Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill

Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call the—

I’m not “Hon”, don’t worry—Jami-Lee Ross.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Jami-Lee Ross.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. You helped my colleagues a bit there, too, to remember my name.

I am taking a call on behalf of the National Party on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. I thank Ruth Dyson for coming up with the idea and bringing it to the House by way of a bill. Unfortunately, the National Party position is still the same as that prior to the election, which is that we will not be supporting the bill progressing further at this point in the form that it’s in. However, that’s not to say that the National Party doesn’t support the intention of the bill, which is that retirement village occupiers—residents in a retirement village—should have access to the same rates rebate scheme.

When I was sitting in my office going through this and asking myself the question, “Could I convince my colleagues that there’s merit in supporting this bill?”, I took time to go through the departmental report and the select committee report on the matter—and I read the bill itself as well, which is a one-clause bill, essentially—and I was drawn by the fact that there is a lot of advice and evidence in those reports suggesting that what the bill is seeking to implement simply wouldn’t actually be achieved by the bill in its current form.

There was a lot of advice from the Department of Internal Affairs and there was a lot of advice from parliamentary counsel as well that went to the Local Government and Environment Committee, which suggested that the one change that the bill would make to the Rates Rebate Act around the definition of ratepayer simply wouldn’t go far enough to sort out many of the other issues that do exist already and could be created by this amendment, in and of itself.

I understand that the select committee sought an extension of time once, and it got that, to try and do further work. It sought a further extension of time to do even more work on the bill, but that extension of time was denied for a range of reasons. I submit to the House and submit to the member in charge, Ruth Dyson, and even to the Minister for Seniors, who I see is in the House as well, that we’re of the view that this bill should be given much more consideration either by a select committee or it could be taken up by the Minister for Seniors.

I know that, look, we’re in Opposition now; it’s a bit of a new world for us, and we don’t have the same access to officials and advice that we had previously, and we are aware that Opposition members that don’t have the same access to that advice often will put forward ideas—as I think this is one—which are well-intentioned but may not have the full research behind it and may not have the full backing of official advice, which would turn it into a high-quality bill that could achieve what is intended.

When you are in Opposition it easy to say, “Well, we’re not ultimately responsible for it; we’re just going to plough on ahead anyway, because that National Party—we can go into retirement villages and say that National’s not going to let you get a rates rebate.” That’s easy to do when they’re in Opposition, but I submit to members on that side now—the Hon Ruth Dyson, who has been a Minister before—that the issue is now their responsibility. They are now in Government, and the issues that the Department of Internal Affairs have quite rightly raised should be taken into consideration.

Whilst the intention of the member in charge of the bill is honourable, I think it actually would be somewhat reckless for a Government member to plough ahead with a member’s bill that their own officials say wouldn’t be workable and their own officials say would create potentially even more anomalies.

If I stand back and say, “Should residents of a retirement village that are contributing funds towards the cost of paying the rates or taxes towards the local authority—should they have the same access to a rates rebates scheme as owner-occupiers do?”, I have to say yes. It seems reasonable that they would. Should we write a law that is written in such a way that it’s fair and equitable for all people in this situation—

💬 Michael Wood: You only had nine years to do that.

—and does not—oh, stop that, Michael. Michael: he was in local government; he should know better. Is it fair and reasonable that a law should be passed that would create more anomalies and more problems? I have to say no.

So what I would support, and what I think my side of the House would support, is that the bill goes back to a select committee and is investigated further, or the Minister picks it up and uses her ability as a Minister to apply officials to it, to make it into a much more comprehensive bill and a bill that would actually achieve what is being sought.

When you’re getting advice from the department where they’re saying that it would just create more anomalies, where it wouldn’t work, where there’d be situations where residents of a retirement village would end up paying, potentially, no rates or residents of a retirement village in one situation would access the scheme and in another situation wouldn’t access the scheme—I just don’t think we should be progressing with the bill in that form.

I think the wider issue and the wider question that should be answered by the Government and addressed by the House at some point is a full look at the Rates Rebate Act. It is a 40-year-old Act. It was written in 1973. Times have changed considerably.

💬 Hon Aupito William Sio: You weren’t even born then.

No, I wasn’t. I wasn’t born back then. Thank you, Mr William Sio. He was, a long time ago.

The Act was written in 1973 and it really needs a good brush up. It needs a good look at by the new Government, and I think Tracey Martin could probably do a good thing by picking up that Act, as Minister for Seniors, taking it forward, and giving it a proper consideration. So we would support a thorough investigation into the Rates Rebate Act. There’s a new Governance and Administration Committee, which I think is a committee that has both four members from the Government and four members from the Opposition. There is an opportunity through that committee to thoroughly look at these issues around rating and affordability and also issues to do with the rates rebates scheme. I would suggest that is the better course of action.

Yes, it is possible for Ruth Dyson and her colleagues to plough on ahead with this bill. But the advice that the select committee received is now the advice from their own officials. They are now responsible for this Act and what happens. They can’t just say it’s the Government’s problem; they are the Government now.

We support the intention of the residents of a retirement village having access to a rates rebate scheme. We share—well, we accept the advice of officials that this would not be workable. We accept the advice that it should be looked at thoroughly, and it takes more than just one clause in a member’s bill to address this issue. I would hope that the member could send it back to a committee; either send it back to a committee or come with a very expansive Supplementary Order Paper in the committee stage. But that’s our position. We wish we could help more, but in this case we can’t see a way in which we could support the bill in its current format and we’ll be opposing it.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you very much. I rise on behalf of the Government and New Zealand First to support the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. I thank the honourable member Jami-Lee Ross for his contribution, I thank him for his critique, and I thank him for his suggestions. I also thank him for putting in to the Hansard the National Party’s support for a complete review of the Rates Rebate Act 1973, and I look forward to working with him going forward, now that we have the support of the National Party on the record around that Act, because he is quite right—there is a need to review that Act from 1973. There’s been tweaking around it, and it’s a shame that he and his Government didn’t do it over the last nine years. But I look forward over the next decade or so to working with him from this side of the House, to make sure that we can support our seniors more appropriately.

