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 29 October 2014.)

Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (11:43): It has taken quite a while to get to this point, so long that in fact I thought I might be in a retirement village before I had the opportunity to deliver the—

Members interjecting:

Mr SPEIRS: No sarcasm! I am not responding to interjections. I rise to add my personal support for the work that was undertaken by the select committee during 2013 on the Retirement Villages Act. I believe that this body of work is an example of the good pieces of work that can be achieved when members of this place work together in a bipartisan spirit. I note that the recommendations of this committee were unanimous and I hope the government decides to progress these recommendations because, from reading through the report and from my own experiences assisting constituents in retirement villages, there is much need for reform in this sector.

I note that three members of the previous committee, Ms Breuer, Mr Sibbons and Mr Hill, have moved on from this place and I thank them for their involvement with this committee and report. Likewise, I thank the other members of the committee who remain here: the member for Morphett, the member for Heysen and the member for Frome.

The need for reform in the retirement villages sector appears to arise simply because the legislation has been surpassed by changes within a sector which has grown rapidly through the nineties and 2000s. When the act was created in 1987, the retirement village sector was far less mature and complex than it is today, with the average retirement village being just a cluster of small cottages or units which were owned by a church or fairly unsophisticated not-for-profit organisation. Today, it is well known that the retirement village sector is a far more substantial beast.

In South Australia approximately 24,200 people live in retirement village accommodation, according to the select committee's report, with this accommodation ranging from properties which cater for a wide range of needs, from the elderly who are from low socioeconomic backgrounds through to wealthy apartment complexes in inner city and coastal locations. In my electorate I have many hundreds of constituents who live in retirement village accommodation, with some of these establishments catering for the poor, some for the more affluent and some for the very affluent.

Having doorknocked these establishments extensively, I have come to know their ins and outs, their successes and failures and the challenges faced by both tenants and management bodies. I have seen the immense diversity in the sector firsthand and since becoming a member of parliament I have also heard firsthand the difficulties some residents of retirement villages can come up against and ask me, as their MP, to assist them with.

I have sat with one constituent as he cried in my office about losing $70,000 to a retirement village operator. His situation was unique in that he had entered the retirement village after falling seriously ill and being unable to care for himself or his large property. However, in a fortunate turn of events, he made a remarkable recovery and found himself in a situation where he could leave the village after only a few months there. However, the price for leaving and returning to accommodation that better suited his healthy lifestyle was $70,000, which amounted to a huge chunk out of his life savings and potential future financial security.

One has to ask oneself about the ethical basis of such a decision. Although it met all the contractual obligations that the retirement village operator had set down, he had only lived in the village for a few months. On a commercial basis, his time there amounted to only a few thousand dollars in rent but he lost many, many times that amount when the village decided to keep a large portion of the bond that he had put down to enter the property. The operator in question claimed that they were able to do so because those terms were included in the complex contract he had signed to enter the property.

The story which I relate above is one of the reasons I am so supportive of recommendation No. 4 of the committee, which is:

That the Act be amended to introduce a standard disclosure document, prescribed by Regulations, to assist residents in comparing villages and in understanding their rights and obligations.

Recommendation No. 4, part (c), outlines what any standard disclosure document should include, and that is:

…all fees and charges which residents will be responsible for:

prior to entering a village

while residing in a village

upon leaving a village;

examples of exit fee scenarios;

definitions of fees, charges and funds;

should be included in the standard disclosure document. I understand from members who worked on the select committee that this was a concern raised many times by the witnesses who turned up for the hearings, and that the fees involved in entering, staying in and then (potentially) leaving the retirement village, as my constituent did in the aforementioned story, posed significant concerns for many people living in retirement village accommodation in South Australia. There is no doubt that more disclosure is needed in straightforward, accessible language so that those entering retirement villages can feel comfortable and assured that they are fully informed of the financial obligations potentially facing them as a result of entering a village.

