Retirement Villages (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 August 2024.)

The Hon. C.J. PICTON (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (20:48): I move:

That the time allotted for all stages of the bill be 60 minutes.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 22

Noes 10

Majority 12

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Motion thus carried.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I continue my remarks I made in relation to the second reading speech. I will be brief. Obviously, the key element in terms of this legislation is making sure you have the balance right between residents on the one hand and providers and the industry on the other hand.

I think the government has formed the view originally, through the course of the PEG review that was undertaken by the previous government and also the consultation that we have undertaken since coming to government, that the balance was not right in terms of being slanted in the way of the operators previously, and this is seeking to rebalance that but not in such a way as would create an imbalance on the other hand.

We have sought to make a number of amendments to the legislation; some have been provided to the house and provided to the opposition today. This is following consultation that we have made following that desire to get the balance right between the providers and the operators and also the residents, and consultation that we have had with the Property Council and also with the South Australian Retirement Villages Residents Association (SARVRA). I want to thank all of them for their cooperation as part of this work that we have done.

This is putting in place a number of measures. One is removing section 20 which was seen as an impediment to future investment in the retirement village space—obviously, we want to see continued investment happening, particularly as we are facing a housing crisis right across the country at the moment—but also to address the issue that had been raised by residents in terms of the capital contribution and a retrospective application of that, in order to particularly protect a small number of residents who had contracts that were out of balance with what we think is appropriate and what the modern legislation will set forward for the future, but also where most of the industry was at as well.

This is different to some of the grandstanding that we had in the second reading contributions from members opposite who, to my understanding, did not seek to file their own amendments. We have sought to work with both industry and residents to get the balance right in relation to this very important piece of legislation. There are also a number of amendments that have been filed in terms of addressing some minor issues in terms of the legislation. I will outline some of them:

amend clause 34 to clarify the costs that a resident may be liable for if they choose to terminate their contract during the settling-in period;

amend clauses 38 to 40 to remove the proposed 10-year waiting period before an operator may apply to the court or minister for approval to partially terminate a village;

amend clauses 42 and 43 to clarify the classes of people who are captured by the training requirements; and

amend clause 36 to allow the tribunal to refer a matter or any aspect of a matter in dispute between an operator and a resident for mediation with the express consent of the parties.

We have sought to work with the industry and with residents. I want to thank the Office for Ageing Well for holding so many of the information sessions: 13 information sessions across metropolitan and regional South Australia attended by 420 residents. I specifically thank Cassie Mason, Vanessa Clarke and Rebecca Carrigan for their work in consultation and the drafting and preparation of the bill.

I also acknowledge the Retirement Villages Residents Association, particularly president Roger Adamson and past president Bob Ainsworth for their tireless advocacy on behalf of their members and village residents across South Australia. I thank the operators and the peak bodies, including the Retirement Living Council and the Property Council. I highlight Bruce Djite and Daniel Gannon who have worked constructively to try to seek an appropriate balance in relation to this legislation. I thank all those people who have provided their extensive and valuable feedback, as well as my office and Dylan Anesbury for his work on this legislation.

With those comments, I look forward to the committee stage and I commend this legislation to the house. I also thank my chief retirement village adviser, my grandmother Ruth Picton, who lives in Netley Grove in the member for West Torrens' electorate and who will always be a very passionate advocate to me personally for the needs and the requirements of retirement village residents in South Australia.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 7 passed.

Clause 8.

Ms PRATT: Minister, just a simple question at clause 8 where there is a reference to the annual report and a deletion of the date of 30 September with the substitution of 31 October. Can you explain very simply why the change?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The advice that I have is that this is simply to align with other reporting requirements, in particular the Office for Ageing Well's annual reporting requirements aligning with that date.

Ms PRATT: There are no further questions.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

Ms PRATT: This relates to the register where subsection (3)(b) refers to 'a website determined by the minister'. My question is: can the minister expand on the meaning of 'a website determined by the minister'—which one, is it binding? What is the clause referring to?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I am tempted to talk, as the Hon. John Rau would about the interweb and his definition of it, but my advice is that this is likely to be the Office for Ageing Well website. Now that it is moving to DHS from the Department for Health, I presume it will be connected to the DHS website.

