Jones Dail: Retirement Villages Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Retirement Villages Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9416] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 We meet here in the Chamber on 21 October as far as Parliament is concerned—although other people might think it is 22 October—and we are debating the Retirement Villages Bill. This bill had a very long consideration by the Justice and Electoral Committee and I mentioned in the report-back debate that the drafting was about as fine as it could possibly be. I am disappointed that the Government has now issued a 15-page Supplementary Order Paper for us to digest and include in the bill under urgency. I wonder what consultation has taken place with regard to that Supplementary Order Paper and what opportunity all the submitters have had to consider it. I know that New Zealand First saw it for the first time when it was tabled in the House on 16 October. It is disappointing that we were not given the opportunity to discuss it any earlier. This is the first I have seen of it since that day which was a Thursday; being a Thursday it was easy to miss it until one got back to the House on the Tuesday of the following week. 
I take the view that the Government’s lack of consultation is totally unhelpful to those of us who were trying to be as helpful as we possibly could in the select committee in order to get this important legislation through the House. I note that the Bills Digest has been issued and I compliment the Parliamentary Library on the way in which it has prepared it. It has helped to clarify the major issues in the Supplementary Order Paper. Under the main heading “Main changes proposed by SOP” there is a section headed “What is a ‘retirement village’” which I think it is helpful to quote because this is one of the areas of confusion: “The SOP makes it clear that if one or more ‘residential units’ are located in a ‘rest home’ or ‘hospital care institution’ the only parts of that rest home or hospital care institution that comprise or are included in the retirement village are the residential unit or units themselves and the common areas and facilities within the rest home or hospital care institution (if any) to which the residents of the unit or units have access only by reason of their occupation right agreement.” 
The next section is headed “Certain residential units not retirement villages” and states: “The Bill describes certain types of habitation which are not retirement villages including residential units registered under the Unit Titles Act 1972 or owner-occupied cross-lease residential units.” I refer to cross-lease residential units because Mr Murray Smith made a big song and dance about a property that was comprised of cross-lease residential units which he thought might have a change in their status as a result of this bill. I questioned at the time and I question again his view of the matter. I would be interested to hear the outcome. 
The Bills Digest goes on to state: “The SOP makes it clear that it is ‘owner-occupied’ residential units registered under the Unit Titles Act 1972 which are excluded (as well as owner-occupied cross-lease residential units). Also excluded are ‘similar residential units’. The SOP qualifies this with the words ‘that are not intended to provide accommodation predominantly for retired people and their spouses or partners.’ ” A degree of uncertainty is starting to creep into this legislation. It is clear that a unit title property or a cross-lease residential unit is excluded. What is usually included in this type of legislation is what we call in the North Island in the Auckland area “licences to occupy”. They tend to get caught up in residential villages. Hopefully those practitioners will be able to understand the words referring to similar residential units “that are not intended to provide accommodation predominantly for retired people and their spouses or partners.” I will be interested to hear from the Minister in the chair Lianne Dalziel just how much consultation has taken place. 
The main controversial provision in this bill will be clause 29A “Occupation right agreement voidable”. It was included in the bill only by a majority of the members of the select committee. The reason why there was opposition to it is that clause 29A as introduced by the majority of the select committee creates uncertainty. There is an occupation right agreement and there are all the protections that are given now to the people entering into the agreement—usually the retirement village operator and the retiree. However the bill as it was reported back states in clause 29A(1): “An occupation right agreement entered into in contravention of section 17(3) or section 24(1) or section 26 or section 29(1) is voidable by the resident by notice in writing to the operator and to the statutory supervisor of the village (if there is one) given at any time within 3 years of the date the agreement was entered into.” That is obviously extremely uncertain. Who would go into business to provide retirement village facilities if the contract might be cancelled within 3 years? 
I am pleased with and I would like to congratulate the Minister on the amended clause 29A which is a vast improvement. It still is not satisfactory because I feel that if after all the protection that has been given under this bill a person is still not happy with the agreement there should not be the length of time that is proposed to cancel it. However the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 157 provides: “(1) If an occupation right agreement is entered in contravention [the sections] in any substantial respect the agreement is unless it has been terminated voidable by the resident by notice in writing to the operator and to the statutory supervisor of the village (if there is one) given at any time within the prescribed period.” 
There is a very useful definition of “prescribed period” and I have to congratulate the draftsman on it. But there will be a problem as to what is meant by “any substantial respect”. Efforts have been made to define what is meant by these phrases but interpreting them will be difficult. The “prescribed period” will probably be the very important one and all practitioners will have to be very careful about setting the dates as to when the prescribed periods begin and end. When one goes into the lawyer’s office and signs the contract or when the contract is signed with the operator—the beginning—will be just as important as the end because one will not know when the period has expired unless one knows when it began. The prescribed period is the lesser of “(i) a period of 3 years after the date on which the agreement was entered into; or (ii) a period of 6 months after the resident knows or ought to know of the contravention:”. 
The difficulty in this entire area is that so often it is not the resident who complains because the resident has passed away; the argument is with the family. We try to do our very best in this Parliament but I think we are going overboard in so far as this legislation is concerned because this is a very difficult thing to deal with. For older people who cannot remember what they have done 3 years can be a very long time as we know from our own relatives. When we go to see our parents they say: “You haven’t been to see me for a long time.” yet we were there only the day before. It is a difficult piece of legislation and I think clause 29A goes a little bit too far even with the alterations that have been made. 
I conclude by asking the Minister at some stage to let us know what consultation has taken place. I do not intend to spend a terribly long time on this Committee stage.