Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I just thank the members who have contributed in the debate so far. It's really interesting and it's great to have a topic that I've been involved in for so long debated in the House.Can I first of all respond to the questions from Brett Hudson. I don't think Mr Hudson was on the Local Government and Environment—no. Mr Hudson and I were on the same select committee but I thought he may have been on two as well. So in terms of the people who may still be missing out on rates rebate I think that's very worthy of consideration and both Brett Hudson and Peeni Henare have raised that question.I don't agree with the proposal that rest home residents are in the same situation as a resident who's in a retirement village unit and that's because a rest home resident does not have an ownership stake in the room they're in. When they leave they take nothing with them in terms of ownership. If you're in a retirement village unit and you leave you get a percentage of the money that you put into it. The owner of the retirement village takes their cut but you actually get the rest. So if you say I'm sick of this retirement village I'm going to move to Christchurch because that's a much better place than anywhere else in the country and I'm going to get a retirement village unit there." you would sell your retirement village unit and take most of the money and you could buy another unit in a better city than you currently live in if you're not living in Christchurch. So it's really the ownership stake that for me is the difference between a rest home resident and a retirement village unit person with a licence to occupy.The trick with this bill is really brought about by the fact that when Norman Kirk introduced this scheme in the 1970s there was no such thing as a licence to occupy an occupational right agreement. People either owned or they rented. That was the way the world was in the 1970s. So the legislation has not kept up with the change in property status but that's the anomaly that this bill seeks to fix.In terms of the second point that Mr Hudson raised which was the passing on of retirement village owners I have had discussions with the retirement village owners association the Retirement Villages Association. I've had discussions with individual retirement village owners about this very issue. They are 100 percent supportive of it. Their submission which is on the public record says that. They have no interest in taking any cut out of this.Where the local bodies currently give a remission on rates to retirement village residents in the way that this bill seeks to address it is a very smooth operation. It's not a rates rebate; it's a remission and it's paid for by ratepayers rather than taxpayers. So anyone from Auckland who's here should be celebrating because the Auckland Council is about to get some money back that they have been paying out to residents that they shouldn't have been. So Auckland ratepayers here's a little gift for you. I'm sure the mayor will be calling me shortly to pass on his appreciation.Hon Peeni Henare: Merry Christmas.Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes it's a bit of a Christmas bonus. So I hope that answers the questions that Mr Hudson raised.In terms of the points that Mr Henare raised there was a review of the rates rebate scheme done in 2007 and it is well worth reading. And the very point that was raised in Mr Henare's contribution is considered as part of that review actually: what happens with Māori land—there are a lot of people who have ownership through Māori land status who aren't beneficiaries of a rates rebate—and what could be done about that? So I'd invite the member to read that review and get a member's bill into the House in the ballot. There will be one drawn early next year and if you're as lucky as me yours will be drawn out. I had three drawn out in the last term of Parliament which is pretty well unheard of. I decided that I was on a winning streak so I went down the road and bought a Lotto ticket and guess what? I won nothing. Anyway so I'd invite the member to read it. But that very point that is raised is mentioned in that.There are other groups that are also missing out: people who are in schemes such as rent to buy. They are counted still as tenants and I'd be quite interested in looking at whether people who actually are investing in an ownership stake should be entitled to also apply for a rates rebate and they're often people on very low incomes.The final point that was raised that I will respond to was the power of attorney. This has no implications at all. So a person who has financial power of attorney over someone else's property would still have to receive the rates rebate but keep it in that person's bank account. They can spend it because of their power of attorney but this will make no difference other than they'll have more money to spend on behalf of the resident."