Dyson RuthRATES REBATE (RETIREMENT VILLAGE RESIDENTS) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I move That the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Early in the 1970s a great Prime Minister Norman Kirk looked at the situation that low-income earners found themselves in after they purchased a house and were obviously faced with an annual rates bill which for people then and now is big. There is no way of avoiding it—it is not an option. You cannot say: Oh I'll do without the rates so I won't pay my rates." It is not like food or clothes or travel; you have to pay it. So he decided to introduce a rates rebate scheme—that was central government money that was passed through to homeowners via local government. It was on a sliding scale so the higher your rates and the lower your income the more money you got. It is a very straightforward scheme based on an important principle: that people on low incomes who have high expenses not of their choosing deserve some financial support.In those days there was no such thing as licence to occupy; there was just freehold title or leasehold title. There was no such thing as licence to occupy. In fact even now within retirement villages—which are what this bill seeks to address—there is a mix of freehold title unit title and licence to occupy. This bill wants to extend the eligibility for applications for rates rebate to those in retirement villages who have a licence to occupy. Those people pay rates. They pay them to the retirement village owner and the retirement village owner then passes them over to the city council or district council.The owners of villages support this legislation because they know it would advantage their residents. The retirement village residents support this because again they know it will advantage the residents who find it difficult—if they are solely dependent on superannuation particularly—to pay their rates bill. It is exactly the same situation that Norman Kirk saw in the 1970s that we are facing now; it is just that the nature of the relationship between the person who lives in the unit in the retirement village and the village owner has changed. We no longer have as many unit titles.I had an email from a woman today who lives in a retirement village in Mosgiel. She said "I really hope your bill gets passed because when I bought my unit in the retirement village I had no option but to buy under a licence to occupy regime."—so you pay a big deposit and then you pay ongoing fees. You have a licence to occupy; you do not have ownership. But she said that people who were also in exactly the same village in exactly the same type of unit had purchased 20 years ago and have got a unit title. They get a rates rebate; she does not. She thinks that is not fair and I do not think it is fair either. I think she should get a rates rebate.When I introduced this bill to the House and explained it in that way every single member of this Parliament supported the bill to go to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I was delighted. It is not very often that that happens. It is not very often that legislation is passed without exception. It is not very often that I agree with David Seymour actually but on this occasion I am delighted that he and I agree. The bill went to the select committee and the submissions that we got were thoughtful and helpful. A lot proposed amendments. A lot said to make sure that this system works as efficiently as the rates rebate does for homeowners. The Retirement Villages Association the organisation that represents the owners of retirement villages came along very early and put its hand up and said: "We can help make this work for the owners. We can help make this work." Local Government New Zealand came along and put its hand up: "We can make this work." The Residents Association said: "We can make this work. We can help make it work efficiently." Everyone is onside.The committee asked for an extension of 2 months. I did not think they needed it. It is a small bill; it does something very straightforward. There is no complexity about this actually. Anyone who thinks this is complex is simple. I granted the 2 months' extension when the Hon Scott Simpson—who was not honourable at that stage but has since been appointed to the executive. I granted the 2 months' extension and in that time the select committee did nothing—did nothing—to engage with those three organisations that had come along and put their hands up saying: "We'll help make this work."I went to the last deliberation of the select committee and the chairperson of the select committee—it would have made you laugh if it had not been such an important issue for so many of our senior citizen residents—said this is a complex issue. No it is not; it is extending the rates rebate to people in a licence to occupy—no complexity about it. He said there will be some other forms of homeownership other than what is already covered by the rates rebate and what this extends to so there will be another anomaly. Good—introduce a member's bill Mr Bayly and fix that if you can find one but you know you cannot. If you can find another anomaly introduce a member's bill and fix it.Then the committee said this could cost money. Well that is rocket science is it not? That is very good. The members of that committee may not know that every year there is an appropriation in the Budget for rates rebates and not 1 year since 1973 when it was introduced has that full appropriation been used so there is money in the bank sitting there ready to be spent. I think residents of retirement villages should be the recipients of that money.Then the chairman Mr Bayly said: "Oh this is going to be so difficult for councils to administer." You know Auckland Council does it now. To be honest and I do not want to offend Aucklanders—oh yes there are a few Aucklanders; actually I am surrounded by Aucklanders I will make no comment. Auckland Council administers a rates rebate scheme for residents of retirement villages who have a licence to occupy. It does it. It thought it was fair but it uses ratepayers' money not taxpayers' money. Kāpitī does it; other councils are looking at doing the same thing because they think it is fair.So having gone through a great process at the first reading and gone through what I think was a very engaged and—receiving offers of help from organisations that know this stuff far better than any members of Parliament; the Retirement Villages Association the Retirement Village Residents Association of New Zealand and Local Government New Zealand all offering help. The National Government then says: "Oh what a good idea but we're not going to support it." It is the second example of petty party politics getting in the way of just doing some good for people who deserve support.Those people in Mosgiel in the retirement village will be listening to this debate. They know that five units down from them on the same street there is somebody getting a rates rebate because they bought over 20 years ago and have a unit title and they are not getting a rates rebate because they did not plan ahead well enough. They should have bought long before they needed to so they did not end up with a licence to occupy.It is stupid but it is not stupid deliberately; it is stupid because our legislation did not keep up with the changing nature of occupancy in retirement villages. They are expanding we know. Every time you turn around there is another retirement village. We should take this opportunity to support legislation that will give additional financial support to those who meet the criteria and are eligible for a rates rebate. It is a very small measure but I think it would be something good that we could progress before the election for the benefit of those people. Rates bills are big. If you are on superannuation they are really big. This is the chance for us to help those people.Before I finish I want to acknowledge those organisations that I said came along to offer their help. I also want to offer my thanks to Grey Power New Zealand branches all over the country which have debated this bill and totally support it. It is a good measure. We are not going to get to vote on it tonight because we do not have enough time for 12 speeches but we have got another member's day before we rise for the election and we have other members' days after that. I certainly know that this bill will be continued. It is time the rates rebate—such a visionary idea from Norman Kirk—was extended to people who are eligible for it but not eligible to apply because they are in a licence to occupy. It is time to address that anomaly."