HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-05-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Retirement Villages Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 26.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On clause 26, I asked a series of questions that the minister can take on notice. I am not sure whether she has agreed to take them on notice, but they are: are there protections in place for small operators? How can the bill protect against sales being rushed at a lower price to avoid the buyback? Will such rushed sales affect the value of other residences of the villages? Will statutory buybacks deter banks from lending to small to medium retirement villages? There is a series of questions, and I am happy to put them on record now, if you want them.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I am happy for the minister for Morphett to put them on the record. I will endeavour to answer them if I can. Can I just go back to one of the key aspects of the statutory repayment. While we added that in there, the resident can elect not to receive payment and wait until relicensing occurs. If they feel that the relicensing amount they have been offered, even with an independent valuation, is not what they were expecting, they do not have to accept it at 18 months. I think that in relation to this idea that there is pressure at a lower amount, they do have the ability to continue to stay on in there and wait until the independent living unit is relicensed.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I have some other questions that the minister might want to either answer now or take on notice. I think the member for Hammond asked a similar question, but have the particular impacts for regional and low socioeconomic areas been quantified? Is there a risk that operators will contract to take a larger share of the capital gain of a unit if the buyback is in place? Did the minister consider other ways to facilitate the timely sale of properties—for example, allowing a resident to take over the marketing of a property or to take on joint marketing from the word go?

Clause 26(10) talks about the Real Property Act and the charges referred to in that act. Is it not a fact, though, that these owner-operators are not registered real estate agents, so how are they incorporated into the Real Property Act? Is there a move to compel them to become licensed real estate agents, or have you considered the owner operators having to either appoint an agent of their own or from a panel of agents?

Perhaps that panel of agents could be then used by the residents as well, if they are seeking to have a second opinion, basically, or another view. Even today, I was talking to one of my colleagues who has just sold a property. They are paying 1.75 per cent to the real estate agent. Most of the owner operators are charging a 3 per cent remarketing fee, so I think there is a real issue there.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I previously answered a question about the regional impact statement, but can I just talk a little bit about the 92 villages in rural and remote SA because I know this is obviously a concern of the member for Hammond. I am reflecting about what their repayment plan is currently.

The Murray Lands Retirement Village at Murray Bridge has a six-month repayment, and Murray Bridge Lutheran Homes has 12 months. Resthaven Murray Bridge is not contracted. They endeavour to pay within four weeks. The Hallmont Estate in Mount Gambier is 12 months. Renmark Paringa Homes for the Aged is 30 days. Berri Cottage Homes is operating from a waiting list, and I take it from that they then have a short relicensing time. The Whyalla village is 14 days. Kirton Point in Port Lincoln is 90 days, the Copper Coast council is two years and the Taberefta at Tailem Bend is upon relicensing.

You can see there are quite a few villages already that do less than 18 months and, although there will be some operators who do not have that kind of clarification in the contract, when I look here at different things there is a for-profit operator who has both regional and metro villages—about a dozen villages. They have five years after the resident vacates in the village, and a for-profit metro operator with almost a dozen villages has 10 years in their contract. While we think there are some people out there who have not listed this in their contract, and that is of great concern to us, there are quite a few villages out there, both in the regional and metro areas, who are relicensing in a short period of time.

Mr PEDERICK: I think you mentioned the Copper Coast was two years, so they are already outside of your 18-month framework. What impact will it have on villages in that area?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Obviously, from the time after we have had the discussions of the regulations and the act commences, for those people who say they want to leave post that date the statutory repayment would impact after 18 months.

Mr DULUK: I want to go back to subclause (7), and I know the minister has touched upon this. Minister, could you possibly just explain why in the 2015 draft regulation it was 'special circumstance' and now we have moved to 'serious financial hardship' in terms of the definition there. What triggered that? What consultation was taken on that, etc?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I will just get some advice on that. I understand it was the opposite way around, but there was a difference between the two. Can I just go back to a point that the minister for Morphett made in regard to subclause (10), which provides:

Despite the Real Property Act 1886, the charge referred to above ranks in priority to any other mortgage, charge or encumbrance.