Ms PRATT: Following on from that, as it relates to the register, does that website currently exist or is it going to come into effect after this amendment?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: My advice is that the information is currently available from Data.SA and you can also request it from the Office for Ageing Well and then, after the passage of this section, it will become available on the Office for Ageing Well's website.

Clause passed.

Clauses 10 to 13 passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I move:

Amendment No 1 [HealthWellbeing–2]—

Page 9, lines 11 to 15 [Clause 14, inserted section 20(3)]—Delete subsection (3)

This clause substitutes section 20 of the act, expanding the types of information that must be included in a resident's contract. It incorporates an authority provision currently found in section 25 of the act. Expanded information includes whether alterations can be made to the residence; who is responsible for repairing or replacing fixtures, fittings and furnishings; responsibilities for reinstating; renovating the residence; fees and charges responsible for.

This amendment makes changes to clause 14 to remove the proposed subsection 20(3), which provided that standard contract terms may be prescribed that may apply to all residents' contracts or a class of residents' contracts. This amendment was not considered by the review. It was raised during public consultation. Since the inclusion of this amendment, a large number of stakeholders have raised concern regarding its operation, and getting the balance right regarding safeguarding the rights of residents and providing an operating environment that enables investment, innovation and growth in the sector is essential.

Ms PRATT: I would like to ask the minister a question about clause 20(3), noting an amendment that was dropped during the dinner break. If the minister can speak to his thinking or the process in bringing this amendment on top of previous amendments to the house, what consultation has been undertaken for this late amendment and can he expand on the process that brought us to debate this tonight without a consultation opportunity?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: This was not something that was originally part of our bill that we released for public consultation. It was added subsequently before introduction to the parliament. I think it is fair to say that this was one of two areas where there was significant concern leading into this debate. One was in relation to the capital contribution rate (CCR) that has been noted in the debate already, and that has been clearly a concern raised in relation to residents.

This section was clearly a cause of concern in terms of the operators, that they believed that this would lead to a lack of investment in the sector and issues in terms of proper financing for future investment in the sector, undermining future growth. What we have been able to do is have negotiations with both operators, particularly through the Retirement Living Council through the Property Council, but also through the South Australian Retirement Villages Residents Association.

We have sought a compromise where we would essentially go back very similar to what was in place under the consultation document, which was retracting what was proposed in this bill in relation to section 20 back to where that was not proposed in relation to the original consultation document that was put out, but also putting back retrospective application in terms of caps of the capital contribution rate, which we will get to later in the committee stage.

This is I think where all parties have sought to work together. I think this is a reasonable compromise. As with all things, not everybody gets everything that they want, but I think this is a compromise that certainly the government is comfortable with and something where those key stakeholders on both sides have been able to reach comfort and address the main concerns that they had leading into this debate.

Ms PRATT: In relation to subsection (3), the minister has reflected on the process—and I thank him for stepping us through that—but part of the reflection was that this amendment has really taken us back to the guidelines that were part of the YourSAy consultation process in the first place, which is where residents certainly were optimistic about their contracts being included. So my question to the minister is: from the YourSAy consultation process and those guidelines being released, where there was in writing a commitment of contracts being recognised and captured that were before the commencement of the act, what has changed in that time—from the guidelines that suggested that would happen, to the government's introduction of a bill that was silent on that and, at the eleventh hour, a reintroduction or return to that?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: As I said, subsection (3) was not in YourSAy. This was not part of the consultation. This was not something that we went to the community and asked them about. This was an idea that was developed subsequent to that and was introduced into the bill, and it was clearly a cause of concern once we did so. We have listened to that feedback, we have listened to the fact that there was concern that this would affect investment decisions in the sector, and we have been able to reach a compromise in terms of working with both the residents and also providers to seek to address their main concerns.

I thank both of those parties for coming constructively to the table to work on this issue. Going back to what was originally proposed in YourSAy, where additional provisions could be set by regulation in future, if we take that off the table, addressing that concern that this would affect future investment decisions and also, at the same time, as we will subsequently get to in the committee stage, having that provision where we can have that retrospective application of the capital contribution rate cap is an acceptable compromise in the view of the government and therefore something that we would ask the parliament to support.

