HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-05-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Retirement Villages Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:34): I rise to continue my remarks about the Retirement Villages Bill 2016. Before the adjournment, I was speaking about all the villages in my electorate that provide such great service for people who want to access and use them—and they come from far and wide. I must say that my mother-in-law has just moved into a village. She wanted to scale down a bit and found a lovely place, so I commend her for that.

There are a couple of things I want to talk about in regard to clause 26 of the bill, that is, statutory buyback and retrospectivity. I really do respect residents' rights to have access to their money if they want to leave the licence in regard to occupying a residence in a retirement village, but there is another factor that needs to be taken into account. I know that the minister initially was going to go with a 12-month statutory buyback provision; that has been pushed out to 18 months. The government seemed to think that that will protect everyone involved.

The one fear I have—and just remember what I said earlier; I do not want this to be used out of context—is that we need to protect residents' rights, but we also need to protect the ability to house residents in future decades. This is where I think there is a real issue with the statutory buyback provision, especially in regional areas and certainly right throughout the state. In regional areas, the problem with trying to get investment in anything, whether it is retirement villages or someone purchasing a business, is that generally you need to have a higher rate of equity just because you are, as a matter of fact, in a regional area. A rate as high as 60 per cent could be required by most of the banks, and that is a lot of equity to have in a business.

For someone who has many properties in a retirement village, who has had to borrow to have 60 per cent equity, they have made a large investment. As discussed earlier by the members for Morphett and Heysen, if all of a sudden this provision goes through unamended a lot of people may decide to exit, and if, for whatever reason, they cannot have their licensed properties sold off, all of a sudden the operator is put in the position where he or she has to buy the licence for those dwellings. In effect, that is making it 160 per cent equity in those dwellings. In my mind, none of that adds up. If the minister can convince me that it adds up, that is fine, but in my mind I cannot see how it will add up.

The issue for me—and I have heard especially from small operators of retirement villages—is that they could very easily fall over and go out of business. So, yes, I absolutely respect the fact that people in our retirement villages have rights, and they have to have their exit rights, but if we do not get this part of the legislation right we will not have enough retirement villages in the future, and I believe that to be a fact.

Some of us in this place are over 55 and some of us are heading that way, which is the criterion to go into these places, so as we all get older we are going to need many more of these villages in the future. I have had retired farmers from my area go into these places, and I mentioned one in here before. He was a farmer from Coomandook and I thought, 'He'll never stay there. He'll never enjoy it. He'll be scooting back to the farm, checking out what the boys are doing with the cropping or checking the sheep, and that sort of thing.'

I could not have been further from the truth. Yes, he may have done that a few times, but at the end of the day he found a lifestyle in that village. With a friend of his, an auctioneer from one of the major firms, I think they almost run the show—or I think they think they run the show—and that is great. They have great facilities, great social facilities, eight ball and a big hall. It is great for camaraderie, especially for people who are heading into their twilight years.

But something else that is noticeable in Murray Bridge and Goolwa, and I have certainly picked it up in Murray Bridge, is that many people from further down in the South-East, all the way to Mount Gambier, who do not want to move into a city retirement village complex will come to Murray Bridge. They are within an hour of the city and, hopefully, it will not be not too long before we get a Metro ticketed bus service.

We will just keep working on that because that is what we really need to invigorate Murray Bridge not just for our elderly people but for our students, our young and our people who commute to work in Adelaide, even the ones who commute from Adelaide to Murray Bridge; either way, it will be a great boon for the town and the area. There are many people who will come that far knowing that they are within striking distance of Adelaide and the specialist health care they may need into the future, but they still want to have that ambience of the country life and so that is as far as they will come to get close to the city.

In my mind, we need to get this right on both sides of the ledger. We need to have it absolutely correct so that people in our retirement villages can have a comfortable lifestyle and can get out with decent equity at the end, whether it is them or, sadly, on their passing, whether it is the family, and get the right outcomes when the licence to occupy is ceased in one shape or form. We also have to make sure that we can secure that investment into the future because sometime in the future I do not want to be the—I was going to say 'little old grey man', but I am a grey man now—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You're not little—

Mr PEDERICK: I am not little, fair enough—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —or old.

Mr PEDERICK: —or old. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Flattery will get you everywhere. I do not want to be the person who said, 'Well, we didn't have enough debate or take this through committee long enough to get the right outcomes and now I can't get access to that retirement village that I wanted.'

I welcome debate on the bill and look forward to the committee stage to see if we can flesh out some answers, certainly in regard to clause 26. The other cause for concern I had was the retrospectivity that would come straight into that so that for people who have signed legal contracts essentially those contracts become null and void because of that clause. We need to get it right for everyone. We need to get it right for current residents, for immediate future residents and for those residents of the middle and longer term future who will need these facilities. They do a great job for health and wellbeing. The community facilities in these retirement villages are just fantastic. I welcome future debate on the bill.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:44): I rise to speak on the Retirement Villages Bill 2016 and indicate that I will be supporting the bill. I further disclose that I was a chair of the Home and Community Care advisory board for about eight years prior to coming to this place. Accordingly, I have had some interest in assistance to both frail aged and those with a disability in securing alternative and independent accommodation, particularly advocating for the services for people to remain living in their own home. I consider the dwellings within a retirement village people's own homes. Secondly, I wish to acknowledge and thank representatives from the Office for the Ageing who provided a briefing on this bill on 12 May 2016.

Of course, dwellings provide accommodation for us and differ throughout our life. Often, if we are lucky, in our childhood we come from a comfortable home in a family environment; sadly, others live in tents, cars, and other amenities. We like to hope that most of our younger people will, of course, enjoy some secure accommodation when growing up.

As a single person leaving home, flats, apartments and warehouses seem to be the order of the day. Then moving to a family home—if, of course, one partners and elects to have a family—is usually a natural progression. In the more advanced years (if and when the children ever leave home these days), of course one looks to have other lock-up accommodation, together with the caravan and whatever else they want to do—usually buying a bike and lycra pants seems to be the option these days. In any event, there is a changing requirement for that time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you going to?

Ms CHAPMAN: No, nowhere near that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must say that I think I have more 60-year-old blokes in lycra pants in my electorate than anywhere else in the world. In any event, there are plenty of them.

In the course of that advance in years, if we are lucky enough to, firstly, survive to a mature age (and I put that into the 85 to 90-year-old age range), usually we need some other accommodation. Of course, that may be nursing homes and the like, but there is often a post family home period when smaller accommodation and then accommodation that has some extra services are attractive.

Retirement villages are usually smaller than the home we have had as an active adult during our employment years, etc., and they are often more accessible—they have wider doors, they have fewer steps. They are built with contemplation of maturing or, as they say, 'ageing in place'. About 85 per cent of us, I suppose thankfully, pass away before we ever have the need for or, in fact, ultimately end up in a nursing home or high-care facility of that kind.

This period of our life is when we are looking for smaller, more suitable accommodation, and it is usually a key investment and an important investment. It is one which has historically, when we have a shared village arrangement in a retirement village scenario, attracted legislation for good reason, that is, to regulate the fact that there is a whole occupation of parties in a small area. They share a lot of amenities, it is more than just a strata flat arrangement, and there is quite a significant overlap of services.

As I say, with ageing in place policy initiatives, there is a significant demand for there to be a secure structure, usually by regulation, and that is what we have under the Retirement Villages Act. It has been under review, and I thank those members, including our own members, who served on a review to advise us on this matter because I think all legislation needs to be updated and improved from time to time, and this is one such area. Can I just say three things about this legislation; one is that I think it is always important to remember that those moving into a retirement village scenario are not some aged, ipso facto decrepit, person who is simply incapable of making their own decisions.

It is fair to say that if somebody is making a decision about going into a retirement village and investing a significant amount of money in the purchase of a facility, having recently lost a spouse, for example, or going through some emotional trauma as a result of leaving a family home, or having not had much education, or not having been in the workforce or not having experienced a major acquisition on their own before, are all things that could make them more vulnerable, indeed exploited, in a circumstance when they may not be familiar with all the legalities of what they are signing up to. I would just urge that, in looking at this legislation, we stop thinking of everyone who is over 70 or 65 as being some kind of complete incompetent.

I remember when my father was about that age and, post surgery, required some accommodation, he was quite resistant. He compared it to incarceration, as though he was being locked up in this facility. I can remember him going in and saying, 'Just don't assume that I am some soup-through-a-straw-sucking senior.' I thought he had said something else at the time. Nevertheless, I got the point: one is not to assume that everyone over a certain age suddenly has cerebral incapacity or turns to custard or whatever. These people are frequently active, intelligent, and certainly very well able to enter into and complete commercial arrangements with the acquisition of their homes.

For us in the parliament to take this paternalistic view that is frequently espoused is wrong and I do not think it represents the population we are talking about. If we are talking about someone who is in an advanced stage of dementia, who is physically completely incapacitated, who is unable to speak, sure, we are into the category of (thankfully) a very small minority of the population who might get to that stage in their latter years, but age does not of itself mean we are dealing with incompetence. I just want to remind people that there ought to be some respect for those who are buying property in this area.

That is why it is important to remember that we have consumer protection law. We have a lot of it in different forms. We have had it, really, since the seventies, and it has certainly expanded over time. I have no issue with that, but I do not think we should be treating a senior person as some kind of imbecile and in need of our protection, as distinct from having consumer protection rights. There is a vast difference and I think we should remind ourselves of that as we go through this.

The second thing I would say concerns the statutory repayment provision. Generally, I share the view of a number of other members that it is a fairly blunt instrument to deal with a minority of people who might find themselves the victim of some mischief, in being stuck in a retirement village situation and needing to access their funds. At first blush, of course, these types of provisions do not usually sit well with Liberals. The retrospectivity alone would make us quite alert, as well as the interference with parties' rights to be able to contract freely, but we do need to consider those who may miss out.

