O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Excellent! Persistence is a great virtue. Can I acknowledge the member in the chair Ruth Dyson for taking this bill through the House and I think taking quite a number of questions. I apologise in advance that I've got quite a few myself and in many ways they start with the basics. That is not a reflection on the member or the bill in any way but I've found—granted not as a lawyer but as a member of Parliament—that it's easy to get taken with some of the bigger elements but some of the more I don't know basic simple ones need to be addressed first. So it's probably no surprise to the member or the committee that like colleagues on this side of the Chamber at this point I'm still not supporting the whole bill but am in support of the Supplementary Order Paper and in particular I am referring to Supplementary Order Paper 10.I think the Supplementary Order Paper overall as an acknowledgment is a great step forward and I think the member in the chair has acknowledged the work that's been done to bring it here. But I'm looking particularly around clause 4 here in Supplementary Order Paper 10. It begins with the definition of residential property. It's a very basic question but when I chaired select committees I found that often we are taking a Supplementary Order Paper or a piece of legislation and referring back to something in a previous time and in this case we're looking at an Act from 2002 which is about 15 years ago. So it's a very simple question as I indicated at the start—basics really—but is the member confident that we are getting the right definition by referring backwards again? As an example I know that in the Health Committee several times we referred back to an older piece of legislation to try to define a current piece of legislation and found that wanting. That's one of the reasons we passed the health practitioners Act last year. So a simple question there: is she convinced that the definition of residential property as defined in the 2002 Act is sufficient?Then for me it gets a little bit more technical because in clause 4you'll excuse me having to put my glasses on these days—you're talking about a rating unit"—or the member rather—"under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 that is used as the usual place of residence of the ratepayer"—and this is the important part—"at the commencement of the rating year". So we're talking about a very specific time. To try and illustrate what I'm getting at and the clarity from the member would be welcome if a person is in a retirement village on the day of the commencement of the rating year whatever that day is but then leaves the next day do they qualify—do they still qualify? I'd be interested to know that.The next element is: is there a need perhaps for an abatement regime? Again to illustrate the point it says here very clearly in Supplementary Order Paper 10 that: "the usual place of residence … at the commencement of the rating year". So again a particular date. If they're there a week or a month afterwards do they still get to seek the rebate? Is that the entire rebate? Is it no rebate? Is it an abatement? Excuse me if we're getting lots of "bates" into here but how does that work out? I know it's simple at one level but I think it needs to be quite clear.Further on that in clause 4(1)(a) it understandably talks about how the unit is principally not being used for commercial industrial business or farming purposes. That makes perfect sense but I'm turning my mind to my own electorate. We have a number of retirement villages. In fact we have some aged-care facilities and there are some questions around that distinction too but I can think of some of the residents in those retirement villages who do—well not do; they continue to operate businesses more in the professional services. So I'm thinking of the likes of accountants and lawyers. I'd be interested to know where the threshold kicks in around "principally". I can understand if Bob is doing an hour of accounting work a week but where do we tip the balance here? I wouldn't mind some clarity from the member in the chair around that as well. Again they're basic but I find—and I don't know how the member herself finds it—but constituents tend to pick up on these simple and small things and it's often these that can trip me up.The next is around again clause 4(1)(b). Very similar again around commencement dates. So again the member's Supplementary Order Paper 10 talks about the retirement village—"a rating unit … that is used as a retirement village at the commencement of the rating year". So my first set of questions was around whether the individual must be resident at the time of the rating year. We're then now talking about the facility itself and there are some multiple facets to this that I think are relatively important. The retirement village according to this Supplementary Order Paper 10—[Time expired]"