Jones Dail: Retirement Villages Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Retirement Villages Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9437] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Retirement Villages Bill and has done all the way through. As an Opposition party we have highlighted some of the problems associated with the bill. 
One of the greatest problems arises at this very moment at 2.45 p.m. on what is actually 22 October when we should be having question time and Ministers should be being put under pressure. Instead this Government has decided to take urgency has refused to let us have question time and has refused to allow for example my colleague the Rt Hon Winston Peters to put this Minister Lianne Dalziel under even greater pressure as he invariably does. It is not surprising that the Government prefers to have debate on the Retirement Villages Bill at 2.45 p.m. rather than question time. That is the sort of problem we have in the House. 
David Benson-Pope 
: We would love to have question time. It’s those evil people in ACT. 
DAIL JONES 
: The senior Government whip can only berate me as I try to make the constitutional point that now should be question time. 
I come to the bill. I draw to the attention of the National Party spokesperson that she seems to be slightly confused about clause 27 “Cooling-off period and cancellation for delay”. She has given the impression that there is a very lengthy period for cancellation when under clause 27(1) “An occupation right agreement must contain a provision allowing a resident … to cancel … by notice given not later than 15 working days after the agreement is signed” rather than the many many months and years that she was talking about. She is confused about the difference between the ultimate cancellation in clause 29A that I referred to earlier and the right to cancel the contract in the first 15 working days. 
I had an email from a gentleman about this particular issue. I made the point that no lawyer would allow a client who was selling property to let a buyer into it until the buyer had approved the contract and in this case until the 15 days had expired and the money had been made available. One will not be able to go into a retirement village then at some distant time in the future cancel the contract just like that. It will not work like that in so far as the Minister hopes and in so far as this legislation is concerned. If an elderly widow sells her unit in a retirement village to another couple who are coming in that couple have 15 working days in which to cancel as set out in the legislation. She will make sure that that time has gone by that the contract is settled and that she has got the money before letting the buyers move in. Any lawyer who allowed his or her client to let someone in without having got the money and an unconditional contract would very soon be sued for negligence. So there is some confusion about clause 27(1) and a purchaser of an existing unit taking possession from the vendor. 
As for the abuse by the Minister of those in the industry—she referred to developers as cowboys—I say New Zealand would not have got anywhere if people had not come out here and run dairy farms taken the risks involved and got involved in speculation with property building putting in railways and the like. For the Minister to abuse people who have had the courage to spend the many millions of dollars involved in creating a retirement village by referring to them as cowboys is totally unnecessary. She should be ashamed of herself. It is clearly a hangover from her former life as a trade union official. That Minister cannot help but abuse people out there who are in business trying to make a dollar and putting their money on the line by keeping on referring to them as cowboys. It is interesting that she could not name even one. If the Minister thought there were cowboys in this industry she should have named at least one. I challenge the next Labour speaker to give me the name of one cowboy in this industry. This Labour Minister in this minority Government hates business. This Government cannot stand business and it keeps accusing and vilifying the people who go out there and run risks as cowboys. It is totally unnecessary. It is one of the reasons why business and people generally will have nothing more to do with this minority Labour Government. 
What is good about the bill? I speak as a lawyer who has looked at many of these agreements and advised many people on them. Essentially the ultimate thing that is good about the bill is that there is a firm set of rules that everyone—the buyer the operator and the seller—has to follow. If all the rules have been complied with no one can come back and say: “Why didn’t you tell me such-and-such?”. Nowadays an agreement for someone to move into a retirement village will include all the things that are referred to in this legislation in one way or another. It will go on for about 40 pages. All that most members of the public want to know when they walk into a lawyer’s office carrying a bundle of 40 pages is where to sign. They do not want the lawyer to take an hour and a half to explain the documentation to them at a cost of $300 to $400 an hour. All they want to know is where to sign and that is the problem lawyers have today. One cannot blame people for saying: “We don’t want to spend $600 or $700 on you; we don’t want to pay for your building. We just want to get into our nice retirement village unit.” 
This bill imposes a mandatory provision for all concerned. The procedure must be met. Whoever gives advice to the buyer must go through a certain procedure and must certify it as required by this legislation. There is protection for everyone. As someone who has been involved in the industry I see that as the most important aspect of this legislation. There should be certainty in the future. 
I immediately refer to the clause I raised earlier clause 29A “Occupation right agreement voidable”. A bit of conflict is created here. It provides that an occupation right agreement entered into in contravention of certain sections only can be voidable. Care has to be taken in giving advice on this particular legislation in so far as that matter is concerned. I commend the officials as I did in my speech in the Committee stage and the Minister. They have tried to improve clause 29A. I was not happy with that clause. The amendment makes it much more satisfactory but I still think it will make a lot of money for lawyers as the matter goes to court and efforts are made to define for example the meaning of: “For the purposes of this section a contravention of a particular provision is a contravention of that provision in a substantial respect if—” paragraphs (a) (b) or (c) take place. Unfortunately there can be a great deal of nit-picking in this area. 
I have expressed my concern and disappointment at being confronted by the 15 pages of Supplementary Order Paper 157 dated Thursday 16 October 2003. Here we are still on 21 October according to the calendar and debating this issue when most of us would have seen this Supplementary Order Paper probably only on Tuesday of this week. As an Opposition we now have to try to have a good look at all these various amendments to see whether we should agree with them. Generally this is a satisfactory bill and we know there is a good intention behind all these amendments but I have been critical of them in the Committee stage as I have already mentioned. 
I am critical of the fact that a Registrar of Retirement Villages is to be appointed at this late juncture without proper discussion in the select committee. I am concerned that this bill will increase compliance costs in many ways. It will increase bureaucracy and there is the aspect that here we have again the appointment of a registrar for the benefit of a Minister. As the explanatory note states: “The position of Registrar of Retirement Villages will initially be held by the Registrar of Companies but the location of that office will be able to be changed to a different department of State if that is considered desirable:”. Who knows what sort of department of State this particular Government may set up? After all it has abolished the right of appeal to the Privy Council on a vote of 63. What can it do that is as bad as that? Well I suppose it can keep on trying for the next couple of years. I can see the Government appointing one of its friends to be the Registrar of Retirement Villages if it possibly can. 
Generally we all hope that people who move into retirement villages benefit from this legislation and there is an opportunity for that to happen. I wish everyone who is moving into retirement villages the best. I understand that people of Mr Darren Hughes’ age probably will be looking to do that when they are about 95 or 100 because they might live to be 115. I dread the thought but that is something Mr Hughes can look forward to in the future.