Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe Madam Chair Williams. Thank you for this opportunity. I find it interesting as a Māori to be standing and speaking on a retirement villages bill or a bill that essentially has a major impact on those in retirement villages given that a recent report by the Whanganui District Health Board actually says that Māori and Pacific Island people are unlikely to go into retirement village homes.This also raises another question—just as an introduction to my contribution on this particular bill. The sensible nature of this particular bill introduced by the member Ruth Dyson actually makes me think about the rebates mechanism on Māori land and how that in fact perhaps is something for other members of this House to consider as a member's bill—to actually make that a lot easier for those owners of Māori land. I'm one and I know my tuahine here Willow-Jean Prime is another.But it's something that I think can be considered when we think of the sensible nature of this particular bill—in particular Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 10. The mechanisms by which the rebate is offered back to the resident—I think the SOP sets out a pretty clear way of doing that. That's important because quite often for many of the people who find themselves in retirement villages—for some of them having read some of the reports and spoken to a few people who are in retirement villages when they get in there the last thing they want to be worrying about is some of these (1) financial burdens and (2) just some of the administration it takes to make sure that they're not falling into arrears that they're keeping up with the payments that are necessary for them to continue to stay in their retirement village. It's the last thing on their minds. So I think it's important that this particular SOP actually does set out a very very good regime.But I do have some considerations for the member in the chair around the administration of these particular rebates. One of those is actually when there is a member in the retirement village that has given power of attorney to whānau members for one reason or another—I'm not too sure what the broad range of those reasons might be. But when there is in this situation a power of attorney—I wonder if there was any consideration when the member considered this particular SOP of whether there are any legal implications or if there are any pitfalls or if there are any ways that that particular person with power of attorney can be tripped up in dealing with (1) the retirement village and (2) the local body council on behalf of their family member who's in the retirement village. It's just something that I didn't see in this particular SOP or in some of the research that I was doing on this particular bill.But for the most part this bill is pretty straightforward in addressing what is seemingly an anomaly. The member the Hon Damien O'Connor has already mentioned how outdated the original Act is. It is important to remember that Māori and Pākehā alike are living longer. They're living longer and we want to make sure that for those who do intend on putting their families into retirement villages it would be an easy process for them.If I can raise just another challenge for some of the members around how the health system and retirement villages in particular are actually catering for Māori and Pacific Islands people's needs—but I'll leave that challenge just on the floor as an open topic of discussion for another point in time perhaps.But otherwise it is a relatively simple bill. The question that I have to the member in the chair is just around the power of attorney for families. Otherwise I look forward to further continuing this debate on this bill.