Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson last month called for an "urgent" review of the laws and codes on retirement villages.
This includes both the Retirement Villages Act (2003) and the Code of Practice (2008).
The call is backed strongly by Consumer NZ and has support from the Law Society.
Meanwhile, Associate Housing Minister (Public Housing) Poto Williams responded saying a full legislative review is needed.
"Urgency", however, is lacking.
Ms Williams has spoken about taking time to receive advice. The machinery of Government can work slowly, and the public service is already stretched.
The Government is bogged down with various reviews, and in mental health a review on top of previous reviews.
Its record on "delivery" of anything complex has been poor. Those concerned about the villages must be wondering just when the Government and its departments will find the will and capacity to proceed.
Retirement villages are popular and huge business. Almost 50,000 New Zealanders live in them, and that number is climbing rapidly.
Eighty-one new villages are being built or are planned.
Most residents are satisfied with village life, and it seems most are well run.
Residents cast away the cares of housing commitments and live in a community with facilities and, if desired, lots of company.
A majority are run by corporates, including publicly listed companies Summerset, Ryman Healthcare, Oceania and Arvida.
Their GDP is $11 billion-plus. They have made big money for their owners and their shareholders.
Ms Wrightson started her process with a discussion paper released last December. It received 3254 submissions.
The arguments for change are powerful, notwithstanding opposition from the Retirement Village Association representing the village owners.
Ms Wrightson has identified the fact a resident is neither protected as a property owner nor as a tenant — neither fish nor fowl as she puts it.
Residents pay what is likely to be hundreds of thousands of dollars for an Occupation Right Agreement. There are also weekly operating fees to cover the day-to-day cost of running the village, including the staff, maintenance, insurance and rates.
No capital gain accrues from the initial cost, and 20% to 30% of the "purchase" price is deducted in a deferred management fee to cover refurbishment after departure.
The average resident stays about seven years, but it is a system that clearly benefits from churn.
The Wrightson review found some contracts made residents liable for the cost of repairs to appliances and items in their unit, despite not owning them. Weekly fees can continue for months after a resident dies or shifts, and it can take a long time before the purchase price, minus the 20% to 30%, is returned.
Consumer NZ believes many contracts conflict with the Fair Trading Act.
The Retirement Villages Association of New Zealand argues what is not broken does not need fixing.
It acknowledges some improvements — for example for complaints processes — are needed. It is proposing working on an updated Code of Conduct.
Why, though, have such suggestions taken so long to come forward?
It can be argued one major gripe, the absence of a capital gain on resale, is clearly understood by residents, their families and the lawyer they must consult before "purchase".
But those desiring a move to a village have little choice but to accept the contracts as they are. And there are few other options in the New Zealand market.
It is worth stressing, again, that experiences for most village residents are positive.
Nevertheless, serious issues arise on occasions when things go wrong. Village residents deserve better protection and action is needed.
At least, it behoves the Villages Association, while we wait on Government action, to act with its own urgency on improvements. The community should expect the association to update village codes and practices with minimal delay.
