Tuesday, 27 May 2025

Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Harriet Shing:

That the bill be now read a second time.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (16:46): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution to the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2024. In doing so I want to just set the scene here. This bill has been drifting in the Parliament for some time. It goes back to the early part of the year and indeed back into last year, when the bill was first brought forward. There has been a lot of discussion by government but by the opposition in particular, and I want to pay tribute to Tim McCurdy and the work that he has done in working with different groups. Regarding the work that has been done here, it is actually significant, and I can indicate that the opposition will not oppose the bill, although we do have some amendments. It might be worthwhile for those amendments to be circulated at this time. I apologise for the circulation at this point, but the government and the crossbench have been emailed those amendments earlier.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

David DAVIS: There has been a considerable amount of work on those amendments, and I again note the work of Tim McCurdy, his staff and the engagement with a number of key stakeholder groups. This area is replete with stakeholder groups, a number of whom met with me at earlier points in discussion on this bill. There are obviously owners, there are not-for-profits, there are residents, there are resident groups and there are a whole range of industry sector groups that have got particular views about this bill and about where retirement living should be.

Obviously this is an incredibly important zone given the significance of retirement living for so many Victorians – not unique to Victoria but significant because of the need to make sure that people have a high-quality standard of life in their retirement villages and that there are arrangements in place to ensure security, safety and fairness. Centres need to be economically viable, and there is clearly a significant range of issues to be identified.

What I would also say is that this bill hardly scratches the sides of a lot of the issues that retirement villages and residents in retirement villages face. In that sense, whilst the bill is not opposed and while we will seek to amend it, nobody should be under any illusions that this is in any way a comprehensive set of steps that has been taken here.

There is a bit of background that I think is important. In 2017 a Legislative Council Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiry looked at the operation and regulation of retirement housing and resulted in a recommendation that the government develop a bill to better regulate the sector. In part this is that bill. In 2019 the Victorian government released an issues paper seeking feedback on the retirement villages sector. This was followed by community forums and so forth, and further releases were made in 2021. Following the feedback on the options paper, the government released an exposure draft in 2022 for feedback for only three weeks due to the caretaker provisions of government. Following the re-election of the current government, a further updated exposure draft of the bill was released in April 2023. A lengthy review period occurred between then and the government’s introduction of the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2024 into Parliament during the last sitting week of last year. Whilst I say the bill is in no way comprehensive, it does have significant reach given that it is probably the largest bill in this area since 2004. The long, long genesis of this bill has caused residents to express considerable frustration with the protracted timeframe from the start of the review to the end, and a number of operators have been very concerned about the uncertainty and the issues that are created with this bill.

The purpose of the bill in theory is to improve the regulation of retirement villages, to provide for the needs of ageing and diverse residents of retirement villages, to provide for consumer protection and additional mechanisms to support the interests of residents of retirement villages, to provide for regulation that anticipates future growth and innovation in the retirement villages sector and to provide for further protection of the rights, interests and needs of current and future residents and a number of minor points. The bill, as I say, is a significant bill in that respect. At the same time, whilst we need to make sure the sector is viable, we need to make sure that it is also fair for residents.

The Property Council of Australia’s 2023 retirement census indicates that 63 operators operate across Australia – obviously this is a Victorian bill – with 862 villages and more than 80,000 units. The average age of a person in a retirement village in Victoria is 76, with an expected tenure of 8.4 years for those living in the independent living units and 4.8 years for those living in serviced apartments. The up-front living cost of independent living units is about 52 per cent of that of a similar property in the metropolitan area and 57 per cent in regional Victoria, thus making it often an affordable option for older Victorians. The Liberals and Nationals have done, as I say, a lot of work talking to all parts of the sector. I do want to put on record again the considerable work done by Tim McCurdy and his office.

Division 1 of the bill amends the principal act. It changes the purpose and puts in new principles. Clause 6 provides for a new definition of payments, clause 7 inserts the definition of ‘entry payment’ and clause 8 provides exemptions for all operators’ villages, not just charitable religious ones as exists under the act at the moment. Division 2 deals with exemptions. Division 3 makes various changes to definitions and introduces new penalties for operating without having notified ASIC. Division 4 makes various amendments to the definitions in the enforcement of rights and also puts in a new part 3A, which is about the termination of contracts. Division 5 amends part 4 of the act. There are significant changes through there. There is a list of penalties for the breach of a number of duties. There is a need to tighten up some of the points around the provision of information to residents, and some of those points are well understood.

Division 6 makes various changes to the charges residents pay as well as refunds of charges. Division 7 deals with the options and sales of premises. Division 8 and particularly the inserting of new part 5B deals with payment of certain entitlements, and there are exit entitlements that are also further defined. Division 9 outlines new rules around the meeting of residents, and there was a lot of input on a number of these points. Division 10 deals with the reinstatement, modifications and renovations undertaken, including who is responsible for the cost. Reinstatement costs are passed on to the resident, as they are required to leave the property in the same condition as they left it, minus fair wear and tear. Division 11 makes various changes relating to maintenance, and I am covering this at a high level. Division 13 deals with disputes and resolution of those disputes. Division 14 makes amendments to the requirements of an operator to pay an annual fee as well as changes to rules around a person not to manage a retirement village. There are transitional provisions in division 15.

The bill, as I have said, will have a mixed impact on residents and operators, with many of the changes being supported in part or wholly by both those groups. There is an understanding that reform is needed. However, there is concern that the department was instructed initially to rush the bill and as a result there were some elements that were poorly drafted. To the extent that the government is cleaning up a number of points with its various amendments, some of those amendments will be supported, or not opposed, by the opposition, and I am foreshadowing that at this point.

There are two sides to most of the story here, and cooling-off periods are debatable. There are changes to meeting rules that are somewhat restrictive, and residents have expressed some concern about those. There is concern about the lack of auditing of various accounts, and there are some improvements that will come there.

The bill is a mixed bag of good and bad. Tim McCurdy, our shadow, has consulted widely – Retirement Living Australia, Centennial Living, Residents of Retirement Villages Victoria and a number of past presidents of that group and similar groups, Council on the Ageing and Senior Rights Victoria. There are a number of points that I am going to make about our amendments, and they have now been circulated. One of them relates to the changing of the commencement date of the bill. This comes from feedback from operators and residents that the bill sitting in Parliament for such a lengthy period will make the regulatory development period difficult and the implementation period too short to ensure proper consultation can be done. We will move that amendment. On the capital maintenance and replacement issue, this set of amendments make various amendments to capital maintenance funds and ‘fair wear and tear’. The principals in this, the residents, should be responsible for capital maintenance within the residents’ premises. There is, however, some confusion about what constitutes fair wear and tear and what will constitute renovation when determining the responsibilities for each party at the time of departure. A resident should be responsible for fair wear and tear of their premises.

There is another set of amendments that relates to capital maintenance and replacement funds. This would revert to the village only having one fund for both capital maintenance and replacement, funded by the maintenance charge and operators, as per the current system. Feedback from operators and residents has indicated that separating capital item maintenance and capital item replacement in the two would be detrimental to residents, as operators would prefer to maintain an item from village funds rather than dipping into their own fund. This change would ensure that maintenance or replacement of capital is funded from one source and encourage continual upgrades as needed, making it fairer for long-term residents and enabling – we think, and the feedback to us is – better accountability.

On the issue of operating deficits this set of amendments would amend the bill to treat operating surpluses and deficits equally. Feedback from operators indicated that it was unfair for operating deficits to be treated differently from operating surpluses. The bill currently allows for surpluses to be carried forward but not deficits. That has been put to us by operators.

The adjusted maintenance charge amendment will replace any or all reference to ‘adjusted maintenance charge’ with ‘benchmark maintenance charge’. This change is designed to clarify the confusing terminology around the actual maintenance charge residents pay and the charge adjusted for CPI. Given that the adjusted maintenance charge is not a charge but a guideline or benchmark, replacing ‘adjusted’ with ‘benchmark’ will improve clarity to make it easier for residents to understand. This is a change that has been requested by the resident groups, and we support it and hence will move it.

The alternative accommodation payments amendment tightens up the proposed clauses around alternative accommodation. Operators are happy to provide alternative accommodation payments; however, they are seeking to make the changes more reasonable for operators to manage finances during the transition. This is a matter that has been put to us by operators.

The auditing of accounts amendment removes the references to accounts being reviewed by an independent auditor. Accounts should be audited in the interests of financial transparency and best practice; as such, references to accounts being reviewed as well as residents requesting reviewed accounts to be audited will be removed. This has been led by the residents.

There are a number of government amendments, as we understand it. The minister I think is Minister Shing in this chamber. There is a further attempt to provide clarification of the terms ‘vacant possession’ and ‘permanently vacating’, and we would support that amendment. There is an amendment which requires village owners and operators to disclose information relating to insurance arrangements in villages, and we will not oppose that amendment. There is an extension of the cooling-off period for entering into a residence from three to seven business days, and we support that change. We believe that that is fairer. There is a lower quorum requirement for a meeting of residents in a village on an adjusted scale based on the size of the village, and we have agreed not to oppose that change. There is an amendment to clarify the prohibition on the levying of maintenance charges and optional service charges after a resident has died, consistent with vacant possession reforms, and we have indicated we will not oppose that. There are updates to references in other acts and regulations to support consistency with the introduction of modernised terms, and we will not oppose any of those proposed amendments by the government.

We think these are fair points that we are making. As I say, a lot of work, a lot of effort, has gone into all of this. We have seen the constant effort by Tim McCurdy and his staff to engage with the spread of resident groups, and there is quite a large number, as I can personally vouch for. There is also the need to make sure that the sector remains viable and to balance the changes that are proposed. I do want to say that with the ageing of our population the task of getting retirement villages operating more effectively and more fairly is a very significant one, and we think there are further areas for reform. We do not think it is the case that this bill is the be-all and end-all of things. There are some aspects that we support; other aspects we are more cautious about. The government is going to, I am informed, come forward with certain amendments, which we will largely support, or not oppose, and we will have a number of additional amendments in place as well.

This is a significant sector because of the shifts in our population. There are real issues with planning matters around some of the retirement villages, and village operators point me to the difficulties of getting clear planning approvals. That has become a major brake on new centres and new operations. The government should work with the sector to find better ways forward there. I am not in favour of leaving communities without a proper say – councils and communities should have that say – but at the same time I do understand the points that are made by a number of key operators and the urgent need for additional capacity and additional opportunities to be made available.

I also want to say that the whole building sector is creaking under the large taxes that are being imposed increasingly by this state government. The Urban Development Institute of Australia provides figures that about 43 per cent of the cost of a new property is taxation. The same problem is true with the production and building of new retirement villages. The costs that government impose are very significant, and those costs have been a significant brake on the ability of many of the operators to bring forward new capacity that is needed in and near where people live and want to live and want to remain. We are strongly supportive of those points made by the industry and made by the sector.

Every one of these regulations that is put in place has an impact. We need to see that these things are balanced in a fair way. We want to see where there is a significant impact that it actually has a commensurate improvement in the position of the residents. We do not want to see excessive burdens put on operators for little or no benefit. I think there are a lot of points. I could go on for a long period, but I am not going to given the hour and the need to expedite this bill forward in a reasonable way.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:09): I rise to make a contribution on the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2024, and in doing so I would like to thank the Minister for Consumer Affairs for his hard work in that role and as the member of Parliament for Bentleigh in my constituency of Southern Metro. This bill to amend the Retirement Villages Act 1986 will be the largest overhaul of the sector’s regulatory framework since it was first passed by the Cain Labor government in 1986. That principal act introduced a sweeping set of reforms for the betterment of our retirement village system. It was built on the concept that no-one should retire without dignity and respect. At the time, it modernised the sector, brought up new standards of care and conduct and also enshrined critical rights for residents both in quality of care and the consumer protections afforded to them, which of course was a staple of the Cain Labor government at the time.

The Allan Labor government is now moving to bring these laws up to meet the challenging environment of the modern world. It brings us in line with other states and territories in many respects but also leads the way in reforming our retirement villages and retirement and aged care sector as a whole. Things have changed since 1986. Victorians are now living longer and healthier lives. The average life span of an Australian was somewhere in the mid-70s; today it is rapidly approaching the mid-80s. As Victorians get older, it means they need more care, whether it is at home or in a retirement village. In order to make sure they live with dignity it is important that we bring our regulatory framework up to modern community expectations, while meeting the challenges and demands of today and opening the door for future changes that better help retirement villages for the care for our ageing residents.

The principal purpose of this bill is to enact better regulation of retirement villages in Victoria and further improve the expected quality of care provided to a more diverse and growing number of retirees entering these villages. It also provides more consumer protection to help protect the interests of residents in retirement villages. It goes to ensuring greater security and dignity for retirees living in these villages and to ensuring fairness and quality of care and service. Retirees have worked their whole lives providing for their families and loved ones. While Australia itself does not have an official age of retirement, there is a threshold at which you can start receiving the pension, which is 67 years old. That would mean that someone now choosing to move onto the pension and retire would have been born around 1958. Australia only federated in 1901, meaning your typical retiree today has been working away for nearly half of Australia’s existence as a federated Commonwealth nation. That is before we even consider that many Australians choose to retire at a much older age too.

We want these hardworking Australians to retire with dignity and with the care that they deserve and need. We want the later stages of their lives to be ones where they are cared for, not where they are held back by the pressures and burdens that come with financial insecurity and unfair treatment. Part of ensuring that dignity and care is the proper maintenance and regulation of our retirement villages. If we want ageing retirement village residents to live in stronger financial security, we need to ensure that they have the consumer rights afforded to them that allow them to make the best financial decisions for themselves and for their loved ones. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:12): I rise today to speak on the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2024, which the Greens will be supporting. In doing so I acknowledge that this bill is the culmination of many, many years of work by residents and by advocates who care deeply about the successful and the fair running of retirement villages. They have been staunch in their work to make sure that residents are treated well, that villages are enjoyable and comfortable places to live and that people fully understand the conditions of their contracts when they move in. They have been firm in their calls to stop the dodgy, dishonest behaviour that we have seen from many operators in the past, who have preyed on people for their own advantage. In the Victorian Parliament – before my time personally in this place – following the efforts of residents and the community, we had a Greens-initiated inquiry back in 2016 which led to the review of the act. We see now, consequently, this legislation before us. The inquiry heard too many stories of residents being poorly treated – complex contracts, ridiculous fee hikes, dishonest practices – and really awful stories of people losing their savings or being forced to live in homes that they were not happy with.

Many of the changes we see in this bill were recommended by that inquiry, and that is really great to see. The Greens do support this bill. It brings in a number of reforms that will improve the situation for residents of retirement villages. These are positive changes here, which we welcome. It is great to see that there will now be, for example, standardised contracts for new residents and requirements to provide clear statements of information and contract checks. I am pleased to see that operators will be held to a mandatory code of practice, that there will be greater regulation for the benefit of residents and that a dedicated dispute resolution service will be set up. This dispute resolution service has the potential to support residents seeking justice and fair outcomes when issues do arise. I hope that this service will be well resourced to therefore hold providers to account in a tangible and a binding way. To be clear, though, the Greens do still support calls for a retirement housing ombudsman because even if the dispute resolution service does have the resources it needs to truly support residents, we are still concerned that it may not have the scope to investigate systemic issues, which are bound to continue and do need to be addressed.

There is still much more work to be done in this space to make sure that all retirement village residents are well informed and are fairly treated and that dodgy operators are held to account. There is more to do to remove the power imbalance that we see between residents and operators and to focus on residents’ rights in their homes, in their communities. I really hope that we do not continue to see media story after media story of awful operators behaving badly – heartbreaking stories of residents being scammed or even being bullied. It would be really a shame on our state for that rorting to continue, and I will certainly be watching closely to identify what potential further reforms are therefore needed. But this bill before us is a solid step in the right direction.

I do also want to personally thank the many retirement village residents who have been so engaged with this process to bring about this legislation and who have been advocating firmly to try and make it even better. I know many of them will be following this debate right now, and I want to specifically thank them for their time and their engagement with my office and with my fellow Greens MPs’ offices. They have really helped us to be informed about what they are seeing in retirement villages and have been fierce advocates for the benefit of all residents. I know there will be some residents who we have engaged with who will not be completely happy with where this bill is ultimately landing and who would like to see further reform, and I hear you – I do hear you. There is more work to be done. So I say, in that case, let us continue that work, let us continue this conversation. There is more to do here. We must keep pushing for any future changes in this space that are required. But in relation to this bill, I commend it to the house.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (17:17): I rise to speak in strong support of the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2024, a bill that marks the most significant overhaul of retirement village legislation in Victoria since the act was first introduced in 1986. At its heart this bill is about fairness, dignity and respect. It is about ensuring that older Victorians, those who have worked hard, raised families and contributed so much to our communities, are supported to age well in comfort and with the security they absolutely deserve.

As a former Parliamentary Secretary for Housing, I know just how foundational secure, appropriate and affordable housing is to people’s wellbeing. A safe home is more than just a roof over one’s head. It is a place where people connect, rest and maintain their independence. For older Victorians, a retirement village should be exactly that: a genuine home, not a source of stress or confusion.

In my time I had the privilege of working with housing experts, aged care advocates and seniors groups across Victoria, and through that work I came to deeply understand the vulnerabilities older Victorians can face, especially when housing contracts are unclear or when disputes arise without an accessible path to resolution. This bill speaks directly to those concerns. We are absolutely delivering on our commitment to modernising the Retirement Villages Act 1986, and this bill responds directly to what we have heard from residents, their families and the organisations that advocate for them. Can I say that for many the message was clear: contracts were too complex, dispute resolution was ineffective and too often the balance of power was tilted away from residents. The bill changes that. It puts residents at the centre.

I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge and thank the former member for Hawthorn John Kennedy for his leadership on this issue. John brought into this Parliament not just a deep intellect and a sense of fairness but his own lived experience of retirement living. He understood intimately what needed to change and was a strong and persistent voice for reform. This bill owes much to his advocacy. With that, can I say we have heard long and hard about what reforms are needed, and in this bill we seek to deliver them. So to the former member for Hawthorn John Kennedy and all those that have travelled with him on the path to get this bill before us today, can I say thank you for your efforts. Thank you for sharing your personal experiences so generously. This bill carries your fingerprints. Older Victorians deserve nothing less than our full support to live with dignity, respect and security. I commend this bill to the house.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:19): I rise to make a contribution to the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2024. Those of us lucky enough to have parents who have lived long lives may have some experience of the stress involved in navigating the residential, retirement and aged care sectors. It is a very complex area. In relation to retirement villages, confusion and miscommunication over contracts often only arises when a resident is leaving, and then there may be a long wait for their exit entitlements. This obviously exacerbates an already challenging time for residents and their families, so it is pleasing to see the Retirement Villages Act 1986 getting this much-needed review.

The bill seeks to improve the regulation of retirement villages and provide better consumer protections for people entering and exiting retirement villages. That includes the requirement that retirement village operators use standardised contracts and information so that potential residents are better able to understand what they are getting into and compare different villages more easily. Operators will be required to report to residents annually on the status of their contracts. They will also need to develop mandatory emergency plans. The bill introduces a dedicated dispute resolution service to be run through the Department of Government Services. It seeks to introduce stronger protections around the exit entitlements paid to residents when they leave a retirement village, and it clarifies how operators calculate and disclose fees to residents. Generally it seeks to improve the information provided to people so they can make informed decisions about this important stage in their life.

We received a lot of advocacy from retirement village residents who had concerns with some aspects of the original bill as drafted. My Legalise Cannabis colleague Mr Ettershank, who spent some 20 years working in the not-for-profit aged care sector prior to entering Parliament and who knows a thing or two about the sector, was able to work with the government to resolve some of these issues. I believe this bill we have before us is significantly improved as a result of his work. I commend the minister’s office for this engagement and willingness to work through our suggestions, and I would like to particularly acknowledge Joel Blanch for his work on this bill. We will be asking some questions during the committee stage to get some further clarity around some aspects of the bill.

It is worth noting that retirement villages are commercial ventures. Operators are providing goods and services at a price to get a return on their investment in line with the risks they are taking. We know that the vast majority of retirement village operators are doing the right thing. It is important to get the right balance between providing protection for residents and allowing operators to run a business and stay afloat. For example, we do not support changes that would extinguish existing contracts or retrospectively amend residents’ agreements with operators.

We have had representations from residents seeking to amend agreements in relation to deferred management fees. As the name suggests, these are fees that are deferred until the resident is exiting the retirement village. The fees are calculated at the entry point to give people some certainty of what they will owe at the exit point, but this tends to be forgotten until it is time for the resident to leave. Nobody likes deferred management fees, but we cannot support retrospective amendments to alter or abolish them. We would see a great many retirement villages bankrupt if these fees were abolished. It is unsustainable. It could represent a loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars out of every unit, which would be disastrous for operators.

However, we have worked with the government to make changes to the original bill, which I will now turn to. Firstly, the lack of information provided by operators around insurance coverage has been a source of anxiety for many retirement village residents. The inquiry into the 2022 floods heard from residents of the Rivervue Retirement Village whose homes were inundated during the floods and unable to be occupied for a long time thereafter. In addition to the trauma and stress related to the floods and their aftermath, affected residents were suddenly made aware that they were underinsured and that there was a significant gap between the insurance that Tigcorp and the operators at Rivervue had obtained and what that insurance actually covered. I quote from a submission to the inquiry from a Rivervue resident:

… Tigcorp had completely underinsured the village, as they had $5 million of building insurance for the entire village, which represents roughly 6 per cent on an asset of $80 million, which had to cover temporary accommodation costs too.

The resident said they had to urgently find and pay for their own temporary accommodation:

… all because Tigcorp had failed to get proper insurance for Rivervue and had never revealed it to the residents.

It seems obvious that retirement village residents should know what insurance cover the operator has taken out, including coverage of buildings and equipment, public liability and the cost of alternative accommodation if their residence is impacted by a disaster such as floods or fire. A certificate of insurance is a basic starting point. It summarises the type of cover and risk, the limit of indemnity, and the excess in respect to the types of cover, but it misses important things such as underinsurance. The residents of Rivervue were underinsured, which they could have addressed had they had the right information. They could have looked at the gaps and topped up their own insurance, but incredibly, they found that it was impossible to get that information from Tigcorp. A certificate of insurance also admits exclusions. Residents need to know what is not covered by the operator’s insurance, like temporary accommodation costs if the residence is uninhabitable, and they need to know what risks are not insured. Does the operator’s insurance adequately insure for all risks?

We are pleased that the government has agreed to our suggested amendment to require village owners and operators to disclose insurance information as part of the information provided to new and prospective residents and to exiting residents as part of their annual contract check. Additional disclosure requirements for insurance will be prescribed in regulations.

Moving on to vacant possession, many stakeholders thought the term ‘vacant possession’ was ambiguous in the legislation and wanted to see it better defined. Residents had concerns about operators having unreasonable expectations around what constituted a vacant property ready for resale. In circumstances where residents are depending on the sale of their residence to finance the next stage of their life – for example, a resident leaving the village to move in with their family – they wanted some assurance that the process of vacating and selling their retirement residence would happen relatively quickly. We are pleased the government has amended the legislation to provide clarification of the terms ‘vacant possession’ and ‘permanently vacating’ for the purpose of the Retirement Villages Act 1986.

The cooling off period for entering into a residence contract has been extended from three to seven business days. This is a reasonable amendment and in line with other jurisdictions.

The original quorum requirements for a meeting of residents in a village was at least half of the total number of residents who are entitled to vote, which is simply not feasible. Obviously you will always have very committed residents who will show up to a meeting. But some of these retirement villages are huge, with 500-plus elderly residents, so expecting 250 of them to turn up for a meeting is unrealistic. Accordingly, the government has amended the quorum requirements, basing it on a sliding scale. For larger villages of 40 residents or more, 25 per cent of residents are needed to form a quorum; for smaller villages of less than 40 but more than 20, 10 residents are required; and for villages with fewer than 20 residents, half of those residents are required. This is a sensible measure.

These amendments will afford greater protection for residents of retirement villages, but there are growing numbers of Victorian retirees who are living in residential tenancy parks. Indeed they are becoming a common alternative for retirees, particularly those with less means. It is critical that the government implement legislation for residential park communities that aligns with the rights afforded to those living in retirement villages. We understand that some research is underway, and we would expect the results to be reported to Parliament within six months. Many of these lifestyle villages are simply existing caravan parks, and they are high risk in terms of climate change. There is currently a vacuum that exists around residential tenancy parks. They are not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, and they are not fully covered by caravan parks and moveable dwellings registration and standards regulations. We look forward to seeing the results of the government’s research and some action in this space.

Our population is ageing. By 2046 it is estimated that one in four Victorians, a quarter of us, will be aged over 60. If we are fortunate enough to live to a ripe old age, a great many of us will be living in some form of aged care or retirement living. It is a fact. As much as we hope for our loved ones to be able to live in safe, secure accommodation with all the necessary supports and services and no scary surprises, we would also want this for ourselves when the time comes. We believe this bill strikes a good balance in offering greater protection for retirement village residents while enabling owners and operators to manage their villages sustainably.

I would just like to finally note a thankyou to my colleague Mr David Ettershank for all the work that he has done on this bill. I think he has done an amazing job of collaborating with the government and with stakeholders and finding some resolutions that really do work. I commend the bill to the house.

Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (17:31): I rise to speak in support of the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2024. I acknowledge the government’s work in bringing this important bill before the house. This bill brings some important reforms to the retirement community sector, and it is encouraging to see Victoria moving towards national consistency in its regulation of retirement villages. I note that regulatory consistency amongst jurisdictions has been called for by the industry for some time now and that this consistency, as well as the reduction of other regulatory burdens, should reduce unnecessary complexity and confusion for both residents and operators and reduce vital administrative costs for the industry. I particularly commend the commitment included in this bill for the development of a mandatory code of practice. This will establish a clear and enforceable set of rules that all retirement village operators must follow. As the industry grows, we have a responsibility to ensure that elderly Victorians, many of whom may be in vulnerable situations, are properly protected. This mandatory code will be developed through consultation with residents, operators and other stakeholders, which will help to prevent unfair practices and ensure residents are treated with the dignity and respect that they all deserve.

I will also be moving an amendment to this bill, and I ask that the amendment be circulated now.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Georgie PURCELL: This amendment seeks to prohibit retirement villages from creating rules which unreasonably limit the keeping of companion animals by their residents. As it stands, elderly Victorians can be told they must give up their beloved pet in order to access housing and care in a retirement village. While many retirement villages do allow new residents to move in with an existing pet, there are still widespread restrictions when it comes to obtaining a new pet or replacing a pet that has passed away. These limitations can be deeply distressing, particularly for older residents who rely on the companionship, routine and emotional support that animals provide us.

It is important that retirement villages retain the ability to implement reasonable rules around pet ownership and behaviour, and this amendment does not seek to change or undermine that. What it does seek to do is put an end to the restrictive and often unnecessary rules that prevent residents from keeping pets in their homes, often imposed as a matter of policy or convenience. These blanket bans or arbitrary limitations fail to consider individual circumstances and can have a significant impact on the wellbeing of residents. This amendment aims to strike a fair balance by allowing villages to manage legitimate concerns while ensuring residents are not unfairly denied the companionship and comfort that their pets provide.

For many older Victorians, especially those who live alone or far from family, pets are not just a source of companionship, they are a lifeline. Companion animals can ease a deep loneliness that often accompanies ageing, loss or relocation to a new living environment. They provide routine and a sense of purpose and even improve cardiovascular health, all of which are fundamental to mental wellbeing. The Companion Animal Network Australia, or CANA, is a registered charity and the national peak body representing the companion animal welfare work of its member organisations across the country. One of CANA’s key programs is Pet Friendly Aged Care, which was established to address the emotional harm caused when older individuals are forced to relinquish their pets upon entering aged care facilities. This program advocates for policies that allow residents to keep their pets, recognising the significant role that animals play in reducing loneliness and enhancing the quality of life for seniors. According to Companion Animal Network Australia, nearly 70 per cent of pet owners consider their pet to be their closest companion, and for older people in particular, the human–animal bond can be transformative. CANA’s work highlights the risks of separating people from their animals, especially at such a vulnerable stage of their lives.

Loneliness is a major societal health concern, with well-established links to worse health outcomes, depression and cognitive decline. Loneliness has been shown to be as damaging to someone’s health as smoking 15 cigarettes per day. It is essential that we view all legislation affecting the social lives of Victorians with this in mind. This amendment recognises that allowing companion animals within reasonable limits is not just a lifestyle preference, it is a matter of public health. It is unacceptable that older Victorians can be forced to choose between keeping a pet they love and finding a retirement community that they love. This forces elderly people, often at a vulnerable and transitional point in their lives, to search for alternative accommodation in an already tight and competitive housing market. It is a choice no-one should have to make: give up the animal that brings them comfort and companionship, or give up the opportunity to live somewhere safe, somewhere supportive and somewhere suited to their needs. This amendment seeks to remove that impossible choice.

Pets can create opportunities for social interaction, providing opportunities to connect with other pet owners and community members. For those that have dogs of our own, we would all know the sort of community and the sort of politics that emerges from our dog parks. We have recognised this principle before. This government led the way in reforming our rental laws to reflect what so many people already knew: that companion animals are not simply property or a lifestyle choice. In 2020 the Victorian government enacted significant reforms to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 particularly concerning pet ownership in rental properties. These reforms were part of a broader initiative to modernise rental laws and reflect the evolving understanding of the undeniable human–animal bond. By ensuring that tenants have the right to keep pets, the government acknowledged that animals are not merely property or lifestyle choices but integral members of so many families.

There is no reason why this same principle should not apply to elderly residents in retirement villages, who equally deserve to maintain the companionship and emotional support that their pets provide. This amendment is about more than just policy; it is about recognising the deep and longstanding bond that companion animals have in enriching the lives of our elderly Victorians. It is about ensuring that no-one in their later years is forced to sacrifice the comfort, love and companionship of a pet in order to find a safe and a welcoming home. As a community we must honour the dignity of our elders by protecting those connections that bring joy, purpose and comfort in times of vulnerability.

The government has signalled that they will be supporting this amendment, and by doing so we will be taking a meaningful step towards creating retirement villages that are truly homes, places where our seniors can live with respect, compassion and the loyal companionship of their beloved animals. It is both a moral imperative and a reflection of the kind of society we strive to be, and I urge all of my other colleagues to stand with me in passing this amendment to ensure that no Victorian has to face the heartbreaking choice between a home and a friend. I commend the amendment and the bill to the house.

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (17:39): Thank you to everybody who has made such a significant volume of contribution to this debate. It is a wideranging debate given the breadth and the contemplation of the bill but what it does at its heart is really confirm the objectives of this place and indeed this Parliament of addressing the importance of accountability, of transparency and, fundamentally, of dignity and respect.

When we talk to the demographics, the ageing demographics across this state, I am one of those people who by 2046 will be aged 60 and over. We know all too well that the experience of retirement either can be one which is brimming with autonomy, with opportunity and with the best of all things in life or can, as a consequence of an asymmetry in power, be fraught with confusion, anguish, loss and disadvantage. This bill is intended very squarely to provide the best of all possible opportunities occasioned through the provision of clarity, whether that is on entitlement payments; a code of practice; the guiding principles, which I just touched on; clarity in contract; the way in which termination provisions occur; maintenance responsibilities and obligations; and no unreasonable rights of refusal for repairs, alterations, reinstatements and renovations. The government will be proposing a number of amendments, and I would seek at this point that they be circulated.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Harriet SHING: While that is occurring I want to touch on the basis for these amendments and the process which has been undertaken in careful discussions with members across this place. The amendments do reflect a number of positions put by members around the importance of clarity, of reducing and removing any duplication and also of providing that measure of certainty which is at the heart of the bill itself. As we go through committee the position that government takes will become clearer in relation to the opposition amendments. In many cases the house amendments to the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2024 being proposed by government address what has previously been put by the coalition in its proposals. That has informed a number of the positions around amendments not proceeding. I also do want to provide the opposition – Mr Davis, I think you have carriage of the bill – with the opportunity to have some conversations about further amendments which have been put to which the government will not agree.

I want to thank everybody for the process not just of bringing this bill to the chamber today but also in a really extensive period of discussion, review, consultation and engagement. The stakeholder consultation and discussion which have preceded this bill are part of an ongoing discussion about how we make sure that, to come back to my earlier point, dignity and respect are the things that are driving the basis for legislative reform and the ongoing endeavours of this place to ensure that when people retire they are provided with support and again that opportunity for thriving rather than simply being responsive to and at the whim and authority of another set of power imbalances that perhaps drive outcomes that are fraught with disadvantage and lack of opportunity.

I am looking forward to going through this bill in the committee stage to answer any questions. As Ms Purcell has indicated, the government will be supporting that amendment being proposed around the opportunity to keep a pet with the insertion of a provision around ‘unreasonably limiting the keeping of a pet on a resident’s premises’. I just want to indicate our support and indeed my support for this provision, which enables the capacity to keep a pet and a requirement that refusal not be unreasonable. It is so important that we continue to provide pet owners – or, as I refer to us, willing human slaves of companion animals – that opportunity to have pets with them. When I am aged 60 or above in 2046, I hope to be surrounded by as many companion animals as I am possibly allowed to have, which will be to my benefit as well as everybody else’s who is lucky enough to know them. On that basis and looking forward to a discussion in committee, I refer the matter on for the second reading and commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (17:46)

David DAVIS: I do have some questions, we have about a dozen or maybe 15, and most of them I think can be dealt with on clause 1, with the agreement of the committee. If I may ask the minister: clause 1 of the bill introduces new terms ‘reinstatement’, ‘restoration’, ‘refurbishment’ and ‘renovation’ and uses them nine, two, one and 13 times respectively. However, they are not defined in the bill. Could the minister offer a definition for each of these terms?

Harriet SHING: Words which are not defined in the course of the bill are to be given, as is the case with other bills and legislation, their plain and ordinary meaning. It is incumbent upon a place other than the Parliament to interpret the legislation and how it might apply in any specific instance.

David DAVIS: I thought you might say that. The point here I think is that this is particularly confusing, as residents are left unsure of who pays for what under these terms. Would the government offer a rough outline of payments related to these terms?

Harriet SHING: That would depend upon the circumstances of each individual matter where payment is being sought.

David DAVIS: Given that the changes in the bill in many parts would not be applicable to existing contracts, how does the government intend to support and manage the transition?

Harriet SHING: The reforms will in fact be part of a process of expectation in aggregate annual costs of approximately $36.2 million for residents in the community. A legislative impact assessment (LIA) has been undertaken to analyse the features, costs, risks and benefits of the reform package. It also assumes aggregate annual financial costs of about $45 million for village operators and about $15 million over five years for government. This will enable government to recover costs, at least partially, by imposing an annual registration fee on village operators and setting this fee, subject to further consultation, through a regulatory impact statement. The bill will enable government to recover costs, as I said, at least partially by imposing an annual registration fee, and should budget supplementation be required, this will be sought via a standard budget process in future years. Again, the fee to be charged will be prescribed in regulations, and further consolidation with industry and operators will be undertaken as part of the development of regulations to determine the annual fee amount. That will be subject to the Victorian government’s pricing for value principles, and a regulatory impact statement will be undertaken. Further consultation will also be undertaken with the Department of Treasury and Finance and the retirement village sector to determine the appropriate amount to be charged. We will have a process of education and consultation for those regulations, and there will be time provided in accordance with that process for the transition.

David DAVIS: I hear what you say about processes there, but it is possible that many operators will face very significant charges – perhaps tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands. I do not know, but maybe you would like to give some ballpark figure for operators who would be registered under these arrangements.

Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, given the range in size and scope and operation of retirement villages across the state, I am not in a position to provide you with that information.

David DAVIS: Perhaps another question then, Minister: what support will be in place for operators to ensure they are providing accurate contract information to existing residents if they are on an older contract with different requirements?

Harriet SHING: Just to be really clear, these reforms relate to new contracts or to reforms that would seek to vary existing contractual arrangements and will not apply to current residents as they have already entered into a contract with their operator. So options to retrospectively regulate the payment of maintenance charges after a non-owner resident leaves a retirement village will be considered further and informed by legal advice, to apply relief to all departing non-owner residents and their families. Currently, for example, maintenance charges are payable by former non-owner residents until the date on which another person enters into a contract for the premises. The act currently sets a limit of six months for liability of former residents for the payment of maintenance charges. The bill will remove these payments for contracts entered into following the commencement of the reform, and people should already know what their existing contracts are.

David DAVIS: My next question to the minister relates to the commencement date in the bill. Does this allow sufficient time for consultation and development of a code of practice as well as the implementation of the many complex changes in the bill? For example, was the commencement date of 1 May 2026 based on the passage of this bill earlier this year rather than in the middle of the year?

Harriet SHING: There are 11 months to go, and that was not informed by the process of scheduling for the purpose of this bill, the debate and the consideration in committee.

David DAVIS: Sorry, you are saying there is plenty of time or –

Harriet SHING: What I am saying is that the process of the listing of this matter for consideration by the Council has not been a material factor in the development and commencement of the bill itself. There are still 11 months to go, and there will be a process of careful discussion, including in the regulatory impacts process that I have just spoken to.

David DAVIS: I want to ask the minister about the deferred management fee. Residents have provided feedback that the current definition of ‘deferred management fee’ in the bill is very ambiguous and does not do a satisfactory job of explaining what it actually is. Can the minister elaborate further on the bill’s definition for the deferred management fee in order to clarify any confusion? And my question as part of this too is: how did the government come to this definition – based on what consultation? This is clause 6, in a sense.

Harriet SHING: The definition has widespread application across the industry. It is a standard definition, and this bill in fact makes it clearer that it is in accordance with those practices and those definitions within the industry.

David DAVIS: Another question relating to exemptions: how many retirement villages are currently exempt under the current act? And does the government forecast an increase or decrease in exemptions as a result of the change? If so, by how many villages? This would be particularly around clause 10.

Harriet SHING: The bill is changing the exemption process for retirement villages. As you would know, currently exemptions apply under 107 of the 512 retirement villages on the register maintained by Consumer Affairs Victoria, so exemptions are not time limited. Most of them have been in place since commencement of the act in 1986. The existing basis for declaring that an organisation is exempt is not transparent, and the current exemption criteria are actually overly broad. Because they do not specify the factors the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria must consider when determining an exemption application, it has been considered that an update is required, and updating the exemption process will modernise the process, make it more transparent and ensure that all current exemptions are warranted. To ensure the rights of residents are adequately protected, proprietors or operators will be required to reapply for their exemption if required once the bill is in place, and that includes retirement villages operated by religious or charitable organisations. Proprietors or operators will need to submit an exemption application to the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria. This will be assessed against specific criteria that examine the risk to residents if the village were to be exempted from provisions of the act, and a 12-month transition period will be provided to make sure operators have adequate time to comply. There are a range of criteria that will be used when considering an exemption application, and new exemption processes will take place following a 12-month transition period to enable retirement villages to reapply and to comply with the amended act. Retirement village operators must fully transition to the requirements of the amended act by no later than 12 months after commencement of the amended act.

David DAVIS: I want to talk to you about contracts. With such a variety of contracts on offer, depending on the model of the retirement village, does the government intend to ensure that each contract is pro forma and simple to read? How will they be developed over the next few months to ensure each model is included or considered? And has the government considered a website that would enable potential residents to compare contracts online as in New South Wales? This is around clause 19 that we are discussing here.

Harriet SHING: We will work to develop standard form contracts, which were mentioned as a part of a number of the contributions that were made in the course of the second-reading debate, as part of the regulations process, and there will be a really significant consultation process on their development. Just to go back to the genesis of these changes, they have a very long history. This has been part of really, really extensive consultation, discussion, review and analysis over years. We will work very carefully through this process of consultation. The regulator will provide updates on the Consumer Affairs Victoria website, and there will be education and support in the lead-up to these reforms. We understand that people consume and digest information in a range of different ways, and the very point of this amendment to the legislation is to make sure that we are demonstrating and delivering a better measure of transparency and accessibility of information. That will also inform the process that is undertaken in delivering these reforms as part of regulatory consultation.

David DAVIS: I think that means that a website is not ruled out, and I would ask: what additional costs are forecasted for operators per the requirement to provide a written contract check annually? Did the government consider other options for provision of contract checks, including putting an onus on the resident or making them required every two years instead of every year, which is what I understand is likely?

Harriet SHING: I have already taken you through the cost of the reforms to be implemented and the legislative impact assessments being undertaken to analyse those features, costs, risks and benefits of the reform package. Again, there is an expectation of a reduction of aggregate annual costs of approximately $36.2 million for residents and the community. It also estimates aggregate annual financial costs of about $45 million for village operators, and approximately $15 million will apply over five years for government. This will enable government to recover costs, at least partially, by imposing an annual registration fee on village operators. There will be minor additional costs for annual contract checks. But again, Mr Davis, when we go to power asymmetry and to the point that you just raised about residents needing to do certain things, we are talking about –

David DAVIS: Or alternatively every second year.

Harriet SHING: When you are talking about a less frequent interval, it may potentially give rise to a further entrenching of an asymmetry of power if there is not an annual process that gives residents the measure of certainty that they require and that they deserve as they engage with their retirement village operator. We also want to make sure that people understand what their rights, responsibilities and obligations are, which again gets back to that process of consultation that we will undertake in the course of developing the reforms as part of the development of regulations.

David DAVIS: I also want to ask the minister about exit entitlements and vacant possession. How does the government intend to ensure that neither operators nor residents’ families can stop the clock on the payment of an exit entitlement or delivery of vacant possession? Given the lengthy delays at VCAT, how will the proposed changes ensure fairness for both residents and operators in terms of payment of the exit entitlement and time to turn the unit around?

Harriet SHING: We have touched on exit entitlements and obligations pretty extensively in the course of this debate. There will be changes to exit entitlements, but currently non-owner residents must receive their exit entitlement no later than six months after leaving the retirement village. For owner residents, there is no statutory maximum timeframe requiring payment of their exit entitlement. This happens only when the sale of the retirement village unit has been completed. In practice, former residents and family members are facing a really significant wait to receive exit entitlements upon leaving a retirement village where there are delays to resell or re-lease their residence, and they are experiencing really significant stress. Again, this is an important part of the discussion on power asymmetry and the right to accurate information and a process that is fair and reasonable. Financial strain is another consequence of this. There will be a default time period of 12 months when exit entitlements must be paid to former residents. That is a safety net, which is particularly important. We are also making sure that a deferred management fee must be calculated using a method as a percentage of the resident’s entry payment by reference to the length of time the resident lives in a village, which is taken to cease on the date the resident gives vacant possession of the premises occupied by the resident and in accordance with any prescribed requirements.

There is an amendment that has been circulated by the government around interpretation of vacant possession and permanently vacating. A new section 3EA indicates the insertion of the following:

(1) In this Act, in relation to a premises occupied by a resident in a retirement village, a reference to giving up or delivering vacant possession of the premises, however expressed, is a reference to the point in time when all the following have occurred –

(a) the resident has ceased to occupy the premises;

(b) all personal property of the resident has been removed from the premises;

(c) any keys to the premises have been returned to the operator or proprietor of the village;

(d) if the resident occupies the premises under a retirement village contract that requires notice to be given before the resident delivers up vacant possession of the premises, the notice has been given and the notice period has elapsed.

(2) Subsection (1) is not intended to limit the common law meaning of delivering up or giving vacant possession of a premises.

(3) In this Act, in relation to a premises occupied by a resident in a retirement village, a reference to permanently vacating the premises, however expressed, is a reference to the point in time at which the resident delivers up vacant possession of the premises.

David DAVIS: Just on that, in cases where the next of kin or the executor of an estate cannot be found and probate is not granted in a timely manner, would this delay the start of the 12-month clock?

Harriet SHING: As I just read out, new subsection 3EA(2) says that the definition of the following having occurred ‘is not intended to limit the common-law meaning of delivering up or giving vacant possession of a premises’. There may be instances where the common-law interpretation of delivering up or giving vacant possession may overlap with a resident passing away, and where probate has not been granted or next of kin cannot be located, there may well be deeming provisions. This is where, again, that will be on a case-by-case basis.

David DAVIS: The question of residents committees is another point that has had quite a lot of airing through this process. How many villages in Victoria have a residents committee currently set up, and what was the government’s reasoning for changing the voting rules to allow only one vote per household on this? If two people are on the lease – say, a husband and wife want to vote different ways at the meeting – but only the husband gets to vote, or vice versa for that matter, as he is first on the contract, would this not infringe the rights of the spouse to participate? How would this be resolved?

Harriet SHING: There may well be some confusion here between residents committees and residents meetings. Again, where we have a preponderance of people living as single people in retirement villages where they have a unit for themselves, we would not want to see that they have lesser rights to influence outcomes based on the fact that they are not living with somebody else. And I do want to put a gender lens on it: frankly, women live longer than men, and the practical outcome of that might be that in instances where women are living alone in retirement village facilities their voice is not on an equal footing. For example, with people where there are two occupants of any home, where, to the example that you gave, the gentleman might be the first person –

David Davis interjected.

Harriet SHING: I accept the challenge that you have identified there, Mr Davis, but the answer to the challenge is not found, I would suggest, with the solution that you have provided around rights vesting in each individual in a household. But this is again about making sure that the rights vest with a property and that therefore we are providing assistance to people and a capacity to participate in a way that does not disadvantage people who are living alone.

David DAVIS: I just register that there is a challenge there, and we will move on. There is another question related to committees and so forth: why is there no specified time period for an operator to call an annual meeting under the proposed 33Q such as within, say, three months of the previous financial year?

Harriet SHING: It is an annual meeting, so it will occur once a year. It is about how much time is provided, and that might vary from village to village, but in any event, that will be something which villages will take into consideration when providing notice to residents. They are in a position to provide people with notice in any number of different ways, whether that is pin boards or some form of electronic communication. That may vary, but the holding of a meeting is for annual purposes and therefore must take place once a year.

Just further to the answer I gave to your previous question, Mr Davis, I also wanted to give a bit more context around the challenge that you identified around couples having one vote and singles having one vote, and the impact that that might have. I have just noticed that couples still only pay one amount of incoming contributions as well, so that ties to the residence, and therefore it would be an inequitable outcome to apply double the amount of voting influence in a circumstance where one amount of incoming contribution is paid both for couples and for singles living in retirement units.

David DAVIS: I will just note the minister is tying a property qualification to voting rights now, but I will just let that go.

The issue of capital replacement and maintenance has caused a fair bit of discussion and angst on all of this for operators and residents, as it risks leaving residents worse off in the long run and will cost operators more. Can the minister explain the thinking behind including two separate funds for capital maintenance and capital replacement? And does the minister accept that an item of capital needs replacement but could be repaired to some degree in a temporary fix, which would result in operators preferring a temporary fix rather than a full replacement?

Harriet SHING: I note, Mr Davis, that to this point you have moved an amendment in relation to a removal of the ability for residents to seek assistance from a complaints and conciliation scheme where an operator does not reimburse them for urgent repairs that the resident has arranged and reflects a broader shift in maintenance responsibility to residents. The proposed amendments that you have put are intended to unwind those proposed reforms that clarify the responsibilities of residents and operators for maintenance of capital items in the village, so you are indicating that the bill currently provides that capital maintenance and replacement is the responsibility of operators, including in individual units of non-owner residents, and that capital items include infrastructure, equipment or fixtures of the retirement village. As you are arguing, the resident should be responsible for capital maintenance within the resident’s premises. So for an item of capital which the operator is aware requires replacement rather than maintenance, you are saying it should be funded from the maintenance changes or the capital maintenance fund and an operator may establish a sinking fund or use an existing sinking fund for the replacement of items of capital. For example, many operators may have a sinking fund which is funded from deferred fees payable by residents, and there is some confusion about what will constitute fair wear and tear and what will constitute renovation when determining the responsibilities of each party at the time of departure and if a resident should be responsible for fair wear and tear of their premises.

The bill actually reflects that non-owner residents have no title or ownership interest of their premises, receive no capital gains benefit from sale – unless otherwise agreed – cannot modify the unit as an owner would without seeking approval and receive no benefit from the replacement of capital items or refurbishment of the premises upon exiting the village. Your proposed amendments would effectively lock all residents into a refurbishment arrangement that would require reinstatement of the premises to as new, including by rectifying any fair wear and tear. That is at odds with the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 and the reforms that we have introduced, including as they relate to fair wear and tear – noting of course that there are depreciation opportunities for a return through various application and rebate processes. That would create pretty significant uncertainty between the scope of reinstatement obligations and operational renovation agreements. Your amendments would also effectively impose responsibility for all capital maintenance on residents for a premises they do not own. That could include building work involving often, I can imagine, really significant costs. That might extend to something as significant as restumping work or roof repairs. Residents would be expected to fund these repairs outside of their entry payment and payment of their recurring maintenance charges. When we are talking about unforeseen costs of that magnitude, we are also talking about unforeseen imposts upon savings where, for retirees, there will often be very, very careful planning around the income or the assets available to people to dissolve in order to meet those costs.

The amendments you have put would also effectively require residents to fund replacement of capital items within the village. That includes communal buildings via the capital maintenance fund, maintenance or capital replacement fund, if any. That is part of the effect of your amendments, and that could include maintenance or replacement of any common buildings or equipment owned by the village proprietor. This would be an outcome that would shift the responsibility that would otherwise sit under the Residential Tenancies Act to occupants of a home that is not held by them – ostensibly a long user arrangement under contract and regulation in the Retirement Villages Act – to somebody who will not have the permanent benefit of investment in that maintenance, upgrade, repair or return to new.

David DAVIS: Contrary somewhat to what the minister has just said, it seems to me that the government did include the provision for an item of capital needing maintenance or replacement to be repaired by a resident at their own cost, when this is the responsibility of the operator. Should it not be the requirement for an operator to provide this service? Further, the bill does not define what ‘immediately’ means. Therefore something that may not actually be an urgent repair or replacement can be deemed so by a resident, causing more issues. I ask: how will this be regulated by government? What defines what is urgent, or whether a replacement should have been a repair?

Harriet SHING: When we talk about ‘immediate’ or ‘urgent’ we are talking about matters of a pressing nature. And again, to take you to some of the contributions that were made in the course of the second-reading debate, urgency might relate to flooding. It might relate to a complete lack of access to various parts of the home – ingress, egress. Again, it will depend on the circumstances at play. Were we to try to define it, we would arguably be creating a greater measure of ambiguity in circumstances where a matter of urgency would vary depending on the person, depending on the residence, depending on the location or depending on the matters at play where amenity was so affected as to require immediate or urgent rectification assistance or remedy.

David DAVIS: It does seem to me – and I will just make a comment and move on to another point – that it does leave that very wide open and unclear. I get that it is a common definition of the word, but at the same time there are some risks in that.

With respect to disputes, can the government provide further information on the proposed dispute resolution service to be formed within the department and what cases it would handle? This is clause 57. What framework did the dispute resolution model, both for the villages and for the department, come from? What other state or retirement village systems were used for this model?

Harriet SHING: Internal dispute resolution in this bill addresses the practical experience of the way in which complaints and disputes can arise between residents and operators, renaming a management complaint to a management dispute or one between residents as a resident dispute so defined. Preserving resident amenity and harmony is really important, and it is crucial that there is a really simple and accessible way to resolve disputes that brings together internal and external processes. The bill has got a range of reforms to internal dispute resolution processes that are geared toward ensuring that disputes are dealt with effectively, efficiently and objectively, including by way of clarification that a request for action made by a resident to an operator – for example, a request by a non-owner resident for urgent repairs, to go back to the point we were just discussing – is not a management dispute; requiring operators to establish and maintain a procedure to be used by the operator for dealing with village disputes and publish the procedure on their internet site – again, talking to the point about accessibility of information that we touched on before; clarifying that the requirement to record a management dispute or resident dispute is triggered where the relevant dispute has not been resolved to the resident’s satisfaction within 72 hours; removing the role of residents committees in internal dispute resolution; requiring operators to provide residents with a copy of their internal dispute resolution procedures and publish a copy on their website; and requiring operators to provide an alternative contact for internal disputes for circumstances where it is not appropriate for residents to engage with the primary contact person.

Residents are encouraged to use internal dispute resolution processes to support really quick resolution at a village level, but there is no requirement for a resident to first go through an internal dispute resolution process before accessing the external complaints and conciliation scheme if they have a retirement village dispute. This would be about making sure that residents can access the new complaints and conciliation scheme directly, and this will ostensibly improve dispute resolution processes in a way that responds to stakeholder feedback to the act review. Stakeholders told us that the current external dispute resolution processes can be really complex, costly and time consuming, and many older residents find VCAT hearing and prehearing processes to be really difficult and really intimidating, particularly where there is a tendency to use very legalistic or technical language or processes. Mr Davis, you and I would not know anything about that, speaking as we do in plain and ordinary terms ourselves.

Possible repercussions for making a complaint against village operators was also a matter of concern raised in stakeholder feedback, and also the costs and difficulty of obtaining legal representation. In addressing these concerns the bill will establish an external complaints and conciliation scheme to provide faster and more accessible dispute resolution for retirement village residents, and that includes free conciliation for disputes between residents and also between residents and village operators, supported by close connection to Consumer Affairs Victoria. That is about promoting good-faith participation. Where parties can agree to resolve their dispute, they get a formal record, for example, of agreement. This would also be supported by the retirement villages code of practice, and the director of consumer affairs will be empowered to take appropriate regulatory action in response to any noncompliance with the code of practice.

David DAVIS: The minister’s mention of codes of practice just brings up a further question I have. Given the lengthy period of consultation already undertaken on the bill, how long does the government expect to undertake consultation on the code of practice and with whom will the government consult on that matter?

Harriet SHING: It is intended that further work on the implementation of the reform package will occur between passage and commencement of the bill in late 2025, and further work will include an extensive program of consultation with industry and resident stakeholders to develop regulations to implement the reforms. The code will be prescribed in regulations and developed by the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria, and the director, under this bill, will be required to consult with key retirement village industry stakeholders, including representatives of village proprietors, operators and residents.

The code will be developed, as I said, in careful consultation with stakeholders and established in regulation, and it will also bring, importantly, Victoria into line with regulatory approaches taken in other jurisdictions, including South Australia, Western Australia and New South Wales. It will build on the voluntary Retirement Living Code of Conduct, which was developed and supported by the Retirement Living Council and Leading Age Services Australia. Existing codes of conduct rules will be considered in developing a mandatory code in Victoria, and it is also intended to replace the existing Victorian government ‘Good practice protocols for retirement village operators’, which set out a benchmark of good practice measures that retirement village operators can adopt to prevent common issues from becoming disputes and to promote good relations in retirement villages. Again, this is underpinned by the importance of the reality of people living in close proximity to each other and being reliant upon operators for the purpose of their homes and their quality of life, and this is where preservation of relationships, enhancement of relationships and early intervention and prevention of any sort of dispute that unravels the productive and positive nature of relationship are at the heart of this work.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I will try really hard not to duplicate anything in the interests of time. Just in relation to the eviction clause, which I understand outlines the conditions under which a contract can be terminated due to a substantial breach, there is concern that I have heard from the sector about part of the new eviction clause stating that a substantial breach can include:

… one of many breaches by the resident that are persistent and, in the circumstances justify the termination of the contract …

I understand their opinion is that this section is too broad and is open to abuse by operators. Can you explain the rationale as to why this particular element was added to the bill? What problem is it seeking to address?

Harriet SHING: The bill is clarifying processes around the end of a retirement village contract, where there is a desire to proceed with a contract termination, and this will enable an operator to end a residence on two grounds only – so that is, a substantial breach of the contract by the resident or health and safety reasons, where a resident may not be able to safely remain independent in a retirement village. That includes residents who occupy a unit under a periodic agreement or under a fixed-term agreement, and the bill introduces a suite of safeguards for residents facing contract termination, again underpinned by that desire to address a power asymmetry and the importance of the provision of accurate and accessible information. Defining ‘substantial breach of contract’ narrows the circumstances that would justify terminating a resident’s contract. The bill introduces a standard form breach of contract notice to ensure that residents are fully informed of alleged breaches and the steps required to resolve the issue and a new requirement to prevent an operator from giving a resident a notice to end their contract unless it is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances to do so, and it expands VCAT’s jurisdiction to hear matters relating to breach and termination notices and applications to terminate a contract for health and safety reasons, providing an opportunity for residents to be heard prior to termination of a resident’s contract. The proposed process for termination will apply both to existing contracts and contracts entered into following the commencement of the reforms, noting that the bill provides for a transition provision to ensure the amendments do not disrupt any termination process that might be underway at the time that the bill enters into law.

The definition of ‘a substantial breach’ imposes a really, really high bar, and that reflects the enormity of a decision to terminate a contract.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Harriet SHING: I move:

That the meal break scheduled for this day, pursuant to standing order 4.01(3), be suspended.

Motion agreed to.

Harriet SHING: Again, termination of a contract is a last resort. A breach would be specified as substantial if the resident intentionally or recklessly caused serious damage to the retirement village; if the resident posed a serious threat to the life, health, safety or welfare of any other resident, operator, employee or contractor; or the breach involved persistent or multiple breaches by the resident which are enough to justify termination of the contract. When we are talking about persistent and multiple breaches by the resident, they include, for example, a continued failure to pay recurring fees and charges relating to the occupation of their unit, and in those circumstances it is appropriate that village operators and proprietors have an option available to formally request a resident cease committing the breach and terminate the contract if that is not possible.

This new definition works with the new reasonable and proportionate test requiring operators to consider the following matters: whether the retirement village principles are at play, including the dignity of the resident and their preferences, and again, dignity and respect are at the heart of this bill and what is being affected by these changes; the effect that terminating the contract will have on the health, safety and wellbeing of the resident, so what the consequences are for the resident beyond the termination of a contract and the cessation of their living arrangements in that retirement village; whether any other course of action is reasonably available, and again that is by reference to the enormity of a potential cessation or termination of the contract; the risk to anyone else in the village if the contract is not terminated – again, what it means if somebody is not required to leave, as far as the quiet enjoyment and amenity for other people within that village environment goes; or any other matter prescribed in regulations.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Are you able to speak to a situation which would justify termination under this definition but not otherwise?

Harriet SHING: Again, if we are talking about a one-off – for example, intentionally or recklessly causing serious damage to the village – that is in contradistinction, for example, to those persistent breaches around recurrent non-payment of fees. Again, I do not want to create a false equivalence here where we are talking about violence on the one hand and the non-payment of fees on the other, but that might give you a sense of the uniqueness of a single course of action versus perhaps a series of acts which in the aggregate identify a substantial breach, if that provides you with some clarity.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Does the government have any kind of record of the eviction clause being successfully used to evict residents who have substantially breached their contracts? If so, can you speak somewhat to those circumstances?

Harriet SHING: Do you mean in other jurisdictions?

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Anywhere.

Harriet SHING: Retirement villages will not necessarily have that information, particularly where we are talking about what is now going to potentially fall within the remit of the new definition of persistent or multiple breaches. This is where again we are talking about any number of different circumstances that are on a case-by-case basis. But that is ultimately what VCAT does in pulling apart circumstances in order to make out a breach and, where a breach is made out, to make various findings around what the outcome or the consequence of that might be.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Are you able to speak just a little bit more to an example where there are multiple breaches that then reach the substantial threshold?

Harriet SHING: When we are talking about persistent and material breaches of a contract, there may well be conduct that does not in and of itself amount to a substantial breach, as I have outlined in answering earlier questions – an intentional or reckless causation of serious damage to a retirement village or a serious threat to life, health, safety or welfare of any other resident, operator, employee or contractor. Where we have examples of behaviour that compromise the quiet enjoyment by others of a retirement village environment, again this is about proportionality. People, when they go to live in a retirement village, want to have the sort of amenity and quality of life that they have signed up for. There may well be a one-off incident that causes a measure of disruption to that. In and of itself that may well not constitute a substantial breach. Where we are talking about, for example, a pattern of behaviour, this is something that VCAT might turn its mind to – the extent to which that constitutes a pattern of behaviour and then the proportionality components and the principles there that apply. The way in which we work alongside that work is something where we would be guided by VCAT. But again, back to the breach definition earlier, it is about intentional or reckless serious damage to the retirement village or a serious threat to life, health, safety or welfare of any other resident, operator, employee or contractor.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just to follow on, potentially to speak to some concerns that could be assuaged in the community, on patterns of behaviour and quiet enjoyment, if a resident was, say, picking all the flowers in the village, was warned three or so times and continued to do so, does that count as a substantial breach? What if it happened a dozen times? Could you potentially speak to this example?

Harriet SHING: The example you have given may be a minor breach, unless we are talking about some extremely rare variety of flower or the denuding of an entire greenhouse. But the sort of circumstance that you have just described, in terms of the bill, would not be something that would amount to a substantial breach by virtue of – again, in the circumstances you have described – an aggregate number of minor breaches.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just three more from me, and these are on exit arrangements. We know that operators make the bulk of their profit when residents depart, through exit fees, so the issue is that operators are then incentivised, or so I have heard, to pressure and harass residents to leave. What will prevent dodgy operators from using the new section to threaten residents with eviction for seemingly small issues, which they might suggest that if combined would reach the substantial threshold?

Harriet SHING: This is a really, really important part of these reforms. We know, in a related matter, that the power imbalance is something which disproportionately affects older people. Whether it is elder abuse, whether it is coercive control or whether it is exploitation, we know that it is older people who are more vulnerable, for example, to scams. That in and of itself can constitute real loss and damage to people who can often be talked out of their entire life savings. I think we probably all know somebody who has fallen into that category. This is where the code of practice will be developed in regulations, and we will really, really carefully consider protections for residents from unconscionable behaviour by operators. Again, it is about making sure, back to those principles that we discussed earlier of dignity and of respect, that access to the best measure of a level playing field can be facilitated through these reforms.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: There has been some concern raised from residents that the new 12-month exit entitlement clause will lead to providers slowing down the process and taking longer than the current situation to return funds to existing residents. Are you able to provide some assurances to the house that this will not be the case?

Harriet SHING: The decision to choose a time period of 12 months was informed by some independent cost modelling for exit entitlement options, and that included the option of a default time period of 12 months, amongst other options. The proposed 12-month period aligns with other jurisdictions. As I indicated to Mr Davis, WA and South Australia also introduced retirement village amendment legislation in 2004. This will provide adequate time for operators to manage their accounts, and the cash flow of village operators is not expected to be significantly impacted. We will also have public consultation on the exposure draft bill, informing consultation and an updated LIA, which was informed by the independent cost modelling for the retirement villages and housing legislation amendment bill process. The updated recommendation for the preferred option was 12 months for the repayment of exit fees. That best balances the desire for government to be able to support vulnerable and disadvantaged consumers with the cost burden imposed on industry and government.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just one more from me: if residents feel that providers are on the go-slow with returning their funds for no genuine reason, what recourse do they have? Who can they report this to?

Harriet SHING: There is a new provision being inserted into the act to allow for the appointment of an independent valuer in circumstances where an exit entitlement cannot be agreed upon by the relevant parties. The former resident and the retirement village proprietor will pay the costs of an independent valuer in equal shares. That is an approach that provides for a really fair and balanced process for all relevant parties when determining exit entitlement values.

We will also have a range of other supports and changes. The bill introduces a new alternative accommodation payment to allow departing residents to meet the reasonable costs of alternative accommodation that is not a residential aged care facility, and the bill supports payment of aged care payments to be deducted from the resident’s exit entitlement and recognises that residents who leave a retirement village to access care in an aged care facility need really prompt access to funds to pay for those care arrangements. VCAT will also be empowered to make orders regarding aged care payments and accommodation payments. The reform provides certainty to people at a point that indicates that 12 months will be the absolute outer limit. Again, this is about making sure that we have really good communication of what the expectations are and what better or best practice looks like. Again, there is a surging market based on demographic change for people to move to residential retirement facilities and villages. This is something which will indicate that the better a village can be, the better an operator can function, the more likely they are to have reputational success as a consequence of dignity and respect, which underpin this bill.

Rachel PAYNE: Minister, my questions relate to clause 64 around insurance. If you are happy for me to ask them in clause 1, that will ease the process. During the inquiry into the 2022 flood event in Victoria, residents gave evidence in relation to the underinsurance of the Rivervue Retirement Village by Tigcorp, the operators. Under this bill, retirement village owner-operators are required to disclose certificates of insurance and details of any funds set aside to insure against damages to the village – that is, self-insurance. Additional disclosure requirements can also be prescribed by regulation in relation to insurance. Can the minister confirm that regulations will include a requirement for owners and operators to disclose information not available in the certificates of insurance, including underinsurance, exclusions, risks not insured and any summarised information that lacks important details?

Harriet SHING: As your colleague Mr Ettershank would be aware following discussions that have been occurring between him and the originating minister, Minister Staikos in the other place, there has been correspondence around this issue. To that end the minister has indicated that this will be able to be considered as part of the broader consultation from here. But just for avoidance of any doubt, I am not making any commitments to you in the course of this committee stage. Again, it is something that can be considered as part of the consultation process from here.

Rachel PAYNE: In relation to annual reports residents will receive on the status of their contracts, will the report contain additional information relating to insurance, such as the name and address of the insured, the location of the insurance risk and the period of coverage?

Harriet SHING: The information statement is a really crucial part of this work here. It will provide information to residents along the lines of what you have just talked to, and the contract will also be a provision of information for that purpose. It is about making sure that people have good access to information. That is what has driven these changes. The information statement will be a key port of call for people in understanding the sorts of issues that you have just outlined.

Rachel PAYNE: You may have covered this in your initial response to the first question I had, but I will continue to go forward. Continuing on with additional information relating to insurance, will the residents annual contract report include information on (a) the type of cover split between specific risks, including buildings, equipment and furnishings in common areas and in resident units, public liability and business interruption insurance; and (b) the limit of indemnity of each, with specific information on the building value limit of indemnity, the equipment and furnishings limit of indemnity, the public liability limit of indemnity and the business interruption insurance limit of indemnity, including the amount and period of time that residents will receive compensation for when their unit is uninhabitable?

Harriet SHING: Again, this may well have formed part of the discussions which your colleague has had with the minister, and that is something that will be open as part of consultation and discussion to be included in the wheelhouse of that work.

Rachel PAYNE: Will the residents annual contract report include information on (1) the basis on which each cover was assessed, whether it was through a broker, valuer or the operator of the village; (2) the excess in respect to each cover; and (3) specific policy exclusions and the reasons for the exclusions?

Harriet SHING: Again, that will be a matter that the minister, as I think he has indicated to your colleague, is able to consider as part of consultations. But again, for avoidance of any doubt, there is no commitment in this committee stage to do the work that you have proposed in terms of inclusion of that information.

Rachel PAYNE: Can the minister provide a timeframe for when these insurance-related regulations will be ready?

Harriet SHING: 1 May 2026.

Rachel PAYNE: Minister, thank you for that very succinct reply. And my final question: what is the process for reviewing the regulations to ensure that they are working, and when will the review be conducted?

Harriet SHING: There is no prescribed timeframe for a review. No doubt you and your colleagues and indeed anybody else in this place will have any number of different opportunities to propose a review, and the regulation-making process might then be informed by consultation on those matters, as previously indicated in my answers to you on other matters.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (18:54:344)

David DAVIS: The first of our amendments relates to the commencement date. I move:

1. Clause 2, line 18, omit “1 May” and insert “31 October”.

Harriet SHING: The government will not be supporting this amendment.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: From the Greens perspective, we do not want to push out the commencement of the bill. We are keen to see the new provisions begin sooner rather than later, so we will be opposing the amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause agreed to; clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (18:56)

David DAVIS: I move:

2. Clause 6, lines 26 to 33 and page 6, lines 1 and 2, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“(a) made to meet the reasonable recurring costs of caring for the person in a place that is not the retirement village or a residential care facility, and includes a payment for the purposes of a residential rental agreement under Part 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997; and”.

This relates to an alternative accommodation payment definition.

Harriet SHING: The government will not be supporting this amendment. It creates uncertainty as to when alternative accommodation payments can be requested, including where a resident wants to move to another village. These amendments also require residents to deliver vacant possession, as we have discussed before, which would leave residents out of pocket for longer and may result in some being unable to move out of a village when or as they need to. The detail in Mr Davis’s amendment in relation to requiring residents to provide information when requesting alternative accommodation payments will be prescribed in regulations under new section 32T(2).

Aiv PUGLIELLI: We will not be supporting this amendment as we are comfortable with the provisions for alternate accommodation. It is my understanding that this change has been proposed by retirement village operators, and I have not been convinced that this would materially benefit residents, which is my primary focus here.

David DAVIS: As I outlined earlier in the discussion, our amendments have been formed after a lot of discussion between operators and residents, particularly Tim McCurdy’s work that he has undertaken. This amendment makes various amendments, as I say, to the capital maintenance funds and related matters.

Amendment negatived.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I invite Mr Davis to move his amendments 3 to 5, which test a wide range of amendments.

David DAVIS: I move:

3. Clause 6, page 6, line 22, omit “maintenance” and insert “item maintenance and replacement”.

4. Clause 6, page 6, line 23, omit “38BL” and insert “38BK”.

5. Clause 6, page 6, line 24, after “maintenance” insert “and replacement”.

These amendments relate to capital maintenance and replacement funds. This would revert to the village having only one fund for both capital maintenance and replacement, funded by the maintenance charge and operators, as per the current system. Feedback from operators and residents indicated that separating capital item maintenance and capital item replacement into two funds would be detrimental to residents as operators would prefer to maintain an item from village funds rather than dipping into their own funds. The change ensures that the maintenance or replacement of capital is funded from one source and encourages continual upgrades as needed, making it fairer for long-term residents and enabling better accountability. As I alluded to, this has been discussed at great length with both operators and residents and negotiated with those groups.

Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, your proposed amendments are intended to unwind proposed reforms to clarify the responsibilities of residents and operators for maintenance of capital items in the village. This bill better reflects that non-owner residents actually have no title or ownership interest in their premises. They do not receive any capital gains benefit from sale unless it is otherwise agreed. As I flagged earlier, there are opportunities for operators to receive such gains. They cannot modify the unit as an owner would without seeking approval. They do not receive any benefit from replacement of capital items or refurbishment of the premises upon exiting the village. Your proposed amendments would effectively lock all residents into a refurbishment arrangement by requiring reinstatement of the premises to as new, including by rectifying any fair wear and tear. This would create significant uncertainty between the scope of reinstatement obligations and optional renovation agreements. Your amendments would also effectively impose responsibility for all capital maintenance on residents for a premises that they do not own, including building work, as I touched on earlier, that might in a serious example include restumping or roofing. Your amendments would also effectively require residents to refund replacement of capital items within the village. That could include maintenance or replacement of any common buildings or equipment owned by the village proprietor, and as I indicated earlier, the government will not be supporting your amendment.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Further to the minister’s comments, this bill currently provides that capital maintenance and replacement are the responsibility of operators. The Greens would like to see it remain this way and therefore will not be supporting these amendments.

Amendments negatived.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, I invite you to move your amendment 1, which tests your amendments 3, 5 and 6.

Harriet SHING: I move:

1. Clause 6, page 6, after line 25 insert –

“certificate of insurance, in relation to a retirement village, means a certificate issued by an insurer who has insured property in the village against damage which sets out the terms of the insurance policy given and the start and end date of the policy;”.

Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Purcell, I invite you to move your amendment 1, which tests your amendments 2 and 3.

Georgie PURCELL: I move:

1. Clause 6, page 9, after line 21 insert –

“pet means any animal other than an assistance dog within the meaning of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010;”.

Harriet SHING: Ms Purcell, I do not think I could have been any more effusive in my summing-up speech earlier. I am looking forward to the opportunity to have a pet not being unreasonably withheld to the extent that it enables me as a 60-year-old in 2046 to be surrounded by any number of animals to the extent that that constitutes a reasonable accommodation of a pet. Then I will be sure, Ms Purcell, to let you know about the extent to which they continue to provide me with joy, wellbeing and a lower resting heart rate.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: People love their pets and may they have them well into their later years. The Greens will absolutely be supporting this amendment.

David DAVIS: We will not oppose this amendment. I make a couple of points. I am just going to put some things on record. I too am a dog lover, as people know. But further than that, I have been confronting this with my father in the recent period so I am actually very familiar with many of these matters as he seeks to look for a range of options. It is a real thing. I also note particularly that we have consulted with a number of property groups on this matter in the short period, Ms Purcell – we did talk quickly – and I quote here from the national policy manager of retirement living at the Property Council of Australia. They said they had a very quick chat with operators and they are not opposed. The inclusion of ‘unreasonably’ and ‘singular pet’ helps put their minds at ease. They say there is plenty of evidence for wellbeing increases with pet ownership – and I could not agree more – but some resident committees, like strata, might try to contract out of pet ownership, as they have in the past. So I am just putting on record that there are even property sector people who have been quite reasonable in their response on this particular matter.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 7 (19:04)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, I invite you to move your amendment 6, which tests your amendments 11 to 13 and 29 to 39.

David DAVIS: I move:

6. Clause 7, page 23, line 28, omit “adjusted” and insert “benchmark”.

This relates to the benchmark maintenance charge, and it seeks to replace any or all references to ‘adjusted maintenance’ with ‘benchmark maintenance’ charge. This change is designed to clarify the confusing terminology around the actual maintenance charge residents pay and the charge adjusted for CPI. Given the adjusted maintenance charge is not a charge but a guideline or a benchmark, replacing ‘adjusted’ with ‘benchmark’ will improve clarity and make it easier for residents to understand. This has been put to us by a number of residents and resident groups, and we think it is a very reasonable amendment.

Harriet SHING: The adjusted maintenance charge is not benchmark. It is an actual maintenance charge payable by residents, adjusted annually in line with CPI and other prescribed increases in the Retirement Villages Act. Residents are not required to pay any amount higher than the adjusted maintenance charge unless that is otherwise approved at a meeting of residents, and that framework has been in place since at least 1997. A departure from existing language may cause avoidable confusion among current residents rather than providing the clarity that underpins the principles and objectives of this act, as discussed in contributions in the second-reading debate and in this committee.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I appreciate that a number of resident advocates have supported this change in term. Nonetheless the Greens will not be supporting the amendment, as we believe the term ‘adjusted maintenance charge’ has been a longstanding term and has broad understanding already. I would also suggest that it is beholden upon operators to make sure they are clearly communicating these charges to residents and outlining what they mean and how they are calculated. Regardless of which term is used in the legislation, operators must outline these charges in a clear and understandable manner.

Amendment negatived.

David DAVIS: I move:

7. Clause 7, page 24, lines 1 to 5, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

This relates to capital maintenance replacement.

Harriet SHING: The government will not be supporting Mr Davis’s amendments. We have covered that extensively in the course of this committee stage.

Amendment negatived.

Harriet SHING: I move:

2. Clause 7, page 25, line 2, after this line insert –

“3EA Interpretation of vacant possession and permanently vacating

(1) In this Act, in relation to a premises occupied by a resident in a retirement village, a reference to giving up or delivering vacant possession of the premises, however expressed, is a reference to the point in time when all the following have occurred –

(a) the resident has ceased to occupy the premises;

(b) all personal property of the resident has been removed from the premises;

(c) any keys to the premises have been returned to the operator or proprietor of the village;

(d) if the resident occupies the premises under a retirement village contract that requires notice to be given before the resident delivers up vacant possession of the premises, the notice has been given and the notice period has elapsed.

(2) Subsection (1) is not intended to limit the common law meaning of delivering up or giving vacant possession of a premises.

(3) In this Act, in relation to a premises occupied by a resident in a retirement village, a reference to permanently vacating the premises, however expressed, is a reference to the point in time at which the resident delivers up vacant possession of the premises.”.

David DAVIS: The opposition will not oppose this amendment. It is one of those that has been widely discussed and agreed across parties.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 8 to 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 (19:08)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I invite the minister to move her amendments 3, 5 and 6, which have already been tested by her amendment 1.

Harriet SHING: I move:

3. Clause 19, page 49, after line 7 insert –

“(fa) the prescribed information about or relating to all insurance arrangements that are in place in relation to the retirement village (other than policies of insurance held by residents of the village) including –

(i) details of any insurance policies in force over all or part of the village and copies of any relevant certificates of insurance; and

(ii) details of any funds set aside by the operator or proprietor to insure against any potential damage to the village by whatever means;”.

5. Clause 19, page 67, after line 3 insert –

“(ea) the prescribed information about or relating to all insurance arrangements that are in place in relation to the retirement village (other than policies of insurance held by residents of the village) including –

(i) details of any insurance policies in force over all or part of the village and copies of any relevant certificates of insurance; and

(ii) details of any funds set aside by the operator or proprietor to insure against any potential damage to the village by whatever means;”.

6. Clause 19, page 68, after line 3 insert –

“(ba) the prescribed information about or relating to all insurance arrangements that are in place in relation to the retirement village (other than policies of insurance held by residents of the village) including –

(i) details of any insurance policies in force over all or part of the village and copies of any relevant certificates of insurance; and

(ii) details of any funds set aside by the operator or proprietor to insure against any potential damage to the village by whatever means;”.

Amendments agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I invite the minister to move her amendments 4 and 7 to 11, which test her amendment 23.

Harriet SHING: I move:

4. Clause 19, page 63, lines 6 to 12, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“expiration of the period during which the contract can be rescinded under section 26X.”.

7. Clause 19, page 78, lines 16 to 28, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“(1) Despite anything to the contrary in the Sale of Land Act 1962, a person who signs a residence contract to become a resident in a retirement village may, at any time before the end of the period of 7 business days after signing the contract, rescind the contract in accordance with this Act.

