Smith Stuart; Tolley AnneSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd like to add my congratulations to the Hon Ruth Dyson. I'm delighted to be able to support this bill through its third reading. I did have the opportunity to speak on this in the second reading in which I did oppose it with quite good reasons which I will go into later.This is a growing area. I don't think anyone in this House would disagree. This is a member's bill for a start not a Government bill and as a member's bill as members of the House right across the House we all come here to make a contribution and hopefully to make New Zealand a better place. This bill sought to do that. We had some difficulty with it up until Supplementary Order Paper 10 came and was introduced into the bill but it is now able to actually achieve those goals.We have a country that at the end of 2016 had 711200 people who were over 65 or 12 percent of the population. That is set to roughly double by 2046 to 23 percent of the population. In fact in some of the better places to live in New Zealand that's higher. Take Marlborough for example—people like to go there to retire. It's already 22 percent of the population today. Because of that migration to the sun and people going for a lifestyle to retire you would expect that to be proportionately higher. I have a lot of retirement villages as a consequence of that within my electorate.In fact there are 88 retirement villages in New Zealand with 200 residents or more in occupation and that's set to increase to 170 by 2036 according to the Retirement Villages Association of New Zealand. So this really speaks to the number of people we're expecting to go into these retirement villages who will need—a lot of those will qualify for at least—this rebate. Those homes have a number of different ownership structures. They have freehold title leasehold cross-lease unit title—and in the case of unit title the unit title owner owns the land and would receive the rates rebate anyway because they are the ratepayer. But 80 percent of rest home or retirement village residents are in an ownership structure through a licence to occupy. They are not on the title. They are not the ratepayer.So what was identified in the select committee was flaws in the bill—big gaps in fact—that made it unworkable. The intent was there. Everybody agreed with that; that's why it got through first reading and to select committee. However trying to work through those details and find a way to actually make the bill work so we wouldn't be back in the House trying to sort out the unintended consequences and the opportunity for money to fall through the gaps into the hands of people who it wasn't intended for—so for example the very department that actually had to administer it was strongly opposed to the bill. The committee did have an opportunity to go back and work on it and a second extension was sought but that was opposed by the member.However Supplementary Order Paper 10 as we talked about earlier really put all of our fears to rest in the committee of the whole House. It has significantly altered the bill—for example inserting new section 7A into the bill which outlines the calculation for payment of the rates rebate and how it would operate and relate to the persons. All of those issues have now been dealt with and I think that that is a huge step forward for everyone and we're great to be standing behind it now. It is as I said something we all come into this House to try and do: to improve the situation for New Zealanders. None of us disagrees with the intent of the rates rebate scheme; we just want to make sure it works and the right people get it in the appropriate way and with that I commend the bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call with a bell at one minute. I call Jo Luxton.