Retirement Villages Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 20 October 2016.)

Clause 26.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On 18 October I moved:

Amendment No 7 [Wade–1]—

Page 18, lines 2 and 3 [clause 26(2)]—Delete '(or a person claiming under the resident)'

Reflecting on progress since we last met, the Liberal Party will be supporting progressing this bill today. The Liberal Party did not and does not oppose the statutory buyback, but in the absence of a regulatory impact statement we sought to have the entitlement limited to current and former residents. When the committee last met we sought the support of the council to pause progress of the bill while further analysis was undertaken, so the council could be properly informed as to the impact of the bill.

Before doing so, we had had good discussions with a range of stakeholders and felt that there was a window of opportunity to develop an agreed set of amendments to improve the bill. There was an opportunity to do three things: (1) to reduce the risk to operators; (2) to enhance the rights and entitlements of current and former residents, and; (3) to protect the future supply of units to future residents.

Over the past week the opportunity for improvement evaporated, which I think is disappointing. While the government will be putting a couple of amendments which, in our view, improve the bill, I think much more was possible. We remain concerned at the possible impact of the bill on residents, operators and the industry as a whole. Over the past week the Property Council has done a survey of operators and financiers, which reinforces those concerns. The council surveyed members and non-members: 45 per cent of the operators who responded to the survey were not-for-profit providers. The survey found that if the bill is passed in its current form almost 60 per cent of operators would build fewer villages, therefore that would impact on supply. One-third of financiers will stop lending to the retirement villages, which would also impact on supply, and 80 per cent of valuers felt that the valuation of units would go down. A fall in valuations, obviously, would impact on residents.

The survey was undertaken by the Property Council and its findings would need to be tested, but they are the sort of questions that we consider should be asked and the sort of analysis that the government should have undertaken before bringing this bill to the parliament. The government's tardiness is a risk that will be borne by residents, current and future, as much as by operators. Having said that, I think I have canvassed thoroughly the benefits of limiting the statutory buyback to current and former residents and not to deceased estates, but I appreciate, with my discussion with colleagues, that there is not support in the council for that amendment, so whilst I am moving it I will not be dividing on it.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government appreciates the Hon. Mr Wade's comments and his considered retreat on this position, given the numbers in the chamber. I applaud him for that. Just to remind people where we got up to, the Liberal Party amendments essentially seek to create two classes of people, those living residents and those who have died, and would treat the estates of the dead in a different way from those who are still alive.

The opposition, in framing this amendment, fails to take into consideration, I believe, that this would have a detrimental impact on the sector more generally because when people come to settle their affairs, to put together their will, and if the Hon. Mr Wade's amendment was passed, they would understandably be concerned that their estates would be treated differently and may not be disbursed to their chosen heirs and successors in a timely fashion. That would then cause some people to rethink going into such a retirement village. We say that this is a negative inducement and should not be in the legislation. I do understand that there is not support for Mr Wade's amendment and so I thank him for his contribution.

Amendment negatived.