? Because the realisation is this: when you are on the Government benches—right?—you realise that the aspect of being able to moderate what you promise comes into reality. You can be on this Opposition side all care and no responsibility, but when you’re over there now the responsibility lies with you. So the Government on the other side are going to have to answer to the public this question: we went out and promised that we would make these homes warm and dry. And you’re also going to have to be able to compare that to the record of the National Government in five years: 31,000 of Housing New Zealand Corporation homes insulated; 295 in the private market in rentals were insulated. You’re going to have to be able to put that record on.

But you are going to have to say this: “Oh, that’s right. We are actually going to take five years to get there. So we’re going to need you to give us a bit more confidence to give us another term to get to that point where we can commence the work that we want to do.” Now, I have to say to you this—and on the other side I guarantee there are those that are now questioning—why is it taking so long? And I hope that the Minister in the chair will stand and give us a good rational reason why. In that reasoning will he talk about the costing of the reasons why? Will he talk about the implications of the change in the regulations? Will he talk about the impact on landlords, the effect that that will have to those who are renting? Will he have thought through all the details? He’s actually had six years in Opposition to speak, to understand, to meet the industry, to talk about that, because that’s actually what he promised.

Here on this side we can laugh a little bit, we can joke and banter a bit, but let’s get down to the seriousness, because you promised that. You promised the very people in those communities—even over in Porirua, even in those places like that, you said to them this: “We will, if we become the Government make these homes warmer and drier.” But guess what? It’s going to take you five years to do it. Yet in five years, under a National Government, again 31,000 of Housing New Zealand homes were insulated, 295—you’re going to have to stack up your record against that, and I’ve got to say to you it’s going to be pretty tough.

How will you do that? How will you tell them? How will you speak to those people in Carterton and Masterton? How will you tell them that under this Government, under this coalition, with New Zealand First and Labour, we agreed to this commencing in five years’ time? What will you say to them? What will be your rhyme and reason? How will you explain it? You can blind them with science but the bottom line is this: talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words. What will be the record that you put on record to be able to say, “This is what we achieved.”?

So I think that in regard to the commencement I’ve stayed true to scope around the commencement date. I think actually the point is really clear—

💬 Hon Member: Just because you say it doesn’t make it true.

And I hope the member will stand up and actually take a call.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, I don’t want to waste the time of the committee responding to all of the hyperbole and the rhetoric that we have heard from the Opposition benches, but I just want to say this: for the next nine to 12 years we are going to be spending a lot of time debating the Labour-led Government’s housing legislation and housing policy. If that side of the Chamber wants to spend all of that time debating the legacy of the Hon Dr Nick Smith, we are quite happy with that. In fact, we welcome that.

But I want to just make a few brief comments about the time frames around the commencement and compliance period. The first point I want to make, in response to a number of queries from the Opposition benches, is that the current compliance period for the insulation and smoke alarm standards contained in the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act persist. They’re still there, so the requirements on people to meet the standards for smoke alarms and insulation as contained in last year’s amendment bill still continue. A number of speakers have questioned why in this Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) there is a longer compliance period of five years from the point of commencement. The reason is that this bill will go a lot further than last year’s Government legislation. So it will add—it will contain in the regulations standards on drainage, heating, insulation, moisture control, and ventilation. It goes a lot further than the Government’s legislation last year. It will be more complex and, yes, it will be more expensive for landlords, because it actually does the job properly. It will make all rental properties in this country warm and dry, and that is worth voting for.

