DANGER FOR RETIREMENT VILLAGE RESIDENTS
Many residents in retirement villages are being taken advantage of for items in their units where they are arbitrarily being made responsible to pay for repair and/or replacement. Retirement Villages come under Victorian law whereas aged care facilities come under commonwealth law. Regulation 11(1h) under Victorian law requires a village operator to list the relevant fixtures, fittings and furnishings in the contract before the contract is signed.
If you are a resident in a Victorian retirement village paying for repair or replacement of fixtures, fittings or furnishings not listed in your contract, seek advice now from a local free legal advice service, your solicitor or Consumer Affairs. The current Retirement Villages Act 1986 is under review by the State Government, if this matter is applicable to you or there is another matter of concern to you make those concerns known to your local State Government representative.
Les Scobie, advocate for reforms to retirement village law.
Wangaratta
MISLEADING COMMENTS FROM CANDIDATE
Regarding water, Steve Brooks claims in the Shepparton News (April 20, 2022) “If you look through the public record there is no history of (Nationals candidate, Sam Birrell) advocating about this major priority… not until they decided to run for parliament”.
I was sure I could remember Sam Birrell talking about water in the News as CEO of Committee for Shepparton (CG4S). I googled it, and Mr Brooks’ statement is without fact.
Shepparton News November 2016 (Birrell opinion piece): Before the Murray Darling Basin plan was signed, a deal was done between the Commonwealth and the South Australian government for 450 GL (in addition to the existing 2750 GL specified by the plan) could be returned to the environment for the benefit of the lower lakes at the Murray River mouth.
The fine print on this agreement was that it would have to pass a ‘socioeconomic neutrality test’. But neither governments nor the Murray Darling Basin Authority had a framework, or any socio-economic impact studies to assess this.
The GMID water leadership forum, co-chaired by the CG4S, commissioned an independent report and found the Murray Darling Basin Plan has already had negative impacts on the GMID, and any further removal of water would exacerbate this.
Stock and Land – June 2018 (Andrew Miller): Goulburn Murray Irrigation District Water Leadership group spokesman Sam Birrell said he was alarmed at calls for expressions of interest, in projects to deliver a further 450GL of environmental water.
“Why is this EoI going ahead when the Ernst Young report repeatedly warns the data has not been collected to enable a proper evaluation of the value for money, socioeconomic and water market impacts?” Mr Birrell said.
Sydney Morning Herald May 2018 (Peter Hannan): Birrell, who grew up on a property beside the Goulburn at Murchison, says “everyone believes in the river”.
His region, though, has already given up too much in water buybacks and other changes, and can’t afford further cuts in its access to water.
“Our fear with the Murray–Darling Basin Plan is that so much water has gone from permanent licences here,” he says. “We feel we’re at a tipping point, if [another] significant amount of water left this region, next time we get through a dry period … there’s not enough in the pool for the farms that need to buy,” he says.
The losses could “get to a point where the dairy industry, in particular, just can’t stand that.”
The Committee for Greater Shepparton website also has an interview in which Sam Birrell tells Melbourne ABC host Jon Faine he wants a fairer deal for irrigators.
Mr Brooks either can’t use Google, or he has tried to mislead the people of our region.
I hope it’s the former.
Ray Luscombe
Shepparton
