Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill

It gives me an immense amount of pleasure to move, That the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

The rates rebate goes back a long time, since the early 1970s when Norman Kirk was our Prime Minister, and I just want to acknowledge his vision and his passion and his practical application to get good things done for people who are most in need. The rates rebates scheme was one such example. Norman Kirk recognised that people who were paying off a mortgage were often struggling. They spent a lot of their income to pay off the mortgage so that they would eventually own their house, but every quarter they got a rates bill from the council—which they have to pay, and of course they should pay—and that was a big financial challenge to low-income earners. His idea was to give people money from central government to help them pay that rates bill.

The scheme was introduced so that people with a low income with quite a high rates bill would then get, on a sliding scale, some money back to assist with that rates bill. That was hugely successful when it was first introduced. Over time, particularly over the nine years post the then Labour Government—1972 to 1975—losing office, the scheme began to be run down. The amount of money that people could earn wasn’t updated and the amount of money that they paid in rates wasn’t updated. So in the end there were, you know, half a dozen people eligible for the rates rebate scheme.

I noticed this in the period that we were last in Government, when Helen Clark was the Prime Minister. When I was the Minister for Senior Citizens, it was obvious that a lot of older New Zealanders who were dependent on superannuation couldn’t afford to pay their rates. So one of the first things that we did in that period of Government was increase the amount of money that people could earn and the rate, so that far more people became eligible for the rates rebate. But it was also obvious that a number of other things had changed in those intervening years, including the introduction of a different type of ownership of a home, which was not a unit title; it was called a licence to occupy, and that was particularly the case in retirement villages.

Throughout New Zealand we’ve had a proliferation of retirement villages. Many people choose to live in a retirement village unit, but they don’t have a title. They have what’s called a licence to occupy, or some variation on that phrase. They pay their rates. The resident pays their rates indirectly through the retirement village owner, who then pays the rates bill to the council. So under the current scheme, even though they are paying rates, they are not entitled to get a rates rebate even though many of them—50 percent of retirement village residents—are totally dependent on superannuation for their income.

Now, that seemed to me to be unfair. So I introduced a fix for that as a member’s bill and, unlike most of the other member’s bills that I’ve had introduced, it got the majority support of the Parliament. In fact, when I introduced the bill it got 100 percent of support of the Parliament. It’s been through a select committee. Somewhere along the line the National Party changed their mind about their support, and I was pretty disappointed about that because I couldn’t think of a better message for Parliament to send to retirement village residents than that the whole of Parliament has seen the unfairness of their ineligibility to apply for a rates rebate and the whole of Parliament has agreed it should be fixed. So the National Party pulled their support.

In the second reading and the committee stage, there was a bit of movement on that position, because I was very fortunate to have, in that intervening time, partaken in an election, and Labour and New Zealand First and the Greens now form the Government.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Oh, thank God for that.

It is a big relief to many people. We now have a Minister of Local Government who understands the issue and understands the unfairness of it and is committed to playing her part in fixing it—and I want to acknowledge the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. She didn’t need this explained to her. She already understood the issue, and said, “We’re going to help resolve any concerns there are that have been raised at the select committee.”, and she directed her officials to help meet the concerns that were raised at the select committee and in the committee stage. So a Supplementary Order Paper was presented in my name—huge help from the Department of Internal Affairs officials in drafting that—and that resolved all the concerns that have been raised, and now we come to the third stage of the legislation.

So I invite the National Party to have one more think about this, because it would be such a good message to send from our Parliament if everyone voted for it. But before I do that, I want to acknowledge the parties that supported it before the election that are no longer in Parliament. As well as, obviously, National and Labour, New Zealand First and the Greens supported it before, and, fortunately, are still here to continue their support. The Hon Peter Dunne supported it prior to the election and gave his commitment to continuing support, but, of course, he isn’t here—he didn’t stand—and the Māori Party also supported the legislation. So I just want to acknowledge them.

I want to acknowledge other advocates for this legislation. Grey Power have been consistent and strong advocates of this legislation; the Retirement Villages Residents Association, and I want to particularly acknowledge Carol and Rob Wilson, who have been tremendous supporters and promoters of this legislative change; the Retirement Villages Association, whose chief executive, John Collyns, has been very active in supporting the legislation, and making sure that we got it right for the owners and operators of the retirement villages, because we want something that works for everyone and not just the residents; and, of course, I want to re-acknowledge Norman Kirk, whose vision put this scheme into place in the first place. It’s given low-income earners a big financial boost at a time when they need it. When their rates bill is due, they have to pay their rates bill, and this has just made it so much easier for them.

So I’m delighted now that retirement village residents who are in a licence to occupy unit will be now in exactly the same place as somebody who is living in a freehold title unit just down the road. They both have the same income. They both have the same rates. They pay their rates differently, but if this legislation is passed, it will mean that in both situations, they will be entitled to apply for a rates rebate. If they meet the criteria, they will get the financial support they deserve.

There are further changes to the Rates Rebate Act, and I think my next member’s bill that I put in the ballot will be addressing another one of those loopholes, which were identified in a report to the Government in 2007 and which were ignored by the National-led Government for nine years—nine years. Knowing the gaps in the system and knowing that low-income earners were finding it hard to manage, it ignored the opportunity to expand the rates rebate scheme in the way that this legislation does.

So I want to conclude by just saying that it’s quite rare for a member’s bill to get all the way through the process. In the last term of Government, I had three members’ bills drawn out. That’s rare, as well. On the basis of me feeling so fortunate when I had the third member’s bill drawn out, I went down and bought a Lotto ticket, thinking that my luck was in. I didn’t get one single cent back from that Lotto ticket. It was devastating, really. But it’s more than made up for by the fact that this rates rebate bill has got to the third reading and has received support from a wide range of people outside the Parliament and, I hope, the majority of people inside Parliament.

Finally, the people who are in the retirement villages will have fairness. They’ll get that financial support. It will make their lives better. I think they deserve it. I think they deserve the support of Parliament so that they have fair treatment compared to people who live in a comparable situation, even in the same street—which they currently don’t get—and I commend the progress of this bill to the House. Thank you.