But I want to correct some of the statements that were made, and most recently by the member the Hon Alfred Ngaro, who seemed to be under the misapprehension that under this bill there will be a five-year commencement period. It’s not a commencement period for five years. There is an 18-month commencement period. From the moment the Governor-General signs this bill into law, there is an 18-month commencement period during which the Government will be designing and testing and consulting on the regulations. The first of July 2019; that’s when it comes into force, OK? Then there is a five-year compliance period—but hold your breath, because during that time, every time a tenancy agreement is renewed, varied, or set up, the landlord in that tenancy will have to certify in the agreement that the property meets the standards set down in the regulations. And during that time, we know—we know that the average tenancy length in New Zealand is less than a year, right? So in the first year, approximately 40 to 50 percent of those homes in the market of rental properties will have to meet the standards. In another year it will be another 40 to 50 percent. So it will be staggered over the first few years and then, when the five years is up, if there are any properties that still don’t meet the standards they will then have to certify that they meet them.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I thank the Minister of Housing and Urban Development for taking the time to stand up and explain to the Opposition precisely how the lead-in will work, and the compliance. I appreciate the arguments that have been put up by the Opposition around the commencement date. It is heartening to know that they are concerned that it might be too long and that they would want it done earlier, which in some ways sort of seems a bit strange, given how that party used to be the champion of small business. It used to be worried about compliance costs and used to be worried about the ability for small businesses and landlords and small mum and dad investors to meet the Government legislation that they were quite happy to pass through in their time in Government. If this gives those mum and dad investors that time—to find the money, to get the work done, to get the assessments done, and to complete the work—then I guess that is a good thing.

But let’s also consider what the options could have been. If we look back on housing history over different Governments’ times, I can remember, as a brand spanking new member of Parliament, running a list MP’s office in Christchurch and taking in constituency work that wasn’t being done by elected electorate MPs, either because they were too lazy or too incapable to do that work or because they simply weren’t trusted. So I would get work from Gerry Brownlee’s electorate and other electorates, and one of the streets that I recall, if I go back to then, is a street called Roxburgh Street, where a whole line of houses was suffering mould. I can go now into Masterton, after nine years of National governance, and go over to the eastern side, and see houses right now that aren’t insulated and, quite frankly, that many people say shouldn’t even be occupied. So if we could make this retrospective, and pick up those houses and have the work done, wouldn’t that be a wonderful thing? But this work, despite all that the National Party might like to trumpet was done that was positive—and I will thank the Hon Simon Bridges for assisting me to get some homes insulated in Masterton—the fact is that the standards—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Good Minister.

Well, it was a good response, because his own MP had told the constituents that he couldn’t do a damned thing to help them, so they came to me. But imagine how much better things would have been if we’d had this legislation enacted five years ago, nine years ago, 10 years ago—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: We did—we did it. It’s already done.

—imagine how much better. The former Minister, Nick Smith, interjects, but if there’s no need for this legislation, then tell us in this House why and how it is that there are still so many homes that are unhealthy, that have poor drainage, and that have mildew issues.

I can take that member into houses that, actually, don’t belong to Housing New Zealand any more, because they sold them. They sold them to an, apparently, responsible community housing provider who has not done the work, because they are not obligated. If we could take this commencement date back five years, maybe those houses owned by Trust House Charitable Trust in Masterton would be insulated and would be more healthy—you know, the 541 houses that National sold that are still substandard. In fact, now I hear Trust House Charitable Trust making pitches, saying they want to come and talk to this wonderful Minister of Housing and Urban Development, because they want help to upgrade their homes, actually, that they’ve owned since 1999.

So maybe the commencement date’s wrong. Maybe we should backdate it. No—the Hon Nick Smith says no, that’s not a good idea. Maybe we could have backdated it nine years, or backdated it six years, or three years, because somehow, somewhere along the line, despite all the good work that the Hon Simon Bridges tried to do helping me help people in Masterton, we still have homes that are unhealthy. We still have that.

New Zealand First looks forward to further reviews of the Residential Tenancies Act, because we look at things like earthquake strengthening. We look at the opportunity to address those matters that are still lagging behind. This is a good first step. Maybe the Opposition would like the legislation advanced forward another three years, but I actually think the Minister’s explained why it sits where it is, and the fact that most of those houses, due to the length of their occupancy—go to Hampshire Street. Those people have tenancies that last one year. The bill will pick them up.