What that clarifies is that the rights of the resident—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: You could listen to the answer. She is actually working really hard. He is actually the member for Morphett, rather than the minister, which you said a couple of times. That will stop them laughing.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: My apologies.

The CHAIR: You need to listen to the answer because the minister is actually trying to address all your concerns.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The member for Morphett—

The CHAIR: We know what you mean, but you are concentrating really heavily on answering the question.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: It clarifies that the rights of the resident rank over any mortgage, charge or encumbrance, so if there was an issue here, the resident has rights above the others. I think clarification has been sought.

The CHAIR: Member for Davenport, have you finished your line of questioning?

Mr DULUK: I have not had an answer.

The CHAIR: You have not had an answer?

Mr DULUK: No.

The CHAIR: This was actually canvassed quite substantially by the member for Colton before lunch. The question, briefly, was?

Mr DULUK: What consultation process was undergone to change the wording from 'serious financial hardship' to 'special circumstances'?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I thank the member for his question. The 2015 bill that was distributed said 'financial hardship' and the 2016 bill said 'special circumstances'. I understand we had discussions with the SACAT tribunal and it was a recommendation not to restrict only to financial reasons under this section.

Dr McFETRIDGE: What sort of special circumstances are contemplated? Will the SACAT be able to extend the period for any other reason besides what may be considered special circumstances?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Can I perhaps reiterate what I said previously. The SACAT is a judicial body and any decision made is considered and determined on each circumstances, weighing up the benefit and detriment to each party. The tribunal advised us that they would consider why the situation has arisen. Is it for reasons essentially unrelated to the administering authority? Has it arisen due to unscrupulous behaviour of an operator? Is it one-off or is there a consistent problem with the village concerned? Is the village a small not-for-profit or does it have the backing of a large corporation?

These are only some of the considerations made by the SACAT, and it is appropriate that we do not restrict its ability to deal with a matter in the most appropriate way. I think I gave some examples previously of a natural disaster that might impact the area and, of course, that would be taken into consideration.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Can the SACAT make an order other than an order to extend the buyback under special circumstances? Are they able to make orders for a partial payback or a time payment or something like that?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I am advised that the SACAT can make ancillary orders at its discretion. Without pre-empting a judicial decision, I think the tribunal would look at the situation and then make a decision that would be a remedy or a way forward under the act. One of the things I think we have not touched on is that there is a sunset clause in the bill to review the statutory repayment period after five years. Obviously, cases where people have gone to the tribunal will give us an opportunity to review and reflect on decisions made.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Is there an opinion out there that they should be able to make other orders—for example, a time payment, so that rather than just extending the time of the payment, paying off a partial amount or, if a resident requires an immediate lump sum, being able to just pay that particular amount and hang onto the rest?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I do not have any further details, member for Morphett, as you have asked. I think it is quite clear here:

The Tribunal may, when making an order under subsection (7), make any consequential or ancillary orders it thinks fit.

I am satisfied that that will cover many situations.

Dr McFETRIDGE: They could make an order for a partial payment then. The wording in subclause (2) is that the specified conditions are fulfilled, or a period of 18 months has elapsed, or the operator agrees to pay the exit entitlement to the resident. There is a fair degree of flexibility. Was that worded that way to give owner operators the opportunity to then go to SACAT and apply for special circumstances? With that combination or permutation of those subclauses I think it opens the opportunity for owner-operators to go to SACAT and say, 'Look, we are having some issues here.' It may just be a technical wording, that is all; I am not sure. Is it worded that way?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I am sorry. Could you clarify your question?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Wonderful people draft our legislation—and I think I mentioned this in my second reading speech. We have an Acts Interpretation Act and, to me, that is an indication that our acts of parliament are perhaps a bit more complicated, complex and full of ifs, buts and maybes, but not enough shalls. This subclause has three paragraphs and subparagraphs (i) and (ii), and it seems to give a fair range of opportunity for the owner operators to go to SACAT and apply for an extension of special circumstances. This may just be standard drafting. I am a humble veterinarian not a lawyer.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Can I clarify something. This has been the key aspect of the bill that people have focused on. There are many aspects in this bill that I think balance the needs of the consumer protection for the residents and transparency in working with the operators. But this is one of the areas. Let me clarify this clause for you, as I am advised.

