Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair Williams. It's a pleasure to be able to take a call on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the member the Hon Ruth Dyson in whose name this proposed legislation comes before the House. I myself was not a member of the 51st Parliament and so I didn't have such complete access to discussion at the previous stages including at the select committee stage. I was however a lawyer practising in the realm of property law primarily in that three-year period and so I do have some degree of qualification and experience to speak on particular aspects of this bill.A previous contribution has claimed that the bill is aimed at equal treatment but I think it is worth noting that a rates rebate mechanism is inherently an unequal treatment for very good reasons of course. We don't resile from the fact that the bill is well intentioned in seeking to alleviate some financial strain on vulnerable members of society but it's worth noting perhaps that a rates rebate is not available to all by definition and pertinently in relation to the specific clauses of this bill that we are considering now it's not equal even within the age bracket of those who might traditionally be in retirement villages.I note that while the general policy statement of the bill states that residents of retirement villages with occupation right agreements—or licences to occupy as they are also variously known—in most circumstances pay rates indirectly rather than directly to the local authority in fact in my experience it would always be the case that rates amounts would be paid indirectly. I'm not aware of any situations in which a person who is occupying a unit would be required to pay rates directly to his or her local council because of course the ownership of the unit is the relevant measure for accountability and liability for payment of rates as was observed by my colleague Brett Hudson in far more eloquent fashion than I have just done a few minutes ago.So it seems to me then that rather than the focus on creating a complicated arrangement that requires a local authority to take note of who has been the underlying figure behind the payment of the rates amount instead the local authority should simply only have to note that the rates have been paid and perhaps it might be much more logical for the retirement village to be able to claim a rebate in the first instance and if so to pass it on to the person who is occupying the unit.I will also note that it is in fact required by law that persons entering into licences to occupy or occupation right agreements are advised by a suitably qualified lawyer. That lawyer certifies that he or she has provided such advice and that would be a stage at which I would expect the lawyer would advise his or her client about matters such as outgoings—sometimes known as operating expenses—in relation to the licence to occupy. If it is the case in this individual contract known as a licence to occupy that the person who is occupying the unit has responsibility for essentially meeting that rates amount that rates responsibility then that is something that should be disclosed must be disclosed and I am sure invariably is disclosed and as such is a matter of private contract between the person occupying the unit if they should wish to sign such a contract and of course the retirement village itself.Also worthy of note is that such contracts invariably contain a so-called cooling-off provision—the ability for a person who is in that position of signing or potentially signing such a document to reconsider his or her position before it becomes effective and fully binding. My time is running out on this occasion but I would be interested to hear the member's comments on any of those aspects that I have raised.