Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider this bill. Can I give a bit of background to the rates rebate scheme? It was one of the many visions that Prime Minister Norman Kirk had in the early 1970s, because he knew that for a lot of people with low, fixed incomes—particularly people on benefits, on superannuation, or in a low-income job—their annual rates bill presented a big challenge. His idea was to have a scheme funded by central government, through taxpayers’ money, where people who were in that situation, people who had quite a high rates bill and quite a low income, could apply for some financial relief. The rates had to be at a certain level, the income had to be at a certain level, and it is a sliding scale according to how high your rates are and how low your income is.

When that Act was passed in the early 1970s, the concept of a retirement village with its occupancy agreement—the licence to occupy regime—was pretty well unknown. It was the 1970s; we did not have retirement villages in the way that we have now, and now there are nearly 30,000 people living under such a regime. Retirement village residents who have a licence to occupy are required to pay their rates. They pay them through either their weekly or monthly management fee, they pay them to the owner of the village, and the owner of the village then obviously pays rates to the council. Despite paying their rates through those management fees, retirement village residents living in a licence-to-occupy home are not eligible to apply for rates rebates. That is unfair and it is that unfairness that this bill seeks to address. The bill will fix this problem by expanding the coverage of the rates rebate scheme to people living in licence-to-occupy homes. This was one of the gaps in the scheme that was identified from a review done in 2007 and was actually on our work plan to address, but, of course, we came second in the 2008 election and did not get a chance to introduce that and many other progressive changes.

Some people have registered concern with me that expanding the eligibility of the rates rebate scheme in this way is unfair to people in rental properties. I had looked at that some years ago, and I relooked at it. In my view, there is a clear difference between retirement village residents and tenants of rental properties. If you live in a retirement village, you have to pay a substantial capital sum—the same as you pay for a titled property, actually. You pay about the same amount. When you leave that retirement village unit or you die, either you or your estate benefits from funds from the sale of the unit. They do not get it back in the same way as a regular sale would, because they have often got deferred management fees to pay, but those circumstances—the capital sum purchase and the ability to recoup some of the value of the property when you leave or die—are not comparable to the situation of someone who is renting a property. They come in and leave, and they do not have any capital investment in the place, so this is a genuine gap in the scheme for people who pay rates.

Some of our local authorities have recognised and addressed this anomaly, but they have done that by using ratepayers’ money to give residents in retirement villages a rates remission. It is generally—not always, but generally—paid on the same basis as the rates remission scheme, but it is paid for with ratepayers’ money, not taxpayers’ money. That is unfair on these councils, it is unfair on ratepayers in those areas, and it is unfair on residents who live in districts who do not get the same remission from their councils. Those councils have said: “It’s central government’s role to provide a rates rebate, not ours.” So this would allow those territorial local authorities to keep that ratepayers’ money for the purposes for which it was paid, actually, rather than for something that central government should be paying.

About 50 percent of residents in retirement villages are entirely dependent on New Zealand Superannuation. Those people would be entitled to apply for a rates rebate if they lived just two houses down the road from the retirement village in a place that had their name on the title. It is only because our legislation has not kept pace with the changing living arrangements that this situation exists. For someone on a low, fixed income, facing the payment of a rates bill is often hard. The rates rebate recognises that and gives these people some financial relief. It pays only a small proportion of the total rates bill but it is certainly of assistance. In my view, residents of retirement villages deserve that support. I trust that other members of the House agree with their entitlement to receive that support and that this bill is passed to the Local Government and Environment Committee for further consideration. Thank you.

It seems slightly bizarre in a way that tonight here in the Parliament of New Zealand we are discussing an important matter of rates rebate for retirement village residents on a night that will go down in history around the world as being a night of political intrigue and interest to those of us who are tragic enough to be interested in such things. I want to thank the sponsor and proponent of this legislation, the Hon Ruth Dyson, for bringing it to the House, because I do think it is an issue that the House should give consideration to.