Can I ask New Zealand First, again, to remove their advertising, in accordance with Speakers’ rulings. I did give an indication when I came into the House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise in support of this, the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill—

💬 Mark Patterson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could I just say that the member has—there was a similar offence on the other side of the House, but it’s been rectified. It has been settled to our satisfaction. Thank you.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s an unnecessary interruption.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’ll reiterate, just in case people have forgotten. It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill in this, its third reading. This, we are very pleased to say, is a very, very different bill to that which was introduced, to that which was allowed to exit the select committee, and to that which did receive a second reading. Fortunately, at the committee of the whole House, it changed quite dramatically. But before I talk about that, I think it is important just to recap, of course, why it was, in fact, that we originally did support the bill, because we supported its intent.

The idea is—and we acknowledge—that over time, there are distortions in the ways people, particularly elderly New Zealanders, live, and the nature of their terms and conditions of occupation of residences shifted quite dramatically from when the rates rebate was first implemented in New Zealand to one where, now, in retirement villages it is the common practice for those in self-contained units or those who are living independently to be in an apartment or a unit for which they don’t hold title but, instead, have some sort of a licence to occupy. The reality is that because of the way the law had been written—and currently is—those occupiers would not be entitled to the rates rebate. I think it’s fair to suggest that that was never envisaged at the time, and probably for most of the intervening years, at least, hadn’t really been anticipated.

So we entered into this, as this bill was introduced, with the idea that the concept at least could help, potentially, to address that distortion, and we were hopeful that in select committee the bill could be improved, because it was a very short bill, with just a simple amendment to what a “ratepayer” was defined as. Unfortunately, it was not permitted. There were two pieces of value in the select committee. First, as the officials said, it was unworkable, and they felt, actually, not necessarily fixable, and we weren’t able to get a significant amendment to it.

Fortunately, despite us then removing our support in the committee of the whole House the member in charge of the bill, the Hon Ruth Dyson, did submit a Supplementary Order Paper that fundamentally addresses the biggest concerns we had at the end of that select committee process and introduces a means for the calculation, application, and refunding—or payment—of a rates rebate to work in an effective manner. We look at what has come through, and we can see that while it may not address absolutely everything we could choose to talk about, it actually addresses the lion’s share of the concerns we had. So that’s why I will stand—and I anticipate other members of this side will stand—and express support for this bill.

There is a saying that “Success has many mothers and failure is an orphan”. It was quite interesting to hear the member in charge of this bill talking about how the now Minister of Local Government had set officials on to create a means to address the concerns we, and perhaps others, had with the bill. It’s quite astounding, really. I was in a meeting recently—very recently; as recently as yesterday, actually—with the immediate prior Minister of Local Government. She told me, and others, that, in fact, it was her that instructed officials—before the committee of the whole House stage, before the lifting of the last Parliament—to work on the bill and to determine if they could come up with a mechanism and drafting that would resolve the concerns that we had expressed. And lo—they did.

They did, and the member in charge of this bill introduced it in the committee of the whole House stage. I do feel she could’ve taken the opportunity to have acknowledged the work of the immediate predecessor to the current Minister of Local Government. But, none the less, despite that, we still are here in this, the final stage of the bill, with a bill that is finally in much better shape than it was when it was introduced into Parliament. It’s in a shape that we can give it our support, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This bill is about doing the decent thing, and I’m delighted that our colleagues on the other side of the House are now doing the decent thing too and supporting this excellent bill. The rates rebate has always been about doing the decent thing. We know that rates expenses are a big expense for people to bear, but if you have a low income, in fact, that huge, lumpy expenditure can be difficult to handle. That’s exactly why Norman Kirk introduced the rates rebate. It was to help people to be able to pay that lumpy expense.

I just want to point out one really important thing with the rates rebate that we’re talking about today. It’s actually available to all low-income earners. There are some very simple rules at present for claiming the rates rebate: you have to pay the rates on a home, you have to live in that home, and you have to be a low-income earner. Now, at present, the threshold for that low income is $24,790 of income a year, before tax. That’s not a lot. But, as it turns out, it applies to superannuitants. Superannuitants—particularly a single superannuitant—will fall under that threshold if they are living on New Zealand superannuation alone. So that’s why we so often associate it with people who are retired and are living on New Zealand superannuation. And, of course, many low-income earners have not yet had the opportunity to buy a home, but one of the things we know about people who are on New Zealand superannuation is that, during their lives, they’ve had the opportunity to earn income, to build up assets, and, all going well, they end up in retirement owning their own home. But they still need to bear the expenses for that home.

And there’s another important point around that. We’ve got a very well-established strategy for looking after our senior citizens, and it’s around ageing in place—helping people to stay in their own homes. That’s what part of this rates rebate does. What it is helping people to do is to bear the lumpy sum of rates—to bear that expense. It’s giving them a little bit of a hand along the way, and that enables them to manage in their old age, even if they are living on only New Zealand superannuation.

But there is a fundamental unfairness in the rates rebate scheme as it is right now, and it is a fundamental unfairness that is being fixed by this excellent bill. As a House, we are now all doing the decent thing, and we are going to fix that particular unfairness. And it came about by chance. No one ever envisaged that this particular unfairness would arise. You see, retirement villages are quite a new phenomenon. They’re comparatively recent. They weren’t particularly around when Norman Kirk first established the rates rebate scheme. But, these days, they are common—well, perhaps not common as muck, but they are common; there are several in my electorate in New Lynn—where the people who live there pay a lump sum to the owner of the retirement village for the right to occupy. And that right to occupy is like, in effect, owning their own home.

Those people currently living in what is, effectively, their own home nevertheless could not claim the rates rebate—they cannot at the moment. But this jolly decent bill fixes that unfairness. So it makes changes around the definition of who may claim the particular rebate and it extends it to people who are occupying space in a retirement village. So this unfairness that came about by chance—well, we are now taking the chance to put it right. And thanks to my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson we are putting it right now and doing the decent thing.

It’s also not even a lot of money each year. It’s only $620. And I tell you, to those of us in this House, perhaps $620 doesn’t sound like a lot, but that can be a fair chunk to a superannuitant, and that bit of money helps, and it’s all part of that keeping people in their own home.

I just want to focus on something about the process of this bill, and this, again, is where I’d like to thank Mr Hudson and his colleagues for now doing the decent thing. There was a fair amount of agreement on this bill in select committee. But, somehow, when it came out of select committee, the agreement had disappeared. But what happened was it came back to the House, it came back to the committee of the whole House, and we worked on it. We worked and worked and worked on it to make sure that we got it right.

