Jones Dail: Retirement Villages Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Retirement Villages Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9424] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 When I began discussing this matter earlier today I indicated that it was a great shame that this legislation has been thrust upon us in this way with 13 pages of amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 157 that we have not had an opportunity to consider fully. As we go through the Supplementary Order Paper more things come to our attention than ever before. 
We can look for example at the disputes procedure under this legislation. This is one of those areas about which there was great contention before the Justice and Electoral Committee. People wanted to make sure there was a good disputes procedure. We spent a tremendous amount of time on trying to be fair to everyone with regard to the disputes procedure and now we have interference by the department and we are told by United Future in the decisions made by the select committee. I think we all know that United Future has had a good deal to say about the bill already at the select committee. 
I look at clause 48(1) and new subclause (1A). Clause 48 sets out that a hearing must be held and subclause (1) states: “In the course of conducting a dispute resolution the disputes panel must hold a hearing”. Subclause (1A) which we inserted at the select committee states: “The parties to the dispute are entitled to be present and heard at the hearing.” Now the Minister has put in an amendment to insert new subclause (1AA) in clause 41. It states: “Nothing in subsection (1) enables a resident to give a dispute notice concerning any health services or disability services or any facilities to which the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 applies.” 
Really I think the Minister is starting to curtail the rights of the individual resident. There may be areas in which the resident does want to have a dispute with the people about matters in the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers Rights and why should that not stay in the legislation? Why must a measure be inserted in the legislation by the Minister without any proper discussion with the select committee? If there were areas in that code that did not come within the contemplation of the legislation then clearly the referee or the party considering the dispute would not hear it. Here we have matters that should have been put to the select committee but were not and now they are being dealt with by way of a clause inserted by the Minister. 
I also look at clause 48A(2). In that particular clause inserted by the select committee there is a provision that if a panel refuses to hear or continue to hear a dispute that is without prejudice to the right of any party subsequently to begin proceedings in respect of the subject of the dispute in a court of law. That clause has been deleted. That is extraordinary. Is the Minister saying that with the subsequent clauses that are there there is no longer any without-prejudice right to commence proceedings in a court of law? Maybe that is stating the obvious and did not have to be in the bill in the first place which should have been made clear to the select committee. But why delete subclause (2) and put in its place a provision that states: “If the panel refuses to hear or continue to hear a dispute under subsection (1)(b) the panel must refer the dispute to the nearest District Court for hearing.”? What if the parties do not want to go to the District Court for a hearing? Here they are having the District Court imposed on them. That will mean more costs for the resident and more costs for the operator. 
This measure is another classic example of more compliance costs being imposed on people by this Labour Government and we are told by United Future and Murray Smith who says he has had a big hand in the Supplementary Order Paper. We know that United Future and the Labour Party support more compliance costs. Why require people to go to the District Court as is proposed here? The amendment states the panel must refer the dispute to the nearest District Court for hearing. That is appalling. I am sure that the reason the select committee did not take that view is that it would be totally wrong. We put in more discretionary provisions when we did the legislation rather than this compulsory provision which is so much a feature of the way that Labour a socialist party looks at things. Labour believes in compulsion in making people do things rather than have discretion whereas the New Zealand First Party—and I am glad to be disassociated from the National Party and the ACT party as Lynda Scott disassociated us from National—believes in discretion being given to people. The National Party members may not support discretion. They may support the compulsory view and that is their affair.