Select Committee on a Review of the Retirement Villages Act 1987

Adjourned debate on motion of Dr McFetridge:

That the report of the committee be noted.

(Continued from 16 October 2014.)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Schubert has time to continue: five more minutes, is that correct?

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (11:37): This speech is Shakespearean.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: This will be your finale, won't it?

Mr KNOLL: This is a speech in four parts. The difficulty I have had, Deputy Speaker, is keeping up with exactly what I have discussed and what I have not discussed. I have kept copious colour-coded notes in order to get there. What I have been through is a list of the retirement villages in my electorate, and there are some fantastic retirement villages in my electorate. I have been talking with a number of local residents recently, and one in particular who is stuck in the Tanunda Hospital, who will not leave the Barossa, and that is a comment I have heard from a number of people, not the least of whom is the retiring mayor of the Barossa Council, Brian Hurn, who has made a fantastic contribution. His comment to one of our local retirement villages was, 'One day I hope to be in your facility, but there is no way that I am going to leave the Barossa to do so.' That does create issues because there are not enough high-care places in the Barossa.

What I have been able to understand is that the federal funding for retirement places is funded on a per capita basis but it does not necessarily take into account the changing demographics of different regions. The Barossa, as I have said in this place before, is definitely over-represented when it comes to older people. In fact, the Barossa has 25 per cent more people over 65 than the state average. That creates issues for local retirement village service provision. I think there needs to be a bit more of a nuanced response.

The other thing I can say about my electorate in the Barossa is that it is a place where people come to retire. We lose our young people when they turn 18 (about 150 per year). We get some of them back when they are in their 40s and 50s, but at age 65 people come back to the Barossa. I do not know why it takes them so long to realise that it is one of the best places on earth, but they come to that realisation eventually. The amount of people, especially from surrounding rural areas, who come to the Barossa to retire bring a wealth of experience and knowledge and money into the local community, and I think it is a fantastic thing.

In this report—and I have been through the recommendations—the thing that strikes me most is that we are dealing with people in very vulnerable situations. They are at a stage of life where they are often not able to care for themselves, and I think that it is extremely important for the law to protect those who cannot always protect themselves. The other thing I found about the recommendations is that they are strikingly similar to what has been common practice for decades when it comes to commercial leases. There were a number of recommendations I read through, thinking, 'Well, hang on.' As someone who has read 30, 40, 50 leases in my time, there was a lot of commonality with disclosure statements, there was a lot of commonality between standard clauses and around giving people information to make an informed decision, and putting the information out there so that there is no rorting of the system when it comes to having to put money into shared expenses, when it comes to disclosure of upfront costs, the value of the asset, or the maintenance levels of the asset.

I wholeheartedly support the recommendations in this report. I do think it is sensible and important. Retirement villages are a growing part of our economy, and will continue to be as baby boomers continue to age and move into facilities. Done properly, I think it is a very good way to care for people, especially if they transition from their own home into independent living units and then into more acute services. I think it is a great system, done properly, and a way that we can care for and respect our elderly in their sunset years and give them everything that they deserve.

The last comment I will make is that I have some fantastic retirement villages in my electorate: Tanunda Lutheran Home, Barossa Village, Abbeyfield and Wheatfields—fantastic facilities. The thing that upsets me most, particularly with the people who live in the Mannum hospital and the Mount Pleasant Hospital, is people who live in hospital wards with very little privacy, very little personal space. I do not think these people are living out their final days in dignity.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (11:41): I also rise to speak in favour of this. Like the member for Schubert, I have a number of constituents in my electorate of Hartley who use these villages. At last count, there were over 15. They seem to be growing in number, as is the industry. This is an extremely popular issue. Before the election, I hosted what you would call an aged care forum for people over the age of 60. Over 100 people attended, and the day was well supported by the member for Heysen.

Like the member for Schubert, I also empathise with people who have worked hard and paid taxes all their life, and when they seek accommodation such as a retirement village later in life, a lot of the time they come across these contracts that are quite lengthy and complicated. I think it is unreasonable that these elderly people, some of whom are quite vulnerable, need to engage lawyers, in some instances, just to go through these things. So the review of the Retirement Villages Act has a number of recommendations which I will, in turn, talk to.

