Page 1739 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 7 June 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The act does not require resident consent to proposed budget spending or increases in recurrent charges if the charges are varied according to a fixed formula. If the recurrent charges are not varied according to a fixed formula, resident consent is still not required if the increase does not exceed the consumer price index.
The bill clarifies the difference between consent to changes to recurrent charges and consent to proposed budget spending. Feedback from stakeholders representing residents and operators indicated that the use of the CPI to measure increases in recurrent charges has been problematic.
The bill proposes amendments to the act to remove the CPI provisions and requires resident consent for all increases in recurrent charges that are not made by fixed formula. In addition, the bill requires residents to consent separately to proposed budget spending. These are very important amendments which give residents greater opportunity to provide input to amendments in their recurrent charges and to participate in the financial management of their village.
The bill responds to practical concerns raised by stakeholders about the requirement in the act for operators to provide residents with a copy of the proposed annual budget at least 60 days before the beginning of the financial year. The proposed amendment allows an operator and residents to agree to change the time frame for the village budget. The time frame cannot be shorter than 30 days.
As I noted during introduction, the act provides that in the event of a surplus in the annual accounts of a village the residents may consent to the operator distributing all or part of the surplus to the existing residents in equal shares. For reasons of fairness, the bill proposes amendments to the act to provide that distribution is made to existing residents and the operator in the same proportion as their actual contribution to the surplus.
The bill makes important amendments to the act in the area of payments to a former resident’s estate. The act presently addresses a situation where a payment must be made to the estate or administrator of the former occupant’s estate. If the operator is unable to find out the identity of the executor or administrator, the operator may apply to the ACAT for an order directing the operator to deal with the money as stated in the order.
The act does not include a requirement for the operator to cite a grant of probate before making the payment. The bill amends the act to require the operator to cite the grant of probate or letters of administration prior to making a payment to the executor or administrator of the former occupant’s estate.
If the operator is unable to find out the identity of the executor or administrator, the operator may apply to ACAT for an order directing the operator to deal with the money as stated in the order. This amendment provides greater financial certainty and makes the act consistent with requirements in the commonwealth Aged Care Act 1997.
The bill also makes a number of technical amendments to the act. The purpose of these amendments is to clarify existing obligations and make the act more user friendly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video