Also, I appreciate him rearticulating the fact that the National Party will not support this small measure to try and assist some of our senior citizens to stretch their restricted incomes a little bit further. It’s always interesting to have the National Party rearticulate why they will do nothing. So I appreciate the fact that—because it’s been a long time since we were here talking about this. It’s been a long time since this was in select committee. There’s been an election, there’s been coalition negotiations, and there’s been a whole new Government formed. But that party has remained true to their opposition to actually giving our seniors a little bit more support while we go forward. That is true.

Mr Jami-Lee Ross is correct that officials advised that they would need to be satisfied that the characteristics normally associated with a home were going to be associated with those of our seniors who now live in situations where they have a licence to occupy. There seems to be, with all due respect, and Mr Lee Ross has been on this—oh sorry, it’s Jami-Lee Ross. I beg your pardon. Mr Ross has been on this side of the House, so he will know, as I know, that there is a tone of Government that permeates officials’ advice when they come to select committee. I’ve sat on select committees where I have asked officials, “Why is this your answer? Why is this in this bill?”, and they have said, “It is the policy of this Government.” So to suggest that one Government official’s advice based on the policy of the Government that they were publicly serving should, therefore, be uplifted at all costs by a new Government with a new policy direction is a little disingenuous.

These are our older citizens’ homes. Whether they have a licence to occupy is actually irrelevant around this support. This is about recognising that these seniors pay towards the rates of that village, and many a large village owner—and Mr Doocey is shaking his head—has said to me, “I don’t make any profit. I don’t make any profit out of these villages, only on capital gain.” Many a large village owner has said, “I’m virtually a saint. I’m doing this because I believe in providing for these older citizens.” But these older citizens are living on a very restricted income, and all this Government is trying to do is maximise their opportunity to have a little bit more joy, a little bit more disposable income, and recognition—

💬 Brett Hudson: Then write a decent bill.

—that they pay, Mr Hudson. Go and talk to your granny, because I tell you she will reinforce what I am saying to you now. All they want is a little bit more stretch to the meagre amount of how they are supported by their State, and that’s what this Government will do.

This is a first step towards other things. This bill will be a first step to recognising that they do contribute to the rates across that village, they are ratepayers, and they should have access under the criteria. There are criteria, and Mr Ross pointed out that those criteria have been set in place for a very long time and definitely need a review, because some of our seniors—particularly, let’s say, in Auckland—whose rates have shot through the roof and whose super has actually been attached with the Consumers Price Index have now lost their opportunity to even access through the criteria the rates rebate because the rates rebate income level has not moved as quickly as the other things. So, from our perspective, we’re interested that the National Party has continued along this tack. We find it disappointing, and we found it disappointing then.

I enjoy it when the Opposition suggests that the Government is reckless when supporting New Zealand citizens. If we—this Government—are going to recklessly recognise that some of our seniors do live in owner-occupied circumstances and do provide funding towards the rates over the complete complex, and if we’re going to recklessly support those citizens to actually be able to lift in some way their standard of living, then I am happy that we are reckless in that way.

I think, from our perspective, we need to recognise that by 2036, 1.2 million New Zealanders are going to be in the category of seniors. We need to recognise that this is not a single issue, when we talk about this particular demographic, but one of many that we are going to have to address very, very quickly.

So I’m not going to take up much more time. I believe it’s an obvious bill to support. There may be nuances in it—I mean, it sounds a little bit like saying, “Let them eat cake.” If we can’t give them the whole shebang, then let’s not give anybody anything—that’s what it sounds like from Mr Ross, and this Government is not inclined in that direction. If it’s only a little we can do and only a few thousand of our citizens that actually benefit from this bill, then it is a few thousand that have benefited, and we will continue to work to make sure that our other seniors who need our support are able to gain our support. But we won’t stop just because it doesn’t give everybody cake.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on this, the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. I just want to start by addressing some of the comments that the member who’s just taken her seat, Hon Tracey Martin, made.

The first, and perhaps most chilling, were the comments she made about the role and position of officials in select committee business. I believe the words she said were “the tone is set by the Minister”. So the real chilling thing we hear in this Chamber tonight is that, under this Government—certainly, under the Hon Tracey Martin, in her portfolios—officials are going simply to iterate the will of the Minister.

That is actually a real problem, because our select committees are not committees of Government; they are committees of Parliament, and officials are there to give the committee of Parliament advice, not to sing from a ministerial hymn sheet. But Ms Martin has made it clear that she is of the view that that is how they should operate. And that, I contend, is fundamentally wrong. It’s not good governance, and it’s not good government.

The other problem I would note in what Ms Martin was saying is that she highlighted, I think without realising it, an inconsistency in the way this Government is treating its legislation. You see, just a short while ago, we were debating the paid parental leave extension in this very Chamber. A member from this side, the Hon Amy Adams, saw a flaw in that proposed legislation and suggested that it would be good if parents could share a leave entitlement and take that entitlement together at the same time. After some pushing and shoving, the Government agreed that they thought the intention was good. But their position was—and it was spoken by the Minister in this Chamber—that although it was a good idea, the legislation wouldn’t work as intended, and therefore it couldn’t be made as a Supplementary Order Paper to that bill; it had to be done as a separate and new piece of legislation.

Well, if they were consistent in their thoughts and actions, they would accept the advice of officials: that the real problem with this bill is that, as it’s written, it cannot and will not deliver the intention that lies behind it. So if they were consistent, what they would do is they would set this bill aside, they would allow it to fail at this reading, and, instead, as a Government, they would create a new piece of legislation that would actually have the proper provisions to deliver to the objective. Instead, Ms Martin and others are saying we should continue with this flawed bill.