This is something that we often do in this House. And I say “we”, even as only a very new member of this House, because there were those of us who, as new members, were plunged straight into this debate and asked to understand what the bill was about, understand the problem it was trying to fix, understand how the legislation was being sorted out, and work on the legislation to get it right. I know that I and many of my new colleagues all spoke to this bill, and we worked together as a team with our colleagues from across the House to put it right. That’s one of the great triumphs, I think of this bill—that it is now an example of the way this House can, working together, do the decent thing and get things right. And that’s what we are doing for the 26,000 older New Zealanders who, we know, live in retirement villages these days. That’s quite a significant number of New Zealanders, and they are spread right through the country.

I know that one of the issues that the National Party Opposition had with the bill was that, perhaps, there wasn’t a clear mechanism for getting the rates rebate to our senior citizens who are living in retirement villages. There, perhaps, wasn’t a clear understanding of how it would be calculated, of who it would apply to. And I think what was instructive in the committee of the whole House stage was that, in terms of the actual bill that is now in front of us—the bill where we have reached agreement—we now have some measures sitting in the bill telling us how the rebate is to be calculated, who it applies to, exactly who is counted as a resident of a retirement village, who’s going to administer the forms, where the refund’s going to come through, and all the sorts of mechanisms that you need around a measure like this to be sure that it is actually going to take place and is actually going to get to the people who it needs to get to. So it is an excellent example of people doing the decent thing.

As I reach towards the end of my time here, I just want to recall some of the people I know, living in my own electorate of New Lynn, and I’m sure that my colleagues across the House will know people like this too. Two old gents—Eric and Sid, people I’ve gotten to know this year. They’re living in a retirement village in my electorate. Eric and Sid don’t have a lot to go on. Eric, bless him, is looking after his wife, who has Alzheimer’s. That retirement village is providing a really good structure for them to order their lives, it’s providing community around them, it’s providing a place to be, and it is safe and secure for them. I want Eric and Sid and I want their friends at that retirement village to be able to stay in place as they go through the golden years of their lives. And I’m telling you—they’re pretty active gentlemen, and it’s great to see them like that.

Now, you might think that $620 a year won’t make a lot of difference to them, but I think it will. It will help them along the way, and that’s what we need to do for our senior citizens and, indeed, what we need to do for any of our low-income citizens who have the great good fortune to own their own home. We want to help them to stay in place.

Thinking of my mates Eric and Sid, thinking of the people who will be in my colleagues’ electorates, in retirement villages, this is something that we are doing for those people, for our senior citizens, who we value so much. Today we are doing the decent thing and ensuring that they too can claim the rates rebate—that little bit of help that we give to our senior citizens. It’s jolly decent. I’m glad we’re doing it. I commend this bill to the House.

There are four points that I want to make in the third reading of this Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. The first of those is that the issue of rates and the cost to people on fixed incomes, like superannuitants, is a really important issue. After the last nine years, I’m actually very proud that the cost of living over the last nine years has gone up by less than under any Government in the 160-year history of New Zealand. You may want to check that with the Parliamentary Library. I did. But I’m very proud that our Government took very seriously the issue of costs, and having fought 10 election campaigns, the 2017 election was the first that I have had where the cost of living was not a significant issue.

So for all the schemes we might have, like rates rebates, let us not overlook the fundamental issues of what this Parliament does to drive up those costs of rates. One of the reasons we had to have a rates rebate scheme is that in the course of the nine years of the previous Helen Clark Government, rates went up by an average of 8.7 percent per year. I say to members opposite that rates rebate schemes are no substitute for solid local government policy that ensures we keep the costs of rates in this country constrained, and we intend to hold the Government accountable in that area.

The second point I want to make is, why has National’s position on this bill changed? Well, it’s very easy to work that out if you read the bill that’s before us on the third reading. The extraordinary part is that if we look at the original bill that was introduced by Ruth Dyson, there’s barely 10 percent that’s survived the select committee and committee of the whole House process.

As we correctly said when this bill was introduced, it was a dog, it was unworkable, and as the previous Labour speaker, Deborah Russell, said; it required extensive amendment during the committee stage. It is only with those amendments that National members on this side of the House feel able to support it.

Here’s the key—here’s the key. This bill is going to cost in the order of $8 million to $9 million a year for taxpayers. This isn’t free money. This is $8 million or $9 million of taxes that hard-working Kiwis have produced. All we’re doing is transferring those taxes through to those people in retirement villages. The concern that National had with the original bill is that the money was just going to go to the retirement villages company.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Rubbish!

It was. There was no guarantee that the benefit of the rates rebate—I do have to say to the member that interjects: I do have concerns, even with the mechanisms in this bill, that we’ll be sitting down in two or three years’ time assured that all of that $8 million or $9 million a year of taxpayer subsidy through rates rebates is actually going to the residents of retirement villages, and not the companies.

I would challenge the next Labour member to reassure me on this point. What is to stop any retirement village company, as part of its normal contractual arrangements with the licence to occupy in the agreement—sure, to provide the rates rebate of $600 a year but just to put the service charges up by $600? The honest answer is there is no constraint on that, and I want to give Government members notice that we on this side of the House will be monitoring that closely, because we are only interested in the rates rebate if the benefit of that is going into the pockets of our retired village residents and not the companies.

The third point I want to make is this. For the last three years, I’ve heard members who are now in Government argue that retirement villages aren’t houses, that retirement villages are not ownership. It is true that the fastest-growing sector of the housing market is the construction of retirement villages. It has grown by more than 200 percent over the last decade. It is the fastest-growing area of the housing market. But I will be looking for some consistency from Government members. For instance, the Minister of Housing, in quoting homeownership numbers, conveniently excludes those people that own a $400,000 licence to occupy in a retirement village. I think that’s inconsistent. It’s inconsistent with the speech that we’ve just heard from the Labour member, who actually used the term that these retirement village residents “own” their unit.

