Thursday, 6 February 2025

Bills

Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Alison MARCHANT (Bellarine) (15:01): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2024 and to contribute to this debate today. I have heard a few contributions, and it is great to hear how this is going to benefit the wider Victorian population in other electorates across the state.

We know that the state of Victoria is undergoing a significant demographic shift, and we know that our residents and our population are getting older. Data estimates that one in four Victorians will be at the age of 60 years or over by 2046. As the population does age we must ensure that there is a diverse range of housing options for people to have a choice when they need to decide what their housing may look like when it is different to a home of their own. It is really important to have that choice. It supports their wellbeing and independence, and obviously we want to continue to have that dignity for our older Victorians. That housing must be accessible and affordable, and it has to provide security. It is a place to call home, to feel safe and for individuals to flourish.

Many look for a social connection and community engagement when they are looking for a retirement option. Retirement villages, lifestyle communities and residential parks all play a role in that landscape, and they all offer something very different. However, as the demand for those options is growing it is essential that we in this place have policies that reflect that, that we evolve with our policies to protect our residents and that we improve transparency and accessibility for our older Victorians.

I know that in developing this bill we have had lots of community consultation. When government, industry and stakeholders come together, genuine choices and work are achieved. With all those stakeholders we were able to get a positive outcome for this particular issue. Having a future-focused approach to retirement housing is going to benefit all those individuals who look towards that in their future.

I have visited several Bellarine retirement options, I suppose you can call them, with different living arrangements. The vast majority of those residents have spoken so positively about their living arrangements. They enjoy the community living in their retirement places. A lot of them love the security of knowing their neighbours and being close to their neighbours and that someone will look after their place if they go away for a little while, if they travel. They love having that connection to a small living community and being connected to their wider community as well. They enjoy the low-maintenance options. Instead of having lots of gardens to look after, they can do that on a smaller scale, and they can enjoy activities such as bowls, gardening, workshops and the gym. Many provide these options in retirement housing. They are beautifully done, most of them, and residents really enjoy that part of it.

But the Bellarine is also changing. As much as I talk about how it is changing and evolving and more families are moving into the area, I would generally describe the Bellarine still as being an older demographic. In the 2021 census the median age was 48, and that was older than the state median age, which was 38. At that time the largest cohort of the population was the 65- to 69-year-olds, and they were making up 8.3 per cent of the Bellarine population.

I would like to just note here also that in the Bellarine electorate I have the Borough of Queenscliff. That does herald as one of the oldest local government areas in the country. Recently it was also ranked as being a top place to reside if you wish to make 100. So if it is a goal for someone in Victoria to make it to 100, we welcome you to the Borough of Queenscliff. It is a wonderful place to retire.

I would also like to just put on the record and congratulate Linette Harriott from Portarlington, who has just been appointed to the state government’s Senior Victorians Advisory Committee. Linette and I caught up recently, and housing was one of those topics and issues that she would like to raise on that committee and tackle. I want to wish her all the best with that, thank her for all the work that she has done and congratulate her for being on that advisory committee. I look forward to hearing how she goes in the next few years on that committee. That really is at the crux of this bill – that retirement villages are that core component and an important sector of our housing make-up.

For the Legislative Council’s Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiry into the operation and regulation of the retirement housing sector, the final report did provide a pretty comprehensive analysis of the sector. It highlighted and had some recommendations for reform, and that is what this bill is going to. In the final report the chair made a statement in her foreword, and I would like to quote that statement because I think it summarises the position that we are in at the moment:

Victoria’s population is ageing and causing significant growth in demand for retirement housing. At the same time, residents have heightened expectations about the services that will be delivered.

This creates a range of challenges for government and industry, and also prompted significant public interest in this Inquiry. It’s important for the Victorian Government to ensure that legislation keeps pace with change, and in a way that protects consumers and provides the sector with the certainty it needs to grow.

…

Victorians deserve to feel confident that should they choose to move into a retirement village or park, they will find a suitable home where they will feel safe and enjoy their retirement years …

That is certainly what the government is doing and what this bill in the house today is doing and tackling.

The consultation clearly outlined that reforms were needed, and it aimed to clarify the rights of residents and operators. It was critical to get that balance right, and that is what we are doing today. This bill is a starting point for a new regulatory framework designed to meet the needs of residents and industry.

I just want to talk a little bit about what this bill will do. We have heard from those involved in the industry, including residents, that contracts – when residents go into exploring whether they are going to enter a village – can be a really complex situation for them, while accessing information can be really difficult. So to better support residents this bill is going to introduce a new requirement that contracts must be in a standard form, which we will prescribe in regulation. With those contracts being really complex and the overall process challenging, even to try to compare your options when you are looking at going into a retirement village and to understand the overall cost, long-term costs and ongoing fees and charges, we need to make this simpler and easier for residents. We will develop a plain English prescribed form which will be easier to understand for all those involved so they can make informed choices. This bill is really important for those older Victorians looking to have choice and looking to be able to compare and feel confident with the decisions that they make.

Just in closing, with this new bill and these new regulations this government wants to ensure that our older Victorians have access to a fair, transparent and secure housing option. This will benefit hundreds of Bellarine constituents who will live and go on to live in retirement villages.

We have beautiful retirement options on the Bellarine, and many, I know, have travelled from all over the country and state to retire on the Bellarine. They enjoy the lifestyle and the community, and we want them to be able to live in a place that better protects their rights as a resident of a retirement village. We want them to make informed decisions before signing contracts, and hopefully it will be a place that they call home for many years, to age with dignity, support their social and community activities and live comfortably.

I just want to also thank some of the residents who have reached out to me to speak and discuss this bill that I am speaking about today, and especially Deidre. I thank her for her lived experience and her feedback in having a discussion with me. It was very much appreciated – to better understand this bill and the impact that it will have.

As the Victorian population ages, we want to ensure retirement villages provide a safe and fair housing option, and that is what this bill will do today. These are our mums, our dads and our grandparents, and they need us to do that to protect them. They deserve to have retirement without fear, unfair contracts or lack of support, and this ongoing reform between government, industry and advocacy groups will continue so we can ensure that retirement villages serve their pure purpose.

Tim READ (Brunswick) (15:11): I too have some words to offer on the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2024. For too long retirees in Victoria have been misled, overcharged and locked into unfair contracts by dodgy retirement housing providers. We have seen shocking fee hikes, contracts so complex that even lawyers struggle to decipher them, and families charged thousands of dollars for months sometimes amounting to more than a year after a relative has died or moved out of a retirement village. Some retirees have lost their life savings. Others have found themselves trapped in homes that were nothing like they were promised, with no real way out.

Back in 2015 my colleague the member for Melbourne was one of the first to sound the alarm on this issue, and she advocated for years on behalf of residents, calling for legislative reform, including helping to host an event in Parliament back in 2017 attended by nearly 200 residents and supported by the Council on the Ageing, Housing for the Aged Action Group, Residents of Retirement Villages Victoria and the Consumer Action Law Centre. The stories they told made it clear back then that this was a widespread systemic problem that required urgent action, and the member for Melbourne worked with Greens upper house MP Colleen Hartland to achieve a parliamentary inquiry into the sector. That inquiry exposed just how deep the issues ran, revealing unfair contracts, hidden fees and a complete lack of consumer protections. Since then we have continued hearing these heartbreaking stories from constituents and advocates, including the Consumer Action Law Centre, Housing for the Aged Action Group and Residents of Retirement Villages Victoria. We have heard about retirees hit with financial stress that they never saw coming, families who were left feeling powerless and residents who were stuck in a system that felt as though it was designed to take advantage of them.

For years affected residents called for an independent ombudsman to help deal with dodgy practices and complaints but the government did not appear to be listening. While it is a relief that change is finally happening, let us be clear: it should never have taken this long and should not have left so much more to do. Residents, advocacy groups and the Greens have been raising the alarm for years. It is good that we have this legislation today, but retirees deserved action long before now. Many have not lived to see these changes and many endured years of financial pain and stress in their final years that they simply should not have.

I want to give special thanks to the abovenamed advocacy groups and to every resident who has bravely spoken out. Your tireless advocacy, research and campaigning have been crucial in getting us to this point. You have fought for the thousands of retirees who have been wronged, and without you we would not be talking about this today.

The bill brings welcome improvements, such as standardised contracts and statements of information, so that residents are better informed. Villages will be required to develop mandatory emergency plans and to report to residents annually on the status of their contracts. A mandatory code of practice will be developed for village operators which will set professional standards. A dedicated dispute resolution service will be run through the Department of Government Services. This is a step in the right direction and an improvement from the current system, but there is still concern that unfair practices and systemic issues will not be captured by this system, whereas an ombudsman would do that.

This is what the residents and advocates and the Greens have been calling for for years. I hope that the dispute resolution process is successful, but we will be watching to see how it pans out, and an ombudsman may still be required, because systemic problems in particular need to be thoroughly addressed and it is quite likely that we will see some continuing malpractice.

Residents and advocates do still have concerns that certain ongoing issues with retirement villages have not been addressed or improved by this bill. They think that a maximum 12 months for payouts to departed residents is too long and unfair. They want clarification on what deferred management fees actually cover, and they want to improve voting rights at residents meetings. They want more of a say in the decisions that affect their village and their home. This bill most certainly improves many aspects of retirement villages, but do not let this be the last step – there is more to do.