Mr BATTY: This amendment removes a provision which allows a resident's contract to be taken to include any other terms prescribed by regulations, and those terms would prevail over any inconsistent contractual term. What types of terms was the minister envisaging could have been inserted into these contracts by way of regulation, and is there any concern now that you will not have the ability to do that?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think the member for Bragg has fairly articulated that one of the reasons why we really have agreed to remove this is that we did not have in our mind a particular reason why we need to go down this path. There were not clauses where we had a plan or an articulation of what needed to be added to regulation through this subsection (3), and providers quite rightly were raising with us, 'What do you have in mind?'

There were not any particular plans in place, and obviously they were concerned that there could be a whole range of things that could have been added through this clause, that banks and other financiers would be concerned in terms of what this would mean in terms of future investments, that it could disrupt business models, and hence I think we have sought a reasonable compromise in terms of addressing those concerns, going back to what was originally part of the YourSAy consultation and at the same time addressing the concerns that have been raised for the capital contribution rates, with both parties coming to the table to be able to address and negotiate those concerns.

Mr BATTY: Would it have been possible, if this clause had remained, that one of those terms could have been, for example, the capping of the capital fund payments that is foreshadowed later in the bill? Is that the type of term that could have been included through regulation if that clause had remained?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I do not seek to get into particular hypotheticals about what could have been included. We are seeking to remove this because I think it was so broad that it clearly raised concerns. With the government not having a particular plan for what that was going to entail, the risk of a whole range of things that could have potentially been included here I think was quite rightly argued as too great. I think it is something where, certainly as a government, we have been seeking to articulate and have legislated the changes that we want to make in the law.

We are doing that in the parliament. The bill is open. We have the opportunity to say what we think the legislation should be. We do not have other things in mind that are outside what we are proposing to the parliament today, hence I think it is appropriate that we should consider through this committee stage what we want the provisions to be and debate them openly through this process. We do not need this other provision that was put forward in subsection (3), and we can go back to what was the original proposal through the YourSAy process.

Mr BATTY: Thank you, minister. I think you are right that the clause was very broad and could have allowed a lot. I am not surprised it caused concern to many, including the Property Council, who I am sure thought this clause abandoned understanding of contractual principles. I guess it begs the question of how it ended up there in the first place. You mentioned it was not in the original YourSAy draft. It has ended up in the bill that you have introduced to this parliament. What was the genesis for this clause appearing?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think it was something that had been considered through the final drafting as something that would enable future issues to be dealt with without having to come back to the parliament. There is always ambition to have ability to deal swiftly with issues as they may arise and deal with problems as we come across them, but I also think that it is appropriate that there should be, and I think that there can be—and hopefully we will see it through the process through this house and the other place—cooperative work through the legislation to address those issues. So while there was original consideration of the need for this, the government has been minded to decide that that is not necessary.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 15 to 20 passed.

Clause 21.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I move:

Amendment No 2 [HealthWellbeing–2]—

Page 16, line 36 to page 17, line 6 [clause 21(2), inserted subsection (3) and note]—Delete subsection (3) (including the note to that subsection) and substitute:

(3) If any amounts are deducted from an exit entitlement as contributions to 1 or more capital funds, the total amount that is deducted must not exceed—

(a) in relation to an amount deducted under a residence contract entered into before the commencement of this subsection—an amount that is 12.5% of the current market value of the residence to which the exit entitlement relates; or

(b) in relation to an amount deducted under a residence contract entered into after the commencement of this subsection—the lesser of the following amounts:

(i) an amount that is 1% of the current market value of the residence to which the exit entitlement relates multiplied by the number of years (including any part year) of occupation of the residence under the residence contract;

(ii) an amount that is 12.5% of the current market value of the residence to which the exit entitlement relates.

Note—

This subsection provides a cap on the deductions. If the residence contract provides for some lesser amount as the deduction, then this subsection will not apply.

Ms PRATT: In relation to amendment No. 2, which we are discussing today, it is an amendment that again was perhaps not anticipated but has been brought to the house for consideration. I welcome it, as I am certain do stakeholders on both sides, whether they be residents or private providers. As I was with the previous amendment, I am interested in the process that the government undertook through its consultation, or if the minister can speak to the consultation process.

The minister, in his response to second reading speeches, did call out the opposition for grandstanding during our own second reading speeches. I think it is unbecoming of the minister given the intention that we brought to our observations. Here we are a parliamentary week on, and the very balance and compromise that we were calling for has in fact eventuated through, if I am being ungenerous, a backflip or, if I am being kind, continued advocacy and negotiation.