In my electorate of the Coromandel, I have the good fortune to represent an electorate that has the second-largest number of people in the 65-plus age group of any electorate in the country. The electorate that has the most is the Ōtaki electorate held by my friend and colleague the Hon Nathan Guy. In electorates like Ōtaki and Coromandel we have large numbers of seniors who have chosen as a lifestyle residential choice a licence-to-occupy arrangement, usually in a retirement village, usually owned and managed by a private entity, and it is a model and a scheme that actually was not imagined or envisaged 40 years ago when the rates rebate legislation, which this piece of legislation seeks to amend, was actually first proposed. Back in those days, 40 years ago, the concept of a licence to occupy literally did not exist.

Nowadays many people choose this concept—non-freehold occupancy of a unit or dwelling for which, as Ruth Dyson has said, they pay a not-insubstantial amount of money, but technically and in terms of our land law system they do not have a freehold title, and, therefore by definition, under the existing rating Act, they do not hold a rateable interest in terms of the title that they have. Ruth Dyson made, I think, a fair point in acknowledging that in most of these licence-to-occupy villages the people who are occupying those licensed premises actually do pay fees.

I think it is a stretch too far to say that they pay rates, because legally and technically they do not pay rates, but the management of those organisations will invoice them on a regular basis for a range of costs that are associated with the care of the establishment, of the property, and of the village. That might include things like maintenance, gardening, and sometimes it includes an element of insurance. Sometimes it will say “rates”, but that is not by legal definition an interpretation of rates in terms of the current legislation or the current statutory position that we find ourselves in. The reason, as I say, that is not the case is because the primary principal legislation is 40 years old and simply did not imagine a situation of the type that we have now.

People who invest and buy into these licence-to-occupy homes are using a model that some people choose not to. I know that there are sometimes family members, for instance, who say: “Well, if you buy into a licence-to-occupy home as a resident in that sort of situation, then there is no potential for a capital gain. The occupier does not have a stake in the freehold of the property.” So this bill attempts, I think with a degree of merit, to actually address a situation that has developed in a legal sense—one that has outstripped the existing principal legislation, as I say, from 40 years ago.

I was delighted to see that some time ago, in fact it was September of this year, the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, made the point that he thought that for people who are living in these licence-to-occupy retirement villages the situation needed to be looked at. I would agree with that because I often, as a constituent MP, get people wanting to raise this very matter with me, as I am sure do MPs from across the country and across the House. This is because for many people the subtlety of the technicalities of our land law in terms of who is a ratepayer, who has title, and who is, in terms of the current legislation, the occupier and freehold owner of the land is lost in the detail of the invoices that they regularly receive from the management company or organisation that administers the villages when they see regularly itemised payments on a line on an invoice that say “rates” even though technically they are not rates.

This is a bill that upon first reading I think is probably a well-intentioned piece of legislation—well, in fact, I know it to be, because I do not think that Hon Ruth Dyson would do anything other than bring to this House a well-intentioned piece of legislation. I think that that is certainly the intent of her member’s bill. But there are some problems with it, and on first glance it looks to me that these are, for instance, some of the matters that relate to where costs might lie, how the apportionment might work, and what some of the technical details are. This is, I think, a bill in which—like in many pieces of legislation—the devil is in the detail.

I acknowledge the sponsoring member has suggested and indicated that should it proceed past first reading she would like to see it sent to the Local Government and Environment Committee. That would seem to me to be a very appropriate committee to send this bill to, because I think it falls neatly within the ambit of responsibility of that committee. But if it was to go to a select committee, I think that it would need some serious work in terms of the detail. For instance, there is absolutely no detail in the bill as it reads at the moment about how the scheme might be administered between the retirement village managers or owners and the territorial local authorities that operate in that area.

The Hon Ruth Dyson made, I think, a very good point, acknowledging that some territorial authorities—in my electorate, the Thames-Coromandel District Council is one, for instance—have actually created a system, a scheme whereby they can, under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, adopt a way round. It is a work round if you like. That is not ideal and it is not done in every territorial authority. So there are some parts of the country where, for instance, people living in licence-to-occupy residences do not have the benefit of a local council or a district council that is prepared to make that kind of arrangement.