To every resident and advocate who has fought for reform: thank you. I want to particularly acknowledge the retirement village residents in my electorate who have stressed that they really like where they live, they really support the retirement villages concept and they welcome much of the bill. They want more, but they welcome what has been started in this process to make retirement villages a successful option for many more Victorians. At least this month we are taking an important step towards fixing a broken system and making sure that no retiree is left powerless in their own home.

Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (15:16): I would like to just begin by acknowledging the contribution generally of our aged and elderly community and all of our elders in helping us build a modern, vibrant, prosperous Victoria – and of course my community of Pascoe Vale, Coburg and Brunswick West, which we have been fortunate to inherit – and also the contribution of generations of those Victorian elders, who we must never forget, who we must continue to respect. That includes the elders from First Nations communities, who for 60,000 years provided custodianship for the lands we have now founded our communities on, our first settlers, our pioneers and our early generations of migrants and multicultural migrants who came to this country to seek a better life, all of whom have played a role in contributing to building the modern-day vibrant, resilient Victoria. That is why we must do all that we can as policymakers, whether in government or as parliamentarians, to ensure that we treat and support our older, elderly, retiree and pensioner communities as best we can, so that all Victorians can be supported to age well and live healthy, active and purposeful lives as they grow older. We must ensure older Victorians are able to safely age at their home or in appropriate aged care and older persons settings, with the opportunity to maintain that independence, that dignity and that connection to family, friends and the community.

With our population continuing to age, we need to make sure that these policy settings are continually reviewed and strengthened, particularly when it comes to retirement villages, so that we are keeping pace with that growth and demand. It is projected that the number of Australians aged 85 and over will increase from 515,000, or 2 per cent of the population today, to more than 1.5 million by 2058, or almost 4 per cent of the population. At a state level we have got the Ageing Well in Victoria strategy to guide our work as a government. In 2021 we had 1.5 million Victorians aged 60 and over, or 22 per cent of the population, and by 2046 it is anticipated that this aged cohort will increase by 60 per cent – I acknowledge the member for Melton’s contribution in leading that cohort – with more than 2.3 million people, over 25 per cent of the population, aged over 60 in coming years.

At a local level in Merri-bek, my community, we are supporting our elderly community through our council’s Living and Ageing Well in Moreland framework. We currently have quite a high proportion of residents in all age groups over 75, which is higher than the Melbourne and Australian averages. Empty-nesters and retirees aged 60 to 69 account for just under 13,000 residents, or 7.6 per cent of our community, and over 12,400 residents are considered seniors, aged between 70 and 84 years of age –

Steve McGhie interjected.

Anthony CIANFLONE: He is on the mark there, Melton – making up 7.3 per cent of our community. Over 4600 residents are aged over 85 years, so 2.7 per cent of our community, compared to 2 per cent across greater Melbourne. As the older population grows of course this places more pressure on aged services and aged care homes.

I refer members to my previous contribution on the Aged Care Restrictive Practices Substitute Decision-maker Bill 2024, which we previously passed, for the details of those reforms in the aged care sector in particular.

But when it comes to retirement homes and long-term retirement accommodation, this bill is all about that sector. Across Australia 750 approved aged care providers manage 2600 Commonwealth-subsidised residential services and 2300 retirement villages. That equates to what I am advised are retirement homes. About 458 operators accommodate about 200,000 independent living units. According to Retirement Living Council and also the ABS in 2021, almost 250,000 Australians live in retirement villages, a 24 per cent increase compared to five years ago, and demand is continuing to increase across Victoria. We have got 513 retirement villages, according to Consumer Affairs Victoria, and 36,000 Victorians living in retirement villages, so that is growing. Industry forecasts are predicting 18,000 retirement dwellings will need to be built between now and 2030. Industry reports that these dwellings and the sector more broadly can help reduce Australia’s housing shortage and housing crisis by 18 per cent by 2030, if we continue to support the sector to grow, through a further 49,000 retirement living dwellings being built over those coming years and reducing that supply gap by 67 per cent.

As I said, as demand grows so too do the demographics, the make-up and the needs of those individuals who are entering these retirement villages. Victorians are entering villages later in life, with an average entry age of 76 years old, and the average length of tenure in a retirement village is now about 8.4 years. Many residents are also receiving more home care services to support their continued stay in the villages. As reported by the Property Council of Australia and PwC retirement living census, 61 per cent of operators in Australia reported providing regulated home care services to residents, an increase of 46 per cent in 2022. This bill is designed to address some of those growing needs.

It is informed by detailed reviews and public consultations and has been shaped by feedback that we have received from residents, operators, industry stakeholders and consumer advocates. In 2016 and 2017 the Legislative Council Legal and Social Issues Committee, as we have heard, undertook an inquiry into the operation and regulation of the retirement housing sector. The inquiry highlighted those concerns about contract complexity, unfair fees and dispute resolution mechanisms and recommended the Retirement Villages Act 1986 be reviewed. In response to the inquiry the government did commit to undertaking a comprehensive review of the act. While several significant changes to the act have occurred since 1986, the act had not been subject to a comprehensive review since 2004. The government launched the review in October 2019, releasing an issues paper for public consultation, which I have here but will have limited time to go through. It received more than 150 submissions from retirement village owners, residents, their families, researchers and other interested parties. This bill is informed by that substantive work.

The bill amends the Retirement Villages Act 1986 to improve the regulation of retirement villages generally; further provides for the needs of the ageing and diverse residents in retirement villages; provides consumer protections and additional mechanisms to support the interests of residents in retirement villages; provides for that regulation and anticipates that future growth which I was touching on earlier and innovation in the retirement sector; provides further protection of the rights, interests and needs of current and future residents of villages and, importantly, residents that are leaving retirement villages and their families; provides processes for resolving those disputes between residents, operators and proprietors of retirement villages; and makes a number of other minor amendments.

The bill introduces five overarching principles that are intended to be used to guide interpretation of the Retirement Villages Act and basically elevate the status of a resident’s preference to remain in a retirement village should they want to. It goes without saying, but we need to legislate this, but all residents should be treated with dignity and respect. We have seen in those cases from the federal government’s royal commission in this space where a lack of regulation and a lack of oversight can tragically and sadly lead to abuse and trauma, which we want to prevent and mitigate as much as possible. This act in the retirement villages space will help to begin to better mitigate against that.

The bill includes a regulation-making power enabling the establishment of a code of practice which will require operators to participate in the scheme in good faith and comply with any agreements reached during conciliation. Noncompliance with the code may result in regulatory action by the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria.

That code will be developed by the director of consumer affairs and approved by the Minister for Consumer Affairs to enshrine mandatory professional conduct obligations to provide guidance for operators in retirement villages.

The bill proposes to consolidate and clarify a number of other mechanisms in the act, including requiring operators to pay an exit entitlement to a vacating resident within the specified period, which would be the earliest time determined under the retirement village contract, the time agreed between the parties or 12 months after the resident gives vacant possession of the unit, allowing a vacating resident to go to VCAT to get an order for the payment of an exit entitlement by an operator if it has not been paid in that specified period.

I stand to be corrected here, but I am pretty sure I heard the member for Ovens Valley in his opening remarks basically make some criticisms of some portions of the bill, including the increased obligation on some of the operators, who will have to be more regularly advising residents in their particular properties and dwellings of the amounts owed on an annual occurring basis. Apparently this creates potentially too much red tape for the operator and it is just a bridge too far. But the reality is, as far as I know, a lot of these retirement villages would have a few accountants on the books that can calculate on a regular basis for business interests and needs what the asset base is, what the depreciation is and what the liabilities are. So if the work is already being done on behalf of the business or the operator of an aged care village, why not just leverage that work and provide that information annually or more regularly to the residents so that the residents and their families thereafter know what they are in for basically at the end of their tenancy at a particular village?

I have run out of time. I commend the bill to the chamber. I commend the Minister for Consumer Affairs for this bill.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (15:26): I rise to talk on the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2024. It is great to see a few people that are not quite ready to move into retirement villages in the chamber, but there are a few in here that may have the opportunity to be downloading and looking through a few things on their phone –

A member interjected.

Martin CAMERON: No, I am not referencing the member for Melton. As our population grows and gets older, so does our availability to move into residential villages if we choose to do that. In a perfect world we would all love to see out our days in our private homes that we have been in for many a year, but that sometimes is not possible, so we need to have these options for people to move into these retirement villages. If you move around and see some of the retirement villages that are available, they are like a mini community. This assists people that are looking to go in there to be able to still have that aspect of being able to live in a community of people of a similar age and, most the time, of similar values. So it is great to be able to have the security to be able to move in and be able to do that. But we also need the regulation, which this bill does provide, to make sure that it is an easy journey to move in and be able to do that and then, on the other side, for family members at the other end to be able to move on if their family members that have been there may have passed on or have had to move into other facilities.