I genuinely welcome the amendments that are before us this evening because it is clear that we have finally landed on a bill that reflects the original intention, and that is to improve the transparency and consumer rights, if you like, of a resident, whether they live in Netley Grove or Plympton or Golden Grove or Leabrook or anywhere else in our state.

I want to put on the record in relation to this amendment that while it is very welcome and the feedback that the opposition has had this evening during the dinner break is one of adulation about the progress that has been made, I think that last week's reflections and texts being read out to the chamber in real time reflected a smugness that was unwelcome. I will not copy that behaviour by reading out the texts that have been shared with the opposition.

My question to the minister on this clause is: who have you consulted in delivering these amendments to the house during the dinner break?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: As I have articulated, this has been firstly a matter of very extensive consultation leading into the debate before the parliament. There was, of course, an original PEG Consulting report done through consultation under the previous government that led to a consultation paper and a series of forums that we held throughout the state where this matter was something that we put forward as a matter for discussion. Not surprisingly, it received significant support from residents and it received significant concern from providers.

Following that, in the formulation of the final bill that came to presentation before the parliament we were concerned in terms of what was being put forward by providers. We did not put forward this particular section in terms of its retrospective application, based on those concerns from the providers, and then that very openly caused concern for the residents. Hearing that concern, we sought to not proceed rapidly with this debate until we had really sought to see if there was some way of addressing those issues between the residents and the providers.

Through quite a series of consultations with the Retirement Living Council through the Property Council of Australia, we were able to reach agreement with them and also the Retirement Villages Residents Association to see this clause proceed for a retrospective application, similar to what had been originally put forward in the consultation process through YourSAy and the forums, etc. As I said very clearly, that was also a matter where there had been give and take on both sides, and that was clearly also in relation to section 20, which we have compromised on and sought an amendment on as well.

As with all these matters, it is a matter of balance and it is a matter of people being willing to work together. As a government, we have been very keen to work with both the providers and the residents. While not everybody has 100 per cent of what they want, I think that we now have an appropriate balance where we are, as a government, happy to proceed and ask for the parliament's support for the final passage of these measures. As the member said herself, hopefully it sounds like there is adulation for the changes that we are proposing and hopefully they will be supported.

Ms PRATT: I am happy to signal support in principle as we move through in the committee stage. My question following on from those remarks relates to subsection (3)(a), as I read from the amendment:

(a) in relation to an amount deducted under a residence contract entered into before the commencement of this subsection…

To continue the theme of adulation, there should be a sense of some meeting in the middle, recognition of compromise and sentiment being shared by those who I know are tuning in, minister, and that is to ask you whether you can clarify and confirm that the insertion of this clause, the addition of this amendment, is to capture all existing contracts before the commencement of this act?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Yes, that is correct.

Mr BATTY: Minister, you mentioned this bill as a whole has been subject to many years of consultation, exposure drafts, YourSAy—the bill that has been introduced today I am sure has been a very painstaking process for you and government. You also mention now, finally, as we are moving this amendment that this finally tonight strikes the right balance. At what point did you realise that this struck the right balance? Were you not aware of concerns about the bill you introduced into this house? Were you not aware of them two weeks ago when you were ridiculing other members in this place for raising their own constituents' concerns? At what point did you realise that this now is the right balance?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I thank the member for Bragg for his question. I think my comments in the previous sitting week—and I am happy to repeat them—were quoting what I had been provided by the Executive Director of the Property Council, Mr Bruce Djite, in terms of his reflections on the views of the opposition and their status as a reflection on their policy process and political force in South Australia. He gave me permission to quote them in the parliament, and I did so.

I think we have been seeking to work with all the stakeholders in this matter to try to achieve the right balance. I do not think, when it comes to a difficult issue like this, that everyone ever gets 100 per cent of exactly what they want, and through the process of, first, the PEG Consulting report that was done, subsequently the further consultation we were able to do, including a number of matters such as this one, which were not in the original PEG Consulting report, and also in terms of the reduction of the repayment period from 18 months to 12 months—we sought to go even further—in that process of consultation and following the introduction into the parliament, where a number of concerns were raised with the final bill presented to the parliament, we have sought to work constructively and have now achieved a balance where two of the main stakeholders on either side are now much more comfortable than they were in terms of the final proposition we are putting to the House of Assembly today.