All members of the house will agree that retirement villages are an essential pillar of aged-care services. The member for Morphett also put it earlier that the act provides the right balance between the rights and responsibilities of aged-care residents and the administration. It goes without saying that the baby boomer generation is retiring, and it is important to review the way in which the state manages its elderly people. South Australia, and Australia in general, has to constantly review our existing retirement system framework to explore new ideas, identify best practice, and look at how our system can be improved to cope with high demands for aged-care services not only today but also in the decades to come.

The villages have been around for a long time. There are over 500 registered villages and about 25,000 residents in the state, but only recently has the industry taken off even further. I suppose we could also attribute that to rising house prices. Of course, the rising cost of living and the cost of doing business and owning property is not aided by the government's recent ESL hikes.

This section of our economy is very important for South Australians, not only for the owners of the villages but also for the people who reside in them. It is important that people who live there enjoy the amenities they expect from villages. The select committee received a number of submissions from various sources, and I would like to draw the attention of the house to some of the recommendations in the review.

As one of the largest industries, the financial management of villages is one of the most important points to make as it greatly concerns both residents and governments. In particular, recommendation 14 (relating to financial management) is very important. When a surplus is obtained by virtue of the recurrent charges, it is a good thing that it is up to the discretion of the residents as to how that surplus is apportioned under the residence agreement.

I certainly agree with the thrust of recommendation 4, regarding precontract disclosure. At the moment, it has been a constant complaint from many consumers in the area that some of these contracts are quite different from each other and that there is no real standard form. It is a point of much confusion, and I think it is unreasonable that elderly people should have to engage lawyers or advisers to weave their way through the constant rigmarole and bureaucracy in these precontracts. If we are able to ensure that disclosure documents are introduced and that they are consistent, it would be a good thing as it will allow people to best inform themselves, and that would be assisted if we can standardise that.

Recommendation 10 creates 'a unique retirement village CPI', and recurrent changes would have to be approved by residents or by the RTT on appeal from the management authority. I believe it is vitally important that any increases in recurrent charges remain fair and must be in the best interests of the residents. At the end of the day, it is the residents who pay for these services, and it should ultimately be a matter for them.

It is in the vein of resident empowerment and residential awareness that I would also like to mention recommendation 9, in particular, as an important recommendation from the committee to ensure that all minutes of any residents' meetings be provided to all residents within 14 days. I think that is quite appropriate and reasonable; there should not be any mystery in relation to this. I have learnt in my travels that a lot of retired people travel more than their younger counterparts. It would be a common-sense recommendation, and I would support it.

Speaking to recommendation 12, it is very important that any changes to the act provide greater transparency to administration and management fees. It is reasonable to expect any organisation or village to provide the method in which they appropriate costs and to show where those costs were spent and how those costs affect the residents of any retirement village.

In relation to council rates, it is important to develop the valuation of retirement properties when it comes to purchasing the licence to occupy a retirement village, and more should be done in that area. It is very important that criteria be created to control this factor, and I would also support the recommendation in relation to that issue.

Recommendation 1 restricts the use of the term 'retirement village' and prevents deceptive information about a facility that may mislead elderly people before they enter a village, and this is extremely important as well. In some cases, there is a lot of mystery concerning whether the person who moves into one of these villages actually owns the asset or is buying a licence. What is the situation here? It is a common point of confusion, and different laws can apply depending on what exactly the people are buying into. So, I also support more information that provides better transparency in that regard.

The objective of reviewing the act was to result in more transparency and simplicity for not only prospective licensees but also current licensees as to their rights and obligations. Equally, the report is about empowering residents of retirement villages to make their own decisions about the lives they lead in retirement, and I fully support the recommendations listed in the report.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:49): I rise to speak to the Select Committee on a Review of the Retirement Villages Act 1987 report and note that there were 34 recommendations made in that report, obviously relating to the requirements around living in a retirement village or operating a retirement village. These can be under various schemes. They include:

licence to occupy (where a resident purchases a lifetime right to occupy a residence);

leasehold (which is similar to a licence to occupy but a lease agreement will provide a resident with a lifetime lease of 99 years to reside in a residence); and

community title (where the purchaser, as owner, has the legal title to the unit, with restrictions on its subsequent sale).