The resident ceases to reside in the village and, after 18 months, if the resident is not relicensed, the operator will be required to repay the resident their exit entitlement in accordance with their resident's agreement; or provide notice in writing to the operator that they intend to leave the village and have the operator remarket their residence while the resident remains in occupation.

The operator must remarket the residence. If it is not relicensed within 18 months of the operator receiving the notice, the operator must repay the exit entitlement to the resident in accordance with the provisions of their resident's agreement. The resident at this point must cease to reside in the village, or a resident provides notice of their intention to cease to reside in the village and an operator may offer to buy back the licence to occupy the residence from the resident in accordance with the provisions of their resident's contracts.

The CHAIR: Member for Hammond, perhaps a final question from you. I think we have canvassed as much as we possibly can on clause 26. Do you have a burning question?

Mr PEDERICK: I will try to round it up.

The CHAIR: That would be good.

Mr PEDERICK: Well, there might be a few.

The CHAIR: Well, let's have a go and we'll see.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, okay. What I am intrigued with is this statutory buyback. From my understanding, it was not a recommendation of the select committee, so I am interested to see where that has come from, especially after a bipartisan select committee has had a look at retirement villages.

I am absolutely concerned, and I want to know, if there has been any consultation with financiers, especially in regard to rural villages, that will have different equity levels necessary to own those villages compared with an urban area. It happens in every other business in the rural area; it is just the way it is, I understand that. On top of that, what is the government going to do in regard to, say, someone who might own 20 units when suddenly he has three to five of them on statutory buyback and just cannot afford to buy them out? He either falls over or the government is going to have to put in a guarantee. I seek some comments.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: That is not the role of the government. I think what we have had in this—

Mr Pederick: So they just fall over.

The CHAIR: Order, member for Hammond!

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: In the bill the ability, as I have talked about several times, is to go to SACAT to talk about the situation, and that is why we have that aspect of the bill.

Mr Pederick: They won't give you any money.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I acknowledge that the select committee did not specifically recommend the introduction of a statutory repayment period. However, this change would help address a range of concerns made by residents to the select committee, including those where a resident of their estate had to wait many years for settlement with no recourse or ability to influence the marketing of the unit.

We also believe that the statutory repayment will encourage an operator to remarket the unit to the best of their ability. We know that there have been statutory limits in common practice under other RV legislation in other jurisdictions but, of course, this is unique to our retirement villages, which are the most established and we have the highest percentage of people in our state who live in retirement villages compared with other states.

We had approaches by financial institutions operating in this industry. They did have concerns about the 12 months, and that influenced my decision to find that balance between the needs of the residents and operators and move to the 18 months, so that was taken on board.

Ms COOK: I have a question that may well have been asked, but there seems to be a lot of toing and froing around it anyway. In relation to the statutory buyback—which was the issue the single largest number of people came to my electorate office to question in this act—has there been some work done in relation to the average times in country versus metropolitan and the impact that might have in terms of the villages? I understand the member for Hammond's question just now was particularly in relation to how many people that might affect at once. Has that been addressed at all with owners?

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I thank the member for Fisher for her interest. She has maintained a long interest in this area, following in the footsteps of the former member for Fisher.

One of the things we do not have is a register of how many people at this point are relicensing their right to occupy. We do not have those details. What we have looked at is the influence of the real estate market within licence to occupy. There are some differences between the metro and the city areas. We looked at some core logic data, and the average number of days on market for metro areas was 76 days.

