Six election candidates have promised to back a proposed review of the law governing retirement villages if they get into Parliament - with one saying it has “caused a lot of pain”.
Five election candidates have promised to back a proposed review of the law governing retirement villages if they get into Parliament - with one saying it has “caused a lot of pain”.
Tauranga electorate candidates Sam Uffindell (National), Larry Baldock (Independent) and Christine Young (Act), and Bay of Plentycandidates Tom Rutherford (National) and Cameron Luxton (Act) made their commitments at a candidates meeting at Bethlehem Community Church yesterday.
About 120 residents from about a dozen Tauranga and Bay of Plenty retirement villages attended the meeting organised by the Retirement Villages Residents Association of New Zealand.
Cameron Luxton (Act candidate for Bay of Plenty), Christine Young (Act candidate for Tauranga), National candidate for Tauranga Sam Uffindell, Independent candidate for Tauranga Larry Baldock, National's Bay of Plenty candidate Tom Rutherford at a Retirement Villages Residents Association meeting in Bethlehem on September 19. Photo / Alex Cairns
The candidates promised to back the Government’s proposed review of the 20-year-old Retirement Villages Act which the association lobbied for in an effort to make it “fairer and more equitable” for residents and operators.
A discussion paper released in December is open for feedback and submissions until November 20.
Among proposed changes are requirements for operators to “meet the direct costs of maintaining and repairing operator-owned chattels and fixtures” and replacing the dispute resolution scheme.
Stopping fees when a unit is vacated or shortly after is also proposed.
The residents association also wants the Act to be reviewed retrospectively to ensure residents get “a greater degree of fairness” on their occupation rights agreements.
Each candidate was given seven minutes to outline their position followed by audience questions.
Baldock said he was in Parliament when the 2003 Act was passed. .
“It has been a piece of legislation that improved what it used to be liked before, but as you have so clearly elaborated in the information you have given us, there are still some big shortcomings.”
Baldock said his wife’s late parents lived in a local retirement village before they went into care and eventually sold their unit and moved out.
“So we experienced many of the things you are concerned about. A great loss of their capital and ultimately the inheritance that was passed onto the family ... What is being asked for is very clear and reasonable.
“All I can say as your MP in Wellington is when this comes up for review, I would be very keen to get on to the select committee and work with the RV Residents Association to see these things are addressed.”
From left, Sam Uffindell (National candidate for Tauranga), Larry Baldock (Independent candidate for Tauranga) and Tom Rutherford (National candidate for Bay of Plenty) at a Retirement Villages Residents Association of NZ meeting in Bethlehem. Photo / Alex Cairns
Uffindell also promised to push for the Act to be reviewed in the next parliamentary term and hoped it would be a National-led Government leading the review.
“Frankly, this piece of legislation has not been delivering as it should be and I acknowledge it has caused a lot of pain. We need to make sure that we have got legislation in Parliament that really represents you and represents your interests. And currently, I don’t think it does.
This included some retirement village operators charging residents for a capital loss on their investment but residents “not getting the upside” if there was a capital gain, he said
“We need to find a more equitable solution to ensure that everyone’s interests are looked after.”
Rutherford said he supported a review for several reasons.
“A lot of water has gone under that bridge over the last 20 years yet nothing has changed to put you, the residents, at the heart of that Act.”
This included some residents having to pay when there was a capital loss on their investment but “gaining no benefit” if there was a capital gain, he said.
“I think about the irony there ... missing out on what you should actually be entitled to. So we have committed really clearly that we will review the Act properly as a party.”
He urged caution when asked by an audience member whether he backed reviewing the Act retrospectively.
“Potentially, it could be like opening a can of worms for a lot of people in terms of residents’ contracts with their provider,” he said.
Young said she agreed with Baldock and Uffindell’s comments.
She “particularly supported” having an improved dispute resolution process and better negotiation between the capital invested by residents and the amount returned to them when leaving the retirement village.
There needed to be“more transparency and certainty” around the fees.
“Certainly, as an Act Party, we believe in the principles of fairness, equality, transparency and streamlining.”
Luxton said the association should not have had to lobby so hard just to get a review started.
There were several things that needed to be “hashed out”.
“But we also need to be careful we don’t go too far. The worst thing we could do is to end up with people becoming a force equity partner when they move into a retirement village. That would be a problem.”
“We want to have options and that is what Act [Party] stands for. Free choice and its principles of openness and good contract law.”
Correction: This article has been corrected to make clear there were five candidates, not six at the meeting.