The circumstances of those who are in a retirement village and need to get out have been addressed from the point of view of their moving to another facility, usually a higher care facility. I think other members have addressed that. Certainly, our lead speaker has and I will not cover that again. I just want to deal with the few per cent who have to leave for other reasons—not because they die, not because they are going to a nursing home, but because their circumstances have changed.

The ones I deal with—and there are not many of them—are very concerning. They are usually people who have either gone back into the workforce because they need to, and they need to be able to move address to facilitate that, or they have acquired the responsibility of children—often, grandchildren. The parents of these children are unable to care for them; sometimes, they have passed away or are in gaol or are in some way incapacitated.

Suddenly, a couple who have sold their home, bought a small car and moved into a retirement village find that they have three young children for whom they have to take responsibility—willingly, of course—but their residential accommodation is not suitable and it would, of course, offend the rules of the retirement village for them to bring children into the facility. We do have to have a way for people to be able to sever that interest.

Another thing I would like to say is that the residential parks review of the Attorney-General also started a few months ago. We do not have many of those in South Australia. I thought we had dealt with the stamp duty issue at the election when, I recall, Mr Foley, the then member for Port Adelaide, was the treasurer, in that there should not be stamp duty applicable to the transfer of interests on a right to occupy in residential parks. At least for that election, it was resolved. I am actually told, and it is only anecdotal at this point, that there is still stamp duty payable on the transfer of these interests, which I think is dreadful. I think the government should be looking at that.

I hope the government gets on with this review. It was announced a few months ago by the Attorney-General, and I think we need to address some of the concerns that the occupants in the facilities in those residential parks have to face. I was just going to reach for the reference to it, which I seem to have lost, but, in any event, we clearly need to deal with that, and I would urge the Attorney-General to get on with it.

If I can just return to the Retirement Villages Act itself, the one thing I would like to refer to is the standard disclosure statement. Again, this is the government's attempt, as they have often done in legislation, to prepare a one size fits all, one or two page document that gives a little summary in plain English that identifies important factors.

In consumer protection legislation, we have had this for a number of years. For example, when you take out a loan, from which there are interest payments, there has to be disclosure by the lender, in a form, of the total amount of the loan, the total amount of interest paid and the total years of repayment, etc., so that there is a snapshot of the obligation of the person who is borrowing the money to understand, in short, what their liability is going to be. It is a clear identification rather than the 30-page document that might sit behind it that has a mortgage registered over real estate, etc.

I wish the people well who are doing this. I saw how difficult it was for the advance care directives drafters to have to come up with a document in relation to this. I am told it will probably be 18 months before we actually get one, and it will need to be discussed with various stakeholders and the like. Obviously, the biggest concern with these for me is what is omitted rather than what is in these documents.

You might have a 30 or 40-page document that sits underneath it. You might have a code of practice, a code of conduct and a whole lot of other documents or copies of documents that are required to be provided at the time of the execution of the transfer documents and really not have a clear understanding of what is in them or of what, for a lot of people, is seen as legal mumbo-jumbo, most of which you would think would never apply to you and most of which will not apply to the party who is in it but, if it is not in the document, it could of course leave someone exposed to a risk down the track.

When you do these short documents, these one-page statements, these disclosure statements with the key issues, the biggest problem for me is what is missed out. I note the disclosure statement is now going to be in the proposed legislation as just one more of a multitude of documents that need to be served on the prospective purchaser, all of which, I suspect, will actually be read thoroughly by the prospective purchaser. If we miss out key information, then I think, unfortunately, that prospective purchaser may not make a wise decision.

Another issue is that it is apparently to be used as a comparator so that you can look there and think, 'Okay, I get these years of occupation and this amount of space. These amenities are provided.' You go down the list, and you can then use it as some kind of standard form comparator for other products you might be looking to buy. It is a bit like checking to see what the product will give you when deciding what sort of health insurance to buy. I think that can be concerning if it is a document which, ultimately, is too simple and does not actually provide sufficient information for a fair comparison to be made between the products that will be available.

With those concerning matters, I thank those who have prepared the bill, provided briefings and of course undertaken the comprehensive work. I will say that I have members of my electorate who have various residential facilities, including the Garden Cottages at Beaumont and the Greengate Garden Cottages also in Beaumont. Many of my residents aspire to reside at the Glenbrook in Glenside, which is now in the state seat of Unley but which has lots of my former residents, and Leabrook Place at Leabrook.

Each of these, I am pleased to say, is very pet friendly and, apart from men in lycra, the other thing I have more per square inch of in Bragg is pets. They are great companion animals and they are very important for people as they mature, particularly if they are ageing on their own. I think it is terribly important for all those who make provision for accommodation in the future that that is maintained. I should have also mentioned our Garden Cottages at St Georges.

There are a number of facilities available, and we want people to continue to invest in them. They provide a very good accommodation model for many people in mature age, in active mature age, and I think it is important that we continue to review the regulatory regime we have around it. It may prove that this statutory buyback is unnecessary to the extent of protection, but nevertheless it is one which we want to ensure for those who are vulnerable in this category that they have some opportunity of repayment and are not prejudiced if they are on their way to other aged-care facilities.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (16:01): I will not hold the house for very long. I will state from the outset that I will be supporting the bill in its current form, as you would expect, but I just want to make a few comments. Like most people here, my electorate has many retirement villages and they are occupied by very decent people, and I have a good relationship with them. It is true to say, too, that I have been inundated with inquiries on this particular bill by those residents and I have done my best to engage them in such a way that I give them the answers that I possibly can and, if I do not know the answers, I get those answers from the minister's office and relay those answers faithfully to them.

My mother was in one of those retirement villages. She was at Aveo at Fulham. I think it actually falls in Fulham Gardens; it is just on the border anyway. It was a small village with 48 homes. She enjoyed her time there and she enjoyed the people she met there. However, one of the things that became obvious over a period of time through speaking with mum and others was the lack of transparency that existed at the time of her going in. Many people finish up going to a retirement village in a very rushed manner. There was not a great understanding of the contract that she signed. She signed it, so was bound by that contract, and quite rightly so.

However, at the time of her needing to get a higher level of support—and that is the main reason the majority of people leave a retirement village. They have got to that stage of their life where they require a greater level of care and support, so she moved into a nursing home, St Laurence's Court Nursing Home in High Street—again, a very good nursing home in my electorate. One of the difficulties that arose was at the time of her moving, and I guess we understood it when she entered there, was that transition from a financial perspective from the retirement village into the nursing home.

It cost her a bit of money to get into the nursing home based on the assets she had. She was not a very wealthy person; my family has never been and I am carrying on the tradition of never being a very wealthy family. It cost a bit of money—about $310,000, I think—to get into the nursing home. Quite frankly, at that stage, the significant asset that she possessed was that money that was the licence to occupy as it related to her retirement village.

As it turned out, it was $310,000 to get into the nursing home and, if you did not pay it in a period of time, your interest accrued but it accrued in such a way that it meant, for example, after eight or nine months (or seven months or whatever it was), where I was not in a position to pay her bond, at the end of that period she still owed $310,000, but the bond value was only worth $280,000 or something like that. In that period of time she lost $12,000. So, I went out and borrowed the money, because if we had kept it—

An honourable member: You could.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I could. If we had kept it at that rate her $310,000 would be nothing with respect to what happens when she passes, but we would still owe that $310,000. So, I had discussions with the retirement village people. I understood that they would advertise it. I will put this into context, if I can: she ended up paying $148,000 (or thereabouts) to go into the retirement village. It was quite a good price at that time, bearing in mind it was 13 to 15 years ago. By the time she left it was valued at, I think (I do not have the exact figure), $280,000, so it was a significant capital gain.

By the time costs were taken out of that for refurbishment, and they were only going to give it a little brush over but the costs involved with that were significant, the cost of advertising and the ongoing costs of maintaining that place during that period of time, even in her absence, she would get $163,000, I think was the offer for that. So, the capital gain for her, because she was on one of those arrangements where the contract said: you will get 75 per cent of the capital value of that property at sale, less the costs involved with advertising and all of those things I mentioned earlier.

I was very fortunate, I guess, because I had asked them, 'Well, you tell me that you're going to give it a light brush over,' and 10 years earlier that is all it had when she moved in there, 'I think it would be in the best interests of you as an organisation to give it a proper makeover so that it will be more attractive to people to buy that licence to occupy it.'

They said no and then they changed their mind and said, 'Look, Paul, we've been thinking about it, we think we should, and it's not going to cost you anything. What we will do is we will keep it at the value it is and the differential will be taken from the sale price and it won't cost your mum anything in regard to the value at which it should be sold.' They then came back and said, and I got the letter of offer, and I think it was down to about $148,000, or maybe $158,000, but $5,000, $6,000 or $7,000 less than they had offered previously, with the proper refurbishment. I said, 'In all conscience, I can't do that because we're talking about what is my mother's money.'

They said, 'Alright, we'll just go ahead and give it a small brush over.' Interestingly, they made a mistake. They sent me a letter that said, 'Look, we believe the property is worth $203,000.' I thought: they have made a mistake, but it was a mistake in mum's favour so I signed the document and sent it back. A week later I got this phone call saying, 'Look, we've made a mistake.' I said, 'I know you have, but we've signed a contract, just like the contract my mother signed.'

I said, 'Look, here's the deal: you provide the $163,000 as previously offered immediately for the sale of that place and we'll forget about the $203,000 contract that I have signed,' and that was the deal we struck. I was fortunate. I know that most people in a retirement village will not be as fortunate as that. It provided me with, on behalf of my mother, $163,000 and at least to pay off a significant portion of that which I had borrowed to get her into the nursing home.