When the Government quotes homeownership numbers, the number of people that we now have in retirement villages, quoting nearly 30,000 people, is of a scale that it should be included in those homeownership figures. It is a bit academic for someone who sells their family home, who then uses that money to buy a $400,000 interest in a licence to occupy in a retirement village, to somehow pretend that that person is worse off and no longer has an asset and an interest in that unit. I would go even further. I would wish that in the census, when we actually provide the detailed information on homeownership levels in New Zealand, the scale of the retirement village legislation now is such that we should be separately identifying those people that are in retirement villages.

The very last point I wish to make in respect of this rates rebate amendment bill is that we need to ensure that we have a commissioner who’s responsible for monitoring the retirement village sector. The concern with this bill, all the way through, has been that those benefits are going to go to the elderly retired, not to the village companies. I would like to ask the next Government speaker to assure the Opposition that in the terms of reference the Government has with the Retirement Commissioner they will include the monitoring of this specific point, so Parliament can be reassured that the $8 million to $9 million extra going into rebates for people in retirement villages is indeed going where the supporters of this bill intended. For those reasons, National supports this bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you. It’s with great pleasure that I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. Forgive me. I actually thought this was a very generous and warm-hearted bill, but after listening to that previous speech I must have missed some grim and oppressive details in there, because that was a speech that was certainly short on generosity for this bill.

I congratulate the Hon Ruth Dyson on bringing this bill forward. I think in this Parliament we debate some great and weighty issues—we’ve got one coming up tonight. But it’s these nuts and bolts bills, these smaller bills, that maybe don’t attract the cameras or the media, but for the people that they are affecting they’re actually really important bills—the people that Dr Russell referred to in her speech, the people on low incomes. This bill, of course, seeks to resolve the anomaly of the situation where people in retirement villages that have occupational rights agreements, or ORAs, with their villages are not able to reclaim the rates portion, or the rates rebate, as their qualifying peers in private residences do. So that’s an anomaly that needs addressing.

I note that you don’t have to be a superannuitant or over 65 years to receive this; you just have to be below the income threshold. I note that retirement for people under 65 is a really live issue in this House today, so if Mr English finds himself on hard times, we know that he will have some solace in this bill. We also know that some local bodies had already moved in advance of this, to have formed some programmes to actually prelude this bill, so that they already had moved in this direction, because they have recognised that this anomaly is in place.

We know that, as Dr Russell said, there are 226,000 people now in these retirement villages, and as the baby boomer generation moves into retirement that is only going to be rising. It had been rising at the previous census at 22 percent over that period, and it will only be rising much quicker now. We know that the maximum pension is only $20,290 for a single person, and we know a little bit about the pension levels at New Zealand First—it’s been pretty topical for us as well—and the rate at which we can claim the full rate is at $24,790. If you’re on that income, $620 a year or $12 a week is a significant amount of money. It does make a material difference. I will add that that goes on top of the $700 a week of the winter power rebates that this Government has brought in. These are layers that you can see this Government is building towards helping these older citizens.

We, also, in New Zealand First, of course, have been one of the great champions of superannuitants. In the coalition agreement, the SuperGold card, which had been woefully neglected under that previous Government, is to be ramped up and revised. We also know that the cost of living for superannuitants—and I also have consulted the Parliamentary Library over this—is actually over and above, on average, that of the average citizen, at 2.3 percent for the last year, as opposed to 1.9 percent. Rates are a significant portion of that. This is a discussion that this House has to have and it will be having over this term: how our local governments can raise revenue without the blunt instrument that is rates, and the flow-on effects to our citizens on fixed and low incomes. This is but a small measure in trying to mitigate that, but it is a much bigger discussion that we will be having as a Government, on this side of the House.

I’ll just conclude with New Zealand First supporting this bill. I’d just like to say that it gives dignity to our elderly and those that are on low and fixed incomes, and we as a nation are judged on how we treat our most vulnerable. This is a good example of this Government recognising that fact—in a small way, maybe, but a small and significant way for those people that are affected. So it is with that that I take great pleasure in confirming New Zealand First’s support for this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the benefit of the member who just sat down, Mark Patterson, it may be timely to remind that member that under the National Government, the rate of the use of the SuperGold card went up from very humble beginnings in 2008 to tens of thousands of additional businesses—more than a 38 percent increase. I’m trying to put the record right because, I guess, in a wide-ranging discussion about the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill, at its third reading, it is timely to remind those who were not in the House at the time of the evolution of this bill, and to correct some of the myths that are going around as to the level of support that the previous National Government brought.

I know, when I was the Minister for Seniors, how much interest there was in putting through a bill of this kind, because, as colleagues have said, more than 30,000 New Zealanders over the age of 65—most of them—now live in retirement village situations. So to have a rebate, even one as small as $610, is worthwhile. The threshold, at $24,470, is what it is, so there will be a small group of people who will benefit from this. I’m not diminishing the impact that that additional money will have for them, and also the level, I suppose, of fairness across the board.

National believes very strongly in the principle of assisting low-income households and targeting it. Meeting the cost of local authority rates is something that we had considered. We’d initially looked at this bill and wanted to support it. It was, as a colleague described a few moments ago—the Hon Dr Nick Smith—a dog of a bill. It had four clauses, as Brett Hudson said in his opening speech on this, and he’s absolutely correct. The initial briefing to the committee that was considering this small bill outlined very clearly—and I’m quoting here from the Department of Internal Affairs’ advice—that it considered “that the Bill as introduced would not achieve its stated purpose. Additional and complex amendments would be required to do this.”

These complex amendments were, effectively, a rewrite. The Department of Internal Affairs was asked by the predecessor of the current Minister of Local Government—and I acknowledge that member for having the foresight to ask the department—“How could you put this bill right?” So they wrote something that has now been presented as a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), and it has made the bill now workable, which was what we wanted it to do. So for those who were confused and uncertain as to why National did not support the bill, we supported the officials’ assessment, and we understood that the complexity and the problems that were identified in those four short clauses were such that it was unsupportable. So now that that’s been put right—and the member who proposed this bill and put it forward was offered the opportunity to consult and rewrite, but chose not to take that up, so let’s look carefully at who’s throwing the stones and why they might be doing that.

But SOP No. 10, in the end, delivered something that we know that we can support, because it has changed the definition of a ratepayer 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”. My colleague Dr Nick Smith, who spoke about this earlier, is absolutely right to ask and really encourage the Government to try and monitor—through the Retirement Commissioner is probably the most effective way—to ensure that the money is actually delivered to the people who need it and want it, that $610. So I would like to see further monitoring done. Again, the bill is silent on how that will be monitored, and it really needed to do more, but, in the end, in light of that SOP, we’re supporting it through.

