Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair Williams. I'd actually like to address the Hon Tracey Martin's sudden discovery of fiscal drag—the thresholds that she alluded to. Of course New Zealand First did support that in our tax legislation but we understand they're going to vote to get rid of that tomorrow. Fiscal drag's a very important economic driver of costs and it's something that should be addressed on a regular basis. That's why we passed that legislation in a tax bill.However I'll go back to the bill that we're discussing today the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. I commend the member Ruth Dyson for the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). I think SOP 9 would actually help the industry and residents prepare for that. That's great. It's a really important piece. SOP 10 does I think go some way towards the issues that were identified in the Local Government and Environment Committee process. You know we did have of course the officials even the parliamentary counsel pointing out that the bill was unlikely to actually achieve its purpose and shouldn't proceed because of unintended consequences. I wasn't on that select committee so I'd really like some feedback from the member in the chair Ruth Dyson. Does this actually address those unintended consequences that were raised by officials during the select committee process? For those of us who weren't involved that would be really important.I think the fiscal cost of this actually is also quite significant. While it's only $56 million I think from memory at the moment what this bill would address would be something like 10 percent of that if my memory serves me right. But we're predicting our population of people over 65 to increase from 700000-odd to somewhere between 1.3 and 1.5 million people by 2046. That's a significant increase but what's more important is it actually goes from 12 percent of the population to 23 percent of the population so you have a much greater number of people to be serviced or supported by fewer people who are out there in the working-age population. So I wonder if the member Ruth Dyson has thought about that. I would like to hear her thoughts on that issue.It is a complex process to apply and I don't think this SOP actually truncates that or makes it any simpler than it was prior to the SOP should it be adopted. So I wonder if there's been much thought put into that. I'd appreciate hearing from the member in the chair; that would be really important.I don't think anyone in this House disagrees that we are trying to help people and I think that's really important. What it appears most of my colleagues on this side are doing is really trying to point out that we want legislation that works that is easy to access and that actually reaches the target that it's intended to reach. Rather than just being a sort of helicopter approach we want a more surgical approach that actually meets the target meets the aims that we all want.As I said we are an increasingly ageing population. In my own electorate 22 percent of the population is over 65 one of the highest rates in the country—and why wouldn't it be of course because Marlborough's such a fantastic place for people to retire to. It's a Mecca—it's a Mecca.Hon Member: Oh more advertising.STUART SMITH: Yes of course advertising.Hon Member: Plenty of wine to drink apparently.STUART SMITH: Well that's right. They're over 21 or over 18; they're quite entitled to go to a winery and enjoy a nice glass of wine and then go back to the retirement village. So I look forward to hearing some answers to my questions. Thank you for the opportunity.