Page 1380 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 3 May 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
there were some misconceptions in the community about the differences between independent retirement living and residential aged care. This has caused problems for prospective residents and their families, who need to be able to make an informed decision.
The bill proposes amendments to the act and to the Retirement Villages Regulation 2013 to make the distinction between retirement living and residential aged care clearer. The bill provides that it is an offence for the operator of a retirement village to make an express or implied representation, whether orally or in writing, that the village is an approved provider of residential aged care or that residents of the village have priority access to residential aged care by an approved provider.
The bill also recognises that there are some operators in the territory who are dual providers of independent retirement living and residential aged care. To remove all doubt, it is not an offence for an operator to merely give an explanation or make a statement about how the services of the retirement village differ from residential care services or to state the fact that a residential aged-care facility is associated with the village. The bill proposes amendments to the act and regulation to require the general inquiry document and disclosure statement to include information about the difference between retirement villages and aged-care facilities.
Amendments in the bill will also require the general inquiry document and disclosure statement to include additional information for residents and prospective residents about any departure fees provided for in the village contract and information about the operator’s policy, if any, on access by residents to home care services. These amendments will mean that prospective residents and their families are better informed about retirement villages.
Feedback from operators and the property industry indicated a need to allow operators to enter into more binding deposit arrangements with prospective residents. This would ameliorate financial loss to operators and make the retirement village industry more consistent with other property industries. The act currently requires a holding deposit be held in trust until either the prospective resident enters into a residence contract with the operator or the operator receives written notice that the prospective resident does not intend to enter into a residence contract or has died. If the prospective resident enters into a residence contract with the operator, both parties may agree that the amount paid as a holding deposit may form part of the deposit under the contract. The bill proposes amendments to the act so that if contracts have been entered into but the prospective resident does not move into the premises, the operator is allowed to retain some of the holding deposit to cover reasonable costs incurred in leaving the premises empty, such as legal fees, marketing costs and recurrent charges.
Reasonable costs cannot exceed an amount specified by regulation or $10,000. The operator would only be able to retain funds from the holding deposit if contracts have been entered into and the contract is rescinded after the seven day cooling-off period. This would provide a mechanism in the act equivalent to the exchange of contracts in the sale of residential property.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video