I note that in my electorate, across the aged-care sector, there are many villages and other groups that assist with aged care. Not all of these come under this act, but around Goolwa we have West Park residential services, Lakeside, SunnyCove, Thornbury Park Retirement Estate, Village Life and Seachange Village; around Murray Bridge, we have Murray Lands Retirement Village, Resthaven Community Services, Murray Bridge Lutheran Homes and Waterford Estate Retirement Living; and in Tailem Bend we have Taberefta, which is for retirement living. I note that for the care of people who are not in villages we have the services of Resthaven and Lerwin. My father is a resident at Resthaven in Murray Bridge.

We also have some great coordination work generally in the aged-care sector through the Murray Mallee Age Care Group. I know it probably does not quite fit this report, but they have just been inducted into the Brand SA Hall of Fame for Regional Awards. I love their work: they do a lot of work in helping aged people to stay in their homes. Their services are absolutely fantastic and they are a regular winner at the Brand SA awards.

Preclusions from the act are residential parks, rental villages, aged-care facilities and community houses, so it is about keeping the issue around villages. I think it is obvious to everyone that across the state we have an ageing population and, similar to the electorate of Schubert, the population in Hammond is well and truly getting older. We are all living longer, which is good to some degree, but it means that services for older people need to be expanded and updated.

In fact, I know that some work has been done in my electorate in regard to residential villages being able to be transformed into something else if the need turns back another way, such as student accommodation, in the future. People are looking to flexibility, and I think that is a great thing. Something like that may not happen for 50 or 60 years. In light of this, the committee noted that the biggest challenge is the issue of funding, and it also noted that retirement village accommodation is only used by a fraction of the number of people eligible to use it. Certainly, in the main, it is a secure, safe and age-appropriate place for people to stay.

The committee also mentioned how, around the retirement villages model, any development must be supported by a strong legislative base. As has been described by previous speakers, when people come to the time when they need to go into these villages, they are hit with a lot of complex deals and agreements, and we need to make it as easy as possible for people at that time. It is to be noted that most people appreciate the companionship and the carefree nature of village living. However, as I indicated, there is some concern about the lack of clarity about contractual issues and some administrative matters.

One of my neighbours went into a village and I thought, 'He won't stay up there all the time, he will be back down at Coomandook'—he is in Murray Bridge now—'looking at the son's and the grandson's sheep, they won't get him away from the farm.' What happened was exactly the opposite. The village lifestyle suited him down to the ground. He will not mind me saying this because I have not named him, but he virtually runs the place now, with an ex stock agent. Obviously, it can be a great lifestyle.

In line with the select committee report, the committee was trying to find out about the level of transparency and information provided by operators so that they can give clear and transparent information to people who are potentially going to live in these villages. In the same light, we also do not want to burden operators with massive measures which might impact on their flexibility and their running costs.

Recommendation 1 applies to people before they move into a village, and is about the actual term 'retirement village'. The first recommendation states:

That the act be amended to:

restrict the use of the term 'retirement village' to those residential complexes which fall under the act; and

include provisions which prevent misleading and deceptive advertising, including advertising that a facility is or will be a retirement village without proper grounds.

This relates back to the reflection I just made, that people need absolutely clear information on what they are getting into. Recommendation 2 is certainly important. It relates to the retirement village residents and their rights. The second recommendation states:

That the age limit for residents of retirement villages remains at 55 years.

Sadly, for some of us, that age range is a bit too close.

Ms Redmond: Too close!

Mr PEDERICK: Some members may have eased past that age, but they are well and truly not due for retirement, I must say.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sixty is the new 40.

Mr PEDERICK: The Deputy Speaker said '60 is the new 40'; is that right?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Correct.

Mr PEDERICK: Very good.

That the requirement for a resident of a retirement village to be retired be removed from the act.

That certainly gives a bit more flexibility, if that comes into legislation.

That consideration be given to renaming the Act to more accurately reflect the current status of today’s villages.

From looking at the report, I note that there is no general accreditation of villages to have them up to a certain standard, because they have all been built at various times and it would be difficult to get them all to the same standard. Having said that, they all have to be at a reasonable standard so they can operate under the act. I am going to run out of time, but recommendation 3 (out of the 34 recommendations) states:

That the Act be amended to remove the definition of administering authority of a retirement village and replaced with definitions of the following:

Owner

Operator

Manager

As I said, there were 34 recommendations and I have only been able to quickly go through three of them in my contribution. We all get older, and I think the committee report needs to be acted on, and it needs to be acted on fairly and reasonably for all players so that everyone in retirement villages can have justice into the future.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Gardner.