As the member for Ovens Valley articulated at the start, moving through, there is some great stuff in here, but there might be some checks and balances that need to be done to see if we can make the amendments in this bill even more sound moving forward. This has been going on since 2017, when this was first looked at, and as I said before, our population is ageing. We are all getting older, and I think we want that, because the option if we are not getting older is not very good. We want to make sure that we are getting older and that we do have these wonderful places to move into. No matter if it is in inner-city Melbourne or out in the suburbs or out in regional Victoria, where sometimes the choices are not as many as we have as we move closer to the city, we should still be able to have choices to move into facilities that cater for our needs and that allow us to be near townships and cities where we can go shopping and where we have those health services provided.

Sometimes people moving into these facilities have come off the land – you know, mum-and-dad generational farmers that have been on the land forever and a day and they are moving into these retirement villages, so we need to make sure that when we are moving through, reading contracts and signing things that it is as easy as possible for them to make decisions. It is one of the hardest decisions to make – whether you are talking with your parents and they have to move or you are looking at it for yourself – to make the jump to shift out of that family home and move into these places where, as I said, there is that community spirit. As you move around some of them have hairdressers and there are cinemas and there are lawn bowls facilities and there are swimming pools. That environment of being in a retirement village does give that sense of community. If you move in and you are lonely, you can join these walking clubs or whatever it is and it reinvigorates you to reconnect with society.

They are good fun, notwithstanding that there probably will be some people in there that may rub you up the wrong way. We need to make sure that we have in this bill ways that we can work through those issues. Sometimes it is residents versus residents or sometimes it is a resident and a provider or a provider with certain residents. We need to make sure that we get this right and that when the time comes it is a great way for people to move in and continue their lives.

As we heard before, the average age of people going into these facilities is around 76 years of age, so they are people that at the moment are probably not that au fait sometimes with computer literacy to be able to go through and work out what is involved and what the contracts are and what they mean. Around my area in the Latrobe Valley we have got a few providers, and the availability for these retirement villages, to be able to get into them, the waiting list is sometimes very, very long. We need to make sure that there are certain structures around for new providers to move into the area and build these great facilities that they are building. We need to make sure that if you are of that age when you are moving in, you are not downgrading your lifestyle and moving into places that may not be what we think they should be. We need to have all those checks and balances.

With the reasoned amendment that the member for Ovens Valley has put up, it would be great if the government does have a look at that and makes sure we can improve this bill and make it better for everybody, whether you are a provider or you are a person moving in. A couple of things were brought up. One was improving the quorum requirements for decision-making. You go into these retirement villages and there might be 300 to 400 people that are in these retirement villages. At the moment the requirement is 50 per cent for a quorum. It does make it hard with older people to get them into a room as such at the same time. We may need to have a look if there is a way that we can lower the percentage of the people needed for that quorum. The ones that want to go will go, but sometimes our elderly generation cannot get there. I do not think it is fair on them that we cannot have a meeting because they cannot get there. That is one thing that I think needs to be looked at.

The cooling-off period is another one. You can see both sides of the story with the current three-day cooling-off period for contracts. I think I heard in the chamber before when I was watching ‘If everybody reads chapter and verse of the contract’. I do not think that there are many of us would do that.

I know that I myself read the first couple of lines, and if there are longer words there I lose a little bit of interest and go down the bottom and hit ‘I agree’. This is a life-changing move that people are doing, so we need to make sure that they are having time to be able to sit down and talk with their family members and friends and also getting the proper advice to make sure that that can happen.

One thing I think that is not in here – and I know there are a few Hawthorn supporters in the room; maybe it should be a Hawthorn Football Club retirement village so we can all get on famously and make sure that there is no grey area. I know that the member for Frankston over there and the member for Melton – we might be putting our hands up –

Steve McGhie interjected.

Martin CAMERON: Yes – where are we going to have it? That is exactly right. Where are we going to have it? It might be at the G that we set one up down there. But I digress.

This bill actually makes a lot of good sense, and there are a couple of things that we still may need to work through so people moving forward at that time when they are choosing to go in have that opportunity. With the amendment put forward by the member for Ovens Valley, I would like the government to take that on board.

Luba GRIGOROVITCH (Kororoit) (15:36): Thank you very much for the contribution, member for Morwell. You are not quite there yet, but you are on your way. It is good that we have got this bill before us and we can all try and make amendments and suggestions as we please.

On a serious note, this is a very serious bill, and I would like to genuinely pay my respects to our elders – our parents, our grandparents. We have all learned so much from them, and it is our responsibility, especially having the good fortune of being here in Parliament, to make sure that we make any changes that we possibly can that will make the lives of those who are older and younger than us better and improve all Victorians’ lives daily. So I think this bill is really important.

As I rise to speak to this legislation, I actually think about my beloved mum and my Uncle Ken. A safe and a secure home to live in is the most important human right, and I think everybody in this chamber would 100 per cent agree with that. It was a few years ago that I realised my mum, who had cared for my uncle for far too long – her entire life, basically – was getting older herself. I think everyone can attest to the fact that it is an interesting thing when you suddenly realise that your parents are actually ageing. It is a hard thing to grapple with, and then you realise that you are ageing as well. So Mum was getting older – and is, unfortunately, every day – but suddenly the struggle of looking after my beloved Uncle Ken was getting harder on her. Mum always lived in our big family home in Altona Meadows, which we absolutely loved and have very many, many good memories of. But it was time to have the chat with Mum and say it was time to move into a retirement village. As the member for Morwell said earlier and others who have made contributions, finding a retirement village that actually has capacity to take you in and where you get on with the people and it is in your community is not just as easy as that. There are often waiting lists and there is a lot of red tape, and that is something that this bill is looking at changing. Thankfully, about two years ago now, Mum and Uncle Ken got a place at the Point Cook retirement village and they are now there. It is a beautiful village, and I really pay homage to the staff and to all of the residents there, because it is a great place to go. They have both lived great and fulfilling lives and I know that they have got plenty of petrol left in their tank, so I look forward to continuing to visit there and watching them grow in their brand new community. But at their age, especially Uncle Ken with his needs, it meant that the family home was no longer viable. My brother and I are able to visit them freely, though. It is not a prison, like my mum was worried it would be; it is actually a beautiful retirement village, and there are a lot of great retirement villages out there.

This is why decent, regulated and affordable retirement villages are so very important. For the elderly members of our community and for their families, they should be easily available to everybody who needs them, regardless of their income, their super savings or their life circumstances. It is why it is such an important part of the modern Labor mission and this Labor government’s commitment to a review of the Retirement Villages Act 1986 following the recommendation of the 2017 parliamentary inquiry into the retirement housing sector.

The government received hundreds of submissions through the consultation period on those reforms. Approximately 90 per cent of those submissions came from retirement village residents, their families and also the residents committees, and I think that that is so important to note when we think about this bill. In response to the issues raised, these new protections contained in the amending bill, which represent the largest reform in retirement villages since the act was introduced in 1986. This bill introduces a contemporary regulatory framework for Victorian retirement villages that provides stronger consumer protections to support residents while still enabling growth and innovation in the sector. Consumer Affairs Victoria will have stronger powers and more enforcement options to regulate retirement villages, including requiring operators to provide clear information, and I think everyone around this chamber would agree that that is incredibly important. All of this reflects our government’s commitment to making living in a retirement village fairer and more comfortable for older Victorians.

This amending legislation introduces overriding principles in the act that a resident’s preference to remain in a retirement village should be respected and that all residents should be treated with both dignity and respect, and that is so incredibly important, especially to our young and our elders in society. The bill includes a regulation-making power enabling the establishment of a code of practice which will require operators to participate in the scheme in good faith and comply with any agreements reached during conciliation. Non-compliance with the code may result in regulatory action by the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria.

The review that the government undertook heard very clearly that the variety and technical nature of retirement village contracts make it difficult for residents to compare one village to another and to understand their obligations and overall costs. A silly example of this was when Mum got her contract. She thought she was all with it and good to go. We were about to move in, but we wanted to do one final measure of the furniture, and we realised that there was no carpet in the retirement village that we had chosen for her. All of a sudden we had to go back to the contract. Thankfully, she had my brother and me there to pick up the pieces, but if it had been moving-in day that would have been a bit of a heartbreaker, I suspect. So the obligation needs to be there for them to be really clear in these contracts.

When drafting the regulations the government worked with stakeholders and residents to meaningfully design standard-form contracts that are expressed in plain English and easy to understand. The bill includes a requirement that residents contracts and management contracts must be standard form. The prescribed form for these contracts is proposed to be set out in the regulations in the Retirement Villages Act. The development of regulations will be subject to further public consultation, and contracts will need to outline how exit entitlements are calculated and explain the new requirements regarding settling-in periods. Specifically, this bill’s changes will include requiring operators to pay an exit entitlement to a vacating resident within a specific period, allowing a vacating resident to go to VCAT to get an order for the payment of an exit entitlement by an operator if it has not been paid in the specified period, requiring an operator to give a vacating resident a statement setting out the amount of their exit entitlement and of course how it is calculated, and requiring an operator to make an aged care payment or alternative accommodation payment within prescribed periods after a resident makes a request.

The bill establishes offences and penalties for operators who use contracts that are not in the prescribed form, for failing to give a copy of a resident’s contract to a resident and for contracts that contain prohibited terms. The bill will also clarify the processes to end a retirement village contract and support residents to remain in a retirement village. The new arrangements to terminate contracts will allow an operator to end a resident’s contract by a non-owner resident on two grounds: (1) a substantial breach of the contract by the resident or (2) health and safety reasons. As such, a new reasonable and proportionate test will be applied to all contract terminations. The bill will also clarify village operators’ responsibilities to maintain and replace capital items and allow residents to carry out urgent works where an operator has not acted. If the operator wants to impose a maintenance charge that is higher than the adjusted maintenance charge, they must obtain the resident’s approval first.