If this bill is to proceed, then I think that there will be some detail that needs to be fleshed out, worked out, and probably some quite detailed analysis of the legal situation, because at the very basis of our land tenure ownership system is the indefeasibility of property in terms of freehold and the right to own and occupy land in such a way. A licence to occupy simply does not meet that measure that is the very foundation of our land law, which has been in place now for a very, very long time. I am not sure that the member introducing the bill would actually want to go as far as fundamentally undermining or changing the foundation stones and the basic principles of our land tenure law, but I do see and concede the point that she is making, because it is a point that many people have made to us as MPs.

So on that basis, and acknowledging that there are some issues with the bill that need remedying, I am pleased to confirm that National Party members will be supporting this legislation to select committee. We will be working through it diligently at the select committee hoping to make it a better piece of legislation, and, as chair, I give the member an absolute assurance that that will be the case. So I am looking forward to having it at the select committee and working it through. So just reiterating, I say that we will be supporting this to the select committee.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is my honor to take a very short call on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill—not because I do not support it. I think it is a very good piece of legislation, and I want to commend the member, the Hon Ruth Dyson, but I do not want to go over the points that she raised. Clearly, this bill is designed to address an anomaly that was created back in the early 1970s—which she covered—and, I guess, to ensure, as we have a growing aged population in New Zealand, that those who choose to live in licence-to-occupy premises are accorded the same rights when it comes to rates rebates.

This is a very short piece of legislation. The general policy statement talks about it being a scheme. As I said, it was introduced in 1973 with the intention of allowing ratepayers of residential properties who are on low incomes to receive a rebate on their rates. This was before the expansion of retirement villages, as earlier indicated, and occupation right agreements, or ORAs. Residents of retirement villages with ORAs pay rates, but in most circumstances they pay indirectly to the retirement village owner rather than directly to the local authority. Under the Rates Rebate Act 1973 these residents are not entitled to a rates rebate, and this is, like I said, the anomaly that this bill is intended to address.

The bill, like I said, is quite a short bill. It has four clauses. Clause 4 is where we get, I guess, the meat of the sandwich. It basically talks about amending section 2 of the principal Act by replacing the definition of “ratepayer” with one that recognises as ratepayers not only those persons defined as ratepayers under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 but also those residents of retirement villages who pay rates directly or indirectly in connection with the occupation right agreements. Clause 4 amends section 2 of the principal Act by providing definitions of terms related to retirement villages that are used in the replacement definition of “ratepayers”.

The last point is that some councils have recognised the anomaly and have granted retirement village residents a rates remission but, unfortunately, this is paid out of council ratepayers money. We believe this money should actually come from central government.

I am looking forward to this bill coming to the very hard-working Local Government and Environment Committee, of which I am a member—well chaired. Now that we have got a bit of a gap in our work with the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill, I know that we have some spare time to give this bill the due consideration it definitely deserves. I commend the member Ruth Dyson again and, again, Labour supports this bill. Kia ora.

Well, I rise too in support of this bill, the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill, in this first reading, brought by the Hon Ruth Dyson. One of the reasons that I support this bill is that the Invercargill electorate has approximately 10,000 super seniors within it, and a lot of them—about 6 percent, actually, of over 75-year-olds—are moving into retirement villages. So, it is an expanding industry in Southland. And it is only fair that these people receive a rates rebate when they move into retirement villages and enter into their licence to occupy. Given that they are pseudo paying rates through their agreements to the village operators, it is only fair that they too receive a rates rebate, given that that is what the rates rebate scheme was designed to do—to support low-income families and owners of properties; supporting them to keep up with their rates repayments.

Look, as the Hon Ruth Dyson said, this is a bill that is going to amend the definition of “ratepayer” and extend it to include a resident of a retirement village who pays rates either directly or indirectly, in respect of the rates rebate scheme. We have heard members on both sides of the House talk about the legalese of that. People who are living in a retirement village under a licence to occupy technically do not pay rates under the current Local Government (Rating) Act. In that agreement, it is often worded that they are making a contribution to the overall rates of that retirement village property, or they are making a contribution to some form of maintenance, which is then in turn apportioned by the village owner to pay rates to the local authority. So indirectly, yes, they are paying rates, and that should be acknowledged.