It is important, as well, in a specific provision, to clarify how the payment of the rebate would be occurring to somebody who doesn’t otherwise qualify as a ratepayer. So the specific circumstances of paying for retirement village accommodation are complicated. They’re different depending on the licence to occupy, depending on the details. I would take a moment to just indicate that if anyone is going into a retirement village situation, they really do need to read the fine print carefully, as with anyone who buys a house or becomes involved in a place that they hope they will spend out their twilight years. They need to be very, very careful that they understand what the wording implies and how that might impact on them.

So, having said that, it is important to know that the retirement village isn’t just going to absorb it or put up the amounts that they charge residents each year, because this is in the spirit of wanting to deliver to the people who really need it. We all pay rates—those of us who own properties. In the Auckland area where I live, they’ve gone up dramatically, but I’m seeing a lot of retirement village complexes coming on stream. They’re not cheap to get into—$610 is probably not going to make a massive amount of difference for people who are on fixed incomes to be able to afford to go into a residential village situation, and they mustn’t live above their means or buy above their means, because this is not the panacea that the architect of this bill made it out to be. It may be in the spirit of what Norman Kirk had originally thought of, but, in terms of the gap between what this rebate will deliver and the reality of what people have to pay these days, there is a large gap, and it will remain.

However, this is going to help a number of people, and I think that its calculation and the principles of it are sound. I spoke to Grey Power about this bill on many different occasions and pointed out our problems with it and why it needed to be changed. The Retirement Villages Association was also very much interested in having this piece of legislation come through, and, again, I would urge that they extend their recommendations to the people who are under their umbrella to encourage them to pass on these advantages.

I think Brett Hudson, who has spoken on this bill on many occasions, has made the point that we can ensure that older people who live in a fixed income situation will be getting some kind of income. That is a laudable thing, and that is why, at this stage, National has decided to support it in its third reading, and that is why I commend the bill the House.

Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand and speak to this, the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill, at its third reading. I too want to offer my congratulations to the Hon Ruth Dyson for bringing this bill to the House and shepherding it through to what I am sensing, from all the debate so far, will be a satisfactory conclusion in passing this evening.

This is, I think, an example of good local MP work, where an issue is identified in the community by, possibly, not a large group of people but a group who have a real concern and they take it to their local MP, and the local MP thinks about what they can do to respond to that community concern. The Hon Ruth Dyson clearly came up with a good solution, because we’re all about to pass that now. And it’s been evolved along the way, as is normal in most select committee processes.

I do want to draw the House’s attention to a fact of the report that was done in 2007 on the local government rates inquiry that was done in 2007 that identified this anomaly and problem and recommended that the rates rebate scheme be extended to the licence to occupy agreements, which were excluded in legislation. For the entire nine years of the last Government, they’ve had that on the books as a recommendation to them to act, to fix up an anomaly in the law, and to ensure that the actual intent of that rates rebate legislation, as it was first introduced in 1973, was able to be realised in the modern context. But they didn’t do anything, and it took a local member responding to concerns being brought to her to be able to fix that. So I do, again, give credit to the member for doing that.

As I mentioned, for me and the Green Party, this legislation at its heart is about equity. There’s been quite a bit of discussion this evening about supporting older New Zealanders who are on fixed incomes, to make life that much easier, and this is, on average, $500 extra a year that people will get through the rates rebate. I think the figure of $620 has been mentioned as well. So it’s not a massive amount, but that is quite a significant amount when you are on a fixed income and dealing with the costs of life, when we know the costs of living have been going up disproportionately to people’s incomes. But it’s not life changing, as the previous member said, in terms of it’s not going to enable anyone to live a lavish lifestyle at all.

But it is ensuring equity. We know that there is, in some places, somebody living in a home down the street on one income—a fixed income; say, superannuation—and their house is worth however much—say, $400,000, randomly—and then there’s a person in a retirement village, in a unit worth $400,000, and they are on a fixed income as well. They are both paying rates—for the person in the retirement village, when they get their bill that they pay, often it will identify rates on that bill that they pay to the retirement village for costs. So they’re both paying rates, they’re both on a fixed income, and they’re both, effectively, in a property worth the same value that they, effectively, own, but only one of them has been entitled to a rates rebate. That’s inequitable, and it doesn’t make sense of the intent of the legislation as it was first introduced. So it is really great to be able to actually fix that problem and ensure that equity.

It also is about ensuring geographic equity, because there have been some councils that have been listening to older people in their local communities who are on fixed incomes and living in retirement villages, who, I can only assume, were complaining about their lack of access to the rates rebate and that problem of equity in their community. So those local councils, namely Auckland, Dunedin, Napier, and New Plymouth, actually responded proactively, even though it wasn’t supported by legislation, and enabled those New Zealanders to access rates rebates proactively. It’s been happening for older people in those communities, but not in Invercargill, not in Porirua, not in Wellington—that’s because those councils haven’t been supported by a legislative mandate and only some have been in a position to be proactive about it. That’s inequitable, and it’s good to get that sorted through this legislation tonight. The Greens are really happy to support that.

Altogether, in terms of thinking about the scope of this, there are about 34,000 New Zealanders living in retirement villages—so it is a significant number of people. About 80 percent of those don’t currently qualify for a rates rebate because the original legislation, as we’ve kind of canvassed, didn’t imagine this new ownership model that is now the norm. This will actually fix up an inequity that has impacted well over 20,000 older New Zealanders. The amount of money may not be earth-shattering, but it will make a difference to over 20,000 New Zealanders. I think that’s something to feel good about. On that note, I will congratulate the member once more, with envy, for getting it passed, and congratulations for being a jolly good MP.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’d like to add my congratulations to the Hon Ruth Dyson. I’m delighted to be able to support this bill through its third reading. I did have the opportunity to speak on this in the second reading, in which I did oppose it, with quite good reasons, which I will go into later.

This is a growing area. I don’t think anyone in this House would disagree. This is a member’s bill, for a start, not a Government bill, and as a member’s bill, as members of the House, right across the House, we all come here to make a contribution and, hopefully, to make New Zealand a better place. This bill sought to do that. We had some difficulty with it up until Supplementary Order Paper 10 came and was introduced into the bill, but it is now able to actually achieve those goals.

