Page 1207 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 2 April 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
define capital maintenance and capital replacement and creates a guidelines-making power which will allow the minister to make provision about the classification of, including the distinction between, capital maintenance and capital replacement.
The bill provides that, where multiple persons reside in a unit, only one person may vote on matters which require the operator to obtain the consent of residents, for example, annual budgets. This deals with the concern about an inequitable distribution of voting rights between sole occupiers and multiple occupants. However, individual retirement villages may vote by special resolution to move to a voting model of one vote per person.
There is still an optional conciliation process for residents of retirement villages seeking to resolve disputes with enforceable orders similar to ACAT. Other elements in the bill include contract of sale requirements for the sale of units in retirement villages, new consumer protection, time frames in which an operator must give notice to residents of an amendment to recurrent charges, and updated terminology. It streamlines administrative and budget processes for unit titled retirement villages.
I have had quite a bit of contact with and representation from individual residents, representatives of individual units, and organisations representing multiple complexes. One of the things that I think could be addressed in future iterations of the bill is about plain English.
There has been a difference of opinion between different individuals and groups, some of which has been based on perceived differences as to the best strategy to achieve improvements. There is a perception by some residents that the new provisions for the classification of capital maintenance and capital replacement are still not satisfactory. They would prefer to see the definitions in law and would like the bill to be rejected. In the end, I feel it is an issue of an equitable balance between the interests of owners and those of residents. The bill does move this difficult area forward. There is some Assembly oversight of the ministerial guidelines on capital and maintenance guidelines, which will be notifiable instruments.
The Retirement Village Residents Association have been involved in consultation and have indicated to me their general and overall satisfaction with the bill that we are looking at today. I commend the Retirement Village Residents Association for their work for quite some time on the stakeholder consultation group for this bill, especially, but not limited to, Alistair Christie and Pam Graudenz, who I know have put in many hours of work. In future iterations the different treatment of tenants and residents may need to be addressed, as indicated to me by some stakeholders.
We have a position of support, perhaps cautious support. We acknowledge that for some individuals there is remaining dissatisfaction. Of course, as with any bill passed in this area in this Assembly, we will maintain a keen interest in the effectiveness of the new provisions. It is likely that the act may undergo further revision as the impacts of the current changes are felt.
I thank the minister’s office and the directorate for their briefing on this area, and all of the organisations and people who provided feedback to the directorate and to me on
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video