Last week, I had the opportunity to go to Clare House, which is one of our newer retirement villages in Invercargill, to assist Amy Adams with the opening of that wonderful retirement village. It is quite a state-of-the-art retirement village, offering some different types of accommodation. So you have got your stand-alone houses, you have also got apartment living—one-bedroom and two-bedroom, self-contained—and then Clare House also offers a hospital wing for those seniors who need more care, when it comes to that stage in life.

What we are finding in Southland is that our seniors are moving, not only for security and that added care but also for the camaraderie of having other seniors around them, meaning that they are not so lonely and isolated in their own homes. I think retirement villages play a really important part in assisting our seniors in their later years. You know, there are limited gardens to do, they are accepting of help when they need it, and it is generally really very good for seniors to be in a retirement village when they are well looked after, especially with that camaraderie side of things. But it comes at a cost. Some of those apartments and houses are quite costly at that time of life, and so it is only fair that the rates rebate scheme applies to them, given the intent of that Act, which was put in place back in the 1970s. So let us take a look at it at a select committee, let us flesh it out, let us have a good look at it, and let us get a workable outcome so that our super seniors get some benefit from it. So I support this bill.

I rise to take a short call on behalf of the Green Party to offer our support for the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson. It is tradition for me just to acknowledge my envy of members who get bills pulled out of the ballot—5 years and waiting. This is a bill that, as has already been mentioned, is quite simple and not particularly complex, but we are pleased to support it for three key reasons: it provides for geographic equity; it provides for the care of elderly New Zealanders; and it may also, potentially, in some small way ease some of the financial pressure on our local authorities. All of those are very positive goals, we would say.

At the heart of this, as has already been covered by other members, is the update of our Rates Rebate Act, which was written in 1973, at a time before retirement villages really even existed in this country. It was more a time when we had old people’s homes, which are a very, very, very different set-up. Since that time, we have now developed—I think the previous member, Sarah Dowie, was noting that about 30,000 people live in retirement villages across the country. In the electorate of Mana, which I live in, we have Kāpiti in the north, which I hear the new mayor has been identifying as a place that he wants to be the retirement capital for New Zealand. It is a vision for the city of active and positive retirement for New Zealanders, which I think is an interesting and quite inspiring vision.

This bill is updating us to the current environment, because people who are in retirement villages technically do not own the village, but they have a licence to occupy and they have to purchase that licence. It is a cost similar to buying a house in many cases. They can then sell it on, minus the charges from the centre—and that is always a point of debate for a lot of people—at the end, and profit may be made off that. But it is only in some instances in some places around the country that those people are able, through local government amendments, to actually get, in effect, a rebate on the rates.

It has been covered earlier—some of the technicalities—that although the bill that they get from the retirement village may state “rates”, technically they are not rates because they are not recognised by the legislation. So although it says the word “rates”, it has been suggested that legally they are not really rates, but this legislation would make an amendment and provide a new definition of ratepayer. It would add a provision to include “a resident of a retirement village who pays rates, directly or indirectly, in connection with an occupation right agreement with the operator of the retirement village”, which means that they would then be entitled to a rebate if they were eligible. I guess that it is an important point, for people listening to this, to know that it does not mean you are automatically going to get that rebate. It is only if you meet the low-income threshold that people living down the street in their own house would have access to. It would be on the same grounds.

It is, I think, really important just to have a second or a few seconds to acknowledge that income is really, really important for older New Zealanders. That is the same whether you are living in your own home or in a retirement village, and we are seeing a growing inequality in our country. For people on fixed incomes, really, every dollar matters. So although this will not change people’s entire lives, it actually could make a very real difference because income provides a barrier to participating in society and accessing social support. The research tells us that very clearly. People who are entitled to access the rebate on the basis of income already have barriers with participation. So income and giving them that rebate may help.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was just seeking clarification. The last speech seemed to run for 6 minutes according to the timer that is visible to us here. I was just wondering whether—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No. I think that if the member watched it pretty carefully, it started at 6, but when it got to 5 it came back another minute.