We have a country that, at the end of 2016, had 711,200 people who were over 65, or 12 percent of the population. That is set to roughly double by 2046 to 23 percent of the population. In fact, in some of the better places to live in New Zealand, that’s higher. Take Marlborough, for example—people like to go there to retire. It’s already 22 percent of the population today. Because of that migration to the sun and people going for a lifestyle to retire, you would expect that to be proportionately higher. I have a lot of retirement villages, as a consequence of that, within my electorate.

In fact, there are 88 retirement villages in New Zealand with 200 residents or more in occupation, and that’s set to increase to 170 by 2036, according to the Retirement Villages Association of New Zealand. So this really speaks to the number of people we’re expecting to go into these retirement villages, who will need—a lot of those will qualify for, at least—this rebate. Those homes have a number of different ownership structures. They have freehold title, leasehold, cross-lease, unit title—and, in the case of unit title, the unit title owner owns the land and would receive the rates rebate anyway, because they are the ratepayer. But 80 percent of rest home or retirement village residents are in an ownership structure through a licence to occupy. They are not on the title. They are not the ratepayer.

So what was identified in the select committee was flaws in the bill—big gaps, in fact—that made it unworkable. The intent was there. Everybody agreed with that; that’s why it got through first reading and to select committee. However, trying to work through those details and find a way to actually make the bill work so we wouldn’t be back in the House trying to sort out the unintended consequences and the opportunity for money to fall through the gaps into the hands of people who it wasn’t intended for—so, for example, the very department that actually had to administer it was strongly opposed to the bill. The committee did have an opportunity to go back and work on it, and a second extension was sought, but that was opposed by the member.

However, Supplementary Order Paper 10, as we talked about earlier, really put all of our fears to rest in the committee of the whole House. It has significantly altered the bill—for example, inserting new section 7A into the bill, which outlines the calculation for payment of the rates rebate and how it would operate and relate to the persons. All of those issues have now been dealt with, and I think that that is a huge step forward for everyone, and we’re great to be standing behind it now. It is, as I said, something we all come into this House to try and do: to improve the situation for New Zealanders. None of us disagrees with the intent of the rates rebate scheme; we just want to make sure it works and the right people get it in the appropriate way, and with that I commend the bill to the House.

The next call is a split call, with a bell at one minute. I call Jo Luxton.

Thank you. I’m so very pleased to be able to take a call on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill in its third reading, and I really want to congratulate the Hon Ruth Dyson for all the work and effort that she’s put into getting this bill here in front of this House. Ruth has been a huge advocate for the elderly, and that’s something that she really, really needs to be commended for. I just want to make the point that members opposite have made quite a bit of a deal about criticising the bill and calling it a dog’s breakfast, in its initial stages, but I actually think we need to stop and think about and appreciate the intent.

The intent has always been to make things fairer and better for people that are living in retirement village homes with an occupation right agreement. This bill was introduced by the Hon Ruth Dyson. It allows people living in a retirement village with an occupation rights agreement the ability to apply for a rates rebate. As we know, some people are eligible to apply for a rates rebate, but at this stage it is available only to people living in their own homes at an address and paying the rates at that address.

The idea behind the rates rebates scheme was one that we all know originally came from Norman Kirk. He believed that people on lower incomes, such as benefits and superannuation, could be put under financial hardship by meeting the obligations of making their rates repayments. Therefore, he introduced the rates rebates scheme as a way to give people a hand up. The scheme was well received, fit for purpose, and met the needs of New Zealanders at that time. But, as we know, times have changed, and there was not the amount of retirement villages back then that we have now. More and more elderly people are choosing to spend their later years living in retirement villages, and they shouldn’t be penalised or miss out on the opportunity to apply for rates rebates just because of where they choose to live.

We now know that there are over 360 retirement villages throughout New Zealand, and this number is continuing to grow all the time, particularly as we have an ageing population. This equates to approximately 34,000 people living in retirement villages, with more joining all the time. What we have here is a bill that is absolutely fit for purpose, further enhanced by the changes made as the bill has progressed through its various stages in the House. It is about fairness and equity. It’s not complex; nor is this a difficult bill to understand and implement. It can’t be too difficult, as several councils have already implemented it, and it is excellent to see the councils being proactive, being forward-thinking, and allowing individual residents with occupation right agreements to apply for a rates rebates.

Currently, there are 27,000 people potentially missing out on the opportunity for a rates rebate. How is that possibly, and even remotely, fair? A person living right next door to the retirement village could well be eligible to apply for a rates rebate, yet the people living next door in the retirement village are not.

Often, people living in retirement villages—or, actually, elderly people in general—have nothing but the pension as their sole source of income. And we know that, while some people might think that $600 a year is not a lot of money, to people where their only source of income is superannuation, it really is, and it will make a big difference. We know, as the Hon Ruth Dyson mentioned in her first speech on the first reading of this bill, that 50 percent of residents living in retirement villages are entirely reliant on superannuation, and it will help alleviate the financial pressure for people like that.

This is a fantastic bill that sets about changing the definition of “residential property” to include retirement villages, thereby allowing elderly people that choose to live in retirement villages the ability to apply for a rates rebate. This bill is well overdue. It is time that people living in retirement villages were treated equitably and fairly, and I am so thrilled that members opposite are now supporting this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it’s a pleasure to rise for my first time this year to speak on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill for the third reading. I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson, whose bill this is. It is a member’s bill, and it comes down to the luck of the draw, getting one through. I understand she’s had quite a lot of luck over her time here—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: A long career.

—in her long career in this House. But I’d also like to acknowledge the Department of Internal Affairs, who have had to do the real grunt work to make this bill the bill that it is, that we are looking at tonight.

And it is a pleasure that National can support this bill. We initially opposed this piece of legislation, for good reasons. It was full of good intentions, but very light on detail—a lot like other pieces of legislation coming from this Government. But we are grateful for the work that the Department of Internal Affairs has been able to do to work through the issues, in particular the issue around licences to occupy. This is where the real grunt work is in relation to our retirement villages.

