Dyson RuthClauses 1 to 4 and new clauses 5 to 7Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Madam Chair can I first of all acknowledge your ruling and say that it was consistent with the ruling that you made last week which I didn't enjoy very much. But I appreciate the consistency of you ruling and I think that all members will be quite attentive to the questions that are being put from now on and will make sure that their voices are heard.I'd like to draw the attention of the committee to two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) to the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. But before I do that can I acknowledge that prior to the election we had the second reading of this debate and a majority of this Parliament supported the progress of the bill. It was delayed at that time by the then Government presumably with the intention of ensuring that after the election they would be able to defeat it and I am delighted that actually the position in support of the bill has strengthened since then. But I want to acknowledge the Māori Party and United Future which were supportive of this bill prior to the election and have not been returned to this House.But regardless I am really hopeful that we get a majority support and deliver the intention of the bill which is to give residents who are living in a retirement village with a licence to occupy the eligibility to apply for a rates rebate. It's a very simple bill—most members' bills are. Not all that are on the Order Paper tonight are as simple as this but its intention is very clear.The new Minister of Local Government has been extraordinarily helpful in ensuring that the issues that were raised at the Local Government and Environment Committee in regard to this bill have been addressed in the Supplementary Order Paper. It's been hugely helpful having gone from being a member without a department to being part of a Government that is then helping make sure that this bill is as robust as possible and that's the intention of the two SOPs that are presented.The first one defines with much more specificity the definition of residential property" so that it's very clear that it is just those living in retirement villages who have a licence to occupy and an occupational right agreement. I'm still having a bit of an argument with some people about whether you can have an occupational right agreement and a unit title and maybe during the next little while—while we debate this—that will become clearer. Particularly anybody in the House who has experience in property law might be able to answer that question—so can you have unit title ownership and can you have an occupational right agreement at the same time?So the first Supplementary Order Paper clarifies the definition of "residential property". It then talks about the process for providing the refund to ensure that of course the refund—i.e. the rates rebate—goes to the resident rather than to the owner of the retirement village. I actually have a lot of confidence that the process of passing through the retirement village owner to the resident would take place and this just clarifies that in the end the owner has to get the rates rebate. They pay the rates through the owner and they need to get the rates rebate. There are current examples where territorial or local authorities do refund the money to the owner of the retirement village who then passes it on to the resident and to the best of my knowledge—and I have made extensive inquiries about this—there have been no problems. So I'm sure that we can rely on the integrity of the owners to make sure that that happens.I just would like to briefly mention the second SOP which talks about the commencement date. Originally in my bill as introduced the bill would have come into force the day after Royal assent and the amendment that is proposed in my second Supplementary Order Paper changes the commencement date so that the "Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent but only for the purpose of rates in a rating year that begins on or after 1 July 2018." So I think that makes it clear when the rating year will start.Can I just conclude my contribution on the SOPs by saying that in my view every single concern that was raised by the National Party during the select committee and during the second reading has now been answered by these SOPs. I doubt that there is a single contribution that will be made that raises further concerns and I urge the National Party to move beyond partisan politics and think of the residents. Many of the electorate members of Parliament have residents in retirement villages who are entirely dependent on superannuation for their income. They would certainly benefit from the money that comes from central government towards paying their rates in the form of a rates rebate. Their constituents—if they are electorate MPs—will be looking to them to stand up for low-income earners in retirement villages and I would certainly urge the members to look at those two SOPs and support the bill in its final stages."