Simpson ScottSCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It seems slightly bizarre in a way that tonight here in the Parliament of New Zealand we are discussing an important matter of rates rebate for retirement village residents on a night that will go down in history around the world as being a night of political intrigue and interest to those of us who are tragic enough to be interested in such things. I want to thank the sponsor and proponent of this legislation the Hon Ruth Dyson for bringing it to the House because I do think it is an issue that the House should give consideration to. In my electorate of the Coromandel I have the good fortune to represent an electorate that has the second-largest number of people in the 65-plus age group of any electorate in the country. The electorate that has the most is the Ōtaki electorate held by my friend and colleague the Hon Nathan Guy. In electorates like Ōtaki and Coromandel we have large numbers of seniors who have chosen as a lifestyle residential choice a licence-to-occupy arrangement usually in a retirement village usually owned and managed by a private entity and it is a model and a scheme that actually was not imagined or envisaged 40 years ago when the rates rebate legislation which this piece of legislation seeks to amend was actually first proposed. Back in those days 40 years ago the concept of a licence to occupy literally did not exist. Nowadays many people choose this concept—non-freehold occupancy of a unit or dwelling for which as Ruth Dyson has said they pay a not-insubstantial amount of money but technically and in terms of our land law system they do not have a freehold title and therefore by definition under the existing rating Act they do not hold a rateable interest in terms of the title that they have. Ruth Dyson made I think a fair point in acknowledging that in most of these licence-to-occupy villages the people who are occupying those licensed premises actually do pay fees. I think it is a stretch too far to say that they pay rates because legally and technically they do not pay rates but the management of those organisations will invoice them on a regular basis for a range of costs that are associated with the care of the establishment of the property and of the village. That might include things like maintenance gardening and sometimes it includes an element of insurance. Sometimes it will say rates" but that is not by legal definition an interpretation of rates in terms of the current legislation or the current statutory position that we find ourselves in. The reason as I say that is not the case is because the primary principal legislation is 40 years old and simply did not imagine a situation of the type that we have now. People who invest and buy into these licence-to-occupy homes are using a model that some people choose not to. I know that there are sometimes family members for instance who say: "Well if you buy into a licence-to-occupy home as a resident in that sort of situation then there is no potential for a capital gain. The occupier does not have a stake in the freehold of the property." So this bill attempts I think with a degree of merit to actually address a situation that has developed in a legal sense—one that has outstripped the existing principal legislation as I say from 40 years ago. I was delighted to see that some time ago in fact it was September of this year the Minister of Local Government the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga made the point that he thought that for people who are living in these licence-to-occupy retirement villages the situation needed to be looked at. I would agree with that because I often as a constituent MP get people wanting to raise this very matter with me as I am sure do MPs from across the country and across the House. This is because for many people the subtlety of the technicalities of our land law in terms of who is a ratepayer who has title and who is in terms of the current legislation the occupier and freehold owner of the land is lost in the detail of the invoices that they regularly receive from the management company or organisation that administers the villages when they see regularly itemised payments on a line on an invoice that say "rates" even though technically they are not rates. This is a bill that upon first reading I think is probably a well-intentioned piece of legislation—well in fact I know it to be because I do not think that Hon Ruth Dyson would do anything other than bring to this House a well-intentioned piece of legislation. I think that that is certainly the intent of her member's bill. But there are some problems with it and on first glance it looks to me that these are for instance some of the matters that relate to where costs might lie how the apportionment might work and what some of the technical details are. This is I think a bill in which—like in many pieces of legislation—the devil is in the detail. I acknowledge the sponsoring member has suggested and indicated that should it proceed past first reading she would like to see it sent to the Local Government and Environment Committee. That would seem to me to be a very appropriate committee to send this bill to because I think it falls neatly within the ambit of responsibility of that committee. But if it was to go to a select committee I think that it would need some serious work in terms of the detail. For instance there is absolutely no detail in the bill as it reads at the moment about how the scheme might be administered between the retirement village managers or owners and the territorial local authorities that operate in that area. The Hon Ruth Dyson made I think a very good point acknowledging that some territorial authorities—in my electorate the Thames-Coromandel District Council is one for instance—have actually created a system a scheme whereby they can under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 adopt a way round. It is a work round if you like. That is not ideal and it is not done in every territorial authority. So there are some parts of the country where for instance people living in licence-to-occupy residences do not have the benefit of a local council or a district council that is prepared to make that kind of arrangement. If this bill is to proceed then I think that there will be some detail that needs to be fleshed out worked out and probably some quite detailed analysis of the legal situation because at the very basis of our land tenure ownership system is the indefeasibility of property in terms of freehold and the right to own and occupy land in such a way. A licence to occupy simply does not meet that measure that is the very foundation of our land law which has been in place now for a very very long time. I am not sure that the member introducing the bill would actually want to go as far as fundamentally undermining or changing the foundation stones and the basic principles of our land tenure law but I do see and concede the point that she is making because it is a point that many people have made to us as MPs. So on that basis and acknowledging that there are some issues with the bill that need remedying I am pleased to confirm that National Party members will be supporting this legislation to select committee. We will be working through it diligently at the select committee hoping to make it a better piece of legislation and as chair I give the member an absolute assurance that that will be the case. So I am looking forward to having it at the select committee and working it through. So just reiterating I say that we will be supporting this to the select committee."