Of course, those retirees who have a licence to occupy aren’t actually ratepayers, so this has had to deal with how to create a system whereby they can be identified and then have a rebate applied to them. So this has had to rely on a lot of work being done to ensure that this can be now brought through. But it’s good news for those who do live in retirement villages. It’s good news that they will now be treated the same as those who qualify but don’t live in retirement villages, and it will support those on fixed incomes to be able to afford those costs.

So the National Party will support this piece of legislation as it passes tonight and we are glad that the process has developed this piece of legislation into something that I think will support our retirees up and down this country. We’ve heard a lot of information through the speeches around how many people this will impact, the growing number of people who are living in retirement villages, and how this will continue to support them.

But one point also—I’d like to acknowledge that this does come at a cost. This will increase the cost to taxpayers to pay for this subsidy for ratepayers, for those who will receive the rebate. I think that’s something that we should be acknowledging in this House—that it’s easy to pass legislation, it’s easy to put in place new laws, it’s easy to hand out money, and this is one of those pieces of legislation that does, but every dollar that we allocate or that is appropriated has to be paid for by the taxpayer. So I’d just like to acknowledge the taxpayer for their contribution to this scheme—a scheme that does support our elderly but a scheme that also does cost money. So, Madam Assistant Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill, and I endorse it to the House. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak in this third reading of the rates rebate bill—the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill, to be precise. It’s always good to have a member’s bill that makes good sense. That’s exactly what this piece of legislation does, and I would like to commend the Hon Ruth Dyson on taking an issue and following it through to the end, and this enables so many elderly in New Zealand to benefit from what we’ve seen is an anomaly in the existing law.

When the Rates Rebate Act was passed in 1973, there were no such things, really, as retirement villages here in New Zealand and no such thing as a licence to occupy. But since that time, we have seen that more than 26,000 New Zealanders now live in retirement villages, and around 50 percent of those living in retirement villages are entirely dependent on superannuation—on a fixed income. For those living on a lower wage or a fixed income, it matters in terms of every single cent that they can save.

So while this amendment—while this change to the law—results in around $610 per year, that’s a lot of money. That means a lot to someone who’s trying to pay for a heating bill, who’s trying to pay for presents for grandchildren at Christmas, who’s trying to catch the bus on public transport, or who’s trying to pay for groceries on a weekly basis on a fixed income. So it’s good to see that it’s fair and that all New Zealanders can benefit from what’s offered through the rates rebate scheme.

Where I live in Hutt South, there are several large-scale retirement villages, which offer a range of care facilities for those who choose to live there. There’s a new one, just announced only a week ago, in Wainuiōmata. In fact, the Masonic Villages Trust have invested in a big development that will be kicking off next month—in February. This is a great opportunity for Wainuiōmata because it offers jobs. It offers jobs and, even better yet, it means that those families who live in Wainuiōmata can make sure that their elderly are able to be visited on a regular basis.

It is so important that there is affordable, accessible care for all elderly in New Zealand. It should not be just those who can afford to pay the top dollar in the big flash outfits, but everybody in New Zealand should be able to have good quality care for their mum or their dad or their grandparents. It is great to see that we’re seeing that investment there, and I look forward to seeing all of those residents in the future of Wainuiōmata being able to benefit from this legislation—from being able to see a return and a rates rebate if they invest and have a licence to occupy in that development that’s going ahead.

I must say that one of the most frequently asked questions when you visit a retirement village or a rest home is a question around rates rebate. It’s a top question, and all those residents who know that in the past they’ve been entitled to receive a rebate but have not done so, have followed the passage of this legislation very closely. So I would like to just pause and thank those groups that have advocated on behalf of elderly across New Zealand. I know that Grey Power do a fantastic job in representing their members to make sure they get a fair deal and are well represented in what opportunities are available, and this legislation is a good example of where Grey Power have done exactly that. The Retirement Village Residents Association have also shown strong support for this bill because they know that their members will benefit from it, and it’s a real pleasure to see that coming to fruition now with the third reading of this bill.

While this legislation is seeing a rebate of only about a $610 a year—and that’s important—it shows how important the issue of affordable housing is in New Zealand right now, and that affects particularly those on low and fixed incomes, such as superannuitants. It is so important that we consider how housing is made affordable across the spectrum, particularly in the face of a housing crisis.

There are many elderly who are currently living in homes that are too large for them and that are hard to maintain because there is a fear or an inability to be able to afford to move into retirement villages. So while this makes a small change, it will be good to see long term where all those who are retiring are able to downsize at an affordable rate. What that also does—what that also does—is it makes those bigger four-bedroom homes with the big backyard available on the market for families. Those bigger homes that are close to schools and are able to be fully utilised by families who want to have more space for children or for pets and who are happy to mow a big lawn and maintain a house—those benefits are seen. So the more that we can make care affordable for elderly people, the more we also enable the freeing up of bigger homes for families in New Zealand to be able to have access to and to increase the supply of houses in the housing market currently.

It’s important also to acknowledge that this bill has been through a process and we have seen changes, and it is good to see that the National Party is now supporting this bill. It’s good to see that there is agreement across the House with the fact that this is simply something that needs to happen in order to move with the times. We’ve seen that there’s been a big shift in the way that people live their lives once they’ve retired, and this bill enables that to happen.

Despite being obliged to pay for rates through retirement villages, residents living there with a licence to occupy have not been eligible, and that seems to be unfair. It is so pleasing to see a bill that makes that accessible across the spectrum, and that’s what Labour represents—making sure all those are treated fairly.

I would like to say thank you to the Hon Ruth Dyson and thank you to all those on the select committee for reporting back. I would commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure for me to stand as the last National Party speaker in this third reading on the bill that has been sponsored and presented through the House by the Hon Ruth Dyson. I remember the first reading of this bill back in the last Parliament. At that stage, I was the chair of what was then the Local Government and Environment Committee.

I went back to my Hansard from that first night and I reread it, because we have heard from a series of new Government MPs this afternoon about how good this bill is and the great things that it’s going to do and what a big impact it’s going to have. But the simple reality was that this is a bill in its third reading and its final iteration that is incredibly different and quite another piece of work from that that was first introduced.