It’s not just a simply flawed bill; it’s a deeply flawed bill. We can look here at paragraph three—it’s pretty close to the top—of the departmental report.

💬 Hon Member: That’s after one and two.

Well, indeed. So what did officials have to say? Well, let me just read this; it won’t take long: “As outlined in our initial briefing to the Committee, the Department of Internal Affairs … considers that the Bill as introduced would not achieve its stated purpose. Additional and complex amendments would be required to do this.” So the advice of officials, acting impartially, because this was and remains a member’s bill, pointed out to the committee that the bill, as it’s written, simply could not deliver the intentions without an awful lot of work—work that they recommended could not be achieved within a select committee set of amendments.

So I think, for good reason, the officials, in advising the members, stated that, really, the best course of action was to not recommend that this bill pass and, indeed, to give effect to the intent, to craft a better piece of legislation. I don’t believe the officials had a view on whether that should be a member’s bill or a Government bill, but their view was that the bill in front of them, and now in front of this House, cannot deliver. That intent is flawed and should not pass.

The reality is that there are multiple means of contracting and title and rights to occupy in various forms of rest homes, retirement villages, and lifestyle villages around New Zealand. Some, in the minority I believe, do give full title to the occupier—to the owner—and they are entitled, for instance, to make capital gain on that property, and that owner may very well be entitled to a rates rebate under the current legislation. But many others are more in the nature of what they call a “right to occupy”, where the occupier doesn’t hold a full freehold title, where often they are not permitted to benefit from any capital gain, while still paying management fees and what have you to the operators.

And so, through that structure, not only do they not qualify under the current legislation, but the whole structure of that and workings of that operation make it somewhat difficult to navigate a way through to identifying the occupier as the ratepayer and, indeed, to ensuring—which the officials and others pointed out—that even if a rebate was given on a basis of a unit within a title, or a separate title within a property, there was difficulty in ensuring that the relief, the rebate, would actually be seen and benefited from by the occupier of that unit. The reality is that, in the first instance, it would actually go, more than likely, to the operator or owner of that village, and so there’s a very real chance that the occupier might not get any—certainly not all—of the rebate that might otherwise be held to be valid for them.

There are also other complicating circumstances too. Many of these villages have shared facilities, and those facilities are available to all residents, including residents that might have a “right to occupy” of an apartment-type unit in that complex. So how then, for instance, for the purposes of calculating what could be eligible for a rebate, would they go about calculating what was shared, what was theirs, how much of the rates bill could be set aside for the square metreage or whatever of that, and how much of the rates bill the occupier should still be up for because of the use or potential use—availability—of all of those shared facilities.

So when you look at the simple reality of the living arrangements, the villages, the structures, the bill as written can’t deliver what is otherwise an extremely worthwhile intent. It’s an intent we share, and we would love to work with the Government, across the House, on a new piece of legislation that not only had that intent but was drafted in a way—with appropriate complexity, as officials pointed out—to actually be able to give some greater degree of certainty, some real confidence to members, that the benefits would accrue to those occupiers.

While we do believe in intent—and we know that this Government has founded its entire programme on intent only—we can’t in good conscience cast votes in favour of a bill that is high in intentions and low in practicalities. So we will be opposing this bill, but we do offer—and would encourage the Government to consider working with us on a new piece of legislation to actually give full effect to the intent behind this flawed bill.

Tēnā koe. I rise for the Green Party to support this bill. This is a simple bill with a simple goal, as has been outlined by members on all sides of this House, and I’d just like to foremost echo the sentiments that were expressed by the Green Party member responsible for debating the first reading of this bill, Jan Logie. She noted that, foremost, there were three issues that this bill sought to address and that is why the Green Party stands in support of it.

The first is one of geographic equity. I point out to the members of the Opposition, who seem to be a little confused about how this bill would work in practice, that it currently actually does work with regard to how district councils are operating to provide rates rebates for citizens living in retirement villages. They do so in four different districts: in Auckland, in Kāpiti, in New Plymouth, and in Thames-Coromandel. Those are four different places in New Zealand where this is currently working. The point of complexity, which was indeed raised by the report of the Department of Internal Affairs to the Local Government and Environment Committee, was predominantly one of calculation. I would hesitate to suggest that whilst the select committee in charge of this bill extended their consideration for a month, they had the ability to investigate that complexity—you know, albeit the fact that National had been in power for nine years and had the ability to do just that.

It’s noted by the Opposition that they support the intent but they do not support the bill. So my question to the Opposition is: “What would they like to do? What would they like to see?” Beyond stalling, beyond asking for more time, beyond binding up the resources of this House, which they themselves time and time again have lamented the waste of, I would like to ask members of the National Party what they would like to see, what they would like to do.

So the select committee report—there was a majority report and a minority report. The majority report by the members of the National Party on the select committee noted that it was difficult to calculate the rates rebate, to apportion rates to a specific unit. This is, as was noted in the minority report by Labour, Green Party, and New Zealand First members, a bit of a bizarre, incorrect, and irrelevant narrative from those National members around that mechanism, because it is not all too much of a complex issue, given that those with occupation rights agreements in—as I have previously mentioned—Auckland, Kāpiti, New Plymouth, and Thames-Coromandel have received the rebate already.

It has also been mentioned, with regard to this complexity, that they would like to see it referred back to the select committee, that they would like to see a more complex mechanism for calculating or figuring out how this rates rebate would, in fact, work. On that point, it seems to be—this is actually why people switch off from politics. This is a request for technocratic, bureaucratic delaying tactics. I would suggest that members of the National Party go back and review those 34 submissions by members of the public—all of whom were in favour of this bill. This is the will of the people and if the National Party supports the intent—

💬 Andrew Falloon: 34 people.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: No, 34 different organisations, I will remind the member, and the member is more than welcome to go and look at those submissions himself. Should the National Party support the intent of the bill, I suggest that they support the bill itself.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you and other presiding officers on your election, and I look forward to working with you during the sessions. This is an important bill, and the intent of the bill, as other colleagues have mentioned, is good, but still there are some weaknesses in this bill, which we would like to be rectified before it is implemented. Some of those I will be highlighting during my speech.