Thank you. In engaging—

💬 Kris Faafoi: Do you want 6 minutes too?

I did want 6 minutes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Would the member like a call? [Interruption] Would the member like a call?

Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Paul Foster-Bell.

This is a good bill that has been introduced by the Labour member Ruth Dyson—the Rates Rebate (Retirement Villages Residents) Amendment Bill. In this first reading debate, in which I am very pleased to speak, I will make the best use of the remaining 4 minutes and 46 seconds.

This bill is providing, I think, a well-intentioned modernisation of law that is now significantly out of date. The original Rates Rebate Act dates back to 1973, and the living conditions in which so many older New Zealanders now find themselves are significantly different from what they were in 1973. Far fewer people are staying at home. They are being looked after by their children, and those rest homes and retirement villages that do exist are a different world from what they were even 10 or 20 years ago.

Within the electorate of Wellington Central, where I am based and work, we actually have a paucity of retirement homes and villages. So to contrast with the member who resumed her seat, Jan Logie, who is based in Mana, although Mana and Ōtāki in fact have the highest proportion of older people and also a huge and growing number of rest home places—be they in villages or home/hospitals—Wellington Central has only three, to my knowledge. I am attending the St John of God Hauora Trust annual general meeting tomorrow—St John of God is one of the homes. There is also Huntleigh Home and Sprott House. Although they may be small in number and there may be relatively few residents in those homes, I firmly believe that those residents deserve to be treated fairly and equivalently to others.

There are a few features of this bill that we do have concerns about. I know that in the Local Government and Environment Committee, chaired so ably by the wonderful member for Coromandel, the honourable member Scott Simpson, we will take a very careful and constructive approach to addressing some of those concerns so that we can, hopefully, get this bill into an even improved shape.

Those concerns include the fact that half the people who are residing in rest homes in New Zealand are reliant upon New Zealand Superannuation as their sole source of income. Therefore, they are already eligible in many cases to access that $54 million worth of funding that we allocate in the 2016-17 year to the rates rebate scheme. The costings that I have seen suggest costs of anywhere between $5 million and $8 million to extend the rates rebate scheme to those who are in a licence-to-occupy situation, and although that is a significant investment, I think it might pay to put that in light of the overall contribution that older people make to our economy.

By the year 2051 older people are expected to pay $17 billion in taxes annually—up from the $3.6 billion they currently pay. In 2011, we should also remember, older people contributed $8.5 billion worth of voluntary and unpaid work, and this will grow to $35 billion by 2051. Seniors spend in the economy. They are important and they are valued. This is a Government that has done so much to support seniors, not least, I suppose, in the form of extra funding through the SuperGold card, which, I think, should be upgraded. It should be called the “National Platinum Card”, because it has been significantly upgraded from what it originally was, with that extra $40 million worth of funding over 4 years to make sure people can fully access the transport services they need. It has also been widely expanded in terms of the discounts and extra services available to them.

My point is that older people already contribute a significant amount of revenue, whether it be through general taxation and through council rating, and this addition of somewhere between a $5 million to $8 million addition to the rebate scheme, in terms of the funding that is required, strikes me as being fairly reasonable. I want to work through the details carefully in the select committee, but on the first reading of the bill it is certainly something that I personally support, and I know other colleagues are comfortable in supporting it to the select committee so we can have those subsequent discussions.

I commend the member for bringing the matter before the House. I commend her on her good fortune in having it drawn from the biscuit tin. As someone who has had a bill drawn this year, I know that it is exciting to be able to implement change even on a small scale, but positive change that may affect the lives and the costs of those who—and I am not talking about Dr Woods’ bill—

Order! [Interruption] Order! The member’s time has expired.

