Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Chair Williams. May I first congratulate the member in the chair over there on the work that has been done to make what is quite a significant improvement to the bill in this committee stage. I've only just very recently been able to look at that Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 10 but without question it goes a very long way towards tidying up some areas that had been expressed as concerns both within the Local Government and Environment Committee and also in the second reading.Now I know Ms Dyson to have been a very fair-minded chair when she chaired the Government Administration Committee and I am sure that we could expect that she would be likewise as she sits in the chair this evening—because I do have some questions still. I mean there are still some elements of this that I think in effect were raised at least in part by officials in the select committee stage that have not really been addressed.The first of those—because it is tightly defined to a retirement village resident—points I would raise is that those villages many of which now are the larger ones are not simply villages; they are a combination of village rest home and hospital care for our elderly New Zealanders.Now if you were a resident there in one capacity or another—for instance in the rest home part of that facility—and particularly if you are even in part privately funding that care then without question you too are also sharing a burden of the overall rates for that facility. That individual—and particularly if they're paying privately or partly privately—is bearing part of the overall rates burden. Without question they are in a set of circumstances where they would not be considered to be terribly well off. So the same need exists for those individuals—and perhaps even more so actually—as for those that do have the right to occupy unit titles or contracts. The bill just simply doesn't help them.I would think actually given that the mechanism in SOP 10 is placing the onus on the retirement village operator to make sure that the rates rebate is calculated out at an appropriate amount for each of those right-to-occupy holders that it is a viable thing—certainly feasible—for them to do the same for residents in perhaps the rest home part of the facility who are still through their private payments shouldering a burden in part at least on those rates.That would give relief to people who are also in need. I think the member might want to consider that. It's surely not too late to look at what could be. I mean without question SOP 10 has made quite a significant change and a change for the better. So I'd ask that question to the member Ruth Dyson—to consider that and give us the thoughts on that. I would suggest that simply the fact that it is complicated should not be the reason not to do it. A lot of legislation is complicated. Certainly I would think—I would hope she would agree that the need is there. We wouldn't really want legislation that's either going to create new distortions or not address some of the other ones that currently exist.But on that subject of the mechanism to affect the rebate through the village operator I'd be very keen to hear if the member in the chair had actually spoken to an industry stakeholder group or indeed with any of the village operators as to the extent of the challenge that might present to them to have to work through this mechanism. They are going to have to calculate out for each individual or couple that might be entitled how much each of their respective share might be. They might have to factor in the use of shared facilities which sit alongside of the unit that they actually have the right to occupy and so they're going to have some work to do.Part of it in asking the member if she's had those conversations is to obviously understand what the impacts are but beyond that is actually what I think we would be loath to see which is those operators applying an administration fee in the process of remitting the rebate because they might well argue that there are additional costs that fall upon them to manage that process. It may be true that there are so I'd ask the member just to reflect on what conversations she might have had or might be prepared to have because we don't want to end up remitting less than the full value of the rebate to those residents in need. So I'd just like to leave my questions at this stage at those but I look forward to more contributions.