This is normal real estate, which often is the trigger point for people to come in. The average number of days on the market for rural areas is 117 days and the overall average was 83 days. That is the data we looked into at that time. We know that the Property Council has provided data that the average time it takes to relicense a retirement village independent living unit is 315 days. When we look at that, we are thinking that is less than a year, and then an additional six months (the 18 months) we think is a fair call.

We can endeavour to continue to work with the industry to have clearer data. As I said before lunch, many of these operators treat their data as very much commercial-in-confidence. It is a competitive industry, and they each have different ways of marketing and how they market. We have a variety of units throughout South Australia, some very brand-new units, very high end, and at more entry level. So different groups, were they for-profit or not-for-profit, had their way of remarketing.

They have tended to keep some of those figures close to their chest. We will endeavour to have a more thorough understanding, if they are willing, but there are a lot of commercial ways, including the different business models that different retirement villages have. In fact, I am not sure if you were in the house before when I said that even within one village there might be five different types of contracts, depending on when people entered and who owned the village at that time.

Dr McFETRIDGE: This is my last question on this clause, and the minister will probably be quite pleased about that. The minister can either give an answer now or take it on notice: did the government consider the opportunity for a person transferring from one retirement village to another residence to have an exchange of capital to fund the latter right to reside? Was there ever consideration that there be some sort of common pool of funds that owner-operators could use, or even just transfer the funds from one residence to another?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I thank the member for his question. That was not actually raised with us, the ability to transfer from one retirement village to another. I am advised though that, if you are within the same group (villages owned by the same group), there is the capacity for that to happen. If someone wanted to move from Stockland here in Adelaide to a Stockland residence at Victor Harbor, they may well have the facility for that to happen. However, as I understand it, that was not raised during consultation on the bill.

It is interesting that you do raise that because often that has been raised in regard to bonds in consumer and business affairs, whether there is the ability to transfer bonds from place to place. It is something that I have an interest in, looking forward, because there is that administration between the two.

Clause passed.

Clause 27.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Clause 27 is the payment of capital fund contributions deducted from the exit entitlement. We understand that that is standard and has been happening in the past. My question revolves around capital fund contributions and the use of capital replacement funds. There was a concern raised in the committee that the capital replacement fund could be used to then fund the redevelopment of a retirement village or even build just a few new units. Has that been looked at in the scope of this bill?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As I understand it, the contract will dictate about the use of the capital fund, but what this clause specifically focuses on is that it must be paid within 10 business days of making the deduction. We have had some devastating occurrences where this did not happen, where someone's unit was relicensed and that money then was not given to them. It was not paid into the appropriate account, so this is clarifying that.

Clause passed.

Clause 28 passed.

Clause 29.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Clause 29 is about arrangements if a resident leaves to enter a residential aged-care facility. Can the minister give the committee some examples of how many people will transfer each year and the economic impact on the owner-operators of those transfers, particularly with these changes that are being introduced?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I am afraid I do not have that information because we do not ask them to report how many people pass on or leave, or how many people might go on to aged care. Can I touch on this clause because I think this is a particularly important clause. This is a really stressful time when people do have to leave their retirement village to go into residential aged care, and there are some concerns about how that payment works.

What this bill does in this particular clause is it aims to provide greater flexibility to the way operators can provide early repayment to eligible residents. 'Eligible residents' means that it has to do with their financial eligibility here, and this was recommended, I understand, by the select committee. There was some feedback that the initial Retirement Villages Bill 2015 did not align with aged-care reforms that came into effect on 1 July 2014, so we have done quite a bit of work with the commonwealth to make sure that we were clear about how those reforms now feed into the system.

Following this feedback, OFTA received advice on the impact and had some further consultation with stakeholders. It was based upon this advice that residents who met eligibility requirements would be able to apply for the village operator to meet daily payments for a residential aged care facility until the resident's exit entitlement was due or when the payments reached 85 per cent of the estimated exit entitlement. The operator would be able to deduct these daily payments from the resident's exit entitlement.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Can you, perhaps between the houses, see if you can get some estimation of how many people transfer each year and the economic impact of that? With that, we can go on to clause 31, if you want, ma'am.

