Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a short call on behalf of the Green Party to offer our support for the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson. It is tradition for me just to acknowledge my envy of members who get bills pulled out of the ballot—5 years and waiting. This is a bill that as has already been mentioned is quite simple and not particularly complex but we are pleased to support it for three key reasons: it provides for geographic equity; it provides for the care of elderly New Zealanders; and it may also potentially in some small way ease some of the financial pressure on our local authorities. All of those are very positive goals we would say.At the heart of this as has already been covered by other members is the update of our Rates Rebate Act which was written in 1973 at a time before retirement villages really even existed in this country. It was more a time when we had old people's homes which are a very very very different set-up. Since that time we have now developed—I think the previous member Sarah Dowie was noting that about 30000 people live in retirement villages across the country. In the electorate of Mana which I live in we have Kāpiti in the north which I hear the new mayor has been identifying as a place that he wants to be the retirement capital for New Zealand. It is a vision for the city of active and positive retirement for New Zealanders which I think is an interesting and quite inspiring vision.This bill is updating us to the current environment because people who are in retirement villages technically do not own the village but they have a licence to occupy and they have to purchase that licence. It is a cost similar to buying a house in many cases. They can then sell it on minus the charges from the centre—and that is always a point of debate for a lot of people—at the end and profit may be made off that. But it is only in some instances in some places around the country that those people are able through local government amendments to actually get in effect a rebate on the rates.It has been covered earlier—some of the technicalities—that although the bill that they get from the retirement village may state rates" technically they are not rates because they are not recognised by the legislation. So although it says the word "rates" it has been suggested that legally they are not really rates but this legislation would make an amendment and provide a new definition of ratepayer. It would add a provision to include "a resident of a retirement village who pays rates directly or indirectly in connection with an occupation right agreement with the operator of the retirement village" which means that they would then be entitled to a rebate if they were eligible. I guess that it is an important point for people listening to this to know that it does not mean you are automatically going to get that rebate. It is only if you meet the low-income threshold that people living down the street in their own house would have access to. It would be on the same grounds.It is I think really important just to have a second or a few seconds to acknowledge that income is really really important for older New Zealanders. That is the same whether you are living in your own home or in a retirement village and we are seeing a growing inequality in our country. For people on fixed incomes really every dollar matters. So although this will not change people's entire lives it actually could make a very real difference because income provides a barrier to participating in society and accessing social support. The research tells us that very clearly. People who are entitled to access the rebate on the basis of income already have barriers with participation. So income and giving them that rebate may help."