Mr BATTY: What impact will this amendment have on retirement village operators?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: That obviously depends upon the particular contract, and this clause will apply retrospectively to existing contracts, similar to the question the member for Frome had. A number of contracts are in place where this will not be an issue whatsoever, and there are at least a small number of contracts where this will give those residents additional protections to what they have in their existing contract at the moment.

Mr BATTY: Minister, do you think that this amendment moved by you represents you abandoning any understanding of commercial contracts as you worry about one or two squeaky wheels?

Ms Pratt interjecting:

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The member for Frome interjects that they are my words. That is not correct. I was, in fact, quoting directly from the Executive Director of the Property Council, Mr Bruce Djite, and he gave me permission to read his views into the parliament. I want to thank Bruce and even go as far as to thank Mr Daniel Gannon, who has worked constructively with the government in terms of finding an outcome here.

We appreciate their work. They have actually had engagement also with residents on this matter as well. I think that we have reached a matter where we can bring to the parliament a series of amendments that taken together will address the key concerns from operators and residents—those particular two groups representing them.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 22 and 23 passed.

Clause 24.

Ms PRATT: Minister, it has been put to me, in relation to this clause on certain taxes, costs and charges that must not be charged to residents, that accreditation and recruitment costs may be passed on as a result of this clause. Can you rule that in or rule that out?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: My advice is that, following the passage of this legislation, for new contracts it will have to be specified in the contract. For existing contracts they will have to be reasonable costs, and if there is an issue about that then obviously that could be potentially challenged.

Clause passed.

Clauses 25 to 33 passed.

Clause 34.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I move:

Amendment No 1 [HealthWellbeing–1]—

Page 25, after line 16 [clause 34(3)]—After inserted paragraph (c) insert:

(d) subject to subsection (5b), the costs to reinstate the residence to the condition it was before an alteration was made by the resident (or to some other agreed condition).

Amendment No 2 [HealthWellbeing–1]—

Page 25, after line 22 [clause 34(4)]—After inserted subsection (5a) insert:

(5b) A resident is only liable to pay reinstatement costs under subsection (5)(d) if the resident, having made alterations to the residence, is bound under an agreement made with the operator to reinstate the residence to the same condition as before the alteration was made (or to some other agreed condition), but has failed to do so.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 35 passed.

Clause 36.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I move:

Amendment No 3 [HealthWellbeing–2]—

Page 27, after line 15—After subclause (4) insert:

(4a) Section 46(4)—delete subsection (4)

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 37 passed.

Clause 38.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I move:

Amendment No 3 [HealthWellbeing–1]—

Page 30, lines 34 to 40 [clause 38(3)]—Delete subclause (3)

Ms PRATT: I have a quick question on clause 38, termination of retirement village scheme. I was interested to see this amendment introduced and, on the other side of the scale, I am sure that it pleases private providers to see what I consider to be an arbitrary length of time in 10 years. I thank the Office for Ageing Well, during its briefing, for answering some questions that I had at the time. My question to you about this deletion of the subsection is: what was the minister's thinking or the government's thinking in deleting this clause in reference to the timeframe of 10 years?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: This amendment makes changes to clause 38 to remove the restriction that prohibits an operator from applying to the Supreme Court for the termination of part of a retirement village scheme under this section if within the previous 10 years an operator has made an application to the minister under the new section 59 in the same or substantially similar terms and the minister has declined to make the termination.

Following further feedback from the sector, the 10-year waiting period has been assessed as creating an unnecessary obstacle which could impede timely decision-making in some circumstances. This could have flow-on implications, such as adversely impacting the financial sustainability of a village or impeding innovation and redevelopment. Strong accountability is maintained, and the court will continue to determine each matter on the unique circumstances before it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

The CHAIR: Your next clause?

Ms PRATT: Given the government's appetite for guillotining bills today and this evening, I have no more questions.

Clause 39 passed.

Clause 40.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I move:

Amendment No 4 [HealthWellbeing–1]—

Page 32, lines 23 to 27 [clause 40, inserted section 59A(4)]—Delete subsection (4)

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 41 passed.

