Little’s Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill up today

Written By: - Date published: 9:39 am, May 4th, 2016 - 29 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, labour - Tags: ,

Keep an eye on this today:

Labour makes another push for rental heating and insulation standards

Little’s Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill will have its first reading on Wednesday. If passed, the legislation would set minimum standards of heating and insulation for rental homes to ensure they were safe and healthy.

Labour housing spokesman Phil Twyford submitted a near-identical bill which failed to make it past first reading in March last year, due to a 60-60 deadlock. However, NZ First – which supported the bill – has gained a seat since then, meaning the bill would pass if all parties voted the same way.

Little said more than 40,000 children were admitted to hospital each year with bronchial diseases due to the poor condition of the homes they lived in. “In the end, this is about the right standards for the right things and helping our kids and their families not get sick – that’s what it’s got to be about.” …

Well done Labour and supporters for staying on this case.

29 comments on “Little’s Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill up today”

  1. miravox 1

    Relying on Dunne and the MP to do the right thing? Hopefully they will, if National has been too busy fighting fires to put forward a cohesive counter proposal that waters down the bill.

    The landlords in parliament and elsewhere need to understand that buying up rental properties comes with a responsibilities to ensure these homes are habitable, safe and not contributing to ill health of the tenants.

    Next up social housing?
    I guess maximum rents is too much to ask in the current environment?

    • I Feel Love 1.1

      You would think they would be into ‘maximum rents’ because one of the reasons Key is against the ‘Healthy Homes’ bill is that (in his logic) it would put rents up. So you would think capping rents was a goer.

    • Rosie 1.2

      Yes indeed miravox. It’s 60/60 +1 Dunne would be 61. Dunne said on TV last night “you won’t know which way I voted until tomorrow” (not an actual quote) as he played his usual cat and mouse game, in his typically smug fashion.

      Thousands of people are counting on him to do the right thing.

      • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1

        Ah, so he was still a ‘willing seller’ and hadn’t yet found any buyers at the price he set.

      • Colonial Viper 1.2.2

        If Labour hadn’t fucked over Hone and Laila in 2014, the Left would have easily passed this, and many other things, ages ago.

  2. The Chairman 2

    Is there no concern costs will fall on tenants?

    • Gangnam Style 2.1

      Then lets have a cap on rents if you are so concerned, no?

      • Colonial Viper 2.1.1

        That’s very glib; so a rental cap is in the proposed legislation yes?

        • The Chairman

          It’s disappointing Labour’s bill fails to address this concern (costs falling on tenants).

          Moreover, it compromises the effectiveness of the bill.

          Labour has conceded Little’s bill is expected to increase rental costs. Therefore, leaving tenants with less income to cover their heating costs. Which has been highlighted as attributing to the problem of poorly heated homes. A number can’t currently afford to turn their heating on.

    • McFlock 2.2

      No, because it is unlikely to affect overall house supply. But there is concern at the health costs that the tenants are currently paying.

      • weka 2.2.1

        But in somewhere like Chch where you already have a shortage of houses, why would landlords not pass the cost on?

        • Colonial Viper

          Of course landlords are going to pass the costs on, if they can.

          And the places in the big cities where rents are already sky high because of massive short supplies, is where it’s going to happen the most. Happy days.

    • Draco T Bastard 2.3

      Easy, set rent at a maximum of 25% of the renters income.

      • indiana 2.3.1

        Then only people with incomes above $100k per annum can rent houses! Why would a landlord want to rent to person on an income of this or less?

        • Draco T Bastard

          Then only people with incomes above $100k per annum can rent houses!

          Wrong. House prices would come down to match the rental income and a few people, over leveraged, would come to understand the risks that they were taking.

          Why would a landlord want to rent to person on an income of this or less?

          The government can always build more social housing. In fact, they need to so anyway.

          Then there’s the fact that I don’t believe that anyone should own housing, that it should all be a state rental.

          • Chuck

            I do worry that my kids / grand kids are going to struggle to own a home.

            Draco T B suggestion will solve the problem. But at what cost? no political party in NZ (not even the Greens!) would introduce laws that would make his suggestion a reality…way too much blood will be on the ground.

            Supply of housing is the key, and a gentle but steady decline in house values to more realistic levels would be nice…

        • McFlock

          because the tory maxim is “supply and demand”, not “supply and how much the supplier whinges about the supply costs and demand”

  3. Puckish Rogue 3

    I can see John Key talking to Dunne about Nationals own plans for this… however if Labour can get this across the line then good on them

  4. seeker 4

    “This time it might get through.”

    It has!!!!

    TV3 newshub 2 mins ago.

    Dunne did good.

  5. Pat 5

    more bad news for the gov…..Dunne’s political nose would appear to be sensing a change.

  6. Tanz 6

    landlords have become greedy, their houses are increasing weekly in value, in
    Auckland, and still they whiinge at having to spend any money. Rent caps are what is needed to stop the overcrowding etc. Neither Nat or Lab are doing enough to help vulnerable tenants.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts