HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-11-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Retirement Villages (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 12 September 2024.)

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:48): I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak in favour of this bill. I recognise it has been a long time coming. Indeed, we have had consistent advocacy from groups that support those living in villages urging the parliament to deal with this matter as a priority. It has been languishing on the Notice Paper for many months. We welcome the fact that it is finally being made a priority and can be resolved by Christmas.

The Greens believe that residential care for older South Australians must prioritise quality of care, not profits. Furthermore, the aged-care system should be underpinned by transparency and accountability at every level. Many of the measures contained within the bill respond to recommendations made by an independent review conducted by PEG Consulting in 2021, which serve to strengthen the Retirement Villages Act.

Whilst the bill goes some way in increasing consumer protections for residents, improved rights for residents and transparency of disclosure documents and contracts, the Greens believe that the bill could go further. The Greens have filed a number of amendments to strengthen this bill.

The first amendment ensures that residents are not required to undo any approved changes to their units upon their exit. These include removing or replacing fixtures and fittings, specifically functional or personal aids such as handrails that might have been added as an approved alteration by the operator. I had an advocacy group who came and met with me earlier this year and flagged this issue with me. It was not something that I was aware of previously, but it does seem curious that when someone vacates a property they are required to remove any alterations they have made to a property in one of these villages, even if the alterations have been approved by the village. They might have to undergo the removal and restoration work at significant cost.

One of the examples that was provided to me was someone having solar panels installed on their property and then being required to remove them at the point of sale, or someone having handrails installed in their property and having to remove them at the point of sale, even though these alterations have been approved by the village operators. That seems a bizarre state of affairs to me. The Greens' amendment seeks to address that. Leaving functional aids in place will save on resources, money and potentially time of the SACAT in dealing with disputes over both installations and removals.

The second amendment seeks to prevent operators from charging advertisements and marketing fees upon exit. Again, these are add-on costs that people may not always be familiar with when they are signing on to a contract, and it significantly hikes up the cost for someone when they are selling their property. At present, many operators charge a remarketing cost of 2.5 per cent of the sale price, plus a 10 per cent GST. Residents should not have to bear this cost given it is not theirs and the property is no longer occupied. This does not occur with tenants within rental properties, for instance, or on the open market. Why should those who are living in retirement villages be subject to different rules?

The third amendment that the Greens are moving ensures that all of the proposed changes in the bill apply to existing residents, including those under contract, rather than just future residents. I understand this will be the most controversial of the Greens' amendments, but it would ensure that these protections that the government is seeking to impose today apply to all of these retirement village residents. There are roughly 26,000 residents who are already living in retirement villages across South Australia. They will be excluded from the improved conditions in the government's bill because the bill will not take effect retrospectively. It does seem unfair to see those South Australians being left out of the bill, and not to get the protections that they deserve.

I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the many constituents who have reached out to my office on this bill, including representatives of the South Australian Retirement Villages Residents Association (SARVRA). I also acknowledge the work of the minister and his office. I know that this is a topic that he is passionate about, and has been working on for some time, and I know that these reforms will be welcomed by people living in retirement villages across the state. I will make it clear that the Greens, obviously, will be advancing our amendments, but in the event that the amendments are not successful, we will still, of course, support the government bill.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (17:53): I rise briefly to address and support the Retirement Villages (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, which aims to bring wideranging benefits for current and future residents. The bill stems from recommendations made by an independent review to increase consumer protection, and to increase understanding for residents and operators. It also aims to ensure the ongoing health and sustainability of the sector, and says it minimises any negative impacts on retirement village operators. Suggested changes include:

greater regulation of residents' contracts, such as how fees and charges are calculated, and how these fees can vary, explained in easy-to-understand terms;

more clarity on financial reporting and resident consultation;

strengthened rights for rental tenants; and

improved dispute resolution processes.

These are among a long list of changes, most of which have been welcomed by the industry, including the SA Retirement Village Residents Association which are among those we consulted to inform our position on this bill.

The association and its members harbour concerns about the issue of the cap on capitalisation replacement fund money, which involves outgoing residents being charged on exit. However, the association is overall supportive of this bill, as is the Retirement Living Council, provided the bill broadly retains its current shape.

The council told my office it is comfortable that the bill strikes an agreeable balance in that it injects more consumer protections but still allows operators to remain sustainable into the future. The council said it now considers the South Australian legislative framework best in class.

The flood of emails my office received about this matter in recent weeks suggests many retirement village residents support the government's bill in its current form, and these residents are adamant that limiting exit fees is the number one issue facing the sector currently, with many considering the current laws and regulations too heavily weighted in favour of operators. They want this bill passed as is and as soon as possible.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:55): I rise to say that I will be supporting this bill and flag now that I do have some amendments which I believe make parts of the contracts fairer and more balanced. I commend the health minister and the Office for Ageing and Wellbeing for the effort that has been put into this amendment bill to try to achieve better outcomes for all concerned, but specifically for the residents who enter into these complex agreements.

Since the last bill passed before the 2018 election, there has been some disquiet from residents and their representative organisation, the South Australian Retirement Villages Residents Association(SARVRA). I still recall attending a SARVRA meeting in the city during the 2018 election campaign with the current minister, who was then in opposition. Many there expressed their frustration with punitive contracts and exit provisions, which they wanted fixed.

The Hon. Chris Picton took note of those concerns and has tried to come up with a refreshed piece of legislation to try to strike a balance between the rights and needs of the residents and the owners and operators of these retirement lifestyle independent living accommodation places. It is far from perfect and I am sure residents and potential residents will still have concerns and will not be overly happy, but it has won approval from SARVRA and also Care of The Ageing (COTA). However, while some of the more troubling aspects of these contracts appear to have been addressed, not all are going to be pleased with it.

The bill looks at improving disclosure in (among other things) contracts and documents, financial reporting, mandatory consultation between management and residents, the reduction in the repayment of fees and charges, remarketing costs and responsibilities, terminating of occupancy, upholding of professional standards of operators and staff who work in these villages, and probably one of the most contentious of all, imposing a cap on capital fund contributions.

I will outline my amendments shortly to cover some of these areas. I would have liked to have seen the establishment of an office of a retirement villages commissioner or ombudsman where residents could take their concerns and complaints without having to go through the arduous process of making applications to the SACAT, which involves unnecessary expense.

Many retirees are often loath to complain about their circumstances or they simply do not understand the complexities of what they have signed up for. There could also be other disputes in play at their village that may require a more focused approach. Having an office and staff which understands this area would be beneficial in seeking to resolve disputes quickly.

New Zealand has appointed its own independent retirement villages ombudsman. Our neighbour across the Tasman has nearly 30,000 people living in retirement villages, almost the same number as we do in our state. From all reports, this office is working very well. With more than 26,000 people living in these villages in South Australia, that number is expected to grow substantially, with an ageing population and more retirees contemplating downsizing from their existing homes and looking at alternatives before they contemplate aged care.

The Property Council, which of course lends its support to the sector, estimates retirement villages will save around $1 billion a year in delaying entry into aged-care homes. That is nice to know, except there are a lot of retirees a long way from going into an aged-care facility and still enjoying their independence.

The Retirement Living Council claims in a report that 41 per cent are happier and 15 per cent are more physically active and experience reduced levels of depression and loneliness, because they can make new friends and socialise in these communities. According to the Property Council, the retirement industry requires 67,000 homes to be built to meet the level of demand from older Australians. I seek leave to conclude my remarks after the dinner break.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 18:01 to 19:45.

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