But I went back to my first reading notes, and I found that I had said these sorts of things: I said I wanted to thank the sponsor and the proponent of the legislation for bringing it to the House, because I think it’s an issue that the House should give consideration to. I talked about how, 40-odd years ago, when the original rates rebate rules were put in place, the concept of a licence to occupy dwelling literally did not exist. The challenge that this bill has always had through its coming to the House has been more of a legal one than one of principle and who should be entitled to a rates rebate or not. And the simple fact of the matter is—and was at the first reading—that licence to occupy owners of dwellings actually don’t own the freehold.

That was the real problem, because no matter what was written on the invoices that they paid to the retirement home management companies, whether it said rates or fees or whatever, actually it wasn’t technically a rate in terms of our local government rules and legislation, and it wasn’t a fee simple freehold title that they had. A licence to occupy is more akin to a lease than it is a freehold. So the people who invest in a licence to occupy retirement home inevitably invest in a nice, modern, safe, secure environment, which is terrific, but it’s not a freehold. They’re not actually buying the bricks and the mortar, or the land upon which the bricks and the mortar sit. That was the nub of the issue.

So at first reading the National Party did support this legislation. We supported it through to select committee for the exact purpose that select committees exist, and that is to try and make well-intentioned and good legislation better. This was a piece of legislation that had some very significant flaws and some faults, and I said in my first reading that I thought it was probably a well-intentioned piece of legislation but that there were going to be problems in the detail, and that the fish hooks that were not remedied by the bill at first introduction would need to be addressed at select committee.

I didn’t sit on the select committee towards the end of its hearings, and that’s maybe—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: That’s what went wrong.

The Hon Ruth Dyson says maybe that’s what went wrong, and far be it from me to suggest that she could be wrong on that matter, but, needless to say, it came back out of select committee with most of those issues still unresolved—still unresolved. It wasn’t until the bill got to the committee of the whole House that, through a Supplementary Order Paper that appears to have been largely the work of the Department of Internal Affairs, who at select committee had opposed the legislation—they seemed to provide what was a sensible resolution to the issues and the thorny matters that were irreconcilable at select committee. So I want to thank the officials from the department who have provided a pathway through for this bill now to be able to be supported by members of the National Party, because I do think that the original intention of the Hon Ruth Dyson was a good one.

I come from an electorate, the Coromandel, where we have a very large number of 65-plus citizens living in my electorate. Like many electorates around the country, we have a large number of these new retirement villages and homes, and, inevitably, they are based on a licence to occupy model. So this is an area that did need addressing, but we shouldn’t, I think, be too hung up by the fact that this was a flawed piece of legislation at first introduction, that it wasn’t a good piece of legislation.

The intent may have been there but the detail wasn’t, and it’s through the parliamentary process, through the legislative process that we’ve taken part in as a House, that we’ve finally got to a position that is going to work for residents—seniors and people who are in these retirement villages. It also means that we’re able now to fulfil the obligations of the land law that is fundamental to our property-owning democracy, without compromising that. We’re also able to fulfil the obligations that local government requires in administering the rates rebate scheme.

So, as the final speaker on this side of the House, I do want to congratulate Ruth Dyson on bringing the bill to the House. I want to congratulate everybody that’s been part of making it a much better piece of legislation than it was when first introduced, and working in a way that has meant that we are in a position where we are today to support it. I think it will receive wide support across the House. So, in conclusion, I’m very happy, on behalf of the National Party, to confirm that we will support this bill, and to commend it to the House.

I want to acknowledge the comments of the previous speaker, Scott Simpson, in the fact that, from the outset, the bill had a positive intent that would deliver real gains to elderly people on fixed incomes living in retirement villages.

I’ve listened to some of the debate, and I want to acknowledge that while the select committee had its concerns, at the end of the day, the sponsoring member, the Hon Ruth Dyson, who put the bill together, was very clear from the outset that something needed to be rectified for a group of New Zealanders living in retirement villages who were on fixed incomes and needed to have access to the rates rebate scheme, because when you’re living on a fixed income, these types of supports can just help life a little bit better.

But I want to come back to a comment made by John Collyns, the executive director of the Retirement Villages Association of New Zealand, who has been a keen advocate in support of the work of the Hon Ruth Dyson in ushering this particular bill through. He said that “Our 360-member villages are home to around 34,000 older New Zealanders, or approximately 12 percent of the plus-75 aged population.” So that is a number of elderly people who will certainly benefit from the changes that are proposed in this bill. The fact is that extending the rates rebate to those who have a licence to occupy I think sends a number of signals, and there are actually other people who live in this situation, like those in papakāinga or around marae.

But I want to come back to another comment that John made: “It’s important to note that around 50 percent of our residents only have their national superannuation to live on. These people are the ones for whom the rates rebate would be the most valuable, just as it would have been if they remained in their own homes in the community. It seems grossly unfair that they lose this benefit when they move to a retirement village, yet the requirement to pay rates remains.” So there is a mechanism within the bill that enables those residents to claim a rates rebate. I want to commend those councils who have responded voluntarily by making it easier for residents in retirement villages to better apportion the rates cost and claim a rebate, but, by and large, this is a streamlined approach.

I do want to acknowledge the officials who, under a new Government with a new imperative to help the great majority of those, certainly, living on fixed incomes and who should be claiming the rates rebate to access this scheme. I want to also acknowledge my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson who has been absolutely vociferous in her advocacy on this particular issue, across Parliaments and across different Governments, and she has stared as many people down as she had garnered support from to be able to ensure that we can be contributing to a third reading speech and the passage of this bill.

I didn’t intend to take too long a call, except to say and acknowledge a number of people who continue to support the rates rebate initiative, and that, by and large, within the context of the challenges facing ratepayers, there are some broader challenges ahead of local government. So I wanted to take this opportunity to express that as we as a Government meet the challenge of the increasing costs on ratepayers and the reliance of councils on rates. Our decisions in coming up to embark on an inquiry to better address what might be available to local government to better meet the expectations of ratepayers, and not relying on rates, is a key area of focus for our Government.

So, with that said, I commend the Local Government and Environment Committee, who put in quite a bit of work on the bill. I commend the officials of the select committee who have provided advice and, certainly, the Department of Internal Affairs officials who have helped with some of the transitional, practical arrangements for the bill. It’s very pleasing to see that the Opposition members have now been able to find themselves supporting this particular bill. Kia ora tātou.

Bill read a third time.