Oh, thank you so much, Madam Chair Williams. I’m really pleased to be speaking on the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2), and I’d just like to start by congratulating you, Madam Chair, on being appointed Assistant Speaker of this House. As it’s only one of my first times speaking—it’s my third time speaking in the Chamber, actually, and it’s a real honour to be here—I do ask for your patience, because I am just learning. I am just learning.

Let me just start by saying this is a Clayton’s bill.

💬 Hon Members: Hooray!

That’s right.

💬 Clayton Mitchell: No need to bring me into the debate.

And there’s the Clayton. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Members.

Thank you—thank you. So, as I said, it’s a Clayton’s bill, and as we discuss the commencement of this bill, we realise that five years is quite a long way away.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Not really—you’ll be a Minister by then, my friend.

Oh, thank you, thank you—thank you, Simon. In five years’ time it will be 2022—2022. Labour will be back in Opposition, and we’ll be cleaning up the mess that they have left behind.

💬 Matt Doocey: The economy will have tanked.

The economy will have tanked, too—that’s right, Mr Doocey—as they said, as Winston said when he announced his decision a few weeks ago. Five years, as I was saying, is a long time to be bringing in these regulations, and I think that just goes to show that this bill is a bit like some insulation. You know, it just fills some gaps. You know, we’ve got some gaps to fill on the Order Paper, so they decided to put forward the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2).

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: This one’s getting the new-member leniency, too, is he?

That’s right—that’s right. We’re debating this bill in regard to the commencement of it, and we’ve got to ask the question—we’ve got to ask the question—why didn’t they just keep to what National had already put in place? Why didn’t we just go ahead with what the Government had already put in place: regulations that were going to be—but now we’ve got a question of regulations and no one knows what they’ll be. No one knows what they’re going to say. It says in this document that I have seen circulated—the cover says “Heating and insulation standards for residential rental properties.” It was prepared by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, so it’s an official document, and it asks the question: “Where do the costs fall?” It says, “Further clarification on the composition of proposed standards for insulation, heating, draught proofing, ventilation, controlling moisture ingress, and drainage is required before total costs can be determined accurately. These costs can then be considered through the assessment process for regulations that will give effect to these standards.” Later on, it says, “The cost to private landlords will depend both on the current state of the properties and on the exact standards set in regulations.”

So we’ve got five years—five years—for people to work out what these standards and regulations might be, and five years, then, in which they’ll then be able to do—I’d just like to say I’m delighted to have been appointed to the Regulations Review Committee, a very important committee. It is a very important committee, but it looks like this is going to be a committee where we look after Clayton’s bills, because there are going to be lots of regulations that we’re then going to have to scrutinise and make sure that we look after—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: This is what Parliament’s here for—high-quality scrutiny.

Yes, high-quality scrutiny, Mr Bridges, is exactly what we will be doing on that committee—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Holding the Government to account.

—holding this Government to account—and I think this piece of legislation may be one of the first that we may have to be looking into to make sure that they’re doing a good job and to make sure that they’re putting through regulations that actually make a proper difference. It goes back to the point: they could’ve just gone ahead with what we’d already put in place, but now we’ve got a five-year truncated process, we’re fluffing things out, and we’re making it all take a lot longer than needs to happen. We’re making a whole lot of uncertainty, and I think that’s where this will end up. So I’m looking forward to looking at this under the Regulations Review Committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I tell you what, mate, you’ve got to be a bit brave and quick off the hips there, mate. Put your guns away. Look, I wasn’t going to come down and speak to this bill tonight, ladies and gentlemen, but Madam Chair Williams—great to see you sitting there—I heard the Minister with his opening comments, and I was just compelled to come down, particularly when I got brought into the debate. Madam Chair, I understand now what it feels like to be brought into the debate. I think I lost count at about seven Claytons in the House tonight. That’s absolutely unheard of, all right.

