Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was just seeking clarification. The last speech seemed to run for 6 minutes according to the timer that is visible to us here. I was just wondering whether—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No. I think that if the member watched it pretty carefully it started at 6 but when it got to 5 it came back another minute.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Thank you. In engaging—Kris Faafoi: Do you want 6 minutes too?PAUL FOSTER-BELL: I did want 6 minutes.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Would the member like a call? [Interruption] Would the member like a call?PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Mr Speaker—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Paul Foster-Bell.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): This is a good bill that has been introduced by the Labour member Ruth Dyson—the Rates Rebate (Retirement Villages Residents) Amendment Bill. In this first reading debate in which I am very pleased to speak I will make the best use of the remaining 4 minutes and 46 seconds. This bill is providing I think a well-intentioned modernisation of law that is now significantly out of date. The original Rates Rebate Act dates back to 1973 and the living conditions in which so many older New Zealanders now find themselves are significantly different from what they were in 1973. Far fewer people are staying at home. They are being looked after by their children and those rest homes and retirement villages that do exist are a different world from what they were even 10 or 20 years ago. Within the electorate of Wellington Central where I am based and work we actually have a paucity of retirement homes and villages. So to contrast with the member who resumed her seat Jan Logie who is based in Mana although Mana and Ōtāki in fact have the highest proportion of older people and also a huge and growing number of rest home places—be they in villages or home/hospitals—Wellington Central has only three to my knowledge. I am attending the St John of God Hauora Trust annual general meeting tomorrow—St John of God is one of the homes. There is also Huntleigh Home and Sprott House. Although they may be small in number and there may be relatively few residents in those homes I firmly believe that those residents deserve to be treated fairly and equivalently to others. There are a few features of this bill that we do have concerns about. I know that in the Local Government and Environment Committee chaired so ably by the wonderful member for Coromandel the honourable member Scott Simpson we will take a very careful and constructive approach to addressing some of those concerns so that we can hopefully get this bill into an even improved shape. Those concerns include the fact that half the people who are residing in rest homes in New Zealand are reliant upon New Zealand Superannuation as their sole source of income. Therefore they are already eligible in many cases to access that $54 million worth of funding that we allocate in the 2016-17 year to the rates rebate scheme. The costings that I have seen suggest costs of anywhere between $5 million and $8 million to extend the rates rebate scheme to those who are in a licence-to-occupy situation and although that is a significant investment I think it might pay to put that in light of the overall contribution that older people make to our economy. By the year 2051 older people are expected to pay $17 billion in taxes annually—up from the $3.6 billion they currently pay. In 2011 we should also remember older people contributed $8.5 billion worth of voluntary and unpaid work and this will grow to $35 billion by 2051. Seniors spend in the economy. They are important and they are valued. This is a Government that has done so much to support seniors not least I suppose in the form of extra funding through the SuperGold card which I think should be upgraded. It should be called the National Platinum Card" because it has been significantly upgraded from what it originally was with that extra $40 million worth of funding over 4 years to make sure people can fully access the transport services they need. It has also been widely expanded in terms of the discounts and extra services available to them. My point is that older people already contribute a significant amount of revenue whether it be through general taxation and through council rating and this addition of somewhere between a $5 million to $8 million addition to the rebate scheme in terms of the funding that is required strikes me as being fairly reasonable. I want to work through the details carefully in the select committee but on the first reading of the bill it is certainly something that I personally support and I know other colleagues are comfortable in supporting it to the select committee so we can have those subsequent discussions. I commend the member for bringing the matter before the House. I commend her on her good fortune in having it drawn from the biscuit tin. As someone who has had a bill drawn this year I know that it is exciting to be able to implement change even on a small scale but positive change that may affect the lives and the costs of those who—and I am not talking about Dr Woods' bill—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! [Interruption] Order! The member's time has expired."