The bill introduces a range of reforms to ensure residents can participate in and contribute to their retirement village and their wishes are represented in the decision-making. This includes providing new rules for residents meetings and annual meetings and model rules for residents committees.

The bill will encourage residents’ participation in retirement village decision-making by confirming the processes for convening, conducting and passing resolutions at meetings of residents. The bill will also provide provisions for auditing of financial statements. The bill will also introduce reforms to the way residents committees operate, including providing for model rules and a process for making changes to village by-laws and prohibiting operators from attending committee meetings unless they are invited. The bill streamlines the current precontractual disclosure requirements, which consist of a disclosure statement and a separate fact sheet. The changes enable one document in an information sheet to be provided to prospective village residents to ensure that they are better informed when making a decision about entering a retirement village.

I have got to say that in Kororoit we have got a number of retirement villages but, like in many of our electorates, there are huge waiting lists, so it is important to think ahead. Of course for anyone leaving a family home it can often be quite devastating. Not everyone looks forward to leaving the family home. But we as the Allan Labor government have a hope that this bill will make it easier for any elderly resident looking to go into a retirement village and looking at spending their time in a retirement village.

I circle back to my mum and Uncle Ken. Unfortunately, more help, as I alluded to earlier, is naturally needed as they age, and unfortunately that is going to be the same for each and every one of us. I want to say a big thankyou to all of the staff at the Point Cook retirement village, who do a great job with Mum and Uncle Ken. There is a doctor on hand at any one time and they have got wonderful neighbours, and I would like to think that this happens in all retirement villages across our great state of Victoria.

Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (15:46): I am pleased to rise today to speak on the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2024. It has been an interesting debate to listen to today. I will say on this that I am not going to beat the government up too much on the amount of time it has taken, being that this started in 2017. I think when we talk about our ageing population and caring for our ageing population that careful consideration should be taken. Maybe that is why it took so long. I am not quite sure. I was not here in the 58th Parliament, so I am not going to try and mention historical stuff that happened then. But I think there has to be careful consideration when we are dealing with our ageing population, whether that be with retirement villages or nursing homes.

But I will speak to this today. I am sure the government went wide on consultation. I have no doubt they consulted with providers and residents and everyone else. Maybe they could have gone a little bit wider – like wanting to talk to the member for Rowville or the member for Melton or the member for Murray Plains. They might have had some input into it. I am worried about what is going to hit me in the back of the head right now. But that is okay; I am sure they went far and wide.

I will lean into what the member for Bulleen was talking about earlier when we were talking about retirement villages. They are good facilities. They do offer our ageing population a sense of community or being in a community, because sometimes as we get older we tend to isolate. I know when my parents were both alive they did not get out much. They were not in a retirement village; they ended up going into a nursing home. But when they were at that age and they were at home, they were isolated because they could not get out. At least in a retirement village you might have a neighbour come around and knock on your door and have a cup of tea and a chat with you in the afternoon.

But I do feel as though residents at times do feel trapped, especially when we are talking about trying to exit a village. I think in all of this and from what I have heard today this is probably one of the main problems we are having and possibly the reason why our shadow minister the member for Ovens Valley has put forward a reasoned amendment. I do not think he has done that out of spite. Both sides of the house want this bill to work, and therefore I think he has done that in good faith. Hopefully the government takes on board what he has done and the reasons behind it.

As far as I can see there are two problems with this. One is the cooling-off period and one is trying to leave a retirement village or when it is deemed vacant possession. I will lean into the cooling-off period first. I do agree with what our shadow minister the member for Ovens Valley said: I think three days is not long enough. Although it is the standard in Victoria – on any purchase cooling off is for three days – maybe we should look at a bit of an exemption when it comes to retirement villages.

As has been stated by various speakers today, the average age of people going into a retirement village is 76 years. Sometimes as we get older our decisions may not be the best, or we may not do the research that we want. Therefore allowing it to go to – I think Queensland is 14 days, and I think New South Wales is seven days. If we went in line with New South Wales, even if just for retirement villages as seven days, then I think that is a good thing. I do not think it is a negative thing because sometimes, as I said, people might rush a decision, or they might see a better option. Who knows? But give them seven days; give them time to think about it. And this is even more important, as the member for Kororoit just alluded to in her contribution: give them time to have someone else look over the contract. That is very important. The member for Kororoit just mentioned that her mum was about to go in and there was no carpet, and she and her brother went back to the contract and realised that was the case. So that is why I think a seven-day cooling-off period would be a step in the right direction as far as retirement villages go.

Then we have trying to exit a retirement village. That is where I think things are becoming a bit problematic. If somebody wants to move out – and I will put my builder’s hat on now – I understand it needs to be renovated and revamped, depending on the age of the unit, obviously, in the retirement village. Then possibly it needs new carpets or needs a repaint. In some situations it might need a new kitchen. Who knows? The appliances might be old; they have to be replaced. All those things take time. But I do understand that 12 months is a long time. It is a very long time, and I will give an example. Everyone in this chamber knows my father passed last year. He was in a nursing home, I will clarify this, not a retirement village, but even in a nursing home the half a million dollars invested in there does not get released until probate is finalised. I think that gets signed off next week.

The issue I am seeing with this bill at the moment is: when is vacant possession deemed? That is becoming one of the issues with the bill. Is it deemed vacant possession at the end of probate? Is it deemed vacant possession when someone moves out? I think we need clarity around that. I am not saying this to hang it on the government. I think this is actually a real issue that needs to be looked at. Maybe it can be looked at in the other place, or maybe it could be that we pull the bill and have a good look at it and get it right. When someone wants to move on for any reason, even if they want to move out and go somewhere else, 12 months to me seems an excessively long time. But I do get the provider’s point of view, depending on the works that need to be done. I would imagine a repaint and new carpets do not take a very long time. They definitely do not take 12 months. If there are more works, maybe there can be provisions there, if it has to be major works. Maybe you can have a major works clause and a minor works clause. I am not quite sure how that would be structured, but to me that would make common sense, because 12 months seems way too long. Then you have got the residents saying they want six months, and that may not be long enough, again depending on the issue within the unit at the time.

I think they are the things we need to look at to make this bill a better bill and to make sure everyone is happy. Unfortunately it is one of these situations where – I have always had this saying, coming out of private business – you should never reach an agreement unless you are both getting screwed, which is essentially what this is. Everybody has to give a bit to agree to what is going to happen at the end of the day. Sorry if that is unparliamentary, but it used to be one of my sayings, and it is very, very true in any negotiation.

The government should really look at this in good faith, as the shadow minister put forward, because it was not done out of spite. We really do need to look after our older generation. Two words have been mentioned in here quite a few times today: dignity and respect. It does have a lot to do with that. As people get older, they do want to be treated with dignity and respect. Our population is ageing – we are all getting older, unfortunately – and we do owe it to our older citizens to make sure things are in place in the right systems to make their life easier as they are getting older. We do not want to make it more difficult.

This is what the government should refocus on in this bill. There are certain parts of the bill that are good steps in the right direction, but there are certain parts of this bill that are possibly a little bit ambiguous. Maybe we should consider a review in a couple of years to see how it is working, to go back to the residents and the providers to say, ‘We’ve tried this. Where can we make this better? Is this exit clause of 12 months too long? Can we bring that back? Is even six months too short on that side?’ I think a review process would be a good thing to put in. We are all in here for the right reasons. We want good legislation to go through this Parliament and through both houses. I think the government should consider a review process for the cooling-off period, which is very important – let people know what they are really in for before they put that signature on the dotted line – and obviously the exit clause. They are my concerns about the bill.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (15:56): Looking at this legislation, it is part of a range of legislation and actions from the Allan Labor government, and it is all premised on the basis that every person has the right to safe, high-quality, stable housing. It is a right, and as a government we should do whatever we can to ensure that as many Victorians as possible have the opportunity to have not just a house but a home. Yesterday, for example, we were debating changes to legislation around renters’ rights, and today we are talking about changes to the legislation governing retirement villages and looking at trying to strengthen and provide better guidance on what is required and what people should expect when they are going into retirement villages.

In a way this legislation is at the other end of previous legislation and policies that we have been introducing. Basically we are looking at housing as a first home buyer all the way along to older Victorians who may choose to go into retirement villages. There is a lot of choice, whether it is supporting first home and young buyers with, for example, subsidies on stamp duty or equity programs that both the state previously and federal government now are doing, or whether it is supporting rights for renters to ensure that they have good-quality, stable housing and, as I said, looking at the rights of those that choose to go into retirement villages.

As has been talked about by previous speakers, this legislation is informed by a review that was conducted some time ago. There were hundreds of submissions from both operators and families as well as those that were living in retirement villages. As a result of that review this legislation is before the Parliament today. There is a number of aspects. I will not have the time to go through all of it, so I am going to pick out just a few points, knowing that previous speakers have gone into a lot of detail about this bill.