First of all, I would like to clarify what the Hon Tracey Martin said—that the owners and operators of villages are saints. In my view, yes, they are saints because they provide a place to live for those elderly retirees who are in loneliness in their homes. The elderly go there, they have the company of other villagers, they share their thoughts, their talk, and they spend time together to kill that loneliness. So, in my view, yes, the operators of villages are saints. The people working there become family members, and if I look at myself, I am also slowly going in that direction, and one day my children will also leave me alone at home—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Really? How quickly?

Oh, after you; after you leave—only after you. I’m looking forward to you—to leave.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

The day you leave I will follow you soon—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Excuse me. Order! The member will not bring the Speaker into the debate.

Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. I was talking to the honourable member who was trying to interject, asking for my viewpoint. [Interruption] Listen to me. I’m talking here. I’m not talking to him.

As I was saying, these villages provide a great facility for seniors and retirees—[Interruption]—and some of the retirees are ready to go there very soon. I hope so. The main problem is how to calculate the rebates that are to be passed on to those retirees. There are already so many conditions. When this legislation was introduced in 1973, it was a simple time when owner-occupiers were there in the retirement villages. But it has become very complicated in the last 40 years. We can see that there are freehold titles, leasehold titles, cross-lease titles, licences to occupy, and lease arrangements. All of these make it very complex to determine how the rebate can be passed on to these retirees. We agree that we should be passing on these rebates, but it’s very hard to calculate. The current maximum rebate is $610, with a threshold of $24,470 of income.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Should have used those officials when you had them.

So these are the complex issues that are to be addressed before we can conclude. It is very simple for the Hon Tracey Martin to just stand up and say, “This is a Government bill. We’ll take it back, and we will do the work that is required. As was mentioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, this is a complex area.” She has already accused the officials of just working to the tone of the Government. So it is her turn now to stand up, take the liberty, take up the bill, and take it back to the officials to make sure that they speak the tone of the Minister and how she is going to do it.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does National hate retired people?

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Why do you leave our seniors out there on their own?

This is very important.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why do you hate seniors?

Don’t just barrage me. Listen to what I am telling you. Listen to your leader. You don’t have much to say, because your leader says everything. He has got the secret documents in the safe; you need to go and read these also.

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want to help the member. I know he’s new to this House and he hasn’t been here for very long, but he does repeatedly insist on bringing the Speaker into the debate. He doesn’t seem to have got the message from the Assistant Speaker. The member needs to stick to the Standing Orders—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. I thank the member.

Speaking to the point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker, I did not bring you into the debate. I was talking to the two members. He needs to have a hearing aid, I think.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): If I could just have the member—[Interruption] Thank you. Thank you for resuming your seat.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think he might have been referring to me. I want to apologise. I got excited with Winston talking about retirement.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Members, will you resume your seats. I don’t think we need any more. Thank you very much for your interventions, members; I think we will continue with the debate.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is an interesting time, and I’m enjoying it.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Ha, ha!

Once again, it makes someone laugh, because they are very grim in their offices. At least they get this opportunity to come and laugh in the House, so it’s a real opportunity.

The Department of Internal Affairs, in their departmental report, clearly said—and I would like to read it—that “As outlined in our initial briefing to the Committee, the Department of Internal Affairs … considers that the Bill as introduced would not achieve its stated purpose. Additional and complex amendments would be required to do this.” So this is a real opportunity for the Government to go back and do some homework and bring this bill back to the House to ensure it can deliver its intent. With these words, I conclude my speech.

I understand this is a split call. Deborah Russell—five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m delighted to speak in this House to a simple matter of fairness—fairness, which is dear to the Labour Party. It motivates us and drives us. Despite the assertions from the Opposition, this is, in fact, a very, very simple matter. They are dreaming up complexity where none exists, and perhaps it says more about them than it does about the bill itself.

I am absolutely committed to this bill, absolutely committed to ensuring that we get a fair deal for the residents of retirement villages. I’m committed to it, even though it will make not one jot of difference to my own constituents in New Lynn. And why is that? It is because the Auckland Council has worked out how to do this. It will make not one jot of difference to people who live on the Kāpiti coast, because the Kāpiti Coast District Council has worked out how to bring fairness to the residents of retirement villages. It will make not one jot of difference to the residents of retirement homes in New Plymouth, because the New Plymouth District Council has worked out how to bring some fairness for residents of retirement villages. But it turns out that the members of the Opposition think it is too complicated for Government, even though these excellent city councils can do it. So I think we can sort out this matter, and it is a really straightforward matter to sort out.

What we’re doing—the essence of this bill—is helping out elderly New Zealanders who don’t have very big incomes with the expenses of maintaining their own home. This is actually a really important part of our aged-care policy. There’s kind of an ongoing strategy that we have in aged care to look after our elderly citizens, to help them to age in place—to stay in the homes that they know, to stay in places of their own, to keep them secure. That’s an ongoing strategy we have, and it’s why we fund all sorts of home help. It’s why we try to fund help in homes; it’s in order to help our aged citizens to do the very best they can. But, you know, it can be tough meeting the fixed costs of maintaining your own home, and this is what this simple measure sets out to do. It sets out to help our aged citizens.