I rise with a couple of things on my mind. Firstly, I am very conscious of the time of the evening and the fact that if we can get to a vote, then we will make progress for some other lucky person with their member’s bill on the Order Paper as well, which will be a really good thing. This is a very short bill. The other thing I am very conscious of is that this bill, which New Zealand First supports—and we congratulate the Hon Ruth Dyson and her fortune in getting this legislation drawn from the parliamentary members’ bills lottery, and we can go further than that to congratulate her on the thought that she has put into this particular issue—we know it has been around for a while. We know that there is a simple anomaly.

Looking at the bill—it is only one and a half pages—it basically deals with the definition and by doing that makes it possible for some superannuitants to get a little bit of relief on the charges that they are incurring in the premises that they occupy in these retirement villages. We would say this: pretty much everything that needs to be said about the bill has been said, so I will not rotary hoe that paddock again. What I will say is why New Zealand First supports initiatives such as this.

I think we could not do better than to refer the House to the media release from Statistics New Zealand yesterday, which highlights the plight that our elderly people, our superannuitants, are suffering right now. In the light of the fact that their overall costs have increased 19 percent—when it looked at typical spending patterns—that is more than double the rate of inflation experienced by New Zealand’s highest spenders. That is the first paragraph. We also look at the fact that these same people are being hit with a double whammy, with a reduced income through reduced interests on their savings and investments, if they indeed have any. When we also look at the cuts that have been made to the SuperGold card and the extra fees that have been levied back on them, it just seems like there is one thing being piled on top of another for superannuitants at this point in time.

We, in New Zealand First, are not happy with that, and this legislation provides some relief and alleviates some pressure for those people who are the New Zealanders who built this nation. They are the people who have contributed to developing this nation and giving us the privilege and the lifestyles that we lead. We do have a debt and a social obligation to those people, and this little piece of legislation is one simple way in which we can make a difference to their lives and compensate them rightfully, because they are—no matter what the Government members might think—indeed paying an element of rates in the fees that they are paying, and we can compensate in some way for that. I will just conclude by saying to the Hon Ruth Dyson, well done. We will be supporting you through the select committee. I look forward to reporting back positively at the second reading and advancing to a third.

I rise to take a brief call on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. I too want to congratulate the Hon Ruth Dyson on having this bill drawn out of the ballot—out of the biscuit tin, as they say. I think that it has some real opportunities there for those who are in retirement villages and have the right to occupy their village homes.

In the east there are a number of retirement villages, and this particular issue has been brought to my attention on a number of occasions, so I am pleased to see that the bill is here in the House. I look forward to it coming to the select committee. I think there is a lot more detail that needs to go into the bill, around how the scheme is going to be administered with the retirement village owners and the local authorities. Everybody needs to have their say on how this bill will be implemented in the future.

We have heard what the bill’s aim is and we also have heard that the Government supports moving this bill into the select committee. The Minister of Local Government also said that there had been issues around the rates rebates for people in retirement villages and went on to explain, which we have heard here in the House tonight, just how that all works out with the operators of these retirement villages.

So, really, without any further ado, I look forward to the bill coming to the select committee. I look forward to hearing the submissions and, as the previous speaker, Ron Mark, said, having a positive outcome to what this bill will eventually achieve for those in retirement villages. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

I will take a short call in the interests of time this evening. As my colleague from the Green Party said, we support this bill, and congratulations to the Hon Ruth Dyson on her work in preparing the bill and getting it this far. We are very cognisant of the fact that 60 percent of older citizens are dependent on New Zealand Superannuation for 70 percent or more of their income, and are in a vulnerable situation. Although most senior citizens own their own homes, there is a sizable and growing number of senior citizens who do not. Māori and Pasifika are overrepresented within that group. With the housing crisis and speculative bubble in housing, the number of senior citizens who will not own their own homes is due to grow significantly. The situation is being made worse by the sell-off of State housing and social housing, and we note that 9 percent of those on the waiting list for social housing are senior citizens. Homeownership is at its lowest level in 64 years, and, as we have recently heard, senior citizens have been hit hard, as shown in the latest Statistics New Zealand report.