The CHAIR: Can we get that information? It is not kept anywhere.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I will endeavour to get you some information. Can I just reiterate the fact that there are some commercial realities around the information, that not often are people happy to share those movements, but perhaps we can provide some estimations. Obviously, they are going to change from year to year because you might have more people move at one time and it depends on what they do.

Can I just go back to one of the things that I talked about before, when I mentioned some changes in the industry. Residential aged care will continue to be an important part of the accommodation provided. With the changes of the commonwealth, we will see that consumer directed care, which is care to the home, which enables you to age in place, is really going to be the norm now. At the first level, you can be assessed and have a home support program, and that will provide you initially with some help to go shopping, some help to clean the house, some help to have daily personal care. At a greater level, you will be reassessed through the ACAT process and then your needs will be considered. There are different packages: levels 1, 2, 3 and 4.

At the moment, the commonwealth releases a certain number of packages into the state where they assess the needs. We will see people having quite high levels of support provided in the home. What I foresee will happen with the industry, and in particular retirement villages, is people will be residents for much longer than they have traditionally been. I think if the ability is for them to stay in their home, then they will seek that ability. While there will still need to be growth in residential aged care and while people will need 24-hour, seven day a week care—there is no doubt about that—I do not think it will slow down, but there will be more options about when you go into residential aged care.

We know that in the UK, for example, a much higher percentage of people die at home. We are almost the inverse here in Australia. We still believe in our minds that many of us will probably die in the hospital, yet when we talk to people that is not their belief or their desire. With this increase in consumer directed care, I think we will actually see fewer people moving into residential aged care. To some extent it will be end-of-life care. I know a lot of people will say, 'You know what? I don't want to spend the last six months of my life there, I want to be at home.'

As we improve our ability to deliver home care packages, I think we will see people stay in situ, whether it be their own home, maybe a Housing SA home or a retirement village. We will see that increase somewhat. I think this is a really important way of being clear about the process, and I do think we are in a time of transition.

During this process I met many retirement village residents who really enjoy living where they are. They enjoy the camaraderie that they have, the social aspect of being where they are, the security of being where they are, and I think most of them would like to stay there for as long as possible. So, I see some transition in the industry. While this will always remain important, I think that you will see retirement village operators look at different ways to support their residents to stay for longer in the village.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you for that. As a point of clarification on what the minister just said, for the number of people who are going into aged-care facilities and then using the exit fees to pay for their aged care, unfortunately, they will not have a home to go to when they retire. Has consideration been given to some—and this is sort of thinking left field here—way of allowing people to go back into retirement village situations when they do not want to die in a hospital? Seventy-five per cent of people in Western Australia die at home, whereas it is about 25 per cent here. If you do not have a home to go to, it is a pretty tough position to be in.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I guess this takes us a little bit off side of the bill, but I think it is important, but one of the things I am hearing about, as Minister for Ageing, is re-enablement. When I have spoken to people, often the decision to move is quite quick and quite rushed. So, someone who might be quite independent in their own home has an accident or an illness and that is a time of concern for them and their children. Often, that is when decisions are made: 'Mum can't live here by herself anymore. We need to move her. She is in the hospital now. I don't think she can live independently anymore. She has to go either to residential aged care or maybe to a retirement village.'

One of the things we see, with a program like ViTA, in Daw Park, is giving people some space. What that enables them to do is to go through an eight-week program to rebuild their strength. What that does is give them choice, the choice that they have to understand is that their ability to live independently has been changed and is unlikely to change again, or they regain their strength and their independence and that they can continue to live, maybe with some extra support services.