We help a lot of them already. There is a huge number of retired New Zealanders living in their own homes who collect a rates rebate, but we deny that rates rebate to people who happen to live in retirement villages, all because of a quirk of the law that wasn’t envisaged when this rates rebate was first set up in 1973. So now we’re going to set out to fix that problem, and it’s a simple solution. All we do is amend some of the definitions, and that will make it possible to extend the rates rebate to people who hold a licence to occupy in retirement villages. It turns out, again, it’s not easy. The Opposition have suggested it’s just a bit too difficult to calculate it. But, I tell you, you get any decent cost accountant and you can sort it out. These problems can be sorted out. It’s not that hard. So that’s what we’re going to do—we’re actually going to set out to sort this problem.

It sort of leaves me puzzled—puzzled—as to why the Opposition would oppose this measure. Who is going to deny helping elderly New Zealanders? Why would you refuse to help them? I just can’t understand it. I have sort of been thinking about it and trying to work out what is going on here, and all I can come up with is that they are engaging in the politics of despite. For the benefit of my colleague Mr Chris Penk over there, who is rather fond of the quirks of the English language, the word “despite”, as well as being a preposition, can also be a noun. It is the politics of contempt or the politics of disdain, and I see the politics of contempt and disdain going on there over the concept of being fair, the concept of trying to work out a simple measure. I see the politics of contempt and disdain going on in the way that the minority report on the Local Government and Environment Committee has been ignored, and I see the politics of despite going on in the way that the Opposition is refusing to help the residents of retirement villages who could just do with a little bit of help with their income.

So I urge them, instead of sticking to their rather silly opposition to this bill, to, in fact, acknowledge that the problems can be solved; that they acknowledge that it is actually a simple matter, that they acknowledge that we can sort out some of the complexities of calculation with just consulting an accountant—and believe me, I know; I have been an accountant. It’s not that hard, and it is not that hard to be fair. That is why, on this side of the House, on the Government side of the House, we support this excellent bill, which will sort out a problem for our elderly and will do so in a way that makes it fair for all New Zealanders. I commend this bill.

Jonathan Young—five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Yes, I stand to take this split call. You know, it’s not that this Opposition is opposed to this legislation, it’s that the officials in their position are opposed to the mechanisms of this legislation as much as they can be in being impartial servants of this Parliament. [Interruption] Not your Government, sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker—that member’s Government.

If we look at the comments by the officials, it needs to be read out and reiterated again. As Mr Hudson said, “As outlined in our initial briefing to the Committee, the Department of Internal Affairs … considers that the Bill as introduced would not achieve its stated purpose. Additional and complex amendments would be required”. But what I want to go to is their conclusion, because their conclusion says this, “However, even if future work were limited to the eligibility of retirement village residents for a rebate, a thorough consultation process with stakeholders prior to commencing law drafting would be desirable to achieve a good outcome for all parties.”

What they are saying is that there was not a thorough consultation process. In this House, we want to make good law, not just more law. We want to have quality regulations, not just more regulations. Seriously, I have sat on the member’s, Ruth Dyson, committee in the last Parliament and I have to say she was a competent chair, and this bill does not reflect the competence that is needed in order to do good for the people that are designed to receive the benefit of the intent of this bill.

I’m saying to the Government on the other side, especially the new members: instead of being tribal, be intelligent. Instead of just opposing us because we are your Opposition, why don’t you listen to what the officials have said—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order!

Thank you. I know what you’re going to say, Madam Assistant Speaker. Why don’t members opposite support the quality legislation? Why don’t they try to earn a reputation of presenting quality legislation to the House, in order to truly benefit the people that they intend to be benefiting? What we see in this piece of legislation—it is so complex. It is complex, because there are people in retirement villages right now today in New Zealand—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: They have to meet the criteria.

—who pay less than what they could possibly pay if this piece of legislation goes through. Well, that’s a very good point that the member across there raises. If there are four retirement villages in this country that can do this, then this legislation’s not necessary—it’s not necessary, because they have found a way. So here we go, wasting the time of this Parliament, wasting taxpayers’ money to put this piece of legislation through, and it’s all because there is legislation here that is not up to scratch.

Seriously, I do put it to members of the Government: why don’t you really consider, because you do talk about being fair, being kind, being a Government that considers people who have some need—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Look, we can’t go on having you being brought into the debate. Now, I don’t want to be too pedantic about this, but you might have to think about a yellow card and then a red card.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. I thank the member. [Interruption] Thank you. I thank you for your intervention. Thank you.

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: Speaking to the point of order, the member will be aware that, of course, Speaker’s rulings were changed in 2011 at the behest of the Standing Orders Committee. It’s OK for the Speaker to remonstrate with a member who continues to bring the Speaker into the debate, but it’s not OK for any other member to interrupt the debate and to do so. The member should know that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. I appreciate the intervention.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Thank you to the member opposite. In my closing remarks, may I say that National have supported the intent of the bill, but did not agree that the bill was the best way to achieve it. Nor did the Department of Internal Affairs; they said a more comprehensive review of the rebate Act was needed. Nor did the Parliamentary Counsel Office support it as well. So there you go—that’s the quality legislation that this Government are putting forward for this country.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. This is my first opportunity to speak in the House since I made my maiden speech, and so I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your new role, Madam Assistant Speaker, and your fellow presiding officers. It is with great pleasure that I rise to take a call on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. Can I start by thanking the Hon Ruth Dyson for her many years of hard work advocating for elderly people. Her tenure here and her experience shouldn’t be underestimated. Thank you also for bringing this great bill to the House, and can I also thank those who took time to make submissions. It is great to see people getting involved in our democracy.

This evening, I want to focus on three key points, with the first being the role the late Rt Hon Norman Kirk, a former Labour Prime Minister of New Zealand, played in establishing the rates rebate scheme. Secondly, I want to make some observations about retirement villages, their impacts on ordinary Kiwis, and the difference that this bill will make to their lives. Finally, I want to talk about fairness—a core value of mine and of the Labour Party, and the single biggest reason this bill should be progressed in the House today. So thank you very much for bringing this bill to the House.