The amendment bill does draw on five guiding principles of what people should expect, how operators should operate and what the arrangements should be between a person that is wanting to go into a retirement village and the operator, and the concept and aspirations of those guiding principles are being put into this legislation, which will then lead to further regulatory programs and regulation as well as the development of things such as a code of conduct, which will fall under the responsibility of Consumer Affairs Victoria.

I am not going to patronise older people by saying that they cannot think as fast as others; I just do not think that is correct at all. But a cooling-off period, for example, is the standard that happens in all other areas of law when it comes to real estate and so on. It is better to be consistent and to ensure that this legislation is consistent with other legislation.

As I said, a couple of the principles that I would like to talk about in terms of what this legislation is looking at and, as a result of that, building on with the code of conduct and regulation are the principles that retirement villages should be kept safe and maintained in a reasonable state of repair and residents should have quiet enjoyment of their premises in the retirement village. Many years ago I was a member on a parliamentary committee that looked into the rights and aspirations of seniors in Victoria, and these general principles were things that were repeatedly raised with us. When you go into a retirement village, when you are looking, after work, to do other things, to have a whole new stage of life, of course you do not want to be living in a place where it is stressful, where you do not feel that you are being respected and in fact are not respected but where you do have rights and your views and ideas are also properly considered and properly listened to.

Regarding the code of practice for retirement village operators, that will be developed not as part of this legislation, but it will ensure that, for example, operators that participate in the scheme will comply with any agreements that they reach during the consultation period. Also, there will be penalties when it comes to not complying with the code and where consumer affairs could take regulatory action. It will be developed in consultation with retirement village operators as well as residents, so everybody who is affected will be able to participate and have a voice in order to ensure that the code of conduct is the best it can be, as well as the government making sure that it is a program where people’s rights are respected and able to be enforced.

I know there has been a lot of talk around exit fees and contracts, particularly where contracts have been very difficult to read and very convoluted. Of course this legislation will ensure that there is a very standard application form in clear, plain English so that everybody knows very clearly what their entitlements are, what their obligations are and what the fees are before they sign. In terms of exit fees, I got a lot of feedback that from residents, and I will give a shout-out to both the lifestyle – well, not villages, because the land is not owned by the resident, just the house. But the exit fees really were a frustration. Of course nobody wants to pay extra money, but a lot of the issue is around how they were applied, and it was considered that they were unfairly applied. So this legislation is going to ensure that exit entitlement payments are more timely and also that there is a bit more disclosure of those exit fees. Therefore people will know up-front what they will be required to do and there will not be this open-ended period of time in which exit fees would have to be paid. As I said, this also ensures that contracts are clearer – not just the application forms but the contracts – so that everybody understands and there is nothing hidden in the in the wording of those contracts and everyone is very clear before they go into to the village. Of course this is your home – it is not easy just to move out again or go somewhere else if you are not happy – so it is very important that you know exactly where you stand and what is happening when you go into the village and hopefully you can then spend your time involving yourself with all the activities and using all the facilities that are provided. When it comes to the standardised form that is going to be prescribed, providers that do not use that form will be penalised for not using the form.

Part of the key theme of the bill is to provide clarity for both operators and residents. Again, there will be enhanced and streamlined precontractual disclosures and also fair contract termination requirements and processes so that again everyone knows where they stand and when a nonresident can be evicted or not, rather than it all being within the rights and controls of the operator.

Also this legislation is going to allow much better and clearer dispute resolution. Again, the feedback that I have from people living in retirement villages and other types of these communities is that when there is a concern or an issue raised, all the power is with the operator. It does not matter what you say, they do not listen and just nothing happens. But under this system there will be a really clear and strong dispute resolution program, and the legislation will try to strike that balance so that there is a bit more of an equal footing between the rights of the residents and the rights of the operator. Of course it will also enable operators to go through VCAT in cases that are in dispute where they are clearly in the right, as well as assisting residents.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (16:06): In starting off my contribution, I might pick up on what the member for Morwell was saying in his contribution when he talked about having a Hawthorn supporters retirement village. I think that is probably a great idea for the member for Morwell and his mates, but can I make a suggestion that I would actually put Paul Chapman in as the manager of that establishment so he could remind them every day of the Kennett curse and how many years Geelong beat Hawthorn, year after year after year. If the member for Morwell is watching on the screen, yes, you can have your retirement village but you are going to have Paul Chapman as the manager just to make sure you remember how much Geelong has beaten Hawthorn over that time.

Unlike the member for Narracan, I will make some comments on how long this bill has taken to get to the house. We all know the very old saying that something has been so slow it has had the gestation period of an elephant. The gestation period of an elephant is 22 months. This bill started back in 2017. There would have been three elephants born in the time this bill has taken to get to the house, so it has taken a long, long time to get here. If you think about the comments made by others, the average time in a retirement village is 8.4 years. For all those people that made a contribution early in the consultation on this bill – and as I understand it a lot of people did, because as someone else made comment, so many of the people in retirement villages took a very active interest. There are retired lawyers, there are retired accountants, there are retired everything in there – they would have made their contribution expecting something to happen. They would have done the work in good faith to make sure that they actually put a meaningful contribution into the consultation on this bill. They would have moved out by now. They would probably be in residential care because it has taken that long for this bill to come forward. I think the responsibility on the government is when they actually start a process to improve something –– I think everyone would heed an agreement in the chamber that there does need to be improvements, and that has been articulated quite well – at least get it done so that those people that engage in the process, those people that want to see change, actually live long enough to see the change that is going to happen, because this has taken a long, long time to come forward. I thank all those that made contributions early on, in good faith, that may not be around now to see the outcome of this particular bill.

As has been said, the Shadow Minister for Consumer Affair, the member for Ovens Valley, has put forward a reasoned amendment because there are some improvements that are still needed. So after all this time, after three baby elephants have been born, we have got a bill that still actually needs some improvements. How could the government not get it right after that length of time?

The issue of plain English contracts not only applies to residential living, it applies to everything in the law. Why do lawyers have to make things so complicated when they actually write contracts? There are some lawyers in this house, but even so: why does it have to be so complicated? Why can’t more things be done in plain English? This is a classic example. Some other examples have been quoted in the contributions so far about people ready to move in and there being something in the fine print they have to worry about. Plain English should be the norm for these contracts – not the exception – and for other contracts.

I think one of the challenges I have seen in my electorate with residential care and aged residential independent living is the cost of running them. Most of these villages were started up by local not-for-profit groups with great intention and good faith as to how they were going to service their particular community, but as it has got more complicated and compliance has got more expensive, they have had to be grouped together into larger groups. In my electorate Respect, which is a not-for-profit that started in north-west Tasmania, now runs a number of those establishments because the local committees of management just could not handle the compliance and could not handle the cost of keeping up with that compliance, and Respect is having the same issue. Finding staff for these establishments is also very, very difficult, and what we are seeing is that to have managers that are there and senior staff that are there for a long period of time is a real challenge for those organisations. It would have been useful if this bill had come forward sooner, so that those that did make those contributions earlier could have seen the changes that were put forward.

I am disappointed that the member for Ovens Valley had to move the reasoned amendment that he has. After that period of time, from 2017 onwards, you would have thought the government could have had legislation where there was support from both sides of the chamber. The fact that there was an exposure draft three years ago and a second exposure draft two years ago says that something has gone wrong in the process, and finally this bill is before the house and we are not actually both saying, ‘This is a good thing to do.’ The fact that there are still faults in it, which the member for Ovens Valley, the shadow minister, has pointed out, I think says the government have not got the process right.

We all want to make sure that we look after those in the community that are older. A community is judged by how it looks after its young and how it looks after its older people. I think we are all here with the same intent to make sure there is a good outcome out of this legislation. It is disappointing that it is not exactly right this time.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (16:12): I am very pleased to speak to the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2024. I will echo some of the sentiments – not all – and the fact is that there has been extensive consultation. These reforms that are before us are certainly extremely well evaluated and thought out. So it is disappointing to see the opposition are not wanting to proceed with the bill and are wanting to shut it down, because these are really important reforms. They are very much needed. We know the reality of vulnerabilities where people have not been, can we say, offered the clarity that they deserve ahead of making such an important decision in their lives as choosing to move into a retirement village. So it is timely that we are introducing a contemporary regulatory framework that provides stronger consumer protections to support residents to age in place while still enabling growth and innovation in the sector.

I am not reflecting on the vicissitude of retirement villages that exist.; o course there will be a spectrum of experiences for Victorians in those. But I am pleased there have been some really innovative developments in my area, I can say. Even in Albert Park, where I literally have doorknocked, people have reflected on really having all the services they need and being able to be close to their families, and I think that is really important. I remember my late grandfather on my late father’s side and his retirement village, although it actually worked well for him because it allowed him to progress at different stages of his health, I should say, as the case may be, initially being quite independent and then moving to a more supported situation. Nevertheless it was a large hike from where we lived, and of course when you are wanting to regularly visit your loved ones it makes sense if they can be closer to where you live. So I really think this is an important progression that we have from a community level in thinking about the long term and keeping people closer to where we are so we can visit them regularly and give them the love and care that they deserve.