I think you and I are very much on the same page, member for Morphett. We need to have some flexibility within the system. I do get concerned when there is an incident, an illness or an accident, and people feel that they, in a very short space of time, have to make quite important decisions about where they are going to live. The re-enablement process, and that might be through services to the home or you might be in something like ViTA, enables people to gain a little bit of time to then reflect on what their next move will be.

When I speak to most people they want to stay in their home, but they want to feel safe and they want to feel secure, and I guess, not more importantly but equally as important, their children want to feel that their parents are safe and secure.

Mr DULUK: In clause 29(3), a few people have put to me (and this is residents) to the way an operator chooses to pay the daily accommodation payment (DAP) instead of paying the refundable accommodation deposit (RAD), and this is obviously, as you know, transitioning to aged care. Correct me if this is wrong, but essentially residents can also be charged a daily interest on an outstanding RAD as they are transitioning, which is a very high daily payment, whilst the accommodation payments, the DAP, are being paid by the operators.

Should these be able to be deducted from the exit entitlement and, of course, if an exit entitlement is being held up for a period of time there is a discrepancy. So, what is being done to accommodate that? Obviously, this section does not really allow for that provisioning; a resident who has gone into an aged-care facility, if it is for 18 months, can be out of pocket for quite a long time.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I accept the complication the member has raised, and SARVRA has written to me this past week. I think you probably received a copy of that letter detailing some of the interest. What we have moved so far is to allow flexibility. While I acknowledge it does not cover the issue of interest you have raised, what it does is move somewhat from the current operation as it is. While I acknowledge that there will be costs in regard to interest, the flexibility that is incorporated in this bill I believe takes us some way to provide that support.

Mr DULUK: There is no flexibility if you are paying high interest for 18 months because you move into residential care. There is no flexibility for you at all. In the current 2005 version of the bill, within 60 days of receiving the application the premium has to be paid to secure your place in the care facility. We have gone from what I would say is a pretty good system to one of no flexibility.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: My understanding is that some of the triggers for the changes here were to do with the commonwealth change of how they administer residential aged care, and so that was changed. Previously, you had to have a bond, and now you have the RAD or the DAP that you can pay. I am happy to provide a further briefing for you. This concern about interest has been raised, and it is not addressed at this stage in the bill.

Mr DULUK: Thank you, and you are correct: it is now a RAD or a DAP. In the 2005 amendment act of the RV Bill, either way within 60 days the majority of the premium had to be paid. That surely can still apply whether it is a RAD or a DAP at the moment.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I guess this is an example of the balance we have attempted to achieve between residents and operators. This was a concern that operators raised with us if they had multiple people leave at once. In the spirit of negotiation, looking at the balance of the bill, that is what we have proposed and that is what we intend to go forward with.

Clause passed.

Clause 30.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On clause 30—Certain taxes, costs and charges must not be charged to residents, subclause (2) states that the land tax, for example, can be passed on if the residence is not being occupied by the residents as his or her principal place of residence. Minister, can you give the committee some examples of how many retirement village residence licence owners are not actually using it as their principal place of residence?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As I am advised, currently we do not have any examples of that.

Clause passed.

Clause 31.

Ms COOK: In regard to clause 31, the surplus and deficit is only mentioned in the transitional provisions, in special resolutions. On division 3, clause 31—Convening meetings of residents, how does the bill address the clarity around deficits and surpluses in their meetings? There were no clear arrangements previously for dealing with deficits and surpluses. How does it address it now?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Can I just talk a little bit about it. It is detailed in schedule 2 part 4, at the back. It provides greater clarity in dealing with deficit and surplus funds, and a maintenance fund is another positive aspect of the bill. With often no clear arrangements, this can be seen as an area of concern for residents who put their money into these funds without knowing ultimately how they might be used.

The new arrangement ensures that within six months of the commencement of the bill a policy will be established for dealing with surpluses and deficits within a village, as approved by a special resolution of residents. If the policy is not adopted, the regulations will prescribe how the funds are managed. Knowing what you are paying for something I think is a basic right. It was very clear to me that this was something that not in all villages, but in some, had become quite a contentious issue. That was expressed clearly to me at one or two of the forums. I draw your attention to schedule 2.