(2) If a person rescinds a contract under subsection (1), the person is entitled to the return of all money paid under the contract by the person, except for the prescribed administration fee, if any, which may be retained –

(a) if a contracting party has entered into the contract, by the contracting party; or

(b) if an owner resident has entered into the contract, by the owner resident.”.

8. Clause 19, page 78, line 31, omit “resident that the resident may” and insert “person who signs the contract that the person may”.

9. Clause 19, page 78, line 32, omit “3 clear business days after the resident” and insert “7 business days after the person”.

10. Clause 19, page 78, line 34, omit “resident” and insert “person”.

11. Clause 19, page 79, lines 3 and 4, omit “a resident who is a party to the contract” and insert “the person who has signed the contract to become a resident”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 20 to 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 (19:09)

David DAVIS: I move:

8. Clause 34, page 101, line 20, after this line insert –

“(ia) the following details about those alternative accommodation arrangements –

(A) evidence that the arrangements have been entered into and of the terms of the arrangements; and

(B) evidence that the person making the request is liable to make payments for the right to occupy premises under the arrangements and of the amounts that the person is liable to pay;”.

9. Clause 34, page 103, lines 6 to 24, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

10. Clause 34, page 103, lines 29 to 31 and page 104, line 1, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“made under section 32R must be made on the date that the person making the payment request delivers up vacant possession of the person’s premises in the retirement village.”.

These relate to alternative accommodation payments.

Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, as you are aware and as we have covered in the committee stage, the government will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendments negatived; clause agreed to; clause 35 agreed to.

Clause 36 (19:10)

Harriet SHING: I move:

12. Clause 36, page 113, lines 28 to 31, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“(2) The quorum for a meeting of residents is –

(a) for a retirement village with 40 or more residents who are entitled to vote in the meeting, 25% of those residents; or

(b) for a retirement village with 20 or more residents but fewer than 40 residents who are entitled to vote in the meeting, 10 of those residents; or

(c) for a retirement village with fewer than 20 residents who are entitled to vote in the meeting, 50% of those residents.”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 37 agreed to.

Clause 38 (19:10)

David DAVIS: These amendments relate to audit of financial statements. I move:

21. Clause 38, line 21 omit “reviewed” and insert “audited”.

22. Clause 38, lines 22 to 33 and page 121, lines 1 to 20, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert “qualified auditor and whose appointment has received the consent (or is taken to have received the consent) of the residents under subsection (3).

23. Clause 38, page 121, line 21, omit “(4)” and insert “(2)”.

24. Clause 38, page 121, line 21, omit “or reviews”.

25. Clause 38, page 121, line 23, omit “or review”.

26. Clause 38, page 121, lines 24 to 35 and page 122, lines 1 and 2, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(3) The operator of a retirement village must seek the consent of the residents of the village to the appointment of an independent person who is a qualified auditor as the auditor of the accounts of the village in the following way –

(a) the operator must give each resident written notice (a consent request notice) stating the following –

(i) the name of the person proposed for appointment;

(ii) the qualifications of the person;

(iii) the address of the person;

(iv) the proposed period of appointment.

(b) if the audit fees are to be paid by the residents, the fees must be included in the consent request notice and itemised in the annual financial statements.

(4) The consent must be sought each calendar year unless consent is given for a longer period of appointment, not exceeding 3 years.

(5) Within 28 days after receiving a consent request notice, the residents of the retirement village must –

(a) meet, consider and vote on –

(i) the proposed appointment of the person as the auditor; and

(ii) if the proposed period of appointment is more than one year, the proposed period; and

(b) give the retirement village operator notice in writing (a consent response notice) that the residents consent, or do not consent to –

(i) the appointment of the person as auditor; and

(ii) if the residents consent to the appointment but not the proposed period of appointment, the period of appointment to which the residents consent.

(6) If the residents of a retirement village do not consent to the appointment of the person as the auditor –

(a) the residents, by notice in writing given to the operator, must propose a qualified auditor as an alternative person on whom the residents have agreed by a vote for appointment; and

(b) if the alternative person is appointed, the audit fees of the auditor must be paid by the residents as part of the annual financial statements.

(7) A notice under subsection (6) may be given –

(a) in the consent response notice; or

(b) in a further notice in writing given to the operator, but only if –

(i) the intention to provide the further notice is indicated in the consent response notice; and

(ii) the further notice is provided within 30 days after the consent response notice is given to the operator.

(8) The residents of a retirement village are taken to have consented to the appointment of the following person as auditor of the accounts of the village –

(a) the person proposed by the operator (but only for a period of 1 year if a longer period was proposed by the operator), if the residents do not advise the operator of the village of their decision as required by subsection (5)(b) or (6);

(b) the person proposed by the residents, if the operator of the village agrees to the appointment of an alternative person proposed by the residents under subsection (6).

(9) In this section –

qualified auditor means a person who is a member of, and who holds a current practising certificate from –

(a) CPA Australia; or

(b) the Institute of Public Accountants; or

(c) Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand.”.’.

Harriet SHING: We have not actually touched on this, so I am just going to refer to it briefly. The Retirement Villages Act currently requires the auditing of each annual village financial statement unless residents pass a special resolution dispensing with the requirements. Existing auditing arrangements and requirements are time-consuming and costly, and they do not provide for adequate resident oversight. The bill requires village financial statements to be reviewed by a person who holds a current practising certificate from CPA Australia, the Institute of Public Accountants and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand. Residents will continue to be able to have financial statements audited when needed if passed by a special resolution of residents. The reforms in the bill are financially prudent, and they save on auditing costs to only when residents hold concerns about financial management of the village.

The amendments you have proposed will remove the requirement for operators to present the auditor’s report to a meeting of residents, and this would result in less transparency and resident oversight of village management, including about the expenditure of their recurring maintenance charges. On that basis, and particularly given the principles of dignity and respect and the founding objectives of providing greater clarity, transparency and consistency for residents, the government will not be supporting this amendment.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Further to the minister’s comments, we are comfortable with the current arrangements, noting that the legislation already provides that residents can vote to have an audit undertaken should they wish to do so.

David DAVIS: I am happy to withdraw these amendments.

Amendments withdrawn by leave; clause agreed to; clauses 39 to 42 agreed to.

Clause 43 (19:12)

Georgie PURCELL: I move:

2. Clause 43, line 32, omit “2010.” and insert “2010; or”.

3. Clause 43, after line 32 insert –

“(e) unreasonably limit the keeping of a pet on a resident’s premises.”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 44 (19:13)

David DAVIS: These amendments have already been discussed in part, 27 and 28, and relate to fair wear and tear. I move:

27. Clause 44, page 127, lines 17 and 18, omit “, taking into account fair wear and tear to the premises”.

28. Clause 44, page 128, lines 20 and 21, omit “, taking into account fair wear and tear to the premises”.

Harriet SHING: Thanks for those amendments, Mr Davis. We have canvassed this extensively in relation to other amendments that you have put and also the committee stage. Government will not be supporting these amendments.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Further to comments made by the minister right throughout the committee stage, it is our position that residents should not be responsible for capital maintenance inside the units or for fair wear and tear. Fair wear and tear is the expected deterioration of their home, and just as renters should not be financially responsible for fair wear and tear, retirement village residents, we feel, should also not be.

Amendments negatived; clause agreed to; clause 45 agreed to.

Clause 46 (19:14)

Harriet SHING: I move:

13. Clause 46, line 8, omit “Former” and insert “Certain”.

14. Clause 46, after line 14 insert –

“(2) If a resident of a retirement village dies before delivering up vacant possession of the resident’s premises in the village, the resident is not liable for a maintenance charge that arises on or after the time of death of the resident.”.

15. Clause 46, line 15, omit “(2)” and insert “(3)”.

16. Clause 46, line 16, after “village” insert “(as the case requires)”.

17. Clause 46, after line 24 insert –

“(4) If a resident of a retirement village dies before delivering up vacant possession of the resident’s premises in the village, the proprietor or operator of the retirement village (as the case requires) must not purport to charge a maintenance charge that arises on or after the time of death of the resident.

Penalty: 60 penalty units for a natural person;

120 penalty units for a body corporate.”.

18. Clause 46, line 25, omit “(3)” and insert “(5)”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 47 agreed to.

Clause 48 (19:15)

Harriet SHING: I move:

19. Clause 48, page 142, line 3, after “village” insert “(as the case requires)”.

20. Clause 48, page 142, after line 12 insert –

“(2) If a resident of a retirement village dies before delivering up vacant possession of the resident’s premises in the village, the proprietor or operator of the village (as the case requires) must not levy a charge for optional services against the resident for any period on or after the time of death of the resident.

Penalty: 60 penalty units for a natural person;

120 penalty units for a body corporate.”.

21. Clause 48, page 142, line 13, omit “(2)” and insert “(3)”.

22. Clause 48, page 142, line 15, after “(1)” insert “or (2)”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 49 (19:15)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, I invite you to move your amendments to clause 49.

David DAVIS: Although these have not been directly tested, the broad intent I would argue has been tested, and to that extent I would withdraw my amendments.

Clause agreed to; clauses 50 to 60 agreed to.

Clause 61 (19:15)

Harriet SHING: I move:

23. Clause 61, line 14, omit “3 business days” and insert “7 business days”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 62 to 65 agreed to.

Clause 66 (19:17)

Harriet SHING: I move:

24. Clause 66, page 208, after line 15 insert –

“(3) On and from the commencement of section 6 of the Retirement Villages Amendment Act 2024, any reference in another Act or in regulations made under another Act to a residence right, within the meaning of this Act as in force before that commencement, being a reference in the other Act or regulations that was in force immediately before that commencement, includes a reference to a right to occupy premises, within the meaning of this Act as in force on and from that commencement.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Harriet SHING: I move:

25. Clause 66, page 211, lines 3 to 30, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“Despite the commencement of section 19 of the Retirement Villages Amendment Act 2024 –

(a) Divisions 2, 3, 5 and 6 of new Part 4 do not apply –

(i) to any resident of a retirement village who occupies the village under an applicable resident right; and

(ii) in respect of any applicable residence contract; and

(b) sections 18, 18A, 18B and 20 to 26 of the old Act continue to apply to any such resident and to any such contract as if, in relation to the resident and contract, any reference (however expressed) to –

(i) an owner of a retirement village within the meaning of section 3 of the old Act were a reference to the proprietor of the retirement village occupied by the resident, and a reference to that owner’s agent were a reference to that proprietor’s agent; and

(ii) a manager of a retirement village within the meaning of section 3 of the old Act were a reference to the operator of the retirement village occupied by the resident, and a reference to that manager’s agent were a reference to that operator’s agent.”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 67 and 68 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments.

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (19:19): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (19:19): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

In moving that the bill be now read a third time, I want to thank every single person who has made a submission to the review and to various processes of consultation, and who has engaged so thoroughly and in such a meaningful way around good faith and around providing a measure of comfort, of consistency and of opportunity to people living in retirement villages. The objectives are all about making sure that people have – again, as we have discussed at length in this committee stage – respect, dignity and the full benefit of the principles that are outlined. Thank you also to Joel Blanch and to the community and team that have been part of extensive conversations with the minister and with his office in the course of this debate.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill with amendments.