The point I am making, in a very long-winded way, and as you know, Deputy Speaker, I am renown for being long-winded on occasions, is that it was a very trying period. It was not trying for my mother because I tried to protect her from what was going on, so she did not know, but it was very trying for me to be able to navigate my way through the terms and conditions of the contract and what it actually meant.

I know the bill before us today is going to not only clarify but make it an obligation to ensure that it is far more transparent for those people who are signing on to a retirement village, to be actually told and to ensure that they understand what they are signing up for. That will not mean the contracts will necessarily change so much, but there will be a greater obligation to make sure that there is an understanding of what it is that you are signing up for. So, I support that aspect of the bill.

I will say that the very genesis of me pushing early, along with others, to have a committee look into the Retirement Villages Act actually stemmed from my experience, and I presume also the experience of some of my colleagues in this place, and I thought it was a good thing to do. It is also safe to say that I have had discussions with the minister, and I am certainly accepting of the bill and I am going to accept the 18-month period. I did not support that initially, and I make no bones about that, because I thought it should have been a shorter period of time and there should have been a greater obligation or requirement on the retirement village owners to meet that 12-month requirement.

I accept that what we have before us today, from my perspective, is a compromise, and I accept the compromise that has been put forward. Whether or not all my constituents do is a different matter, but it is up to me to engage them in such a way that they understand that this is a better deal than what they currently have and it will offer some benefits to them and others who are moving into retirement villages.

I will be asking the minister some questions during the committee stage on that matter and other aspects of the bill that will help me to be able to communicate better with the constituents that I represent. It has been a pretty emotional issue within my electorate, as I said, and I have done my best to support my constituents, and I will continue to do so.

The point that was made by the member for Heysen earlier was a very interesting point. That point was specifically about the new generation of people coming through, people of my age. God help me, I will be 59 in August and I think—

Mr Bell: Time to get out.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I know. You wake up one morning, your kids are 29 and 25, you look in the mirror, you are 59 and you say, 'How the heck did that happen so quickly? You are mostly through your life now, there ain't much time left.' I do not want to be morbid, but what I do want to say is this: I am obviously (and this goes without saying) of a different generation from my mother and indeed a lot of people who are in retirement villages today. I will say this: the proprietors of retirement villages—who I think have made a lot of money over a period of time and expect to continue to make a lot of money out of what is essentially a business for them, and I have no problem with that—are themselves going to have to evolve their business because more discerning people, people who expect a lot more (I think the member for Heysen called them the baby boomers, and I fall into that category) are going to demand and expect different arrangements from the ones that exist today.

I also think that this bill will, in part, be a process by which the thinking of those retirement village owners will evolve in such a way that they know they are going to have to tweak their product, sometimes significantly, to actually attract people like me, people of my age, into those retirement villages. So, I welcome that as well. I do not think we have seen the end of the debate on retirement villages. I believe that the ball is going to be squarely in their court to make what they have today a far more attractive proposition for people like me, and others, to even contemplate going into a retirement village. As I said earlier, I do not always agree with the member for Heysen (even though what she says is always well considered), but I think she was spot on with that particular point she made.

I do not want to keep the house any longer. I congratulate and thank the minister for bringing this bill to the house. I think it is an important step forward. I think it will be the mechanism by which we as a parliament will continue to play a role in setting, if you like, the foundations and on that the framework from which the industry will continue to evolve, because it is a very important industry, not just for those people who make money out of it but, more importantly, for those who are transitioning from certain aspects of their life today to how they want to live tomorrow and how they want to live in the future.

Again, I commend the minister for the work that she has undertaken. I thank her staff for their openness and their availability on all occasions and, in finishing, I also want to thank all my constituents who have contacted me, in particular Mr Roly Sellars, who has been very good. He is like a dog with a bone: he will not let go. He has only one thing at heart: not self interest, but the interests of those people who currently occupy a position or have a licence to occupy a position in a retirement village. I say 'licence to occupy' knowing that I am using that phrase in a more generic sense. There are different arrangements in place for different retirement villages regarding what they have signed to get in there and what applies to them.

I also want to thank and acknowledge the work undertaken by Brian Mowbray, along with Roly. He has been to see me on numerous occasions, and they have done what they think is the right thing to do. I support them in in that and in a way agree with what they have done. I will finish off by thanking the minister again and I commend the bill to the house.

Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (16:15): It is a pleasure to be able to speak today on the Retirement Villages Bill that is before parliament. Retirement villages are a very important part of my electorate. There are a number of large retirement villages in my electorate, reflecting the ageing demographic of the part of Adelaide which I am fortunate enough to represent, and particularly around the suburbs of Somerton Park, Brighton and Hove, which are known as communities which have a significant proportion of ageing residents within those suburbs. As such, we do find fairly significant retirement villages within that part of the electorate.

We have one of the largest retirement villages in metropolitan Adelaide within the electorate at Somerton Park, and that is Somerton Park Seniors' Living Community, which was previously the Masonic village on Diagonal Road.

Dr McFetridge: Always the best booth.

Mr SPEIRS: A paired booth with the member for Morphett and a very significant retirement centre can be found there. There is also Townsend Park at Hove, the new Minda Dunes development at North Brighton, Sturt Palms at Brighton, and Voules Close and Noble Close just across the road from my electorate office, also in Brighton. So I do represent a large number of residents who live in retirement villages and call those places home.

The bill which is before us today does make for interesting reading. I believe this bill is well overdue. There is no doubt that legislative reform is required with regard to retirement villages in South Australia. The act which it seeks to update is the Retirement Villages Act of 1987. When legislation was first formulated to deal with retirement villages in South Australia, it is fair to say that it was a far less complex jurisdiction than it is now.

The retirement villages of old tended to be small clusters of residences, often run by not-for-profit organisations and often church based. There might be a little close or a cohort of retirement properties put together through funding from a church or another not-for-profit organisation, and these would be dotted around the metropolitan area. Since legislation in this area was first introduced, the sector has become much more complex. There has been the arrival of very large national operators who may have hundreds or even thousands of retirement units within their holdings, not necessarily just in Adelaide but also interstate and potentially even overseas.

I know in the past there have been superannuation funds and large organisations purchasing retirement villages, and that has not always gone to plan. There have been examples across the nation of retirement village operations going bankrupt, leaving significant complexities behind, often before buildings were actually completed. I did represent a constituent quite some time ago, early in my time in this office, who had lost money through a down payment in a retirement village which subsequently went bankrupt before the development was complete.

This is a sector that has become more complex in the last couple of decades, and with it the expectations on residents of retirement villages have also become more complex. They are now entering into much more complex contracts than might have traditionally been the case. They are entering agreements with organisations that have far more capacity in terms of creating legal contracts, and also fighting legal contracts, and administering retirement villages.

It may be the case that that one-on-one relationship, which was quite easy to establish between a retirement village occupant and the owner-operator of the retirement village, which was traditionally the case when they were a small not-for-profit or church-based organisations, might be much harder to establish in these large conglomerate villages owned by companies that are far removed from the village themselves.

That is not always the case. There are still lots of examples of those small retirement villages in operation, particularly in rural and regional South Australia and also dotted across metropolitan Adelaide. I know that the retirement villages I represent, while some are large, do try their best to create a relationship with residents, and that often is a positive relationship, although it is not without its difficulties from time to time, particularly in the larger operators.

When we come to retirement villages, it is often worth asking why someone would enter into a retirement village environment and decide to spend what are often their twilight years in such accommodation. There is no doubt that a big driver for people moving into retirement villages is the need for additional security, the peace of mind that retirement villages give them, the idea that these are often gated communities, that they can lock up their homes and go away overseas or interstate for extended periods of time and know that their homes are going to be relatively safe.

People move into retirement villages to establish a greater sense of community, with the hope that, being with a group of people of a similar demographic, they will be able to build relationships and involve themselves in community activities. Many retirement villages do offer community facilities; some have swimming pools, some have community centres, some have games areas, some have social programs, and that appeals to many older people.

There is also the concept of downsizing. I come across elderly people time and time again when I am out and about doorknocking who are either in retirement villages or who are contemplating going into retirement villages because they are in the homes that they have had since having children, large suburban homes which might have three, four or five bedrooms, a large garden, perhaps a swimming pool, large living areas, and outdoor living areas.

These are difficult for people to afford or manage the upkeep of themselves, perhaps because of declining physical capacity or just because they want a bit more time on their hands, so they look to downsize, to get rid of that larger family home, and move into smaller retirement village accommodation. There is a range of reasons and motivations for people entering retirement village accommodation.

When someone asks me for my opinion about retirement villages, I always caution people to make sure they have thought of all the options. Is going into a retirement village the right approach for them at the moment, or should they be looking at perhaps getting a bit of extra help, whether that is through the council or looking at a reverse mortgage on their home to pay for a gardener and a cleaner to come in once a week or once a fortnight?

That might give them the flexibility to stay in their home, to stay in the community that often they love. That is an option open to them, as opposed to necessarily selling that home, leaving a community they know and entering into a retirement village environment. I think it is important for older people to know that retirement villages are not the only option available for them if they want to downsize or make life a little bit easier.

Since my election, I have been running quarterly seniors forums in my electorate, where we try to pick a topic of interest for older people living in the community. We put on a guest speaker, we have a complimentary afternoon tea and bring people together to learn about a particular topic. We have done a range of topics in the two years that I have been a member of parliament, but one that was very well attended was our accommodation options seniors forum that we held a few months ago. There was no doubt that it created an environment where people were able to have their awareness raised and to ask questions about the various accommodation options that would be available to them if they were looking to either stay in their own home or downsize as they aged.

We had a guest speaker from the Seniors Information Service who came along and spoke to the group of about 120 residents who attended that forum. The speaker went through the various options that residents had with regard to their accommodation as they entered into and progressed through their senior years. It was really interesting, from my point of view, to sit there and listen to that presentation and consider the various options, the reverse mortgage that can be used to assist people to get that extra bit of help to stay in their own homes, the downsizing into a unit or an apartment which does not necessarily need to be in a retirement village—it could be a private residence in the community—or, of course, the retirement village option and then, further down the track, perhaps a nursing home option.

In relation to retirement villages, one message that was put across very firmly at the seniors forum that I hosted was that seniors need to go into the retirement village with their eyes wide open and not to think that this is going to necessarily be a straightforward venture. Yes, it might be more straightforward when they get there and when they get established, but both at entry and exit there can be a particularly unique set of challenges and complexities they have to work through, bearing in mind that at both the entry and the exit point of retirement villages residents who are looking to move in or move out are going to probably be in a particularly vulnerable state.

The emotion of leaving the family home, the emotion of perhaps making a decision to move into a retirement village upon the death of a spouse, the difficulties that surround moving, and the stresses that come with that, are a unique set of circumstances and vulnerabilities that arrive at the entry point to a retirement village. But equally, when people are potentially looking to leave a retirement village at the end of their time there, there is also a unique set of vulnerabilities, likely to involve failing health, physical frailties that might have emerged or family pressures to look at moving into nursing home accommodation, and so that needs to be considered as well.

We are dealing with a vulnerable group of people who are making major accommodation-based decisions and who may need additional support to help them work through those. The message from our seniors forum was that retirement villages are certainly an option, and a good option for thousands of South Australians who choose to live in such accommodation, but it is very important that older people go into these villages with their eyes wide open and that they have the requisite support to assist them moving into the retirement village environment, that they go through the contracting process, and that they are fully aware of their rights and responsibilities as they contract to enter a retirement village.

The piece of advice that was given very firmly by our guest speaker at the seniors forum was that you must get legal advice. You must get professional independent legal advice from your family lawyer, or from a lawyer independent of the retirement village, so that you are aware of what you are contracting to do and that the key points of that contract are pointed out to you, highlighted, and you know what you are taking on. That certainly is something where legislation is needed to improve that process.

Too often we have situations where residents of retirement villages find that they have contracted to be responsible for a range of obligations, particularly financial obligations and exit fees at the close of their time in a retirement village, which are very onerous financially. They can cause a huge amount of stress if not properly understood and planned for, or avoided altogether by not entering the retirement village should people, when fully informed, realise that it is not for them. I have come across a few specific examples in my electorate of constituents who have not understood what was necessarily going to be required of them at the exit point. When they have come to look at leaving the retirement village accommodation, they have been confronted with exit fees that were far greater than they expected.

I represented one constituent who had gone into a retirement village when his health went into decline. Unfortunately for him, after about six months he found himself unexpectedly improving, and he decided that the retirement village probably was not for him. He had only been there six months, so you can imagine that, if he was in a residential tenancy environment, six months of rent might have been $6,000, $7,000 or $8,000, depending on what sort of accommodation he was in, but not a significant amount of money; whereas his exit fee from the retirement village after six months was $70,000—that is $70,000. You can imagine the huge chunk of his retirement savings that was lost as a result of that. He was able to negotiate a bit more of his funds to be released, but he still lost tens of thousands of dollars as part of that operation.

Another person, who is not in my electorate but whom I came across recently, had purchased their licence to occupy their retirement accommodation when the retirement village was being constructed. At the time of construction, they said, 'We really like open-plan living, and we would like you not to put in the wall between the living room and the kitchen.' They had a very spacious, attractive retirement unit that suited them really well. They are now at the point of looking at moving into perhaps nursing home accommodation and getting a bit of extra support, so they are looking to exit that retirement village.

They have been told by the retirement village operator that they need to return the unit to what it was when they contracted to buy it, which included the wall being in place between the living room and the kitchen. The unit is far better in its open-plan environment; for them to reinstate the wall will probably cost them $10,000 to $20,000 to do the work that is required, and it will reduce the overall amenity of the unit for future residents. That sort of thing is really quite ridiculous, but we do see these surprises emerge in retirement village contracts when residents come to exit. Unfortunately, we see them time and time again.

That is why I support wholeheartedly the government's approach to updating the Retirement Villages Act to make it more proactive with regard to a range of these disclosure items. I also commend the government for ensuring that legislation requires the responsible management of residents' funds, by strengthening audit requirements and improving transparency in financial reporting, and ensuring that residents know where their money is going with regard to maintenance fees and the various fees they have to pay to be part of retirement villages.

In closing, I would also like to make mention of the buyback provision, which is legally quite unusual because it is a retrospective provision requiring the buyback of a retirement village unit if it is not relicensed within an 18-month period. That is unusual legally, but I think it is worth supporting because of the unique vulnerabilities associated with people in a retirement village environment—not only those vulnerabilities when they enter but the particular vulnerabilities when they exit through failing health and need to be able to access their funds as quickly as possible. I commend this legislation to the house and I look forward to it being progressed into law.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (16:35): Retirement villages are a very important part of my electorate and probably, actually, one of the quiet achievers. The Barossa Valley, or Schubert more broadly, is actually over-represented when it comes to ageing demographic certainly from a South Australian and also from an Australian standpoint.

Within the over-60 to 64 bracket, Schubert has a 7.2 per cent population compared with 6.1 in SA and 5.6 in Australia. Similarly, for the 65 to 69 bracket, Schubert is at 5.2 versus 4.7 in SA and 4.3 in Australia and for the 70 to 74 bracket, it is 3.9 versus 3.7 and 3.3. That means that Schubert's age spread is older than South Australia's and that South Australia's is older than Australia's.

Anecdotally, the Barossa is an especially prized place to come to retire. People decide to come from all over the state and, indeed, all over the country to retire to the Barossa. They come because they obviously enjoy a glass of wine but also because it is such a beautiful community to live in. It has low crime rates. It has a very positive, well-fostered community culture where people come together and look after each other, and it is a great place to spend those golden years.

That means that, by definition, Schubert also has numerous retirement villages and independent living units spread throughout the electorate. What is quite interesting about the electorate is that all of these, except for the aged-care facilities that are run out of hospitals, are actually small community-owned or not-for-profit centres. The biggest in my electorate is Barossa Village which centres around Nuriootpa and has 165 independent living units and 55 high-care and 23 low-care beds.

It is quite a sizeable operation whose board is filled with local community leaders and which prides itself on providing a level of amenity and care that Barossa residents have come to expect. One of those highlights is the fact that a glass of wine needs to be served with dinner, something they are very proud to provide. I was lucky to be there last year for the redevelopment they have been undertaking at their high-care facility and in the retirement village proper. It is a beautiful facility that caters very well to its clients.

In Tanunda, we have the Tanunda Lutheran Home, which has a new CEO, Lee Martin. I have been there on numerous occasions to open new independent living unit clusters, but I also go along for their strawberry fetes and their pancake brunches. I do find some decent bargains, especially some good jams, when I go along to those. They have 97 high-care beds and 20 low-care beds, as well as 88 independent living units. Indeed, they are including 30 secure dementia beds, which I think is extremely important.

They are the two larger facilities and they come with a great deal of sophistication. In talking with Chris Pfeiffer, who is the Chair of Tanunda Lutheran Homes, I find that run an extremely professional operation. We then move to a couple of small facilities. We have Abbeyfield at Williamstown which is a very small facility which relies very heavily on community fundraising. It has been extremely successful in doing that and really has become a hub for the community. Indeed, it is the largest employer in the town of Williamstown.

We also have Wheatfields at Freeling, which has 43 high-care beds and 10 low-care beds, including 17 secured dementia beds. We then have two other facilities run out of the Mannum District Hospital and the Mount Pleasant District Hospital. Mount Pleasant District Hospital has 13 high-care beds and Mannum District Hospital has 13 high-care beds but also has Aminya which has 32, although I think that has expanded now, low-care beds just next to the hospital.

The reason I mention all these facilities is that they are community-based, not-for-profit. In the case of the hospitals, the aged care part of the hospital underpins the continued existence of those hospitals. In Mount Pleasant especially, without the aged-care facility, the hospital would certainly still have accident and emergency and some other base services, but the vast majority of what they do is providing aged-care services, and that co-location is a great way to be able to keep those services within those towns and a great way to marry those things together.

The profile of centres within my community means that I have maybe a slightly different perspective on clause 26. I have had a number of residents come to me, and I am extremely supportive of their concerns around the statutory buyback provision. It is something they think is important and necessary, especially at those stages of life where people are more vulnerable, that there be an encumbrance put on retirement villages to actually look after the residents and provide some financial security in that way.

It is a principle that I very much support but, when I look at these not-for-profit facilities, what worries me is whether or not this provision is going to lead to financial hardship for those centres. I take a centre like Abbeyfield, which is extremely small and which has only survived on the great fundraising efforts of the community. Indeed I was out at the farm of Sheila Gordon. Her daughter Kate Thorsteinsen ran a great fundraiser out there to support Abbeyfield.

They run it every couple of years and, in the sheep stalls where the sheep come in to be shorn, they have basically converted the entire area into a black-tie ball. We had a brilliant night a number of months ago. The rain threatened but held off, and there was some brilliant swing and jazz music throughout the night. The food was fantastic. The wine was all donated by the community, and all of the proceeds will go back to Abbeyfield.

We have to be clear that clause 26 will place a greater financial impost upon retirement villages. I do not think we can get away from that fact, and I think we are openly discussing here that there needs to be that balance between the needs of residents and the needs of aged care facilities, but what worries me is that, in providing this facility—

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: This is about retirement villages. It is not about residential aged care, so can I just—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Can I just clarify that residential aged care is under the control of the commonwealth.

Mr KNOLL: This is extremely out of order, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, she is asking about relevance, and she can ask that. It is the established practice of the house to let members range fairly widely in the hope that we contain committee.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I mean no offence to the member for Schubert. I just wanted to clarify that this is about retirement villages.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay. The member for Schubert, the minister is just trying to clarify that this was not about residential aged care.

Mr KNOLL: We are talking about independent living units.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Mr KNOLL: So, my comments still stand.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the minister was trying to be genuinely helpful.

Mr KNOLL: All the facilities I was talking about actually provide both but, either way, to continue, especially with regard to Abbeyfield, it is a small centre, and I would hate to see this impost lead to that centre coming under greater hardship to the extent where they may not be able to continue. I think that is a risk we need to be alive to here because, whilst we are trying to protect residents, it is pretty hard to protect a resident when a facility is no longer financially viable. That is a balance I think we need to look at, and it is why we need to be very cautious with the way we implement this legislation in this place because, in trying to help residents, we may end up hurting them in the long term. It is something we need to be cautious of and something I think will be teased out further in debate as we continue on.

I would like to read out some concerns of a resident who I have been talking to on and off about this for about 18 months who has continually asked me to look at updates to this. I suppose we are now at a stage where we have a bill before this place, but it is something he and I have been talking about for quite a while. I want to read out some of his concerns. He has been very helpful in helping me to understand this and also to think about some of the broader issues. He has been resident in one of the facilities for four years. He says:

As a retirement village resident, I suggest the requirements of this bill need to be easily verifiable and transparent for the registrar and residents.

He goes on to talk quite specifically about a request that the new bill include, as a function of the registrar, the development of minimum requirements/standards for recurrent charges, and maintenance responsibilities with an annual compliance statement from operators. He goes on to suggest an accreditation system similar to what is in place for residential care facilities but a more simplified version.

He understands that there would be a cost to this and any accreditation cost would be passed on to residents. The accreditation could be as simple as requiring villages to submit order to compliance statements to the registrar on an annual basis within 10 business days of the residence AGM. He goes on to talk about how within the Barossa there is a difference in terms of the costs and the recurrent charges that are charged in different facilities. Essentially, he wants to ensure that there is transparency when it comes to people understanding what their obligations are when it comes to recurrent charges.

He has a view on the statutory buyback provision and he puts the case that residents need to be protected. I think that is something that we understand in this place. He then goes on to talk about the fact that, in his view, the balance sheet that is currently provided to him is not in a form that is likely to be understood by many. Essentially, he would like to make sure that through this process—and maybe this is not something that can be captured in legislation—the information that is provided is simple and something that can be understood by some of our more vulnerable citizens.

He goes on to talk about a request for a provision for three or more residents or the operator to request a secret ballot when it comes to AGMs. He says that many residents are reluctant to vote against the motion, concerned that this may offend the operator, and this is particularly pertinent in the Barossa where the operators are very much ingrained with the community. They are community facilities almost and perhaps it affects their relationship with them.

For example, at a recent meeting, at least two residents voted for a motion and then said outside that they did not agree with it. A secret ballot may have provided a better reflection of their wishes. I just wanted to put those on the record because he is someone who has been extremely helpful to me and somebody who has taken a keen interest in this who has come at it from the perspective that we need a greater level of transparency. I know that the review talked a lot about greater transparency and providing information so that the residents can make an informed choice.

To close, we welcome these changes. I think there is a lot of good that is being done as part of this. It has certainly been a long time coming and, to a certain degree, has caused angst out in the community, so it is good that we are finally getting to a conclusion. However, in regard to statutory buybacks, which I assume will take up the majority of the debate on this, I think we need to make sure that what we are seeking to achieve is actually achieved. As a conservative within this place, I would like to point out potential unintended consequences to ensure that, in trying to save residents, we do not actually create greater hardship for them.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay—Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (16:49): I would like to thank members for their contributions to the second reading debate. The bill covers a range of measures introduced following the select committee review in 2013 of the Retirement Villages Act 1987.

As we have heard, the select committee made recommendations and sought to address the rights and obligations of residents and operators. It focused on contractual disclosure, financial obligations, compliance, regulation, and dispute resolution within the sector. In response to the committee's work, two other measures have also been introduced: the better practice guidelines for retirement village operators, introduced to provide guidance to operators for best practice; and the establishment of an advocacy service for retirement village residents.

The state government response to the select committee report supported the majority of recommendations, but advised that further consultation and investigation was required on a number of the recommendations. This further consultation revealed additional concerns from both operators and residents. In developing the bill, I undertook a significant public consultation process, including 13 community forums in an eight-week consultation period last year, which attracted more than 300 written submissions.

The public consultation process and forums allowed me to hear directly from operators and residents. I thank all those who participated in the consultation process and took the time to provide their thoughts and suggestions. I particularly thank my parliamentary colleagues who hosted forums because they knew that this was important to their residents.

The bill was largely well received. Submissions from all stakeholders supported greater clarification. The bill will assist in resolving instances of omissions and ambiguity and will lead to greater transparency regarding the rights and obligations of both residents and operators. The bill focuses on improving transparency for operators, residents and prospective residents alike.

This piece of consumer legislation aims to strengthen protections available to residents and also provide greater clarity for operators. There is a fine line that needs to be walked between the interests of operators and the needs of consumers. I believe this bill has achieved that balance. This bill introduces new measures which I believe will engender consumer confidence in the sector and may improve village desirability.

We have heard some very positive discussions about retirement villages, that they offer security and a sense of community, but both the member for Heysen and the member for Morphett expressed that they were unlikely to enter a retirement village because they are concerned, and that concerns me. I think there is a reason why this bill has come before the house, because we need it to strengthen consumer protection, and that is what the bill endeavours to do.

One of the measures is a standard disclosure statement, and I welcome the strong support received for this statement, which will be mandatory on all new contracts entered into. It will provide a summary of all fees and charges that a resident will be required to contribute to before entering, while living in and upon leaving a village. It will provide definitions of fees, charges and funds, and make comparisons easier between different villages. It will also raise awareness of all fees and charges applicable to the village so that residents are aware of their rights and responsibilities when entering into any contractual arrangements.

We heard several times about people going in with their eyes wide open, and this has been raised on several occasions. The disclosure statement enables you to measure apples with apples between different villages, and that will enable you to make those decisions. Work will be undertaken with key stakeholders to ensure that this document remains easy to read and highlights the key areas of interest to prospective residents.

Another measure which has been a matter of considerable concern for both operators and residents is the provision of greater flexibility and alignment in payment options with the Aged Care Act. The Aged Care Act has changed and there are now residential accommodation deposits and daily accommodation payments. The bill has been aligned to the Aged Care Act and provides greater flexibility to both operator and resident in payment options.

A resident must still meet the eligibility criteria; for example, have no ready access to alternate funds and be eligible for aged care. If approved, the operator makes the daily accommodation payments on behalf of the resident until relicensing occurs or until the statutory repayment period is reached or until 85 per cent of the exit entitlement is reached. These payments are deductible from the final exit entitlement. This provision will be clearly outlined in the disclosure statement.

Among the issues that arose during the consultation, feedback showed that, while the select committee's recommendation that a resident be able to remain in occupation until a residence was relicensed addressed some residents' concerns, it did not address issues arising when there is a lengthy wait for a payment of an exit entitlement, when residents leave a village for other accommodation or estates, or are waiting for an exit entitlement to be repaid. The select committee's recommendation was strengthened to include a statutory repayment time frame which will address those wishing to leave a village and deceased estates—

Ms Redmond: Who signed a contract.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I note the concern that many residents supported the 12-month statutory repayment—

Ms Redmond: Of course they do: it benefits them.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: —of a resident's exit entitlement, which was part of the draft bill that was released for consultation. Consideration was given to all submissions on the statutory repayment provision, including the concerns of the impacted smaller and regional villages, and the risk of discounted pricing to meet the time frame, which would disadvantage both residents and operators.

The tabled bill has been amended and now requires that an exit entitlement must be repaid within 18 months of a resident vacating their residence if it is not relicensed prior to this time. Importantly, the bill now also includes additional provisions which give the resident the option of remaining a resident during the marketing process. I have also included a five-year review clause on the statutory repayment period. This review will provide an opportunity to assess any impacts of the clause to ensure that the application of the statutory payment period has achieved the desired outcomes.

Finally, I draw the member's attention to the extensive consultation that has occurred with the retirement living sector, including for-profit and not-for-profit operators, industry specialists, residents and community members. I again thank all stakeholders for their contribution. Your efforts ensure that we are proposing sound legislation which strikes the right balance between the interests of operators and the protection of residents.

I recently met with Aged & Community Services (ACS), one of the key peak bodies, to discuss concerns they held with some parts of the bill. I have given an undertaking to ensure that a technical drafting issue is corrected to ensure that protections remain robust, and I intend to make a couple of government amendments in another place. In closing, I thank members for their constructive comments and look forward to dealing with this bill expeditiously through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Minister, clause 3 provides:

The objects of this Act are—

(a) to provide a regulatory framework for the operation of retirement villages in South Australia under which a balance is achieved between the rights and responsibilities of—

(i) residents of retirement villages; and

(ii) the operators of retirement villages;

Can the minister tell the committee whether there has been a cost-benefit analysis or a risk analysis of this bill, particularly clause 26? We can talk about that in clause 26 if you want. Has a regulatory impact statement been prepared, particularly regarding the impact on residents? If that has been prepared, can it be released to the committee?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: When approval was sought to draft this bill, a regulation impact statement was conducted.

Dr McFETRIDGE: What was the outcome of that? Was there a cost-benefit or a risk analysis of the bill done?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I do not believe that was conducted.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Do you not think that would have been a reasonable thing to do, considering there has been angst about the economic and regulatory impact on owner-operators and also on residents? Is there a view to refer this to the Economic and Finance Committee and, if not, why not?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I do not intend to send this off to the Economic and Finance Committee. There is a small amount of increased regulation for business, but the changes are aimed at improving consumer confidence in the industry, which the select committee raised great concerns about. It was a package, so we have the bill, we have the Aged Rights Advocacy Service and, of course, the better guidelines for retirement villages.

