Why a well-meaning Members Bill has unforeseen consequences and why we need focus on measuring performance, not criteria when it comes to residential property
In May 2026, Labour MP Helen White had her Members' Bill drawn from the Biscuit Tin. The bill would require landlords to install insulated curtains in rental properties as part of the Healthy Homes Standards. On the surface, you can see the logic in the bill. It will reduce energy consumption so it is good for the environment, and it will help keep tenants warm. It will also reduce power bills ensuring that tenants have more money in their pockets.
As we enter the winter months, it is a timely reminder that the Healthy Homes standards were introduced to improve the quality of life for renters across the country. Lots of renters live in older housing stock which needs significant investment as it ages. There is no doubt that Healthy Homes has made improvements. However, we still do not know how many Healthy Homes compliant properties there are across the country. No central register or database was set at the time of implementation of the standards and that was a mistake.
Technically, this is the first full winter where every rental property should meet the standards. If this is the case and Healthy Homes has been successful, we should see improved health outcomes through reduced illness and lower absenteeism from workplaces and schools. This would be a great study to undertake to see if the standards have worked.
Like so much Government policy, the devil is in the detail and for me, as well intentioned as this bill is, there are unforeseen consequences. When I first read this announcement, my initial thought was more bureaucracy. This is not to be critical of Ms White and her bill, it comes from a good place. But what the implementation of Healthy Homes has taught me is that Government policy poorly implemented can create significant added cost with limited benefits.
I have written in the past as to why I feel that Healthy Homes has failed to have the impact that it should have had and why focusing on criteria, rather than outcomes and performance was the wrong strategy.
- No qualifications or registrations were needed for individuals and companies to become Healthy Homes assessors leading to many reports containing errors (we once had three reports done by three different assessors and three differing outcomes on one property in Invercargill).
- A centralised database of compliance certification should have been introduced, like how bonds work. By doing this, we would have a full database of all rental properties in the country along with compliance status.
- Too much of the criteria was open to interpretation such as draft stopping and drainage. There is already legislation in place that ensures that landlords must follow the Building Act and other relevant legislation.
- There is no clear legislation as to how long a Healthy Homes certificate remains valid for leading to confusion as to how often the property needs to be assessed.
Do not get me wrong, there has been improvements and I am fully supportive for minimum heating standards as well as insulation standards and that has helped the occupants of these homes. I just cannot help but feel that all we did was create an extremely confusing system that still causes debate.
I want to take my own personal experience as an example. We have our family home in Wellington that we rented out for three years. When we moved into the property over a decade ago, we fully renovated it as it was single glazed, lacked sufficient heating and was dated. We installed double glazing, central heating, ceiling and underfloor insulation as well as a ground moisture barrier. The living area has a fantastic view with all day sun. The house is very warm and energy efficient. We decided not to put curtains on our main windows as we did not want to block our view. If this bill comes into law, we would have been forced to install curtains.
This leads me to my main point. Our current legislation needs to focus on how a property performs. My recommendation to the next Government would be to introduce Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs), similar to those used throughout the UK and Europe. This grades the property on energy efficiency. A rental property must reach a certain grade for it to be rented out. Certification is valid for 10 years and you can develop and measure the countries housing stock. This should also be introduced to all residential property and not just rental stock.
We all want warmer, healthier homes. The question is not whether standards matter, but whether they are achieving the results we intended. After years of debate, compliance costs and inconsistent interpretation, it is time to move beyond a system that measures inputs and towards one that measures outcomes. Rather than mandating curtains, vents and checkboxes, let's focus on the one thing that matters most: how a home actually performs. If we are serious about improving New Zealand's housing stock, it is time to draw the curtains on prescriptive regulation and open the door to performance-based standards.