I think this bill was probably more adequately named the “Gerry Brownlee Bill” because it’s more apt with the “You Can’t Have Your Cake and Eat It Too Bill”. At the end of the day—[Madam Chair points to bill] I’m getting to that, to the comments. I’m just catching up with everybody. But at the end of the day, we have got a bill that is talking about bringing in some regulations over a period of time that is sustainable for landlords to bring in. Had we gone the other way and taken a retrospective legislative look at this problem that we’ve seen the National Party do for nine years, we would have reversed it and opened it up and done it last week.

Guess what—we’ve been in Government for only three sitting days. For three sitting days I get to hear the chirping in, the chiming, the chastising, the mud-slinging, the stone-throwing from a former Government that’s had nine years to look after tenants.

Now, I can proudly say I’m a landlord, and I’m not a slum dog landlord that we are trying to protect our tenants from. There is nothing wrong with capitalism; we are pro-capitalism. What we’ve got to do is give the face to capitalism—regulate capitalism to make sure we don’t get what we’ve been having for a number of years.

The vast majority of landlords around this country are responsible landlords that see their legal and moral obligation is to ensure that they provide warm, safe, dry homes that aren’t full of moisture and black mould, causing all sorts of problems with tenants. But there are those—I’m looking directly at you, Mr Smith—landlords that don’t abide by those moral obligations, and this legislation brings into place, over a timely fashion, an ability for landlords to get themselves up to speed. That is ensuring that we have warm, safe, dry homes, without mould causing all sorts of influential problems on our youth. Now that’s a responsible approach.

You can’t have a “Gerry Brownlee Bill” here today. It’s not a Clayton’s bill, all right—that’s the bill you’ve got when you haven’t really got one. In actual fact, it probably is a Clayton’s bill, because this is a bill you’ve actually got when you’ve actually got a bill, right? So I’ll take that, lads. Well done, Mr Falloon, “Mr What’s-his-name”—I forget his name. I’ve got to learn these names—great speeches, by the way. Mr Brown, Simeon—great stuff. But I don’t know if you own properties, I don’t know if you’ve rented for long, I don’t know what sort of price bracket you rent in, but at the end of the day we have got a legal and moral obligation, and this House is here to make laws.

We’re not here to regulate; that comes after we make the law. When you ask yourself—when you’re sitting at home, when you’re sitting in your nice, warm, dry, safe house, think about those people that don’t have a nice, warm, dry, safe house to sleep in. You have an obligation as an elected member to ensure that we can deliver on all the necessities that the people that aren’t as lucky as you can actually enjoy as well.

So you can sit there and you can chirp away. You can say it’s a Clayton’s bill. You can say that it’s a bill that you have got when you haven’t got the bill—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: You said that.

—but in actual fact—oh no, they’ve said it like six times. I’ve still got five more to catch up; get these guys up to speed with it. That’s why I call it the “Gerry Brownlee Bill”, because you can’t have your cake and eat it too, Mr Woodhouse.

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

Now they’re catching up—now they’re catching up. Right, so I just want to finish off this short call by saying that every journey starts with a step, and this is the first step to actually ensuring we are looking after the vulnerable people in our society.

I tell you what else—there’s another step coming, and there’s a whole raft of steps that we’re going to be taking, looking after middle Kiwis, bottom-end Kiwis, instead of the top-end that we’ve been seeing being given privilege under that Government—the multinationals that don’t pay their tax, and now you can bring me in a little bit.

At the end of the day, we’ve got to create warm, dry, safe homes that are affordable to live in, that actually can get Kiwis back into a home-owning democracy that we once used to enjoy. Even years ago under a National Government they used to enjoy that, and where’ve they gone now? Absolutely deaf ears, because you know you’ve sold yourself out to a country that used to look after those vulnerable people. We are there to restore the faith in this democratic House, this Parliament, to ensure that we deliver for all New Zealanders. Madam Chair, thank you.

Members, if you could just resume your seats. I just want to remind members that this is supposed to be a robust and lively debate, but the amount of heckling is actually turning into a bit of a barrage. So just respectful and useful interjections I would ask for. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. Being a humble member from Clutha-Southland, I thank you for giving me a go in front of the Hon Michael Woodhouse and the Hon Nick Smith here—two Ministers that I have looked up to for a number of years.

Madam Chair, I just want to start by congratulating you on your role. It’s a bit like refereeing rugby. I’ve been a referee for 10 years, and if this was a game of rugby, it’s great that our team’s got 56 points and your team’s got 46 points, Labour. Over the years of refereeing rugby, I’ve seen some bad calls in my time—a few first-class rugby games, 50-plus premier games; I thought I’d seen it all. I thought I’d seen some pretty bad spectators and some pretty bad calls—that’s until I got to Parliament, so I look forward to the friendly banter over the years. I’d just like to congratulate the “class of ‘17” from both sides of the House, and, in particular, list MP Mark Patterson—looking forward to working with you, Mark, to progress the interests of our people.

💬 Simeon Brown: Thanks, Hamish.

My concern with this commencement—and, of course, Simeon Brown. Thanks, Simeon.

My concern with this bill is the imposed costs on tenants, and also around the lack of detail. For a number of years in my previous life, I ran a property management company; we managed a few hundred rental properties. So I’ve been into hundreds of rental properties. I’ve done hundreds of inspections. I’ve met probably thousands of tenants, hundreds of landlords, and this bill gives no detail for the landlords. I used to run landlord seminars, and what they need is a sense of the framework.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: What would you tell them?

Exactly, Mr Woodhouse—what would you tell them? The lack of detail is very, very concerning. I urge the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: if he can, basically, update the bill with some detail. It would give investors a lot more clarity and structure around the bill. The seminars that I have run in the past, talking to different landlords—they just need a clear framework, and with this bill, it’s so sparse with detail you could actually run a bus through it. What are you going to tell these landlords?

I just want to congratulate the previous National Government on insulating nearly 200,000 homes—sorry, 340,000 homes, and counting. By July 2019, all private homes will be insulated. That’s a pretty spectacular achievement. That’s excellent. I put that down to the Hon Nick Smith there, and I congratulate him—

💬 Hon Member: The team.

—and the team, of course, for this.

This title is complete fabrication, as there’s no guarantee—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I don’t want to sound like I’m beating an old drum, but, again, the members opposite agreed on a clause by clause debate. It’s pretty strict in scope: we’re on clause 2; it is about commencement. I think that member mentioned the word “commencement” once, which is fine for the first 30 seconds, but, actually, we’re now, kind of, three minutes into the contribution. These debates in the committee of the whole House require a strict application to the scope, so we need to hear about commencement.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That might have some merit if it was not for the fact that Government member Mr Ron Mark, the other further Government member, gave a very wide-ranging speech. The Minister took a speech from the chair and actually made a very wide record about all sorts of housing issues that are well beyond the commencement—

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you—[Interruption] Thank you. I thank the member—thank you both for your comments. I do agree we are starting to range. This is a very, very specific clause. I would encourage the member to stay to the specifics of the clause.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Andrew Little, for pulling me up on that. It’s great to have your experience in the committee.

I’d just like to finish my comment on the commencement of this date with a comment by Andrew King, who is the investors’ president: “The new regulations”—this was the quote from the national regulations implemented a few years ago—“appear reasonable. We have been saying for years that a full rental property [WoF] actually isn’t in the best interest of [the] tenants. It is expensive to administer and comply … and would no doubt be added to over time with the potential to take some properties out of the rental pool.”

I just want to talk about a constituent who came and saw me last week. He’s a young guy, early 30s, married with two kids. He owns one rental property, trying to get into a second rental property, and he said to me, “Hamish, there’s no detail here. What am I actually going to do when I buy the second investment property? How much extra cost do I have to impose on the tenants?” Lack of detail—is it going to be $10 a week, is it going to be a hundred dollars a week? So, to the Minister, my only suggestion is: please put in some detail to give landlords some idea of what on earth is going on, because I’m a simple guy from Clutha-Southland, and, judging by this bill, I’ve got no clue myself.

I move, That the question be now put.