Ross Jami-LeeRATES REBATE (RETIREMENT VILLAGE RESIDENTS) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 26 July.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call the—JAMI-LEE ROSS: I'm not Hon" don't worry—Jami-Lee Ross.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Jami-Lee Ross.JAMI-LEE ROSS: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. You helped my colleagues a bit there too to remember my name.I am taking a call on behalf of the National Party on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. I thank Ruth Dyson for coming up with the idea and bringing it to the House by way of a bill. Unfortunately the National Party position is still the same as that prior to the election which is that we will not be supporting the bill progressing further at this point in the form that it's in. However that's not to say that the National Party doesn't support the intention of the bill which is that retirement village occupiers—residents in a retirement village—should have access to the same rates rebate scheme.When I was sitting in my office going through this and asking myself the question "Could I convince my colleagues that there's merit in supporting this bill?" I took time to go through the departmental report and the select committee report on the matter—and I read the bill itself as well which is a one-clause bill essentially—and I was drawn by the fact that there is a lot of advice and evidence in those reports suggesting that what the bill is seeking to implement simply wouldn't actually be achieved by the bill in its current form. There was a lot of advice from the Department of Internal Affairs and there was a lot of advice from parliamentary counsel as well that went to the Local Government and Environment Committee which suggested that the one change that the bill would make to the Rates Rebate Act around the definition of ratepayer simply wouldn't go far enough to sort out many of the other issues that do exist already and could be created by this amendment in and of itself.I understand that the select committee sought an extension of time once and it got that to try and do further work. It sought a further extension of time to do even more work on the bill but that extension of time was denied for a range of reasons. I submit to the House and submit to the member in charge Ruth Dyson and even to the Minister for Seniors who I see is in the House as well that we're of the view that this bill should be given much more consideration either by a select committee or it could be taken up by the Minister for Seniors.I know that look we're in Opposition now; it's a bit of a new world for us and we don't have the same access to officials and advice that we had previously and we are aware that Opposition members that don't have the same access to that advice often will put forward ideas—as I think this is one—which are well-intentioned but may not have the full research behind it and may not have the full backing of official advice which would turn it into a high-quality bill that could achieve what is intended. When you are in Opposition it easy to say "Well we're not ultimately responsible for it; we're just going to plough on ahead anyway because that National Party—we can go into retirement villages and say that National's not going to let you get a rates rebate." That's easy to do when they're in Opposition but I submit to members on that side now—the Hon Ruth Dyson who has been a Minister before—that the issue is now their responsibility. They are now in Government and the issues that the Department of Internal Affairs have quite rightly raised should be taken into consideration. Whilst the intention of the member in charge of the bill is honourable I think it actually would be somewhat reckless for a Government member to plough ahead with a member's bill that their own officials say wouldn't be workable and their own officials say would create potentially even more anomalies.If I stand back and say "Should residents of a retirement village that are contributing funds towards the cost of paying the rates or taxes towards the local authority—should they have the same access to a rates rebates scheme as owner-occupiers do?" I have to say yes. It seems reasonable that they would. Should we write a law that is written in such a way that it's fair and equitable for all people in this situation—Michael Wood: You only had nine years to do that.JAMI-LEE ROSS: —and does not—oh stop that Michael. Michael: he was in local government; he should know better. Is it fair and reasonable that a law should be passed that would create more anomalies and more problems? I have to say no. So what I would support and what I think my side of the House would support is that the bill goes back to a select committee and is investigated further or the Minister picks it up and uses her ability as a Minister to apply officials to it to make it into a much more comprehensive bill and a bill that would actually achieve what is being sought.When you're getting advice from the department where they're saying that it would just create more anomalies where it wouldn't work where there'd be situations where residents of a retirement village would end up paying potentially no rates or residents of a retirement village in one situation would access the scheme and in another situation wouldn't access the scheme—I just don't think we should be progressing with the bill in that form.I think the wider issue and the wider question that should be answered by the Government and addressed by the House at some point is a full look at the Rates Rebate Act. It is a 40-year-old Act. It was written in 1973. Times have changed considerably.Hon Aupito William Sio: You weren't even born then.JAMI-LEE ROSS: No I wasn't. I wasn't born back then. Thank you Mr William Sio. He was a long time ago.The Act was written in 1973 and it really needs a good brush up. It needs a good look at by the new Government and I think Tracey Martin could probably do a good thing by picking up that Act as Minister for Seniors taking it forward and giving it a proper consideration. So we would support a thorough investigation into the Rates Rebate Act. There's a new Governance and Administration Committee which I think is a committee that has both four members from the Government and four members from the Opposition. There is an opportunity through that committee to thoroughly look at these issues around rating and affordability and also issues to do with the rates rebates scheme. I would suggest that is the better course of action.Yes it is possible for Ruth Dyson and her colleagues to plough on ahead with this bill. But the advice that the select committee received is now the advice from their own officials. They are now responsible for this Act and what happens. They can't just say it's the Government's problem; they are the Government now. We support the intention of the residents of a retirement village having access to a rates rebate scheme. We share—well we accept the advice of officials that this would not be workable. We accept the advice that it should be looked at thoroughly and it takes more than just one clause in a member's bill to address this issue. I would hope that the member could send it back to a committee; either send it back to a committee or come with a very expansive Supplementary Order Paper in the committee stage. But that's our position. We wish we could help more but in this case we can't see a way in which we could support the bill in its current format and we'll be opposing it."