Page 3271 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
even though it was a private members’ bill, the negative reaction from developers and managers, perhaps in the form of a pause in the development of villages, may lead to criticism of the government.
Here are just a few examples of what industry was saying:
The proposed adoption in the ACT of yet another distinct style of regulation, which contains onerous obligations is going to increase this cost on us and on the industry. If Lend Lease had been aware of those onerous obligations proposed in the bill at the time of lodging its tender for Isabella Plains, we would have viewed the ACT retirement living market differently and we most probably would not have proceeded with the acquisition.
Goodwin had this to say:
The Bill in its current form imposes considerable compliance costs that operators will have little choice but to pass on to clients. Goodwin estimates the additional costs may be between $500 and $1,000 per annum on residential units. This sum may not appear significant, however, this cost will be significant to a client group that is mostly reliant on fixed pensions. Of greater concern is that no tangible benefit will be offered, conversely we believe there will be an adverse impact …
The Property Council said:
The proposed legislation seems unnecessary in terms of the protection of residents’ rights, but secondly, which would have the effect of causing an extremely onerous compliance burden on retirement village operators. Annual compliance costs will inevitably have an impact on services and/or costs to village residents. This is in direct conflict with current policy that seeks to lower accommodation and care costs for older people.
This sentiment was not coming just from industry. Residents also had concerns, such as the St Andrew’s townhouse residents committee, which noted:
I found the Retirement Villages Bill 2011 too detailed, difficult to interpret easily and too long. It could also be argued that it was too prescriptive in places.
Even the government’s own agencies expressed concerns:
The Office of Regulatory Services … receives a low number of complaints about ACT Retirement Villages. Since January 2008, there have only been five formal complaints to ORS about retirement villages.
That was an email from Manuel Tania.
This is an email from a JACS officer:
We proposed consulting industry and the community more generally as in initial discussion it appears that there is very little knowledge of the bill and contents. The bill will have significant impact on industry and people buying into retirement villages.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video