Woods MeganDr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is always interesting to watch crocodile tears in this House. To say If only we'd had more time we would've supported it." is absolute nonsense. This bill was sitting before the Local Government and Environment Committee. There were organisations that were more than prepared to answer any of the very fragile excuses that National members put up as the reasons why they could not support this bill. The real reason that the Government members wanted more time on this bill was so they did not have to go to a vote before an election when they were not going to vote in the best interests of thousands of New Zealanders.Let us have a look at the reasons that the members opposite are putting up as to why they cannot vote for it. They are saying that it is just administratively too difficult that it is too hard to administer and how would you do it? Well there are several answers to the "how". We actually had the Retirement Villages Association saying it would work through that with the committee. But more importantly we can point to local authorities around the country that are already paying rates rebates to people in retirement villages. That is the most important thing. It is not too difficult; it is being done.This original scheme was introduced in 1973 by the Rt Hon Norman Kirk. And like most things that Norman Kirk did it was a very pragmatic solution to an identified problem. What Norman Kirk saw was that there were a whole lot of people who were asset rich and income restrained and that in your retirement years paying rates to the local authority on your property could be a stretch when all you had was your pension to pay for it. I think that that was a laudable scheme. It was a laudable scheme in 1973 and it certainly is a laudable scheme in 2017. I congratulate my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson for continuing that legacy.Both Ruth and I can trace lineage to the Rt Hon Norman Kirk in the seats that we hold.Matt Doocey: So can I.Dr MEGAN WOODS: That this is the kind of pragmatic solution that—well it is a pity that Mr Doocey will not vote for it because actually the former member for Kaiapoi certainly saw that there were ways to help people and that there were ways to support people. So I congratulate my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson for doing this. When this scheme was instituted in 1973 no one could have imagined the kinds of property arrangements we now have for people in their retirement years—the kinds of titles or ownership arrangements that would exist—and licence to occupy is by far and away the most common way in which people purchase a home and the type of ownership arrangement that they have. That simply is not eligible under the current legislation.I have in my electorate some very early retirement villages; one in Hornby is one of the first retirement villages. Within that village there are about four or five different types of title. So we have the anomaly with some residents who hold title to their villas and who can claim the rates rebate and we have others who are more recent purchasers of villas in that village and they are not entitled. They live right next door. The determining factor is when they bought it and the type of title they had. I do not think this is fair I do not think this is equitable and I do not think that this is what the 1973 legislation was aiming to do—to discriminate against a group of people based on the type of ownership package that they had around their home.It is a type of ownership package that we are seeing increasing numbers of New Zealanders take up as they enter their retirement years and it is becoming far more common. So to hear the previous speaker the chair of the select committee Mr Bayly who has just taken his seat talk about there being privacy issues for this—another excuse that the Government has to not support a huge group of New Zealanders who will benefit from this legislation. Mr Bayly's argument is that there are privacy issues and that people would have to reveal that they are on a low income. Well Mr Bayly needs to get out his front door a little bit more often. Fifty percent of residents in retirement villages rely solely on national superannuation as their form of income. If your only form of income is the pension then you are eligible for the rates rebate. Mr Bayly needs to get out of his ivory tower and see that 50 percent of the people living in those villages are in this situation. That is the way most New Zealanders who are retired live; they rely on the pension and we do not have to see that as a low income that they should be embarrassed to reveal. It is the reality for most retired people.That is why the Labour Party through Ruth Dyson's bill wants to extend that same support to those people who are living in licence to occupy villas in retirement villages where they need that support. The very same conditions exist that existed in 1973 when Norman Kirk introduced the original legislation. So that is something that has not been adequately addressed by the Government. So we have the fact that it is too hard administratively—that is clearly nonsense. Other Governments did it. To say that they did not have time—again nonsense. The committee had an extension and did not utilise it.The reality is that the Government members did not want this bill coming back to the House before the election because they were not going to support it and they know that it is bad politics to not be supporting such a group of New Zealanders who will benefit from this legislation. They can see that this is not something that they want to front up to a few weeks before an election and explain to thousands of New Zealanders why it is that they are going to deny them assistance in the way that people who only live a couple of doors down the road might receive. That is not something that can be applauded at all.The other arguments we have heard from the National Government just do not stack up. This is a good piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that the National Government has bought—hook line and sinker. Some of the objections from officials just did not stack up. The Government did not listen to the evidence. It did not listen to the evidence of the officials who came and talked about the ways around any objection that was raised about this legislation.By the end of the select committee process—if Government members had actually been listening; if Government members had actually been engaged in the process—none of their very flimsy arguments against the bill were left standing. It can be done; we just need to look around the country. It is not that administratively difficult. We had the time. We had the offers of help to address any concerns that were in there. We had a member whose name this bill is in who was more than willing to listen to advice and make any changes that resulted in better legislation as it came along.What we have is a group of people who just failed to see that there is a group of New Zealanders who need this assistance. I think the speech from Mr Bayly made it quite clear tonight why that is. Government members just have not got their heads around the fact that for most New Zealanders relying on Government superannuation is the reality. It is the way most people live their lives. And actually as we did in 1973 we need to help this group of people who have moved into retirement villages.The way in which licences to occupy operate is akin to homeownership and more akin than in terms of people who are renting a property. There is a huge capital investment that goes into the property. It may actually be the same price for a retired person as selling their house and choosing to move into a retirement village. They may use all the capital that they had in their home and may reinvest it in a villa in a retirement village. This is not the case as it is with someone who is renting a home.So to discriminate against this group of people was not the intent of the original legislation in 1973. It was just that this category did not exist when the original legislation was passed. I applaud my colleague Ruth Dyson who is trying to bring this important piece of legislation that makes a real difference in people's lives—fast-forwarding it to 2017 and making sure that it is fit for purpose for the reality of how an increasing number of retired people are living their lives. This is legislation that I am more than happy to support."