I return again to the story of my constituent that I recounted above, because I think it is worth remembering and reflecting on the circumstances which surround people moving into a retirement village. Often these circumstances occur following bereavement, illness and family difficulties, and can be skewed by emotion and grief that comes with these circumstances and that comes from leaving a long-term family home where the resident has a sense of place and attachment. Often these situations arise suddenly, unexpectedly and without the time given for prior planning and often without family support in place, possibly due to the death of a loved one.

So, this can seriously colour the judgement and capacity of someone entering a retirement village to make the correct decisions and to fully inform themselves, despite the unexpectedness of having to enter into such accommodation. We should remember that, while it can be good to have plans in place to downsize and move into these retirement villages a long time in advance, that is often not the case, due to ill health, and sudden bereavement or vulnerability that can beset older people.

Again, I come across many people in my electorate who are considering moving to retirement villages, but their difficulties in understanding their contractual obligations discourage them from doing so. In these cases they actually spend more time in their larger home than is necessary, leading to increased vulnerability and potential welfare issues. I am pleased to note that the government has indicated its support for recommendation 4, parts (a) to (c), and in part supported recommendation 4(d), which will give retirement village residents an extra 15 days to cool off when signing a contract.

I would like to close at this point. There are many other recommendations contained within the select committee report, but I wanted to highlight that recommendation 4, which outlines the need for the standard disclosure document, because I think, from my own experience as a local member of parliament with lots of such accommodation options like these, and having come across many people considering downsizing through the relative demographics of my electorate being quite a bit older than the average South Australian electorate, this is something I really think needs to be addressed urgently.

I commend the select committee's report to the parliament. I thank the members who were involved in it, and I urge the government to follow up on those recommendations and look at undertaking the required legislative change to ensure that some of the recommendations, particularly around financial disclosure and the need to look at the contracts for these retirement villages, take legislative effect in this state.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:52): I also wish to make a brief contribution to the tabling of this report and I also support it. In not quite a past life but at least before the last election in a shadow portfolio I had responsibility for consumer and business services, under which much of the implementation of the control of retirement villages falls. During that time I had constituents contact me with concerns, which involved some personal visits. Certainly Mr Brian Atkinson contacted me. He and his wife live in a facility not that far away from Gawler. He raised some legitimate concerns that were part of the report and investigation carried out by the select committee.

I am a bit closer to retirement than is the member for Bright; I am only three years away from being 55 years of age, which I believe that you have to be before being able to move into these places. The ones I have visited are outstanding facilities, seemingly very well cared for and the community spirit that exists within them, and the facilities available, are quite good. I recognise that in some there are challenges for people who live there, and predominantly it is around the fees, the concessions, that might otherwise apply for the properties they own, the physical infrastructure, but it is based upon leased land.

We need to ensure this the parliament considers this seriously, which is why I recognise and support the comments of the member for Bright when he talks about the level of support provided by the government already to some of the recommendations from the report. The baby boomer generation and the retirement challenges that will present to all Australians confirms in my mind quite clearly that this will be an expanding industry and one in which the government needs some tight involvement to ensure that the regulations that are in force are as far as they possibly can be.

I can quote to the house comments provided to me by a person very well known to me. A friend of hers moved into a retirement village on the understanding of what the cost implications were, but chose to leave after about six months because they did not necessary enjoy the lifestyle that it provided to that person. The cost for that person to get out after such a short time was $60,000. The member for Bright shared a story of a $70,000 cost, so there seems to be some consistency in the short-term occupancy of a very high level of cost.

It depends on the age of the property and things like that, but that is an area over which there needs to be some greater control. I know in my discussion with various people there have been concerns about when properties are to be sold, the number of agents involved, and some controls about trying to ensure that the maximum price is achieved at all times. This is an important area, and I think, with the parliament's involvement via the select committee, there can be some improvement opportunities. The parliament has worked well in this case and the government has responded.

I also look forward to the report's adoption and the implementation of changes, not just in the short term but over the next five to 10 years, because there will be some very serious work that the parliament needs to do in ensuring the legislation is sound, viable and will negatively impact as few people as possible, and that, no matter what their socioeconomic backgrounds or financial capacities are to fund, members of our communities get the facilities they deserve.

Motion carried.