Coming back to the bill itself, some of these things I am really excited about. I say ‘excited’ because ultimately what inspires me is fairness and justice, and that is really what underpins this bill. Getting beyond the fact of whether lawyers overcomplicate matters – they may do, but there is often a sound reason for that, because they are allowing, I am not saying overcomplicating, for the vicissitudes of contingencies that occur and evolve in life. It is allowing for all the things that human beings do and the complexity that we create ourselves, so I think just a little caveat on that point.

But starting with more timely exit entitlement payments and better disclosure of exit fees, I think that is a statement of itself. It is fairly obvious that these elements are really, really important. The bill proposes to consolidate and clarify requirements relating to the payment of exit entitlements. This has got to be a good thing. Specifically, these changes will require operators to pay an exit entitlement to a vacating resident within a specified period, which would be the earliest of the time determined under the retirement village contract, the time agreed between the parties or 12 months after the resident gives vacant possession of the unit. There is more to those elements of the bill, but we can see how these are very reasonable terms. Certainly when we are looking at fairness and people being able to reduce the fear and anxiety of taking that big step of moving into a retirement village, these are really logical developments that I am pleased to see.

Something else that I think needs to be emphasised is that contracts will need to outline how exit entitlements are calculated – absolutely, because this is certainly an area that can be extremely vexed to say the least – and explain the new requirements regarding settling-in periods. We know that human beings do not necessarily move into retirement village and it is happy days, that is where they want to stay. I say this because my grandparents – my grandmother is still surviving; my grandfather has passed away – moved initially into a retirement village and then realised they were not quite ready for it, moved out again and subsequently moved into another retirement village. These are the things that people do according to where they are at emotionally or otherwise – physically – so making sure these transitional processes are as clear and fair as possible is absolutely essential. This does not necessarily cast aspersions on the particular retirement village; it may be that it just is not suiting you at that point in time or that you are preferring a different situation to what they are able to offer. I am casting no aspersions whatsoever in that regard but purely saying that people can change their mind. When they change their mind, there need to be fair and clear terms to ensure that those processes are fair on all fronts.

That brings me to this point where we are looking at fairer contract termination requirements and processes – absolutely fundamental. The bill will clarify the processes to end a retirement village contract and support residents to remain in a retirement village, so you can see both sides of the equation. The new arrangements to terminate contracts will allow an operator to end a residence contract with a non-owner resident on two grounds: a substantial breach of the contract by the resident – again, we are looking at fairness here, so it is not about necessarily being negative towards operators; we are saying this is a two-way street and we need to be really clear and up-front on those terms – or health and safety reasons, as an example. I am pleased to see that there is greater clarity on that front.

Better defined maintenance responsibilities and obligations – the bill will clarify village operators’ responsibilities to maintain and replace capital items and allow residents to carry out urgent works where an operator has not acted. Again, I can see that it is evident why that is so important, because there is nothing more distressing that when you can see something needs to be repaired and feel powerless to be able to enforce what should be a fair and reasonable request, so I am really pleased to see that development as well. If I flip it the other way, there should be no unreasonable refusal of repairs, alterations, reinstatement and renovations.

You can see underpinning this, and this should really be a fundamental element of the law per se, the premise of reasonableness. That really is a sound principle, and it certainly backs in the reforms that are being put before the chamber.

The bill will provide stronger protections for residents leaving retirement villages by clarifying circumstances in which a village operator can require a resident to pay for repairs, alterations, reinstatement and renovations, again reducing the anxiety in their decision-making, because if it was a particularly onerous situation, who knows what they could be up for. They could be up for thousands, and if they did not know in advance the potential for that particular incidence or that particular outcome, you can just imagine how people could really get caught. As you are maturing in years the last thing you would want to do is exacerbate the stresses and the pressures in your life – managing your finances, your health and so many other things that we have to deal with, emotional or otherwise, in our lives. That is just greater clarity, an ability to predict outcomes as best you can, so it is great that the law is actually backing that in.

It is also empowering residents, because why shouldn’t they be empowered, it is where they live. The bill will encourage resident participation in retirement village decision-making by confirming the processes for convening, conducting and passing resolutions at a meeting of residents. The bill will provide provisions for auditing a financial statement. Again we can see that these are logical provisions and much needed.

Something that I am particularly passionate about is that the bill streamlines the current precontractual disclosure requirements – that has to be absolutely fundamental. It consists of a disclosure statement and a separate fact sheet. The changes enable one document, an information statement, to be provided to prospective residents to ensure they are better informed when making a decision to enter a retirement village. This has to be absolutely fundamental. You are not expected to be Einstein before you enter into these contracts. It should be something that is accessible to every Victorian, and again reasonableness underpins the reforms that are being put before the chamber today. I should say further that the bill provides that the information statement must be in the form prescribed in the regulations and must be provided upon request to a prospective resident of a retirement village – so that everyone knows where they stand. It gives people greater confidence, and ultimately it will be better for operators in the long run, I must say.

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (16:22): Following on from the member for Murray Plains – who coincidentally could be the one in this place that would head to a retirement village first; or maybe not, I mean, the member for Melton is over to my left – talking about the special retirement village for Hawthorn, I do not think that a happy place to live would be a retirement village for Hawthorn supporters and members being managed by Paul Chapman. I do disagree with the member for Murray Plains on that one. Also, learning about the gestational period of an elephant was not on my bingo card for today, but I appreciate that little bit of insight. He is full of lots of facts and figures.

One point that the member for Murray Plains did point out though, of course, was the length of time it has taken for this bill to come through and still the necessity for the member for Ovens Valley to submit a reasoned amendment because stakeholders that have been consulted with still need some further clarity.

There are some good points throughout this bill. One of those is the contracts and the need for the use of simple, plain English in those contracts. Again, it would be nice if all contracts were written in such a fashion that the common man could actually understand them without needing the help of solicitors and such. Then again, where would they be without us to pay those bills?

Division 8 to amend part 5 for transitions to aged care or alternative accommodation is something I did want to focus on, largely because not only are my own parents at the moment considering – well, I at least hope they are considering – moving off the farm and into smaller housing, which may be difficult in small rural communities, finding that smaller housing and being able to sell an irrigated horticultural property, but I have had several pieces of communication over the last few years about the lack of hospice care.

There are quite a few retirement villages in Mildura. The two that come to mind first are Princes Court – Princes Court village and Princess Court homes, who offer an amazing service – and the Vines.

Jess Wilson interjected.

Jade BENHAM: The member for Kew’s nan was at Princes Court. It is a wonderful facility, and they are currently in the midst of expanding that facility. We have an amazing palliative nursing care team in Mildura that – outside of Mildura Base Public Hospital, Sunraysia community health and these types of palliative in-hospital care – are really the only option for palliative care in home in Mildura without a bespoke, built-for-purpose hospice. Something I have actually had three letters on during January is the concern from children that have been caring for parents who in the last weeks of their life are in desperate need of palliative care. Often the wish is to go home for those last days and weeks, which is fair enough. The trouble is that earlier in 2024 palliative nursing care was 24/7 – as it should be, because not everything happens between the hours of 8 and 6 – but it has come to the attention of some concerned constituents that have written to me that this has recently been cut back to the hours of 8 to 6 and is possibly due to be cut again, or at least these are the concerns of those nurses and those in the sector. It is causing great alarm. Like I said, I have received various pieces of communication over the last month and a bit, and it is very upsetting not only to those nurses but also to the families of those who may need to go into palliative care. There are waitlists. It is quite hard to get that in-facility care. It is full. So a hospice is needed.

There was a great fundraiser in fact in the member for Murray Plains’ electorate a few years ago, probably many years ago now, where some local community groups got together and raised a huge amount of money to build a hospice in Swan Hill, because there was the same issue there. We are an ageing population, and this is certainly cause for concern, so when this bill came up I thought it was a great opportunity to raise this in this place.

This bill makes wholesale changes to a whole raft, which we could not go through in 10 minutes, but it also does point out the need for that transition to aged accommodation, and then so on and so forth. There is such an amount of steps that need to be considered. Retirement villages are great, and I would hope that my parents do consider retirement villages. It could be that resort-style retirement village, which I am sure they would enjoy, although some of the noise complaints clauses and things might cause them some issues, because my mother is quite the social butterfly. I am sure the member for Murray Plains would not be considering retirement villages at this point – at least his wife would not be, because she is also quite the social butterfly. But that is one step, and for some it is quite an early step.

But as we do get older and independent living is not an option anymore, out in the regions like Mildura palliative care and that end-of-life stage become a concern. People are living longer – we know that – so this is an issue we should have perhaps considered a long, long time ago, and we should certainly not be making cuts now if those concerns that are being spoken about within our palliative care nursing team at the moment are substantiated. One of the things that people have raised about the comparison between palliative care in home rather than in a hospital bed is the saving of about $2000 a day. That is how much the public health system could save if we funded people to go home. Obviously, the ambulance and hospital systems are already stretched, so keeping people out is optimal.

I had a report yesterday about the emergency department at Mildura Base Public Hospital from someone that was there – and this was also illustrated in a letter to me about palliative care in Mildura – about the amount of wait time that you go through in the emergency department at Mildura Base Public Hospital. Also, it improves the range of options for a person’s last weeks and months, and advanced care options during that transition are obviously what we want to give our ageing population.

