Smith Murray: Retirement Villages Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Murray: Retirement Villages Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9429] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I rise again to correct my colleague Dail Jones. I note his comment that he believes that he and his party know more about this bill than the Associate Minister of Justice does. I have worked closely with the Minister I have also worked with Mr Jones on the Justice and Electoral Committee and I find that the Minister is totally competent and in charge of what is happening and knows exactly what she is doing. I commend and support her for that. 
In terms of the change that he alluded to from the Registrar of Companies to the Registrar of Retirement Villages to me it makes a great deal of sense. When I talked to people from one statutory supervisor firm and told them that was one of the changes being made on the Supplementary Order Paper they thought it was an excellent idea and were strongly complimentary of it. Some flexibility is provided within the Ministry of Economic Development in terms of how that particular position is filled and who fills it. I think that is a very good idea. 
Obviously at the beginning of the consideration of the bill the select committee had to address whether the registrar would be the Registrar of Securities or the Registrar of Companies. The Registrar of Securities did not want to do it although there is a lot in the bill that is security related. There was some question whether the Registrar of Companies was the best person; some people felt the Registrar of Companies was not necessarily the best person. So we have a situation where there is some fluidity. The Registrar of Companies was prepared to do it and we welcomed the fact that the Registrar of Companies volunteered to take over when the Registrar of Securities did not want to do it. But now we have built-in flexibility that enables this matter to be dealt with by another body if that is more appropriate without the Act having to come back here to be changed. 
In terms of consultation well I have consulted the Minister. I question whether Mr Jones even tried to contact the Minister’s office to ask to be consulted and to discuss the bill. My advice is that he did not. He can hardly complain that he has not been consulted about it if he has not even asked to be consulted about it. 
When I spoke previously I talked about the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 157 to clause 1(b)(i) in schedule 2. The amendment takes out the provision that the select committee had put in that the operator ought to consult the residents before putting the village on the market. I suggested that it would be quite disruptive of residents if they learnt through a third party that the village was on the market rather than hearing it directly from the operator. I discussed this with the Minister in our very good consultation. The industry’s concern was that if its members were trying to negotiate a private sale—that is non-public—the fact that the village was on the market could have a detrimental effect on their bargaining ability. I think that is a worthwhile consideration. My only concern continues to be that if the fact that the village was on the market became public and the residents did not know about it first that would be quite disorientating for them. It is important that all retirement village operators are very cognisant of the fact that they need to keep the residents as informed as possible to avoid a situation where they have lots of complaints and lots of criticism. It is in their own interests to do that. 
 When I was talking to a statutory supervisor about the situation I found there is still concern among at least some statutory supervisors who operate in this area about the exemption requirements. They are particularly concerned that if exemptions are able to be given and if any retirement villages gain exemptions then that will put a bit of pressure on the residents not to complain because the operators can say: “If you make a complaint you’re likely to cause us to have to appoint a statutory supervisor. That would mean we’ve got far greater costs and those costs will be passed on to you.” There is a bit of danger that granting exemptions could backfire on residents and put them under undue pressure. 
It was the view of the company I spoke to that there would inevitably be some consolidation of small villages particularly ones run by church bodies so that they effectively were combined into one larger entity that was more able to meet the requirements. However it is my view that at least at the early stages an exemption requirement is necessary because there will be a transition period and even if there is some aggregation to make it economic to comply then at least there will be time for that.