We know that there is considerable diversity in this industry, so we have some very small not-for-profit organisations in regional areas and also in the metro area. We have some very large organisations that are also not-for-profits and some that are for profit, so there is considerable diversity in that. Therefore, we have a difference in business models that are used.

For the majority of operators, the proposed changes are expected to have minimal impact. In fact, where there are changes related to clearer definitions and information disclosure requirements, we note that many operators already engage in this, but we want to increase the standards in the industry. We will continue to work with the industry in regard to the regulations, which many are interested in being involved in. Of course, we have had our Retirement Villages Advisory Council that has been active for a time, and I think there were 20 people who were engaged at that end. We have had high-level discussions with people and I am satisfied that that has been covered.

The CHAIR: Member for Morphett, that is three questions already. Is this your last question?

Dr McFETRIDGE: That was on clause 3(a), but I would like to go to 3(b), (c), (d)—

The CHAIR: The member for Davenport.

Mr DULUK: Thank you, Chair. Sorry, I may have misheard, minister. Are you saying an impact statement was not undertaken?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: No, a regulation impact statement was undertaken.

Ms Redmond: No, that was a regulatory one, not a cost-benefit—

The CHAIR: Order! Member for Heysen, please.

Mr DULUK: Will you be tabling that regulatory impact statement and make it publicly available?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I will take that under consideration.

The CHAIR: Member for Morphett, we are on clause 3.

Dr McFETRIDGE: We are on 3(a) and now 3(b), (c), (d)—

The CHAIR: Hang on just a second. We are trying to bring to your attention that it is three questions on each clause, not each section in each clause. Is there a burning last question?

Dr McFETRIDGE: There is a burning question.

The CHAIR: How many questions do you have on clause 3?

Dr McFETRIDGE: This will be my last question.

The CHAIR: If you have 20 questions, we clearly cannot handle that.

Dr McFETRIDGE: This will be my last question, I promise.

The CHAIR: Your last question, you promise. Did everyone hear that?

Dr McFETRIDGE: On this clause.

The CHAIR: On this clause. Last question, member for Morphett.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Minister, you said then that the recommendations of the select committee were considered. There were 34 recommendations and certainly the committee was very concerned about the regulatory impact on both the owner-operators and the residents, and there was no recommendation on mandatory buyback. In fact, we avoided that because we knew that there would be a significant impact, but we did make recommendations for extra safeguards. So, which of the 34 recommendations did you adopt, partially adopt or reject?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The majority of those 34 recommendations we did adopt. Off the top of my head—and I will get some more details—was the unique CPI indicator. We looked into that, and the capping of CPI rates, but we did not proceed with that. There was also the web calculator. That was one of the recommendations but, because of the complexity of that and the need to update it, we did not think that would be an accurate reflection and we thought we would be unable to deliver that.

Ms REDMOND: Minister, on 3(b), which provides that the object is 'to encourage best practice management standards among the operators of retirement villages', could you advise me where you are getting the best practice management standards from, when they will be published, and how you are planning to encourage operators to use them?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The better practice guidelines have already been introduced; in fact, I launched them in November 2014, I think. This was part of our Retirement Villages Advisory Committee, on which there are operators and residents. I think we looked at 10 different areas, and they were about transparency; one of the issues I recall was about mediation because there were some issues between the manager of many of the retirement villages and the thoughts and desires of the committee. I am happy to provide you with a copy of those better practice guidelines. They were welcomed and quite well endorsed.

Ms REDMOND: Could the minister explain how she proposes to encourage their use, given the behaviour of so many administering authorities who end up screwing their residents?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Member for Heysen, we have always been clear, when looking at the review of retirement villages and support for consumers, that there was a package. The package was support for the Aged Rights Advocacy Service, particularly their ability to be called to mediate in these events and provide advocacy and information, plus the better practice guidelines, and then the review of the bill. I think it was very clear to the industry that this was our focus.

I thank the Office for the Ageing for their work. They delivered many of the forums and encouraged those better practice guidelines to be used. Obviously, we distributed the guidelines and encouraged committees to seek information if they wanted further understanding of them. This industry is receptive, and my impression is that we have had very good engagement with the Office for the Ageing, and they continue to use the better practice guidelines they helped develop.

Ms REDMOND: With respect, minister, that does not answer my question. What the bill says is that the objects of the act are 'to encourage' the use of these 'best practice management' guidelines. How do you propose to encourage operators of villages to actually use best practice?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The better practice guidelines are enforced through the legislation. Obviously, the focus is on transparency, the way you work with your committees, when you hold them, how you hold them. We are quite satisfied that this has been accepted by the industry because they helped develop these better practice guidelines.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Ms REDMOND: Minister, I am a little puzzled by some of the definitions in clause 4, in particular the reference to 'community retirement village' which, according to the definition:

…means a retirement village divided into separate residences and common property by a community plan under the Community Titles Act 1996 or a strata plan under the Strata Titles Act 1988;

That would suggest ordinary ownership of units and a common property which is then managed by a body corporate and so on. What I am puzzled by is where they fit in when they are called a 'community retirement village', given that the definition of retirement village then goes on to say that it is:

…a complex of residences or a number of separate complexes of residences (including appurtenant land) occupied or intended for occupation under a retirement village scheme…

When you go to the next definition of 'retirement village scheme', that does not seem to allow for private ownership-type occupancies because it talks about 'residences are occupied pursuant to a lease or licence', 'a right to occupation of residences', 'purchased from the operator subject to a right or option of repurchase', or 'residences are purchased by prospective residents on conditions restricting their subsequent disposal'. I am puzzled about where a community retirement village fits into the definition of retirement village or retirement village scheme.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As I am advised, a retirement village scheme, as you can read in the act, 'means a scheme established for eligible persons and their spouses or domestic partners' and it gives four different references as to what a retirement village scheme is:

(a) residences are occupied pursuant to a lease or licence; or

(b) a right to occupation of residences is conferred by ownership of shares; or

(c) residences are purchased from the operator subject to a right or option of repurchase; or

Paragraph (d), which I am advised relates to your concern about the community title, states:

(d) residences are purchased by prospective residents on conditions restricting their subsequent disposal,

That relates to your raising of clause 4(1), with community retirement village meaning:

…a retirement village divided into separate residences and common property by a community plan under the Community Titles Act 1996 or a strata plan under the Strata Titles Act 1988.

Ms REDMOND: I am still trying to clarify the answer to that first question because I do not think the minister gets the point of what I am saying. The easiest way to ask the question might be to say that my three friends and I (I only have three friends) decide that we will build our own little retirement village. We are all over 55, and we build our strata titles and do not put any restriction on the subsequent sale of our individual titles. Is it possible for that to be governed under the Retirement Villages Act or not?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: My understanding is that that could not happen because you have to endorse the land for the purpose of a retirement village, and that is what is different from if you and your three friends decide to live in a community village or strata title. It is about the land definition.

Going back to the community retirement village, I am advised that there are only two villages in South Australia that come under that definition. Obviously, over time—and we have a substantial percentage of retirement villages in South Australia, higher than in any other state—we have seen different forms of retirement villages develop, and therefore this bill continues to incorporate all those types of retirement villages. But I may add that this also clarifies things that are not retirement villages, and I think that is somewhat your point. We have had people advertise that they are a retirement village when they are not, and we sought some clarity around that and made sure that that is clear because they cannot advertise that that is what they are when they are not.

Ms REDMOND: I am still trying to clarify this particular question. I think it is very important because, as I said in my second reading speech, my view is that a lot of existing retirement villages will convert to community title because no-one is going to be silly enough to enter into the financial arrangements that the current models are imposing.

If you have a community retirement village, where you have a group of people of however many who have independent title, they have the right to manage and look after their own village, and their body corporate says, 'We've decided we're not going to let anyone under 55 in here,' and the body corporate is quite happy to continue that—they do not want kids around, for whatever reason. What I want clarified is: is the minister saying that that type of arrangement is never going to be under the Retirement Villages Act and therefore, as soon as you have independent ownership, you are out from under the act?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: It is my understanding, to re-emphasise what I said before, that it is the endorsement of the land and the certificate of title on the land with its specific use being a retirement village, and that is what makes the difference between what you are proposing. Of course, one of the things about retirement villages is all the aspects of the act: you have to be over 55 and you have to be retired, as it is currently. That is the difference between what you are proposing and what a retirement village is.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Minister, on clause 4, you said in your answer that we have a high percentage of retirement villages. What percentage do we have of properties or retirement villages that are a right to occupy, rentals, or community title. What other forms of title do we have?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Perhaps if I could detail for you the most common ways in which a retirement village operates in South Australia, the vast majority are a licensed occupier, as you have said, but they have various models of operating, including a lone licence/licensed occupier, where there is an entry payment at market value, fees and charges upon leaving, and they may include a share of capital gain. That is the most common of our 529 registered retirement villages across the state.

Other opportunities are donation entry; low cost entry premium; reducing return in the first five years, and after five years no refund; and strata title, where the resident pays fees on exit and retains all capital gains and loss. As I am advised, the vast majority is lone licence and licensed occupier. There are a few rentals, and I think you mentioned in your speech that your mother has a rental in a retirement village, and that is a small percentage of people. We can endeavour to get some statistics for you, but that is used by some of the villages.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Does the government own any of these retirement villages? In public hospitals, I understand there are some aged-care facilities. Are there retirement villages, and will this act apply to the state government?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As I am advised, Country Health SA does own some retirement villages in regional areas. I will get you some details of those facilities.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Do we know how many there are in the metropolitan area? Are there any? How many are there in the country? The committee would also like to know how many councils own retirement villages and perhaps about their structure. Are they all fee for a licence to occupy, or are there any others that are community title now?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As I am advised, all the government-run retirement villages are in regional areas, and there are about 10 throughout South Australia. I will get you some details about council-run retirement villages.