Lastly, when we talk about retirement villages, it is not an option for everyone, unfortunately. I wish it was. Unfortunately it is not. Women over 70 in fact are an enormous part of the homelessness statistics, and in particular at the moment my mother-in-law is one of those. She is effectively homeless, living with her daughter while undergoing cancer treatment. Again there is that transition between having to give up her home in our regional area to relocate, effectively, and having to relocate to the city, where she does not want to be because she grew up in the country, and not having that independence and how that must feel. She was a nurse; she worked as a nurse her entire life. How she must feel now, not being able to afford a retirement village – a beautiful one like the Vines or like Princes Court – and having to give up her rental residence to travel to Melbourne for cancer treatment. It just should not happen. She worked her entire life in healthcare services. We are going through the process at the moment to try and accommodate her.

Changes to the Retirement Villages Act 1986: it has taken a long, long time, and one would have thought it might have been unnecessary for the member for Ovens Valley to move a reasoned amendment because of the time that has elapsed. It could have been done right the first time, as I often say. It is unfortunate, but I do support the member for Ovens Valley in his reasoned amendment.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (16:32): It is great to rise to speak on the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2024. Once again there have been three out of three reasoned amendments on legislation this week, as if it could be any more predictable that those opposite in shadow cabinet would show themselves not fit to govern. Bringing reasoned amendments week after week after week does not do this Parliament any service or to the depth of and knowledge in this bill. You have had people on this bill who have directly contradicted each other, who have said there was not enough consultation, and at the same time the member for Ovens Valley got up and said it has been too long and there has been too much engagement, too much time lapse, too much consultation. That is what happens when you do not put in the work in opposition and you do not prepare for a sitting week. They had warning that this bill was coming forward – it has been years in the making – and we have seen the lackadaisical, lethargic effort of three reasoned amendments. At least there is a bit more substance to this one, rather than, ‘Oh, just go and consult more, because we say so.’ Once again those opposite have put forward reasoned amendments to disrupt these bills and the house.

A lot of us that have been around for some time know that the retirement villages sector has continued to expand at a significant rate. We have seen, in the Kingston area that I represent, more retirement villages popping up, or lifestyle villages – some of those are Lifestyle and Richfield villages. There are two key fundamental reasons for this. There is a price point for residents who might be downsizing, and there is a mix to encourage these models of residential outcomes, because we also want to encourage people to downsize to free up homes for families. This is a great point in the market where you can have people downsize the family home that they have loved and cherished and then go into a communal set-up like at Lifestyle or Richfield. People that have lived in their patch for decades then are not priced out of their area based on rent or based on the asset class that they have when they downsize, or the stamp duty that they pay, and then not being able to buy back into their patch. I think it is a really important hallmark in our housing mix that we have the retirement village set-up as well.

But what we have found in some of that engagement has been a mental load that no-one should have to carry, let alone people that have paid tax and contributed to our communities for decades, with some of the duress around contractual terms or some of the significant letters and campaigns that have been undertaken just to get a fair assessment of what are market rates for rental increases at CPI and then needing to engage with boards and management that are less than engaging and less than accommodating.

When you are reading the play you see that they see some residents as being a nuisance, but they are executing the rights on behalf of their residents, on behalf of their neighbours, to get a fair go in their set-up. I have seen in my engagement with these villages where people, through exit fees, have been under significant duress. People who have had health conditions come up over time, which happens from time to time with people living in retirement villages, do not need the uncertainty of needing to move and then realising that there is a substantial impact on their financial assets from exiting or changing these arrangements and having to deal with really technical terms around whether a home is movable. These are some of the challenges that we have seen around that definitional engagement that significantly impacts on residents.

This bill has had a huge run-up and a huge amount of work. I have teamed up before with the member for Laverton, who has done some great work with the sector as well. I thank the former minister, Minister Williams, who did a power of work, and the incoming minister, Minister Staikos, who has just hit the ground running with legislation, just powering through. This is an example of Labor governments working hard on the technical details, doing extensive consultation that brings people along on the journey and making a call on where the line needs to be and then implementing. That is not like those opposite, who would rather this bill sit on the shelf and not implement the support and protections that are needed now. They would push it off into consultation for another six, 12 or 18 months for a utopian set-up and the absolutes that they are talking about rather than enact the legislation now and do something that is substantial and makes a generational change for a growing sector in our community.

As many people have reflected, we do have an ageing population that needs a diverse housing mix. The pressures that we see cascading through from Gen Z and the millennials and the need to free up and diversify housing stocks mean that this asset class will absolutely expand into the future. Particularly in growth corridors and precinct structure plans we will see allocations of land for retirement set-ups and diversity in mix of housing. We need to make sure, if we are to go towards a greater reliance on this asset and housing class into the future, that we have the necessary protections so that people do not feel like their only option is to challenge for their rights and someone in their 70s or 80s has to front up to VCAT to challenge a board or an organisation, which might have multiple asset classes like this across the state or even interstate, to simply apply their rights and the obligations upon those managers.

One thing I am really keen to see which I think will be a great standard-bearer is the code of conduct for operators. Some might look at that as window-dressing, but it allows a legal definition, a standard that is set that is an expectation to community and best practice. If that does not lift the standards, then some of the dispute resolution engagement will then be a standard-bearer for that into the future. There have been some discussions around simplifying contractual obligations. There are residents who have got more complex contractual arrangements than they have ever seen before when signing up to a house or rental contract that they have had. That administrative burden is unfair for any Victorian in this set-up to be carrying. Then to find out that they may be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in exit fees can be really distressing as well, not to mention the fact that some of the arrangements that have the asset class that they sell or mortgage to then support family into these accommodations can be really overwhelming for people in such a formative life moment. I think that is a really important part of this.

From the code of practice we will have a standardisation of contracts. You will then see it being easier for people to understand this and this becoming a standard into the future. I like the provisions around more timely exit and entitlement payments and better disclosure of exit fees. That has been a consistent theme that has come up in some of our engagement with the sector. Some of those propose to consolidate around the time determination in retirement village contracts, the time agreed between parties and 12 months after the resident gives vacant possession of their unit. Some of those really make sense around that simplification and those challenges going forward.

I think this is a big prism for when people’s life circumstances change, and that could be sick relatives. The member for Mildura raised this, and we see this time and time again: someone getting, say, cancer treatment or health treatment up in town, needing to get the VLine or the coach to Melbourne. People’s circumstances can change, and they should not be punished or impacted disproportionately because their circumstances have changed when so many are already in a vulnerable state or are up against it in terms of their health and wellbeing.

I think that kind of prism and that kind of approach in the legislation is really important as well.

The member for Ashwood talked about, importantly, the discussion around an ombudsman, and this has been multi years. I remember Daniel Mulino in the other place was in this place this was something that I talked to him about some time ago, such is the length of time and discussion this has had. That not being a part of this bill should not be seen as walking away from some of those important obligations and standard-bearing, and the dispute resolution process I think can actually be better with all the attributes, the timeliness of that and determinations for people. I think the more informal nature of that suits the retirement village sector and the people they support more broadly, and I think that is something that a lot of members of Parliament will see. If we are not getting complaints from residents in the future, then we know that the dispute resolution process is working well. But it will be something that a number of members of Parliament will watch closely to see if that has a facilitative and inclusive approach and the informality that we see from people into the future as well.

This bill has been a long time coming with a number of technical details to bring it forward to this place, and to just see once again, three out of three this week, reasoned amendments – I mean, as sure as the sun is coming up, we will see reasoned amendments next sitting week on bills. We have seen it today, because it is easier, rather than moving amendments or coming up with some independent or intellectual thought, just to say, ‘No, we oppose it and we’re not interested,’ and kick it down the road. It is a lazy approach to opposition. Then you get the contradictions of the member for Eildon saying too much consultation or not enough, and then you have got the member for Murray Plains – just get on with the work and let this bill sail through.

Chris CREWTHER (Mornington) (16:42): I rise today to speak to the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2024. As the member from Mildura and other speakers have raised, there are quite a number of issues that have been raised by retirement village residents and their families and many others in our community for many years. I think we can agree across the chamber that this is definitely an issue that we need to tackle and deal with, but there have also been many issues that have been raised by operators, consumers, residents and families about this bill itself. Despite the fact that this bill has been at least six years coming, it still seems to have been rushed in terms of many concerns not being addressed. For that reason I support the reasoned amendment being moved by our side that this bill be withdrawn and redrafted to address the concerns of residents and operators in the retirement village sector, because many of these concerns are not being addressed.

Just going to my own family experience, my own grandmother was in a retirement village a number of years ago. It was a very good retirement village to start with, operated by a private operator that had basically 24/7 care with nurses and so forth for residents who needed it. Unfortunately after a while being in there, after a number of years, that service was changed to being nine-to-five nurse care, so when my grandmother got very sick one year and she was in hospital, the hospital would not release her to the retirement village unless there was that service available. This was before the days of increased numbers of home care packages, and if you were a family like ours who could not afford a home service that is 24/7 it made a very difficult situation for my family, where basically my grandmother was forced to go into a nursing home against what we wanted and against what she wanted as well, because she was very happy in that retirement village. That is where her friends were, where she had built community and where she had social contacts as well. Being in a nursing home for a little while I think did exacerbate her health situation and led to her passing in 2015, probably a few years prior to the date she should have if she had been able to stay in the retirement village.

