:format():fill())
Last week, the Victorian Government announced reforms to retirement village laws to protect older people. The proposed changes were hailed in the media as a “crackdown” on providers because they included a mandatory code of conduct and requirements for clearer information to be provided to prospective village residents.
While these changes should be welcomed as steps forward, there was another change that seemed to be ignored in the media.
Under the proposed changes, village operators would now have a maximum of 12 months to repay a resident’s entry payment, when currently anyone who signed a contract after 2006 would receive their money back after only six months.
It’s a curious change, because it means providers can sit on their hands for an additional six months while residents and their families wait for their money, even though they no longer reside at the village.
This bizarre move means village operators have even less incentive to move quickly to find a new resident, because they have a financial incentive to do nothing.
The village might argue that that’s what people sign up for, but in what world is it reasonable to hold onto someone’s money for 12 months for a service or good they no longer use?
In a separate announcement, the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) affirmed its plan to undertake its accelerated and mandatory roll out of smart meters. It did so crowing it had put in place significant consumer protections for electricity customers.
Yet, when looking into the detail, it becomes clear the protections are in fact quite limited. If anything, they look like window dressing to appease the industry at the future expense of households.