Worth Richard: Retirement Villages Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Retirement Villages Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7031] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: Mr Speaker thank you very much for selecting a male speaker at this stage to advance the debate. Before I turn to the merit of the bill I would like to say that two people should be singled out for the special contribution they have made in connection with this legislation. The first is Dr Lynda Scott who modestly told members of the House how her bill had panicked the Government into initiating this Government measure which now comes before the House for its second reading as reported from the Justice and Electoral Committee. The second person I would nominate for special mention is Cliff Cook not only for his period of service in and exemplary leadership of the Retirement Villages Association but also for the fact that he is instrumental in leading one of the prime providers of excellent retirement villages throughout New Zealand. I am speaking of course of the publicly listed Metlifecare group. 
Retirement villages are increasingly a residential option for older New Zealanders with some 4 percent of people aged over 65 currently living in a retirement village. I understand that there are around 300 villages currently in operation accommodating more than 20000 people. As an earlier speaker has indicated growth trends show both increases in the number of villages and expansion of residential capacity within some existing villages. 
It is somewhat easy to overstate the issues and I believe that some of the Government members have been guilty of that in the short comments they have made. But there is no doubt that the charging and management practices of some retirement villages have over the last decade been the subject of complaint. A range of problems have been identified by residents and by their representatives which have included difficulty in comprehending the nature of village financing and charging regimes; hidden costs associated with exit from a village—and members have spoken about that issue—uncertainty about residential rights particularly where occupancy of a villa or a unit is based on a licence to occupy or a lease agreement; poor management of villages including unchecked deterioration of communal facilities and reduced quality of services; and finally I would say an absence of formal efficient and fair processes to deal with complaints or disputes whether between residents or between residents and management. I have entered a word of caution because it is easy to overstate these issues and the problems are not endemic. But they are too frequently documented to be ignored at a social policy level and there is little doubt that they are a cause of concern from a consumer and residential rights perspective. 
The average age of entry to a retirement village is 74 years. For many people the village they choose represents their last place of residence. Their investment therefore not only is significant on a financial level but has attached to it expectations and an understanding that their interests and their rights will be protected. As Dr Scott has told us a Law Commission report in 1999 concluded that separate legislation was required to give retirement village residents protection as consumers residents and investors. So it is that as a result of Dr Scott’s urgings the Government introduced this bill. 
It is a journey that had earlier been travelled in Australia where in 1980 there was specific legislation for retirement villages. 
David Benson-Pope 
: That’s a good thing. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: Members opposite need to know that I am not in the least disconcerted by the barracking that they offer. It does little to advance the debate and simply indicates a measure of immaturity and intolerance. 
Major changes were made to the bill in the course of the select committee process. Indeed there are significant changes on just about every page. That is not a bad thing but I simply note—and it is apparent from looking through the commentary—that members of the committee looked at the definition of retirement village and at issues of kaumatua flats registration memorial on title and occupation right agreements. 
The select committee also looked at a particular issue that was a cause of tension between residents and their representatives on the one hand and the operators of the village on the other and that was the issue of certification which was referred to earlier by a member. Under the current model proposed in this bill as reported back a legal adviser now needs to certify that he or she had advised an intending resident before that person signed an occupation right agreement and that the general effect and implications of the relevant agreement had been properly explained. 
We looked at cooling-off periods; cancellation for delay; a code of residents’ rights which I would like to come back to; issues of statutory supervisors; dispute resolution; and the tricky issue of delays in the sale or disposal of units. The end result—and I agree with Mr Franks—is that the legislation that has emerged from the select committee is much the better for the process. For those who argue in the context of a unicameral Parliament that a select committee performs a function akin to an Upper House I can only in the context of this legislation agree with the observation. 
I would like to refer to two issues at this stage. The first is National’s position in respect of this bill. We support the bill—we worked hard to improve the bill during the course of its consideration—but we are concerned about two aspects which are highlighted in the commentary. The first is the possible consequence of significantly increased compliance costs for some operators and the second which Mr Franks has referred to is the likely consequence that smaller operators will withdraw from the industry or be dissuaded from entering. He put the issue attractively as the possibility of a monolithic culture developing. That can assuredly not be ruled out. If either of those two possibilities that I have referred to comes about it would be our hope that the Government would move to make changes to the legislation to ameliorate those concerns. 
Finally I conclude on the issue of citizens’ rights. If members opposite turn to page 95 of the bill as reported back they will see in my view amazing stuff. I am referring to schedule 3 which includes the code of residents’ rights. Arguably this sort of material should not appear in primary legislation. There are many examples where it appears in tertiary legislation. I make two points. The right to be treated with courtesy and have one’s rights respected and the right not to be exploited are I suggest gross examples of extreme political correctness and it is sad that they should be in the bill.