Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Firstly I'd like to address the member in the chair who kindly did respond to the questions that I raised in my last intervention. Look the first point I would make Ms Dyson is that you did point to the very tight definition of the bill and that is true but you're well known to me and other members to be a very capable member—and might I add not one without some ambition. So I think it's quite possible for the member in the chair to seize that ambition and before the end of this committee stage to look at amendments that might look to remove these distortions and pain of costs on other New Zealanders outside of retirement villages.As the member did note when she was talking to Mr Henare there are situations outside of retirement villages such as people who are in rent-to-own situations. I would draw the member's attention to the prospect that there are some New Zealanders out there who are not in particularly strong financial circumstances and might be in leasehold land arrangements. That raises the question which I put to the member in the chair about how leasehold arrangements fit in terms of rates rebates.Well actually I had a look and it is possible—not by default; by default whoever is the owner of the land has the rateable unit and therefore has the rates account—for leasehold arrangements for the rating unit to go to the person that owns the building instead but it doesn't happen by default. That is something that I think the member could look at to incorporate people who are in those sorts of situations but also look at that measure of making sure that it's not an onerous thing on the owner of the building or the occupier of the building to have to deal with.That raises my new point with respect to retirement villages and that's in clause 5 in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 10 which inserts section 7A. If I note in section 7A(2): A resident may apply for a refund of the amount"—a resident may apply. The member has a great intent with this bill which is to help people who are bearing a burden of rates and who if they were not in retirement villages if they were living in their own homes with their freehold titles would be entitled to some level of rebate on those rates. Through SOP 10 she has sought to tidy up a lot of the measures that caused concerns in the select committee stage and also in the second reading—that is true.But as the SOP stands it places the burden on the occupier the person with that right to occupy—that they have to be aware that they could be eligible for a rates rebate even though they don't actually pay those rates directly from their local council. Then they must take the steps to determine their eligibility and then go through the process through the filling out of forms and other steps that are set out in this SOP. That resident has to go through and take those steps to then possibly get a remittance back through the retirement village operator.There's no doubt that if they meet the criteria and they do those forms very clearly they would receive back that rates rebate. But I would suggest to the member that actually it would be a more workable and perhaps a more equitable—certainly a fairer—situation if the onus weren't placed upon those occupiers in retirement villages to have to know what they might or might not be entitled to. Even if it were as simple as their operator having a duty to advise them of a potential entitlement then they could then follow the rest of the steps.I just think—given we are looking to help people who are in tougher economic circumstances than some other New Zealanders given we feel that they warrant the rebate that other New Zealanders in similar circumstances outside of retirement villages can and do receive—that really we should look at the possibility at this stage of how we can make it as easy as possible for them to understand that they have a potential eligibility and make it easy for them to get it. I think Ms Dyson that would actually strengthen your SOP. Even a small clause might just strengthen that and make it so much easier for those residents to be able to enjoy the benefit that you are seeking to give them."