Clause 42.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I move:

Amendment No 5 [HealthWellbeing–1]—

Page 35, line 25 [clause 42(3), inserted subsection (6)]—Delete 'Subsection (5) does' and substitute:

Subsections (4) and (5) do

Amendment No 6 [HealthWellbeing–1]—

Page 35, line 29 [clause 42(3), inserted subsection (6)(a)]—After 'operations of the village' insert:

or require direct contact with residents of the village

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 43.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I move:

Amendment No 7 [HealthWellbeing–1]—

Page 36, line 30 [clause 43, inserted section 63A(2)(a)]—After 'operations of the village' insert:

or require direct contact with residents of the village

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (44 to 48) passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I move:

Amendment No 4 [HealthWellbeing–2]—

Page 39, line 26 [Schedule 1, clause 1, inserted definition of capital fund]—Delete the definition of capital fund

Amendment No 5 [HealthWellbeing–2]—

Page 39, line 31 to page 40, line 6 [Schedule 1, clause 2]—Delete clause 2 and substitute:

2—Residence contracts

Section 20 of the principal Act, as inserted by this Act, applies in relation to a residence contract entered into after the commencement of section 14 of this Act except where, before that commencement, the information (including the residence contract) required to be given to a person under section 22 of the principal Act had been given to the person, in which case section 20 of the principal Act as in force before that commencement continues to apply.

Amendment No 6 [HealthWellbeing–2]—

Page 40, lines 24 to 27 [Schedule 1, clause 6]—Delete clause 6

Amendments carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.J. PICTON (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (21:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (21:40): I thank the house for its indulgence. I, for whatever reason, missed the opportunity to make a second reading contribution, and, as such, would like to make a very brief contribution now at the third reading stage, primarily to thank some constituents who went out of their way to come to my office to provide feedback to me on the original bill. I know there have been some more amendments done this evening, but, for all intents and purposes, they provided me with feedback that was most invaluable for the original bill.

I would like to thank Jill Cundy, Margaret May and Jan Camporeale for coming in. They went through a thoughtful process of laying out their concerns with me, including sharing with me their outgoing resident settlement estimates, of which I had not seen before, to show the difficulties that they perceived they were having and the different intricacies of those forms. I would like to thank those three wonderful ladies for coming into the office and providing me with that feedback. It certainly made the job of forming a position on this bill that much easier and, as I said, I would like to thank them.

Their chief concern was the deferred management fees were becoming quite onerous and chewing up quite a significant part of their exit entitlements. As the value of their lease went up, so did the deferred management fees. The owner was therefore standing to make a decent profit on the next lessee and having to pay out less as well. They shared their concerns with me and I thank them for that.

The other really brief thing I would like to say is that we need to remember, I think—and I am sure that we all do—that retirement village operators come in all shapes and sizes. There are obviously those really big companies, but some really reasonably little ones and some not-for-profit ones as well.

I well recall a friend of mine, David Rosewarne, operated six or so retirement units as a sole practitioner, essentially, in Kadina. At a different time in the property cycle, when he had one of his vacated, he found it exceedingly difficult to sell that licence to occupy thereafter. It got to the point where he was up against the then 18-month time limit I think, or maybe two-year time limit, upon which he had to pay that entitlement to the person who had left the premises and had not yet resold that licence to occupy and as such found himself in an extremely difficult financial position on the basis of the fact that he was a sole practitioner and a business owner and someone who was out of pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay out that entitlement.

We need to remember that it is not always a big business that operates these villages. The best example I had of that recently was an opening in Kadina of the Materne Estate, named after Dr Maurice Materne, the long-time GP in Kadina for some 40 years. The Kadina Community Hospital board opened this new retirement village in Kadina with six or eight units. They reckon they are the only profitable hospital in the country because they do not actually operate a hospital anymore, it is just the premises that are rented out to allied health professionals and the proceeds of that are used to benefit the community. In this case, they have bought and developed the property and established these units for aged care and they will be operated under the Retirement Villages Act.

What we have here is an incredibly complicated act now and we have a board of eight community volunteers who will be stewards of that act for those six or eight residents in their new facility. I firstly congratulate the chair, Dean Rodda, and his committee for building that, and Gary Wahlstedt for constructing it. They did a marvellous job. We went to the opening and they looked tremendous. Well done to all of them on that. I do want to put on the record my concerns about how they will go navigating that act as a community organisation and not-for-profit group. I am sure they are not alone but that is the most recent example. I look forward to seeing it in action and hope that those residents there enjoy a comfortable retirement as they move forward and age.