As Mr Ross said in his contribution earlier, it is a one-clause amendment bill. This is not a complex or difficult bill; it is simply a bill that is ultimately about fairness and equity for people living in retirement villages with occupation right agreements. This bill is simply to update legislation that was created under Norman Kirk in 1973, before retirement villages were around on the scale that we see they are today.

The late Norman Kirk was a fair man—a big man with a big heart—and if it wasn’t for Norm, those people on low incomes who owned a home would never have got any relief from their local authority when they needed it to get ahead. A hand up, I call it; not a handout, as the Opposition likes to call it, but let’s look at the original legislation and its intent.

Norman Kirk believed that people who were on low incomes such as benefits and superannuation needed some financial relief due to the fact that meeting rates payment obligations proved to be a financial hardship for many. The way in which to do this was to introduce a rates rebate scheme. Now, that was well and good for that day and age.

I never met Big Norm, but, as a South Islander, his legacy lives on. One of the people I met when I was out doorknocking in my electorate—a lovely woman called June—had met Norman Kirk and was the beneficiary of the rates rebate scheme. That was his vision for those who didn’t earn much but who wanted their own home and wanted to get ahead, and that’s where I first learnt about this bill. Her friends, who had recently moved into a retirement village, had found themselves without this option. Why should they miss out? They had been taxpayers all their lives. Why was it so unfair? Why were some eligible and some weren’t, solely because of a living situation that wasn’t an option in 1973? It’s not what Big Norm would have wanted, and it is not what he would have envisaged.

Retirement villages were not around on the scale that we see them today. We’re told that there are 360-plus retirement villages in New Zealand, and I have to say that when I look around the Rangitata electorate, this is certainly a growing industry there. That means 34,000 Kiwis are living in retirement villages right now, with many more joining all the time. Of that, though, a staggering 80 percent don’t qualify. That’s over 27,000 decent people who are potentially missing out. That’s unacceptable, that’s unfair, and it’s even more unfair when the rates rebate scheme is underspent by up to $5 million. Add this to the statistic that 50 percent of residents in retirement villages are reliant entirely on superannuation, yet they would be entitled to apply if they simply lived around the corner from the village, and it beggars belief that it has taken 44 years to get this on the table.

One of my favourite meetings was with Grey Power. I spoke with a resident who was somewhat excited to meet me. Not only did he want to tell me that he’d been married for 50 years; he also said he’d done the figures, he and his wife would be on the receiving end of a rates rebate, and, given that superannuation was their sole source of income, this would be a very welcome addition. So he was really hopeful that this bill would progress.

I was disappointed to read that my Labour, Green, and New Zealand First colleagues had to prepare a minority view for something so straightforward and that the Opposition members on the Local Government and Environment Committee completely ignored the submissions that were supportive, leading them to vote against this bill. What completely surprises me, though, is that the former Minister of Local Government the Hon Sam Lotu-Iiga acknowledged that not only did retirement villages need to be looked at but, in fact, regardless of their living situation, residents—and I quote—“do, in fact, end up paying rates.” Currently, retirement villages are required to pay fees, which cover the costs of running the village, and this includes rates, which are then on-paid in bulk directly to a local authority. Therefore, quite clearly, they pay rates. It puzzles me why the Opposition members on the select committee couldn’t get their heads around this.

It is heartening to see some councils front-footing this issue, and they have adopted practices to allow residents with occupation right agreements to apply for a rates rebate. A report of the Local Government Rates Inquiry has also noted that the current rates rebate scheme certainly excluded and made people ineligible, and therefore this needed to be reviewed to enable people to have the ability to apply for a rates rebate scheme. In order for this to happen, the current Rates Rebate Act would need to be amended. Now, if some councils can make this work, surely it can’t be that hard.

As I said before, this is not a complex issue. It is not a complex amendment, but it simply sets out a change in the definition of “ratepayer” to include those who are residents of retirement villages who pay rates through their fees, with an occupation right agreement, to the operator of the retirement village.

So, in conclusion, the rates rebate scheme started with a vision from Norman Kirk to help alleviate the financial pressures that people on low incomes were burdened with, and it was fit for purpose at the time. But times have changed, and so has the way we choose to live. Now—44 years later—we are here with this bill before the House to decide whether people who live in retirement villages should be treated fairly and equitably compared with those who live in their own homes.

We are an ageing population and, as such, more and more people are moving into retirement villages as a preferred choice in accommodation. It is not fair that in a way these people are penalised for choosing to live in retirement homes. With elderly people more often than not relying on superannuation as their sole source of income—like the gentleman I spoke with at that Grey Power meeting—it is only fair and it is only right that we look to adopt the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson. So it is with pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and congratulations on attaining the position. The way you handled that situation earlier, I can see you’re going to do a great job. I think it’s an interesting bill that we are debating tonight, the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill, and, as the previous speaker, Jo Luxton, said, we do have an ageing population—there’s no doubt about that. I think if we look, certainly, across my electorate, there’s a range of retirement villages from Amberley all the way through to Picton, and they vary in size from small privately-owned retirement villages to the larger corporate villages. It’s a variety of incomes that people are on or financial backgrounds—or positions, at least—that these people come from who are residents in those villages. In Marlborough, 22 percent of the population are over 65, so it’s quite a significant issue in that area—

💬 Chris Bishop: How much?

Twenty-two percent. I think it’s one of the highest in the country. And to actually explain the situation, we’ve got a great place to live. We’ve got wineries, the most sunshine hours in the country—what’s not to like? That’s why people want to go and live there. The Marlborough Sounds are on your doorstep, and if you’re in a retirement village, living in Marlborough, you can access those things.

