Ward Mike: Retirement Villages Bill — Second Reading 
Ward Mike: Retirement Villages Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7027] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: The Greens support this legislation. This bill sets out to protect the property rights of some of the most vulnerable people in our community the elderly and their interests in their retirement village homes. It is all too easy as we sit in this place discussing the minutiae of the legislation to lose sight of the big picture. That we find it necessary to build retirement villages is a little strange. Is there any other culture that would take its elderly and put them together in as Mr Smith said one lot of 35 houses just for the elderly? I find that a little strange. That we have to protect our oldest and frequently our wisest and those to whom each and every one of us is most indebted from a minority predators who would rip them off or deal with them with a good deal less respect than they deserve is an indictment of where we have come to as a society. 
I spent a good deal of yesterday trying to get a handle on retirement homes and the protection of property rights. I came back to my apartment this morning after a 30-minute run through the city and it struck me that we are making legislation for people who are very little different from myself and with similar needs and passions. Many of them are not a lot older than myself. As unnatural as life in a mid-city apartment can be my apartment is in the middle of a thriving community. I cannot leave my apartment without being thrown into that community. I buy my coffee I run down Lambton Quay I interact with the staff around Parliament and I have the occasional meal with my family. I return to my electorate. I interact with an enormous and diverse range of individuals. I know that my life is enriched by those experiences and I would like to think that occasionally the experiences I bring to those interactions might add a little to the sum total of human happiness. 
My fear is that retirement villages run the risk of removing our elders from our communities. I can understand why in communities where we do not have time very often for our older folk and maybe all they have time for is themselves but I still find it a little strange. 
I have a lot of people dear to me who range from the fairly ancient to the very young. They include 84-year-old Arch who still cycles down to the port and takes his dinghy out to his twin-masted yacht. It is not moored in some sheltered marina but on the other side of Nelson Haven where at 76 years old Eddie is still the best sports injury fix-it man in the business. He phoned me this morning to say that someone who fell off his bicycle last week in Belgium is flying 12000 miles around the world to be fixed up by him. He told me about Ben Blair and the injury he sustained. He was fixed up too. He is 76 years old. Do we isolate him? Do we put him in a village? No we leave him in our community—or Amy and James her 80-plus-year-old husband who knocked on every door for me in Richmond during the last election campaign. 
Would that we were discussing not simply how to protect retirement village property rights and retirement village residents but rather how best to create the kinds of communities that make more of us not merely comfortable and safe and able to enjoy the company of people of a similar age but also able to live in situations that guarantee the opportunity to mix with folk of similar and diverse interests whatever their ages. 
Retirement villages and rest homes are at risk of turning into monocultures—and monocultures whether they be people forests or cornfields are risky. They are prone to disease and predators. Clearly the fact that we find it necessary to pass this legislation demonstrates the truth of that. But at the risk of offending every retirement village resident I say that such villages run the risk of making our communities much less interesting places. 
Retirement villages also make it more likely that we will assume that our near and dear no longer need us quite so much when in fact we have never needed one another more. In diverse ecosystems the old trees provide shelter and nutrients. Their very presence ensures that the young trees and all the other components of the forest are able to thrive and to contribute. Human communities are no different. We need one another. This need is not just about meeting our responsibilities; it is about making sure that our children live with a full range of human experiences that they experience the kind of love that is unique to grandparents and that our oldest and wisest know that they are needed and valued. 
Just as the old trees reach deep down and bring up nutrients and hold the land together so our old folks have memories wisdom and values that all of us need if we are to have any chance of learning to live again within the capacity of our communities and the planet to sustain. 
While I have no great love of rules or bureaucracy I believe that our elderly have a right to be protected from the unscrupulous the incompetent and the unreasonable. To give that protection is the purpose of this bill. But the legislation will also protect the great majority of good and competent operators from having their reputations sullied by the activities of the less competent the less careful and the downright difficult. 
If this legislation is successful there is likely to be less opportunity for the kind of behaviour that disadvantages the elderly and that has given rise to the horror stories of the innocent elderly or their descendants waiting for ever to get their investments—and sometimes a good deal less than their investments—returned when the residents die or move out. 
For those who are concerned about compliance costs I imagine that just as landlords will take all necessary steps and willingly pay their lawyers to protect their own properties and interests this bill will provide a similar level of protection for the rights and property of retirees in retirement villages. For retirement village operators the cost of compliance should be no more than what any responsible landlord with some concern about the welfare of his or her tenants might expect to meet. 
The standard requirements for registering complying with the industry code of practice and disclosing the terms and conditions of residence in terms of payment should minimise the cost and the effort required for measuring up while the disputes procedures are likely to simplify life for both parties in the event of either party getting difficult or getting into difficulties. 
So in the commentary we read that the bill will require that all retirement village operators register all retirement villages with the Registrar of Companies—that is not an unreasonable expectation—and comply with the Government-approved industry code of practice. Again that is a reasonable expectation. They are required to disclose in a standard format all essential information on the procedures terms and conditions of residence entry and exit and sale or disposal arrangements and charging systems. They are required to have a disputes procedure. Would that everybody enjoyed those protections—especially the disputes procedures—an ideal situation! 
I must confess that as I sat on the select committee for only part of the deliberations on this bill I thought it unnecessary to spell out to lawyers their responsibility in respect of ensuring that their clients understood what it was they were signing. Does that mean that in future if it is not spelt out a lesser expectation might prevail? However this document enshrines the conditions affecting one of the most expensive and important purchases in people’s lives: their homes—in this instance they are the homes they probably expect to see their lives out in. This reminder to lawyers to spell out to their clients the conditions that they hope will guarantee their comfort during what may well be their most vulnerable years is probably not unreasonable and the certification is a reasonable attempt to guarantee that occupants understand what they are letting themselves in for. 
We share the concerns of those submitters who expressed their frustration about unheralded changes—for example a change of operator or the sale or dispossession of a village. Having one’s village sold is a strange notion and the very least one could expect is forewarning. The requirement to consult goes some way to meet those concerns. The industry code of practice could also spell out what is actually involved in such consultation to the mutual benefit of all parties. The statutory supervisor could also alleviate some of the frustrations particularly over day-to-day issues. 
So the intent of this legislation is good and having a range of housing options for our retirees is no bad thing but having turned housing and communities into commodities to be marketed and sold let us in addition to safeguarding the property rights of residents look at the diverse needs of our whole community and think about how to create homes and villages that reflect the diversity of our communities and that meet our diverse needs. The Greens take pleasure in supporting this legislation.