Clause passed.

Clause 32 passed.

Clause 33.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Clause 33—Offences relating to meetings, provides:

(1) An operator who fails to comply with section…is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $10,000.

Expiation fee: $315.

Minister, can you tell the committee how often offences have occurred and how many fines have been issued in the last 12 months or so?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As I am advised, the current act has no fines in this area. This clause enables us to provide expiation notices particularly for repeat offenders.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (34 to 66), schedules and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

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) (16:23): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I want to acknowledge the work of many people from the Office for the Ageing, who are here, particularly Vanessa. The team has lived and talked retirement villages for quite some time now. I particularly wanted to take the work of the select committee, which I think was incredibly thorough—I know that it was the bipartisan select committee—and go out and consult. We wanted to consult thoroughly on this. We had more than 300 submissions.

We used the opportunity to put it up on the YourSAy website. For me, this is my third piece of legislation as a minister, and I found was that this was a really positive engagement tool. Not only did we use some of the traditional methods of sending out the proposal to stakeholders, including those peak groups which include the Property Council, ACS and some of the other groups that are around, we also had, of course, our Retirement Villages Advisory Committee, which I think has about 20 members on it, providing a subset of both residents and operators, for-profit and not-for-profit, rural and metro.

We know that this is significant legislation. We know that there was a lack of transparency and a lack of clarity. I can tell you as Minister for Ageing that I have personally had a positive experience with retirement villages. I know my grandparents enjoyed living where they did for some time, but I have unfortunately had to read many of the more negative experiences people have had.

One of the key issues, which I think the member for Heysen raised as well, is that people have not understood their contract going in. So, while they were making one of the most significant decisions of their life to have a licence to occupy and also, from week to week, pay maintenance fees, etc., we needed to move to give greater clarity, and that clarity needed to be easily understood.

I look forward to working within this parliament and with the many stakeholders as we look at drafting those regulations with the specifics about how this will be handled. What I specifically want to be able to see is someone who is looking at a retirement village going in there because they want that lifestyle choice. I want them to be able to measure very clearly, apples with apples, the different options that are available.

I have already addressed today the different business models. There are different ways in which you can go in. In fact, I think the member for Morphett mentioned rental being a very small proportion of this, but I think it is very important. I think there are about 25,000 South Australians who live in a retirement village. I think it is a viable option for people to live in as they age. It is not the only option. The vast majority of people age in their own home, or they might choose to downsize and live in a smaller area, but it is important that this industry is clear and people understand what they are going into.

I want to pay particular attention also to SARVRA (the South Australian Retirement Villages Residents Association). They have been very active in this area. They have not been completely satisfied with everything I have proposed in this bill, nor have they been dissatisfied, so we have tried to strike that balance. I also want to thank the Council on the Ageing for their interest and input here.

Can I thank all members of the house who have engaged in this process, particularly the forums that we held. I thought that the ability for the bill to sit out there on the YourSAy website, available to everyone, added that level of transparency for all South Australians to have a look at the bill and what we are going to do.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (16:28): This piece of legislation has been a while coming. Having been on the select committee, I have been involved with this for a number of years now, and it is pleasing to be able to go through the legislation. I know the minister has taken a number of questions on notice here.

Without singling out public servants, can I just particularly thank Cathy Pedler for all her input both in the select committee and during the second reading and committee stage of the bill. Cathy has worked exceptionally hard. While she is not quite grey and ready to go into a retirement village, I think we have pushed her there a bit, so thank you, Cathy.

Minister, I should say there will be some discussion between the houses on where we are going to finish up with this, but I hope it does what we all on the select committee want it to do, and that is improve the future long-term solutions to these problems. Some of them are immediate problems and others are going to be longer-term problems but, hopefully, this bill, which will be revised in five years, will provide a path forward.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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