So going back to the bill, there were 34 submissions. Actually, I have a very important question: why, if this bill is so important, isn’t it a Government bill? I mean, why isn’t it a Government bill? If the Government is not—is it overwhelmed with legislation of its own on the Order Paper? I don’t think so. So I don’t understand why it’s not. It really surprises me that it’s not, if it’s such a worthy bill. Thirty-four submissions, as has been said earlier. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! [Interruption] Order, members!

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I seem to have that effect on members on the other side at the moment, and I’m taking that as a compliment, actually. There were 34 submissions—eight oral submissions—eight of which called for amendments on the commencement date and also on a definition of ratepayers in the Local Government (Rating) Act of 2002. A third of the submissions also asked the committee to consider the administrative effect of the bill. I think that’s quite important. I’ve been on the select committee for three years now—not this particular select committee but other select committees—and I’ve never heard that from submitters. I’m not sure what other members’ experience is—I’ve never heard that. I think that is quite telling. The officials advised, of course, as we’ve heard, that the bill would not achieve its purpose. The Parliamentary Counsel Office counselled against the bill proceeding in its form.

The Hon Tracey Martin is someone who I respect, and I think she should reflect on the statement she made earlier that actually called into question the professionalism of the Public Service and their independence, because I think they do a good job. Their job and their role is to make sure that legislation comes to this House in a form that will work for New Zealand and New Zealanders, and, quite clearly, they did not believe that was the case with this legislation.

The member in charge of the bill—they sought two extensions. The first one was granted for about two months. The second extension application was blocked because the member in charge of the bill opposed it, so the bill has come back not fit for the purpose that it seeks to be. [Interruption] In fact, there was one statement that the risk—

💬 Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member who made that remark knows it is unparliamentary. She is not allowed to refer to members in that capacity, in that way, and she should withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): The Hon Ruth Dyson—I require you to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could we just clarify to the House that the word “slug” is now unparliamentary?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I think the member will know that the ruling is that what is or isn’t unparliamentary is at the discretion of the Speaker, and I’ve made the ruling accordingly.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I do answer to most things, actually. The risk of unintended consequences of this bill was also pointed out in the official report. These are pretty strong words from officials who are impartial and who are experts in this bill.

So what are the facts and what is this bill trying to achieve? The rates rebate scheme, as has been mentioned, was introduced in 1973 and I agree, it probably is well overdue for a review. But since then, the licence to occupy has proliferated throughout New Zealand, and, in fact, 80 percent of people living in retirement villages are living so, under a licence to occupy. This is the issue that is causing the problem. It’s not about councils getting around it; it’s about the legal structures in which people live. But I’ll come to that later.

So the rates payments rest with the owner and operator of the village in a licence to occupy situation—that the person in there is actually who is liable to pay the rates. So that is where the problem lies. The rates rebate is based on income, the level of rates, and the number of dependants. It is $610 and it’s an income threshold of $24,470. Whilst it’s to be applauded, the work of the advisers, it’s difficult for a number of reasons, which I want to touch on now.

The arrangements relating to how properties are owned or occupied in retirement villages—there’s terms of freehold title, leasehold title, cross-lease title, and unit title. In the unit title case, those people will actually get a rates bill anyway, so they’ll be a ratepayer. Licence to occupy—as I’ve already mentioned, that’s 80 percent of people occupying retirement villages at the moment, and residential tenancy.

In order to get a rebate, the person must be a ratepayer, and the ratepayer in relation to the property. That’s not possible under this legislation. Also, under the Local Government Act they have to be named in the rating information database and they have to be on the district valuation roll. If you have a licence to occupy, you will not be on either of those, so you won’t qualify there.

A second issue that we have is to ascertain what the rates are and apportioned to the units. As was pointed out in a very good speech by Mr Brett Hudson, this is actually more complex and has been characterised—[Interruption] Despite one of the members across the way, it is really complex and we’ve heard that from officials and from those people operating in that field.

Rates can be held in three ways. There can be a rate on the land, a charge for the water and waste water, and a regional council rate as well. [Bell rung] Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m confused by the clock, I have to say. I’m not confused enough to be a part of that side, that’s for sure.

As I wind down, it is a huge cost administratively to administer this bill. It raises issues of privacy of financial information for those people occupying the retirement villages. There could be a situation where the operator of the village in question could pay their fees on the village. So I think that’s quite a significant cost. Also, often, when these licences to occupy are signed, people agree on a fee that they’re paying over a number of years. Rates will change during that period. How do you apportion that? That is quite legally difficult.

Yes, there’s $56 million in the cost of the rebate scheme. What we’re talking about here is about 10 percent of that, and it’s difficult if you’re in that 10 percent, I accept, but however it is none the less really very difficult for this to go in. It’s a flawed piece of legislation, not just in my view but in the officials’ view, who looked at this very hard. I applaud the member for her attempt. However, it really isn’t good enough. It just simply won’t work and therefore, with regret, I oppose the bill. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the interests of putting this matter to bed or to rest or to sleep, I move an extension of time for that last member that was speaking.

Members, I must remind you about order in the House. I have to say that members on this side of the House, with their constant interjections, have actually caused disorder. I was allowing the member to continue with his speech, rather than disrupt him, to make that very point. So I would ask members on this side of the House, please, to retain some order and to allow people to continue with their debate.

💬 Stuart Smith: Can I speak to the point of order, please?

Speaking to the point of order.

I actually thought that he’d been asleep all the way through that. I’m just surprised he was awake.

The member will resume his seat. That’s not—[Interruption] Please, if you would put the leave again.

Could I remind you, before you sanctioned the House for its behaviour, that I sought, in the interests of putting the matter to bed or to sleep, to seek leave for the House to give extended speaking time to that member, because it’s working.

I think that’s a frivolous motion. The member will resume his seat.