The CHAIR: The member for Heysen has one burning last question, I think.

Ms REDMOND: I have more than one burning last question.

The CHAIR: Unfortunately, it is three per clause.

Ms REDMOND: I will have to content myself with just asking one.

The CHAIR: I knew you would see it my way, member for Heysen.

Ms REDMOND: I did not really have a lot of choice, Madam Chair. I will ask about eligible persons. The definition of eligible person is 'a person who has attained the age of 55 years and retired from full-time work employment'. Putting aside the fact that most of the people going into retirement villages are well into their 70s, it still strikes me as an odd requirement—albeit that we are dealing with the Retirement Villages Act—that someone who is, for instance, 75 years old but still working full-time would be ineligible. I wonder whether that is the intention of the government.

It occurred to me, for instance, to wonder how it would affect a person who retired from one full-time job on Friday, entered into their contract to reside in a retirement village over the weekend and then took up their new full-time job on Monday. As it happens, this very situation was mentioned when I went to the farewell from the Federal Court of our now ICAC commissioner. He finished as a judge in the Federal Court on the Friday, he was technically retired on the weekend and then recommenced full-time work. I am sure he will not mind us disclosing that he is over the age of 55.

The CHAIR: Did you get the name of the village he is now living in?

Ms REDMOND: No, he is not living in a village, but there could be other people in like circumstances, and I am curious about why this provision about retiring from full-time employment is there. I know it is called a retirement village, but in fact it is a lifestyle choice that, it seems to me, should not be dependent upon whether or not you are going to work.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I agree with the member for Heysen. It was a proposal of the select committee that we would not require a person to be retired from full-time work and we would change the eligibility, but the feedback we received was that people wanted to retain that requirement. The feedback was supportive of the requirement, and many residents and operators were very resistant to this change and believed there would be a division between those residents who were working and those who were not working. I do share the member for Heysen's concerns. I am advised, though, that often people who have retired may then re-enter the workforce and are likely to do part-time work, and they would be eligible to remain in that retirement village.

Mr DULUK: Minister, I have a question in relation to the definition of domestic partner in the Interpretation. In the definition of domestic partner in the Family Relationships Act, there is a requirement that they live together for three years continuously to be considered a domestic partner. Will that apply to people living in retirement villages? For example, it is quite often the case that two older people who have fallen in love decide to move in together after the death of a spouse or something like that. Does this three-year rule to be considered a domestic partner within the Family Relationships Act apply under your Retirement Villages Bill as well?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I acknowledge the issue you have raised here. I am advised that the intention in the Interpretation was to make it clear that it was not in reference to 'spouse' or 'husband and wife' and to incorporate all relationships and partnerships that may form. It is my understanding that the three-year rule was not the intention here. I am happy to seek some clarity, but that is what I am advised.

Mr DULUK: In relation to 'special resolution' on page 7 of the bill, paragraph (b) provides that the resolution must have been passed by a majority of not less than three-quarters of the number of residents. Is that residents or households? Should there be two residents in a household, is that one vote?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: It is households.

Mr DULUK: Then could an amendment between the two houses possibly be foreshadowed to say 'households' as opposed to 'residents'?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Yes, I am prepared to take that on board. We will seek clarification.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I have a burning question, minister. The select committee did not recommend to retain the definition of somebody who has retired. In fact, the recommendation was that people should be able to work. The recommendation also suggested that the act be renamed—I do not think we suggested any particular name—so that it more accurately reflect the current status of today's villages where people may not want to be retired.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Member for Morphett, I could not agree more. My thought was that that would be removed. Whether or not that led to a change in the name of the act, I cannot say, but the overwhelming feedback—and remember we had 300 submissions and 13 forums—was that they wanted that to be maintained. What I have indicated though is that there is the ability for a person to go back to work, but the intention is that would not necessarily be a full-time position.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: There were concerns within the village about those who would be working and those who would not be working. So, we listened to the feedback, that was what was given to us, and we have retained that in this bill.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Ms REDMOND: This clause deals with the application of the act. I just wonder whether the minister can indicate what sorts of exemptions might be granted under subclause (2) which provides:

The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, confer exemptions from this Act or specified provisions of this Act…

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: If I could perhaps give you an example of an exemption previously, it was around consolidated financial reports. When the Blackwood hospital went into receivership, they sought an exemption from me not to table those consolidated financial reports for one year, and that was granted.

Ms REDMOND: So, the minister is only aware at this stage, I take it, of situations where there might be exemptions from specific provisions of the act, such as the financial reports in some circumstances, but not of any exemption or proposed exemption from the application of this act to every retirement village in the state?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: That is correct.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I have a question on clause 5(4):

A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a condition of an exemption is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $10,000.

Does that same apply to individuals or partnerships? Was there a different consideration for corporations, particularly large corporations?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: This clause provides power to me as the minister to exempt certain organisations, retirement villages or classes of organisations or retirement villages from complying with the provisions of the act conditionally or unconditionally. It does provide, as you said, a maximum penalty of $10,000 for noncompliance with a condition of such an exemption. I do not recall there being a consideration of a diversity of penalties, given the nature of the size. I do not believe that was raised with us.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Ms REDMOND: Could the minister clarify whether the intention is to have an existing registrar or other public servant simply add this to the portfolio of functions they are already doing, or is it intended that there be someone specifically appointed as the registrar of the Retirement Villages Act or is it going to be someone like the Liquor Licensing Commissioner or registrar of various other things?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: We currently have a registrar who is imported from the Public Service. She is an executive director of the Department of Health and she would continue in that role. It would not be a separate registrar.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The registrar's functions are to gather and maintain current information about retirement villages and, if we already have a registrar, can the minister tell the committee how many complaints were made to the Office for the Ageing last year or to the registrar? How many related to retirement villages? How does this compare with other retirement accommodation types?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I believe I have been asked that question before in estimates and, of course, there is an annual report that we table and it would be in that report. I will endeavour to get you an answer while we are in committee.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On the same clause, I am informed that 94 per cent of residents are happy with their village; 98 per cent of people who have moved into villages in the last 23 months stated they would make the same decision to move into a village if they were given the decision over again; and 93 per cent of residents surveyed felt that their decision to move into a village had been a good financial decision. Do we need to have the registrar with these extensive powers, or are they just some sort of safeguard that we have?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: If I recall accurately, member for Morphett, you are quoting a census that is often reported by the Property Council. I personally have had a positive relationship with retirement villages. My grandparents were in one for 27 years. We have talked here already about the security and the sense of community, but what we heard very clearly here was that there was a lack of transparency if you want to move. We deal with a lot of complaints at the Office for the Ageing through the registrar and, along with our package of better practice guidelines and the Aged Rights Advocacy Service, we know that we needed to reform the industry. That is why the registrar is in place and will continue that role.

Ms REDMOND: In relation to the registrar's functions, minister, you mentioned earlier about the records kept as to the villages in this state. I wonder whether there is currently provision for the registrar to put any notice on titles of land in this state which are subject to the Retirement Villages Act currently?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: No.

Ms REDMOND: Has any consideration been given or any recommendation made by the registrar at any time that might indicate that?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: My understanding is that that is not something that has been requested of us at this stage. I guess the question would be that we have the registrar; I table an annual report. Member for Heysen, I have discussed the annual report previously. At this point, I guess that is not something we see is needed.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

Ms REDMOND: I am puzzled at the variety of penalties noted in this act. For instance, in the registrar's power to require information in clause 8, there is a maximum penalty of $2,500 and an expiation fee of $210 but, when we go over a few pages, we see it is an offence to hinder an authorised officer. The maximum penalty there—and there is no expiation fee, obviously—is four times that: it is $10,000. Normally, one would think that, the registrar being higher in office, it might be more of an offence not to comply with a request from the registrar. Could the minister please explain how you came to settle on this and other penalty rates in the regime contemplated by the bill?

The CHAIR: And that is in clause 18, the $10,000 penalty that you are looking at?

Ms REDMOND: Yes.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I am advised that these are similar fees that are in the current act and we were guided by parliamentary counsel to continue with that provision.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So, that has been in there since 1987, the $2,500. In 1987, $2,500 was a lot of money. There is no CPI on this? We are looking at retirement villages' CPI, so perhaps we should have a CPI on that.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I will take that on notice.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

Ms REDMOND: I am a little puzzled about the preservation of the confidentiality of information. I take it from the bill that the registrar classifies the information, or not, as confidential, given that subclause (3) states, 'Information classified by the Registrar as confidential'. First of all, could I confirm that that is therefore an indication that all information that comes to the registrar, the registrar has the discretion as to whether or not it is classified as confidential?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As I am advised, the vast majority of information the registrar receives is publicly available information. It will only be when specific requests where commercial terms are asked about the operation of that retirement village that she may deem it to be confidential.

Ms REDMOND: If we go back, for instance, to the example you gave, minister, about the Blackwood Hospital, which had the retirement village attached to it. I would imagine that those sorts of circumstances could arise in the future. It could well be that financial information relating to a retirement village which is on the brink of collapse because of having to pay out exit fees, for instance, it might not be wise to allow that to be made public. What guarantee does the administering authority have that, if they provide information required by the registrar and request that it be kept confidential, it will indeed be kept confidential?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: If there were good reason for it to be considered confidential then we would gain advice on that and take that advice. I know this is not the stage we are up to, but one of the concerns is if an operator needed to go to SACAT then they can have the ability to ask for that to be held in private. That was one of the concerns raised with us. Obviously, when it comes to commercial operations, we would endeavour to work with that organisation, but we would seek advice on that.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Under the registrar's obligations, how independent is the registrar of the minister, as the registrar is appointed by the minister? Can the minister, for example, instruct the registrar to classify something as confidential? I am not suggesting this minister would ever do this, but a minister might instruct the registrar to say something is confidential to then make it not liable for disclosure under the FOI Act. How independent is the registrar of the minister?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: She is independent but she is a public servant. I think I will need to come back to you with some accurate separation of those powers and your concern. Can I ask the member for Morphett, specifically around FOI?

