Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Mr Speaker thank you. The Minister who's just resumed her seat Nanaia Mahuta is quite right that National did not support this clause in the Statutes Amendment Bill which had the effect on the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill by taking away the requirement for a statutory declaration.The reason for that was twofold. First of all the Minister's officials could not explain to me when I asked what the protections were going to be in the legislation in place of the statutory declaration and I did ask for that information several times. It was disturbing to me that the officials could not enunciate what those protections would be. Secondly because a statutory declaration is not that hard to undertake given that justices of the peace are freely available in our society they can be found in supermarkets; you can go to the local lawyer's office; one can go to an MP's office; council staff can sign those forms. So to put up an argument that there is a strong impediment to those eligible people making a statutory declaration simply does not hold any water given that a number of those eligible people do in fact successfully make a statutory declaration and then uplift up to a $650 rebate on their rates which National does support. It is a very worthwhile vehicle for people on lower incomes to find some relief from rates.But the most concerning aspect to this bill which has been of course excluded from the Statutes Amendment Bill and is now taking up the time of the House for this very small little change to the Rates Rebate Act—the major problem with it is that without a statutory declaration being required there go the protections. I simply do not accept what the Minister has said that the threshold against fraud has been not significantly lowered—I think in the Minister's words minimal.The Minister also said councils have processes in place. What processes? That hasn't been explained in any of the documentation that I have read around this rates rebate bill apart from a note which does say that under the Rates Rebate Act there are processes in place. What processes? What are the penalties? Nobody has enunciated that.And then the next question that follows: who's going to determine whether or not an untrue application has taken place? The onus goes from the Oaths and Declarations Act straight back to that local authority. So what does that local authority do—open a new section which is to check the veracity of applications for a rates rebate? That's what it seems to be pointing to. So it's that complete lack of checks and balances which will now prevail in this Act because the reality is that I suspect the Government parties will agree to this.But in effect we have taken a perfectly workable regime under the Rates Rebate Act where there is a statutory declaration which is provided for in the Oaths and Declarations Act to be replaced with very little.In fact my last point on this is just to highlight what little protections there are there now. It is up to each and every council to formulate their own process for verification of the application as made to them. It has to get the approval of the Secretary for Local Government. So if that doesn't speak to red tape I don't know what does. And if that doesn't speak to adding cost on to local councils also known as ratepayers then I don't know what does. What is being achieved? A sop and that's about all.