I perhaps will seek to bring a little more decorum to the House, as we go into the final stages of this particular reading. It’s a great honour to rise to my feet to speak on this particular matter. Post maiden speech, these will be the first remarks I am honoured to make in this House. As I scribbled a few notes, you think back to why you come to an odd place like this, to stay up until 10 o’clock at night, debating the nuances of these various matters. Reflecting on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill, it really strikes at the heart of why most of us come to this House.

We’re trying to make right the wrongs that have existed—or do exist, by anomalies in our law—for the little guys, for those that are the most vulnerable within our communities. For bringing this bill into this House, to the Hon Ruth Dyson, I want to commend you for your work and note that this is exactly the type of bill that many of us came here—these are the types of laws that many of us came into this House to make. So thank you for your hard work.

It is on that note too I think probably many of us, particularly those first-timers that come into this House—we come into this House, after nine years of absolute frustration with the conduct by the opposite side of the House, which looks at things like this. You see, it’s a simple bill, as has been said throughout this House. It’s a simple bill that has immeasurable impact for many, many people. Those people that this bill has immeasurable impact upon are some of our most vulnerable within our communities.

The measure of any society, they say, is in the way that we treat our most vulnerable. When we think of them, it’s usually our children and our elderly. Now, the reality is that—I’m very proud to stand amongst a Government where our Prime Minister is the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction. But I’m also very proud to stand in a Government that has been the bastion of standing for those most vulnerable, at both ends of the spectrum. I want to acknowledge too, because he’s in front of me, the Rt Hon Winston Peters for his constant work at the coalface, advocating for our senior citizens.

Many of us have just come off the back of a hard yards campaign out in our various regions. I want to acknowledge the Deputy Speaker, Anne Tolley, who is not in the House right now—the member for the East Coast.

💬 Hon Members: Not in the Chair.

Not in the Chair, but certainly will be in the House, no doubt.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I must remind the member not to refer to members who aren’t present.

My apologies, Madam Assistant Speaker. But I wanted to make reference to the member of Parliament for the East Coast because I’m a very proud resident, living on the East Coast. All throughout our region, one of the striking aspects that struck me consistently throughout our region was the number of our elderly that came to me with stories of extreme poverty; the number of our elderly and those that advocated on their behalf that would bring the most egregious stories; and the number of our elderly that are too ashamed to tell their stories of how they actually don’t have a roof over their head or how they’re living in crowded accommodation or how they can’t afford to go into retirement villages some times. It’s bills like this: simple solutions that have immeasurable impacts for so many of our citizens. I’ll turn to the nuances of that bill now.

When “Big Norm”, as he’s been referred to previously, but when Norman Kirk introduced our primary legislation, which was the Rates Rebate Act back in the 1970s—I must admit there were some cackles from across the other side of the House, or perhaps it was this side, that some of us that sit in this Chamber now aren’t old enough, weren’t around, at the introduction of the original Act. I’m one of those members.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: I was offended—I was offended.

You’re offended. The good sir over there, Mr Jami-Lee Ross, was offended. I wasn’t offended. But it made me reflect. Look, at the time when this bill was introduced, it was introduced to give reprieve to those most vulnerable within our communities, to ease the pockets just a little bit, and to provide some kind of rebate by way of rates to those members in our community that simply didn’t have enough cash in their back pocket at the time. That was 40-odd years ago; well, it was 45-odd years ago. Well at that time it hadn’t yet been envisaged that retirement villages would become popular residential environments, but we know now that it’s a growing area where many of our elderly live. In fact, I think that over 50 percent of our residents now that are living in retirement villages are superannuitants, so not necessarily of major means. But this bill—a very simple bill, a very effective bill—enables so many of our elderly to have a little bit more cash in their back pocket.

I want to acknowledge that there’s been widespread support from those that are at the coalface who work within this environment. In particular, I want to acknowledge John Collyns and the Retirement Villages Association. I also want to acknowledge Rob Wilson, Dick Williams, and John Moore, who are the office holders of the Retirement Village Residents Association of New Zealand, who’ve all swung in behind to see sensible, practical, common-sense legislation like this legislation pass through this House.

When I was going through the submissions that had been made, one of the first that I stumbled across was from one of our constituents from the East Coast, Freda Woisin, who is a resident at Carter Village in Te Puke. Now, that took me back to my childhood, you see, because my mum, a working-class woman, was a cook and a cleaner at the Te Puke retirement village for many, many years. I spent many, many years growing up, really, in those retirement villages and seeing the daily life that many of our elderly and superannuitants at that time were living. It can be an immeasurably tough life if people aren’t of sufficient means.

I remember spending many a Christmas while my mother cooked in those retirement villages for the residents and noted that for some people there wasn’t necessarily a lot of joy come around each Christmas. I remember that every single year. If you hadn’t been fortunate enough to be able to set aside savings for your retirement years—another year over; another year not too much in your back pocket. So I reflected on that and I felt compelled to make comment that over the course of the campaign too those memories flooded home, of sitting amongst those retirement villages through my childhood. When I went up to, for example, Kiri Te Kanawa Retirement Village in Gisborne or Dunblane Retirement Village in Gisborne, the common request from many of the constituents living within those environments is “Look, we just don’t have enough to get by. Look, the superannuation amount in our back pocket, it’s just not enough to get by.” People spoke directly to this bill, that it might just enable them to have a slightly better life. For what we hope and what we know will bring just many more benefits for our constituents, particularly in the East Coast, which I’m very proud to be from; for those 15,000 people that are superannuitants that are living in the East Coast, but the many more throughout the country, they will have a couple more dollars in their back pocket—immeasurably proud.

Madam Assistant Speaker, almost there—no, it’s an absolute honour to speak in favour of this bill. I just want to note that what we found for nine years over the opposite side of this House was that there are all these issues that we could see bubbling to the fore at every single stage whether they were with our children, whether they were with our elderly, but there was this complete opposition to actually cut through and act for those that were must vulnerable within our communities. It is with absolute pride that I commend this bill to the House.