Dr McFETRIDGE: The Freedom of Information Act. It says here in subclause (3):

Information classified by the Registrar as confidential is not liable to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act…

If a minister were inclined to want somehow to give protection to some information, that would be a very easy way of doing it.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I will seek further advice and come back to you.

Clause passed.

Clauses 10 and 11 passed.

Clause 12.

Ms REDMOND: I think clause 12 pretty much reflects the existing situation regarding the register that must be kept containing the name and business address of the operator. I would seek firstly the minister's assurance that this register does exist and is available for inspection and an indication, if the minister is able, as to whether, and how often, the register has been inspected.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: My understanding is that it is available to anyone who comes in to the Office for the Ageing. They can view a hard copy, but it has rarely been asked for.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Has consideration been given to putting that register up on a website if it is already available for inspection without fee during ordinary office hours? I think we are all working long hours nowadays, so perhaps putting it on the net may be a good thing to do.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The member for Morphett is discussing something that we are already looking at. One of the other areas that we would like to look at if there are changes is for the retirement village operator to update. Obviously they would have a password or a special code if they had to update a phone number, for example, or the name and contact details of the village manager; they could do that themselves. We are already considering that.

Clause passed.

Clauses 13 passed.

Clause 14.

Ms REDMOND: Minister, can you advise how many people are appointed as authorised officers and whether there is intended to be any change in the number of authorised officers once this bill becomes law?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I am advised that we currently have four authorised officers and we would not be looking to change that number.

Ms REDMOND: Subclause (2) provides, 'An appointment may be made subject to conditions specified in the instrument of appointment.' I assume that there are not any conditions imposed on the four officers who are operating at the moment, but could the minister indicate what sorts of conditions were in mind in terms of the things that would be conditioning the appointment?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The example I am given is that if that person ceases to work in the Office for the Ageing and be an authorised officer, then I would have the ability to revoke that appointment.

Ms REDMOND: I appreciate that because subclause (3) says, 'The minister may, at any time, revoke an appointment.' What would be the conditions to which an authorisation under this clause could be subject?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I have just been given advice that we did have an investigation officer at one point employed for a set period of time while he did his investigation, and that was the condition that he was subject to in the instrument of appointment.

Mr DULUK: Following on from the member for Heysen's question, surely there would be some preset conditions that you would go by to say on what basis an appointment is held or not, or on what basis you would terminate or not.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Obviously, if they are an authorised officer, they would be employed in that role, doing that role, and I think that is what the instrument of appointment would say. I have given an example of when there was a specified condition, when there was someone hired on a short-term basis, so it would involve the role that that person is doing.

Clause passed.

Clause 15 passed.

Clause 16.

Ms REDMOND: I have no experience of the authorised officers who operate under this act and I am sure they are very nice people. The minister may not be aware of the famous Graham Gunn, who occupied a seat in this chamber for 39 years and 10 months.

The CHAIR: But who's counting?

Ms REDMOND: He often told us about the behaviour of certain authorised officers under various acts, so I am concerned about the effect of things like clause 16(1)(b). Most of the subclauses deal with people who have a responsibility under the act for the management of the act and so on, so it would be the administering authority. However, for instance, clause 16(1)(b) simply refers to 'require a person to produce documents' and so on.

It seems to me that there is therefore at least the potential for an authorised officer to turn up at the doorstep of an occupant or resident in a retirement village, who may be elderly, completely unprepared and quite frightened by the prospect of someone attending at their premises and demanding that they hand over certain documents. I wonder whether the clause could be amended to make it clear that these powers do not extend to knocking at the doors of residents of retirement villages.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I am advised that, as an industry, the Office for the Ageing has a very close relationship with many of the industry players. While there is significant diversity (there are 529 retirement villages and 153 operators), we do have quite a close relationship with those operators and we work quite closely with them. If we were investigating a breach, which would be the reason that an authorised officer would go in to look at the administration and the enforcement of the act, I am satisfied that what we have here in this proposed bill would provide that clarity. I do not think there would be anything gained by your concern about frightening residents. As detailed in clause 16(2):

An authorised officer cannot exercise the power conferred by subsection (1)(a) to enter a part of premises used for residential purposes except—

(a) with the consent of the owner or occupier of the premises; or

(b) on the authority of a warrant issued by a justice.

I think that might satisfy your concerns.

Ms REDMOND: It certainly satisfies my concern, but I can read legislation and I know what my rights are. What concerns me is the prospect of overenthusiastic authorised officers not informing surprised residents of those provisions of clause 16(2) but, never mind, I will take that as read. If I could ask another question, and that is the requirement in clause 16(1)(i) for:

…the owner or occupier (including a resident)…to provide the authorised officer with such assistance and facilities as is or are reasonably necessary…

I take it, by that, that the authorised officer could for instance demand not only access to the premises, and access to documentation that might be held in the office, but it could indeed demand that they be given the right to set themselves up in the office or in the community hall of a retirement village in order to conduct whatever investigation they are going to do.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As I understand it, that is possible under this act, that if that was needed to have a place in order to consider the breach.

The CHAIR: You have a further question on clause 16?

Ms REDMOND: Yes, I do—a last one, Madam Chair—and it relates to clause 16(4), which provides:

…an authorised officer may be assisted by such persons as the officer considers necessary in the circumstances.

The authorised officer is obviously someone who is conversant with the rights, duties, entitlements, etc., under the act. What training or instruction is to be given to anyone who is assisting the authorised officer and who, whether the authorised officer or someone else, engages that assistance?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I am advised that, given we have four authorised officers currently, if this situation presented itself another authorised officer would assist.

Clause passed.

Clauses 17 and 18 passed.

Clause 19.

Dr McFETRIDGE: 'Residence contracts' states:

(1) A residence contract must be in writing and comply with this section and the requirements (if any) prescribed by the regulations.

Recommendation 4 of the select committee states:

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.

That the standard disclosure document is provided to a resident along with the residence contract.

That the standard disclosure document includes information relating to:

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;

any circumstances under which a resident will be required to fund a budget deficit;

frequently asked questions;

any interest an administering authority has in services used within the village (for example, provision of electricity or internet services).

We also had raised with us the provision of repair and maintenance services, particularly once residents leave the village. The Property Council certainly encouraged the production of a set of pro forma contracts, and I understand that New South Wales has five pro forma contracts. Was consideration given to setting up a system of pro forma contracts and, if not, why not?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As you have rightly pointed out, we will be setting up a standard disclosure document. During the regulations and the writing of those regulations we will meet with the retirement villages and the advocacy advisory committee and we will obviously talk with operators and residents. Many of the issues raised by the select committee will be incorporated in those disclosure documents, particularly those in relation to:

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;

any circumstances under which a resident will be required to fund a budget deficit;

frequently asked questions;

any interest an administering authority has in services used within the village (for example, provision of electricity or internet services).

That is our intention, to have it in a disclosure document. Also in it will be information about the cooling off periods, the time to sign, and also the cooling off period post that, in order to seek legal and financial advice for both those disclosed documents and the contract.

The two areas that we did not continue to have include the web-based calculator, looking at the exit scenarios, as because of the different contracts it would be very complex. I understand that the Property Council was not interested in producing a set of proforma contracts that would recommend templates for operators. My understanding, as I have been advised, is that they were approached, but were not interested in doing that.

As I think you considered under a select committee, we did look at having a standard contract, but that was not supported by the industry because people had many different business models. What we wanted people to be able to do, while looking with their eyes wide open when going into a retirement village, was to measure apples with apples. That is very difficult at the moment when you are given a contract of 45, 50 or maybe 100 pages. We certainly took that on board. It was well supported by residents, and prospective residents of course, but we did not encompass all the things from the select committee in that area.

Ms REDMOND: I would like to ask about clause 19(2)(c) and, in particular, the nature of the details of the residents' rights and obligations, placitum (iii) and placitum (iv). First of all, recurrent charges for which the resident is liable could be something quite generic, it seems to me—recurrent charges could be for gardening, or whatever. I have come across many circumstances where, for instance, people are confronted with recurrent charges and also ad hoc but future irregular charges, so I do not know whether you would call them recurrent charges.

For instance, they might have to have a light globe changed and, because they are an elderly lady living alone who is not allowed to climb a ladder, the light globe gets changed but, rather than having a maintenance person who is employed in the village as part of the recurrent charges, the operator brings in a particular mate who happens to be an electrician who charges the full call-out fee—for whatever electricians go for these days—to come and change the light globe. Believe me, I have heard of things as bad as this happening where, to get the light globe changed, a little old lady in a retirement village has been charged $50.

Could the minister explain the degree to which the disclosure statement will actually be amended to make clear to prospective residents exactly what they may be liable for, rather than simply what the recurrent charges may be? As I said, for instance, there might be a gardener who is regularly employed and there is a regular payment for having a gardener for all the gardens around the village.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: For clarification, clause 19 is actually about residents' contracts, not about the disclosure statement. That is further on in the bill, and I think we can cover that then.

Obviously, when we talk about recurrent charges liable in a contract for the residents, it would be a regular charge, including what it is, what that would be. Obviously, you have raised some particular issues. Often the reason people go into a retirement village is so they do not have to do the maintenance which often has become too much for them in their private home. We want to be clear in that contract about what those recurrent charges would be, but I think if you are talking about the disclosure statement, then we would expect them to list examples of what that would be in their village.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT