Barry MaggieHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. For the benefit of the member who just sat down Mark Patterson it may be timely to remind that member that under the National Government the rate of the use of the SuperGold card went up from very humble beginnings in 2008 to tens of thousands of additional businesses—more than a 38 percent increase. I'm trying to put the record right because I guess in a wide-ranging discussion about the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill at its third reading it is timely to remind those who were not in the House at the time of the evolution of this bill and to correct some of the myths that are going around as to the level of support that the previous National Government brought.I know when I was the Minister for Seniors how much interest there was in putting through a bill of this kind because as colleagues have said more than 30000 New Zealanders over the age of 65—most of them—now live in retirement village situations. So to have a rebate even one as small as $610 is worthwhile. The threshold at $24470 is what it is so there will be a small group of people who will benefit from this. I'm not diminishing the impact that that additional money will have for them and also the level I suppose of fairness across the board.National believes very strongly in the principle of assisting low-income households and targeting it. Meeting the cost of local authority rates is something that we had considered. We'd initially looked at this bill and wanted to support it. It was as a colleague described a few moments ago—the Hon Dr Nick Smith—a dog of a bill. It had four clauses as Brett Hudson said in his opening speech on this and he's absolutely correct. The initial briefing to the committee that was considering this small bill outlined very clearly—and I'm quoting here from the Department of Internal Affairs' advice—that it considered that the Bill as introduced would not achieve its stated purpose. Additional and complex amendments would be required to do this."These complex amendments were effectively a rewrite. The Department of Internal Affairs was asked by the predecessor of the current Minister of Local Government—and I acknowledge that member for having the foresight to ask the department—"How could you put this bill right?" So they wrote something that has now been presented as a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and it has made the bill now workable which was what we wanted it to do. So for those who were confused and uncertain as to why National did not support the bill we supported the officials' assessment and we understood that the complexity and the problems that were identified in those four short clauses were such that it was unsupportable. So now that that's been put right—and the member who proposed this bill and put it forward was offered the opportunity to consult and rewrite but chose not to take that up so let's look carefully at who's throwing the stones and why they might be doing that.But SOP No. 10 in the end delivered something that we know that we can support because it has changed the definition of a ratepayer 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". My colleague Dr Nick Smith who spoke about this earlier is absolutely right to ask and really encourage the Government to try and monitor—through the Retirement Commissioner is probably the most effective way—to ensure that the money is actually delivered to the people who need it and want it that $610. So I would like to see further monitoring done. Again the bill is silent on how that will be monitored and it really needed to do more but in the end in light of that SOP we're supporting it through.It is important as well in a specific provision to clarify how the payment of the rebate would be occurring to somebody who doesn't otherwise qualify as a ratepayer. So the specific circumstances of paying for retirement village accommodation are complicated. They're different depending on the licence to occupy depending on the details. I would take a moment to just indicate that if anyone is going into a retirement village situation they really do need to read the fine print carefully as with anyone who buys a house or becomes involved in a place that they hope they will spend out their twilight years. They need to be very very careful that they understand what the wording implies and how that might impact on them.So having said that it is important to know that the retirement village isn't just going to absorb it or put up the amounts that they charge residents each year because this is in the spirit of wanting to deliver to the people who really need it. We all pay rates—those of us who own properties. In the Auckland area where I live they've gone up dramatically but I'm seeing a lot of retirement village complexes coming on stream. They're not cheap to get into—$610 is probably not going to make a massive amount of difference for people who are on fixed incomes to be able to afford to go into a residential village situation and they mustn't live above their means or buy above their means because this is not the panacea that the architect of this bill made it out to be. It may be in the spirit of what Norman Kirk had originally thought of but in terms of the gap between what this rebate will deliver and the reality of what people have to pay these days there is a large gap and it will remain.However this is going to help a number of people and I think that its calculation and the principles of it are sound. I spoke to Grey Power about this bill on many different occasions and pointed out our problems with it and why it needed to be changed. The Retirement Villages Association was also very much interested in having this piece of legislation come through and again I would urge that they extend their recommendations to the people who are under their umbrella to encourage them to pass on these advantages.I think Brett Hudson who has spoken on this bill on many occasions has made the point that we can ensure that older people who live in a fixed income situation will be getting some kind of income. That is a laudable thing and that is why at this stage National has decided to support it in its third reading and that is why I commend the bill the House."