But that actually goes to many things that have been raised in terms of not just concerns as to cost but also concerns as to services and changes that a number of retirement village operators are making. I note that there are many good retirement village operators, but there are also ones who sometimes put profit ahead of people. Just last week I met with representatives from a local retirement village. I will not go into the name of that retirement village, but I have contacted the minister regarding concerns that these residents raised in regard to conduct within this retirement village. But they did raise some general concerns relating to their situation as it relates to the bill as well. They raised issues on the need for retrospectivity for existing residents in relation to refurbishment as against renovations and their concerns regarding having basically no say with respect to often very costly and sometimes unneeded renovations as against refurbishment. They also raised the need for retrospectivity and issues on the provision for dispute resolution, the timing of the exit fee and the gap in getting paid.

Residents had also met with the Residents of Retirement Villages Victoria, who have put together a paper as well outlining a number of concerns that they have, which include but are not limited to: the bill’s failure to extend key financial protections like the deferred management fee reforms and refurbishment obligations to existing residents, leaving so many people at a financial disadvantage; the extension of the refund period for exit entitlements from six months to 12, which could create undue hardship for departing residents, especially those moving into aged care, like with my grandmother; the lack of compulsory industry training for village management staff combined with the absence of obligations to follow an industry code of conduct; the ability of some retirement village operators to apply for exemptions from parts of the legislative framework, reducing consumer protections for certain classes of villages; and the potential for delays in dispute resolution and how operators can just defer exit payments through VCAT applications. These are some examples that were brought to my attention not just through the RRVV but by these resident representatives of this local retirement village.

But this is not the only retirement village where concerns have been raised in my electorate and beyond with me. A number of other residents and their families have raised concerns with respect to other retirement village operators as well in my electorate and beyond. One I met with the other day, who travelled from Burwood East to come and meet with me in relation to my role as the Shadow Assistant Minister for Housing and Rental Affordability, particularly as it also relates to housing generally. As we know, retirement villages are a form of housing. He came to meet with me and is trying to raise his concerns with various ministers from consumer affairs to housing and beyond on both the government and the opposition side. He is a 94-year-old who travelled out of his way to come and see me regarding his experiences and concerns with retirement villages. He is a 94-year-old who is a retired engineer and so is very experienced, and I have written to the minister about a number of his ideas as well as the shadow minister. His argument is that operators have sometimes used ingoing contributions inappropriately as effectively interest-free capital loans, allowing them to effectively own every single unit while charging massive rental prices. These types of arrangements include what he deems deceptive split and deferred pricing models, which obscure actual costs and make rents appear much lower than they actually are. In fact these initial rent costs for residents are four times the free market rate, he points out, and the contracts themselves are often highly complex and difficult for prospective residents to understand.

I note that it is always advisable for a lawyer to look over a contract. But if you are an older resident, particularly an older resident who is struggling socio-economically, you may not have the resources to either get a lawyer or to get a good lawyer as well. Sometimes you are reliant on your own resources or the resources of your family to read and to understand contracts, and sometimes what is in contracts can be very hidden as well and can be very deceptive for residents.

Sometimes things, as I mentioned, change over time as well. Sometimes the offerings that a retirement village gives to begin with change over time, like what happened with my grandmother – who went from having 24/7 nursing care to nine-to-five care – which can impact residents and their ability to stay in retirement villages or move back into retirement villages when they have health concerns.

Going back to the 94-year-old whom I met with the other day, he is incredibly disappointed that the Victorian government has not addressed a number of his concerns that he has raised. He has raised concerns with the government, but he says that he has received an insufficient response from the government so far. I was able to meet with him, so I am not sure why the government minister or others from the government minister’s department or office cannot meet with him. He argued that there has been no proper cost comparison between retirement village rental models and also noted the financial impact of ingoing contributions and split-lease contracts and the obscurity of that, meaning innocent retirees are not knowing what they are getting into or not knowing sufficiently.

While these may or may not be reforms that I or the government agree with, he raised concerns about potentially relooking at the ingoing contribution requirement. He talked about a comparison with the old strata title ownership for those who could afford it, meaning retirees actually own the property instead of being exploited with sometimes exorbitant rents. He also raised ideas about the conversion of existing contracts into fully disclosed standard residential tenancy agreements, prohibitions about split-price contracts and consideration of a municipal retirement village model where over-50s could pay an extra municipal rate to fund publicly managed retirement communities. Obviously these are concerns that he raised. We may agree or disagree with these concerns, but there are a lot of concerns that have been raised by residents, consumers, families and operators that do not seem to be addressed in this bill. While this bill does go some of the way to resolving the issues, there is a lot more consultation that needs to be done, so I definitely support the reasoned amendment.

Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (16:52): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2024 and bring us home to stumps in this first week of the sitting in the 2025 year. I just want to start by acknowledging and congratulating the minister at the table, the Minister for Consumer Affairs, for shepherding this bill through. He has had a busy week. Not only is it his first week as a minister in the Parliament sitting, but he has had two bills to get through this week. Hopefully in a few moments time we will be voting on these bills, and he will have more work to do to get this through the Council. It is a really important bill, and I think the reason it is an important bill has been demonstrated by a number of contributors to date, which is that it is about our population. We have got a growing population and our population is ageing as well, and as our population age they are going to require a variety of housing choices. For many people that will include choosing to go into a retirement village.

I like to think that I am still a fairly youthful 47-year-old, but I do seem to be receiving an increasing number of advertisements on social media like: ‘Seniors living. Over 35? Is that for you?’ I do not know what message they are trying to send. My wife is a little bit younger than me. There is some advertising. Maybe they have to fix up the algorithm. Maybe they are just prepping me for the day that will come. I have visited a number of our local retirement villages, and I must say they are wonderful communities.

Wayne Farnham interjected.

Paul HAMER: I will name them, member for Narracan. Next week I am actually going out to the John Flynn Retirement Village – that is in East Burwood – to have a meet and greet with the residents there. I have been there before. I went to their grand opening about a year and a half ago. It is a wonderful facility. It is in the Burwood Brickworks complex, so it is really walking distance to shops, theatres – everything that you would possibly want. It does have a real full-service facility. It just looks to me, walking in, a wonderful place to retire to, and a wonderful community is part of that.

There are many others. In I think October, November last year I visited Barrina Gardens, which is in Blackburn South, a much smaller residential retirement village but again a great community, located around a hall. They have a community garden. It is a place where people can congregate. They can still have their independence, but they can also have that community feel. I think that is really important. That is certainly something that I will be looking for, maybe when I am 55 or maybe even earlier if the advertisements are correct.

As more people do transition into retirement villages it is important that they are protected. I am not sure if the constituent that the member for Mornington was talking about from Burwood East lives in my electorate; the individual I do not think has contacted me personally. But he did raise the point about contracts and the difficulty of understanding some of the contracts. That is exactly the purpose of what we are trying to do in this legislation: the idea of being able to simplify it for residents coming into that community and having clearer and more consistent contracts. That was one of the findings of the review, with the technical nature of the contracts that many residents have to enter into. Often they may have to enter them not necessarily at the time of their choosing. Hopefully it will be mostly at the time their choosing, but if their lifestyle circumstances change fairly suddenly and they have to make that lifestyle choice, they do not want to feel pressured to be signing documents that are really difficult to understand. We cannot assume that the majority of people going into these villages are going to be lawyers and have detailed legal technical knowledge. So it is really important that we do have clearer and more consistent contracts.

I also note that the bill will introduce a regulation-making power to establish a code of practice which will require operators to participate in the scheme in good faith and comply with agreements reached during conciliation. This code of practice is going to be really important, just to set the scene for the retirement villages and understand the practices that they can and cannot do. It is a really clear message to residents about what they can expect and what they are entitled to expect when they sign up to a contract and when they enter their retirement village.

I just want to briefly touch on the comments and the reflection from the member for Mordialloc about how far we have gone in this consultation period. At the outset I made a comment about the Minister for Consumer Affairs, and I look back on when this consultation started, back in 2017, when we announced a review. There have been multiple ministers for consumer affairs, who have all pushed along this process. We have consulted extensively with the industry, with residents and with all elements of the residential village market, and it is now time to bring this forward in a bill that has a vast majority of support. I hope that we do see that in the Parliament in a few minutes, that it does have majority support of the Parliament, because it is a really important bill that has gone through more consultation I would say than almost any other bill of recent times, because we know how important it is. We know how important these lifestyle decisions are. It is a lot of money for residents to be committing and –

Wayne Farnham interjected.

Paul HAMER: The member for Narracan likes making comments from the side. It is seven years, so it is about time that we get on and we vote for this bill.

The SPEAKER: Order! The time set down for consideration of the remaining items on the government business program has arrived, and I am required to interrupt business. The house is considering the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2024. The minister has moved that this bill be now read a second time. The member for Ovens Valley has moved a reasoned amendment to this motion. He has proposed to omit all the words after ‘That’ and replace them with the words that have been circulated. The question is:

That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Those supporting the reasoned amendment by the member for Ovens Valley should vote no.

Assembly divided on question:

Ayes (52): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Gabrielle de Vietri, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Noes (24): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Jess Wilson

Question agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.