Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you Madam Chair Tolley for the call on this very good member's bill. In my call I just want to talk about one of the very good submissions that was received by the Local Government and Environment Committee and then address some key points that arise out of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 9 and 10.Before getting going on those though I do just want to pick up on one point that's been raised in debate by members of the Opposition and that is the notion that somehow it's going to be overly bureaucratic for those people in retirement villages who will be eligible under this piece of law to fill out a couple of bits of paper to make it happen. The point that I just want to put on the record for those members is that in local government authority areas where there is currently a rates rebate scheme operating that is exactly what people have to do now. I have to say that for those people those older people on fixed incomes in particular the prospect of having some support to the tune of maybe $400 $500 $600 a year is plenty of incentive to pop on down to their local council office to get the forms to make sure that they are eligible under the schemes that those councils run. I know that personally from having worked in a local board office in Auckland. So I don't see that as being an issue at all. Of course people expect have to confirm their details when they are going to be in receipt of support like this and I don't see that as being an issue at all.One of the very good submissions that we received from the Property Council of New Zealand—well-known crusaders for social justice in our times—made a very very good point. They noted in their submission—this is paragraph 3 point 2; this is fundamental to the bill really: The Bill promotes equitability." As the Hon Ruth Dyson noted in her first reading of the bill about 50 percent of residents in retirement villages are entirely dependent on New Zealand superannuation. I think this is a point that maybe has been missed a little bit in debate and in public understanding. There's a little bit of a perception that nearly everyone who is living in retirement villages is pretty flush and actually that's not the case and this points it out: over 50 percent of those people are reliant on New Zealand superannuation. Now that is not a great deal of coin to live on and what we do know is that either directly or indirectly every single one of those people on a very very fixed low income does have to pay rates ultimately and that is fundamentally what this bill is about addressing. The equitability point is very important and I say that as a member who represents an electorate in Auckland where my constituents are eligible for the Auckland Council scheme so they're doing OK. But that's a pretty ad hoc way to be supporting older residents who potentially face these costs on very very limited incomes. So I thought that point was extremely well made by the Property Council of New Zealand and the House should certainly be considering it at this stage of the debate.I next want to turn to Supplementary Order Paper 10. This is really important because the fundamental objection that was raised by the then Government now Opposition at select committee stage and a concern that was flagged up by officials was around the need for there to be a very clear definition of a ratepayer of a residential property. There was a letter that was sent to Andrew Bayly being the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee which raised this point. That is exactly what Supplementary Order Paper 10 addresses.Here we go. We have a new definition that addresses this. A residential property means "a rating unit under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 that is used as the usual place of residence of the ratepayer at the commencement of the rating year in respect of which an application for a rebate under this Act is made but does not include any unit that is also used principally for commercial or industrial or business or farming purposes;".I just don't think that we can get all that more specific than that. It ticks every single box in terms of the specificity of the property linking to the person making the rates rebate application. I've just got to say that I think some of the arguments that we're drilling down into in terms of trying to get more specificity around that are really beginning to go down a rabbit hole. It's very very clear to me—and we hear that the officials support this—that SOP 10 addresses that one substantive issue that was raised at the select committee stage. I think that removes one of the singular causes of objection to this bill.I just want to end with a question for the member in the chair Ruth Dyson who I know has worked tirelessly on this issue and that is to ask her whether she thinks this will be the best member's bill that will be passed in this term of Parliament. Thank you."