Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure for me to stand as the last National Party speaker in this third reading on the bill that has been sponsored and presented through the House by the Hon Ruth Dyson. I remember the first reading of this bill back in the last Parliament. At that stage I was the chair of what was then the Local Government and Environment Committee.I went back to my Hansard from that first night and I reread it because we have heard from a series of new Government MPs this afternoon about how good this bill is and the great things that it's going to do and what a big impact it's going to have. But the simple reality was that this is a bill in its third reading and its final iteration that is incredibly different and quite another piece of work from that that was first introduced.But I went back to my first reading notes and I found that I had said these sorts of things: I said I wanted to thank the sponsor and the proponent of the legislation for bringing it to the House because I think it's an issue that the House should give consideration to. I talked about how 40-odd years ago when the original rates rebate rules were put in place the concept of a licence to occupy dwelling literally did not exist. The challenge that this bill has always had through its coming to the House has been more of a legal one than one of principle and who should be entitled to a rates rebate or not. And the simple fact of the matter is—and was at the first reading—that licence to occupy owners of dwellings actually don't own the freehold.That was the real problem because no matter what was written on the invoices that they paid to the retirement home management companies whether it said rates or fees or whatever actually it wasn't technically a rate in terms of our local government rules and legislation and it wasn't a fee simple freehold title that they had. A licence to occupy is more akin to a lease than it is a freehold. So the people who invest in a licence to occupy retirement home inevitably invest in a nice modern safe secure environment which is terrific but it's not a freehold. They're not actually buying the bricks and the mortar or the land upon which the bricks and the mortar sit. That was the nub of the issue.So at first reading the National Party did support this legislation. We supported it through to select committee for the exact purpose that select committees exist and that is to try and make well-intentioned and good legislation better. This was a piece of legislation that had some very significant flaws and some faults and I said in my first reading that I thought it was probably a well-intentioned piece of legislation but that there were going to be problems in the detail and that the fish hooks that were not remedied by the bill at first introduction would need to be addressed at select committee.I didn't sit on the select committee towards the end of its hearings and that's maybe—Hon Ruth Dyson: That's what went wrong.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: The Hon Ruth Dyson says maybe that's what went wrong and far be it from me to suggest that she could be wrong on that matter but needless to say it came back out of select committee with most of those issues still unresolved—still unresolved. It wasn't until the bill got to the committee of the whole House that through a Supplementary Order Paper that appears to have been largely the work of the Department of Internal Affairs who at select committee had opposed the legislation—they seemed to provide what was a sensible resolution to the issues and the thorny matters that were irreconcilable at select committee. So I want to thank the officials from the department who have provided a pathway through for this bill now to be able to be supported by members of the National Party because I do think that the original intention of the Hon Ruth Dyson was a good one.I come from an electorate the Coromandel where we have a very large number of 65-plus citizens living in my electorate. Like many electorates around the country we have a large number of these new retirement villages and homes and inevitably they are based on a licence to occupy model. So this is an area that did need addressing but we shouldn't I think be too hung up by the fact that this was a flawed piece of legislation at first introduction that it wasn't a good piece of legislation.The intent may have been there but the detail wasn't and it's through the parliamentary process through the legislative process that we've taken part in as a House that we've finally got to a position that is going to work for residents—seniors and people who are in these retirement villages. It also means that we're able now to fulfil the obligations of the land law that is fundamental to our property-owning democracy without compromising that. We're also able to fulfil the obligations that local government requires in administering the rates rebate scheme.So as the final speaker on this side of the House I do want to congratulate Ruth Dyson on bringing the bill to the House. I want to congratulate everybody that's been part of making it a much better piece of legislation than it was when first introduced and working in a way that has meant that we are in a position where we are today to support it. I think it will receive wide support across the House. So in conclusion I'm very happy on behalf of the National Party to confirm that we will support this bill and to commend it to the House.