Mr BATTY (Bragg) (21:44): As we pass the Retirement Villages (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill tonight, including increased consumer protections for retirement village residents right across my electorate, I want to thank all of my constituents who have engaged with me over the course of this legislative process and for their advocacy in this process as well. I have literally engaged with hundreds of my constituents on this issue in a really thoughtful and constructive manner.

I want, in particular, to acknowledge and thank many of my constituents at On Statenborough retirement village who will be very impacted by the bill we have passed tonight, including the amendments we passed tonight, as well as Victoria Grove Retirement Village in my electorate, Pineview Retirement Village in my electorate and Wattle Grove retirement village.

I also want to thank the Retirement Living Council, the other major stakeholder on this bill, for engaging with me and the opposition in a really constructive manner over the past months and indeed years. I want to in particular thank Daniel Gannon, Annabel Wilkins and Ollie Luckhurst-Smith, as well as the retirement village operators who I met with in the course of discussing this legislation. All I have ever sought to do in the course of this debate is advance my own constituents' best interests, to put their views forward and I hope that we have got a good result for them tonight. It is something that I will not cease to do in this place.

Ms PRATT (Frome) (21:46): I want to echo the sentiments that have been shared by the member for Bragg and the member for Narungga. It pleases me to be able to stand and recognise in the third reading speech all of those people who have interacted with me as the shadow minister for ageing. While the member for Bragg certainly was a strong advocate for his constituents, not only was I representing members of the Frome community who are looking to their retirement futures, but across the state from Port Elliot on the Fleurieu Peninsula to the electorates of the member for King, the member for Newland, the member for Elder and the member for Dunstan.

We have been inundated as an opposition by those who were very anxious about the finality of this bill. I welcome the amendments that have landed at the eleventh hour. A rising tide lifts all boats and it is clear from particular clauses that speak to existing contracts before the commencement of this act, that as residents wake up tomorrow and are notified by their membership body, SARVRA, led ably by not just the former president Bob Ainsworth, the outgoing president Roger Adamson, but in her role Margaret Hawkins. They are a strong advocacy body who made sure that their members' needs, their residents' needs were being advocated for at the highest level.

I also want to recognise the support and contributions and advice that I have benefited from, from Ollie Luckhurst-Smith, Annabel Wilkins and Daniel Gannon. The Retirement Living Council represents as a peak body a significant sector in the space of providing housing options for our ageing population and I do not say elderly, I say ageing. They are ageing well and they are entitled, after many years of hard work, to see options available to them.

I include my own parents in the category of baby boomers and a hardworking generation who are looking to the government, at the state and federal level, for signals that we are open for business, that there are options for ageing well, whether that is ageing well at home, whether it is retirement living, separate to retirement villages, or a residence that, through virtue of innovation and tech in this space, is going to give them their best life.

On behalf of the opposition, I am proud of the role that we have played in nudging the government in working with stakeholders and listening to residents' concerns that this bill was not going far enough to meet their needs.

In fact, here we are, through the dinner break having been in receipt of amendments that did not afford us any opportunity to further consult or seek feedback. The best timeframe available to us was the 90 minutes in the dinner break, and yet many things are possible when there is a deadline to meet.

I thank the minister for the work that he has done and the role that he has played in receiving the PEG Consulting piece that really triggered the YourSAy consultation process. Many hundreds of submissions came in from across the state, and there was the thoughtful, considered approach that residents took—and so they had to, because everything was on the line: their nest egg, their income, their asset, their home and, for many of these residents, a future inheritance or gift that they had considered for their children, their family, their loved ones. This bill was an opportunity to find that balance. I am grateful and pleased that the amendments that dropped through the dinner break met those needs. I am pleased to support the bill.

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (21:51): I rise to thank a couple of my local constituents who have been important in this debate; they are Jodie and Mark Prosser. They have certainly been great advocates for that sector for many years and have done a great job in actually delivering for their sector by communicating, particularly to the shadow minister. I think they have done a fantastic job in what has been able to be achieved and are really thrilled that they have been able to be involved in that process.

Bill read a third time and passed.