We think that this measure will help those who should be qualifying for rates rebate but currently are not. We support this bill. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill at its first reading. Could I just acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson for the bill that she brings before the House looking to amend this Act. I myself have been known to submit members’ bills around amendments that look to update and modernise previous legislation, as well. This one looks to modernise and update the Rates Rebate Act of 1973—specifically around definitions.

Currently there is a definition around ratepayers under the Local Government (Rating) Act of 2002. This bill will seek to insert a clause that will look at residents who directly or indirectly will pay rates in connection with their occupation right agreements (ORAs). I suppose that is an acronym that we will learn to understand more—the legal definition of an ORA—as well as another acronym we are learning: the licence to occupy. That is language that is progressing with the huge development of retirement homes. I know that in my electorate of Waimakariri we have got one in Rangiora—the Charles Upham Retirement Village—which is just about to open. A staggering 400 people will be living in that retirement village. It is very much a whole footprint—from independent living to semi-supported to supported care homes, right through to dementia wards—a whole footprint through the life course.

I think that as we learn more about managing and supporting our elderly, and the issues they have at certain age groups requiring support, it is quite understandable that some of these issues thrown up in this bill come to light. So I think it is fair that we are supporting this bill in its first reading to go to the select committee, to understand the issue a bit more and some of the implications. My colleague Paul Foster-Bell mentioned some of the financial implications. There is already a rates relief budget that is around $54 million. The costing of this initially, at the moment, is around $5 million to $8 million, so the select committee will be looking at that. I suppose, as legislators, we are always mindful that wherever we draw a line there will always be some people who are just inside and some people are just outside. It is about understanding that we will always need a line to have been drawn.

It will be no surprise, I think, around these issues, to any members of Parliament from any party across the House, that rates are a persistent issue that comes through in constituent work. Normally it comes through around people raising the issue of fairness of the rateable base formula versus, maybe, individuals in a house or income levels. I suppose, speaking as a politics graduate from England, we go back to the 1987 manifesto of the Conservatives when they brought in the poll tax. Maggie Thatcher brought that in in 1990 and 1991—and you all pretty much saw how that went. Rates actually motivate and stimulate people in very interesting ways, and that normally manifests in how they present through the doors of our constituent offices. I think what underpins a lot of this is fairness, and we are looking to understand how we can be fair, especially for our Super Seniors.

I have just finished a number of morning teas with my superannuitants in Waimakariri, and—just following on from previous contributions—the amount that our Super Seniors contribute to our economy, to our communities, and to our society is phenomenal, and I think they should be supported. So if we can look, through this bill, at possibly supporting some people who are under the abatement threshold of around $24,000, I think that is the right direction of travel and it is a fair direction of travel. I am glad it is getting the support of the House. As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee I am very much looking forward to it coming to the House and to the select committee and hearing submissions and the way forward. Thank you.

Can I say what a pleasure it is to have brought a bill to the House tonight—particularly tonight—on something that has united every member of Parliament, particularly after the division that we have seen in politics elsewhere.

I want to acknowledge the Retirement Village Residents Association of New Zealand for the support for this bill that it has given on behalf of all residents throughout the country. I want to also acknowledge the Retirement Villages Association of New Zealand, the body that represents the owners of the villages, which has also given it 100 percent support. I want to acknowledge the support of Grey Power, the advocacy organisation that is often in our ear about very important matters, and I hope they stay that way for a long time. I just want to, finally, acknowledge members of the House who have indicated their support.

I have confidence that the Local Government and Environment Committee will listen to submissions made on this bill. It knows that the Retirement Villages Association has already prepared the operationalisation of this, because it has been sent to every member. So when members queried how that would operate, I assumed that they were saying it in a rhetorical way, because they would have read their correspondence, I am sure. I look forward to hearing the progress of the deliberations of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am sure it will find improvements—you can always improve a bill—but I am glad that it has the principled support for this legislation, and I look forward to it coming back to the House for further progress. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

The House adjourned at 9.51 p.m.