Seachange (Land) Pty Ltd and Others
[2016] QCAT 519
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Seachange (Land) Pty Ltd and Others[2016] QCAT 519
- Add to List
Seachange (Land) Pty Ltd and Others[2016] QCAT 519
Seachange (Land) Pty Ltd and Others[2016] QCAT 519
CITATION: | Seachange (Land) Pty Ltd and Others [2016] QCAT 519 |
APPLICANTS: | Seachange (Land) Pty Ltd ACN 130 997 858 as Trustee for the Seachange (GC) Unit Trust; Seachange Developments (Gold Coast) Pty Ltd ACN 130 997 867 as Trustee for the Seachange Developments (Gold Coast) Unit Trust |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | ADL079-15 |
MATTER TYPE: | Anti-discrimination matters |
HEARING DATE: | 22 November 2016 |
HEARD AT: | On the Papers |
DECISION OF: | Member Clifford |
DELIVERED ON: | 23 December 2016 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | An exemption is granted to:
from the operation of sections 45, 46, 76, 77, 81, 82 and 83 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) concerning the attribute of age referred to in section 7(f) of the Act, in relation to Seaside Arundel Village located at 299 Napper Road, Arundel, Gold Coast, Queensland, from 23 December 2016 to 22 December 2021. |
CATCHWORDS: | ANTI-DISCRIMINATION - Exemption application – section 113 – where proposal to limit to those over 50s - goods and services - pre-accommodation -accommodation – disposition of land – where manufactured home park – whether appropriate and reasonable – whether in the public interest. Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) Boeing Australia Holdings Pty Ltd and related entities [2003] QADT 21 Ghostgum Developments Pty Ltd ATF Coomera Development Trust [2015] QCAT 500 Downer EDI Mining [2013] QCATA 276 TJ & RC Walsh Pty Ltd [2013] QCAT 418 City of Brunswick; Re Application for exemption from provision of the Equal Opportunity Act (1992) EOC92-50. |
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REPRESENTATIVES Applicants: |
Andrew Tobin of HopwoodGanim Lawyers |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background and application
- [1]Seachange has developed a manufactured home village at 299 Napper Road, Arundel, Gold Coast, Queensland, (Seachange Village Arundel). The Park has been in operation since December 2008 with over 300 homes and approval for up to 425 homes. The Park has been designed and marketed for over 50s living. A condition to purchase and live at the Park is that at least one resident must be over 50 years and they must be the owner of the home. No rentals and children are permitted to live in their home on a permanent basis. In the event of assignment of the home, Site Agreements require the assignee to be 50 years and over.
- [2]In August 2015 Seachange lodged an application with the Tribunal seeking a 5 year exemption from the operation of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) in relation to the attribute of age in the area of goods and services, disposition of land and pre-accommodation and accommodation areas. The Applicants submit that an exemption will give certainty to the Applicants, marketing and sales representatives, and homeowners without concern of breaching the Anti-Discrimination Act.
- [3]The Applicants state the Park aims to promote equality of opportunity and serve the interests of the community. It has been designed to promote social, economic, health and other needs of persons aged 50 years and over who reside in the Park, and aims to improve the worth of older persons by providing an age appropriate first class facility to the potential exclusion of younger people whose accommodation needs are otherwise appropriately catered for in the area.
- [4]In the application Seachange provided a brief overview and submissions, and an Affidavit from David Henry Pradella, Director of both applicant Companies, dated 27 August 2015.[1] In the attachments to the Affidavit the Applicants provided letters of support from the Home Owners Association, Local Councillor, Mr Owen-Jones, Federal Member for Fadden, Mr Roberts, and from the President of University for the Third Age, who conducts courses at the Park.[2]
- [5]Seachange submitted that the proposed exemption is appropriate and reasonable, that there is an absence of any non-discriminatory way to achieve the objects or purpose for which the exemption is sought, that the application is supported by people or organisations, that it promotes equality of opportunity, and that it is likely to serve the interests of the community.
The law
- [6]The Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) seeks to promote equality of opportunity for everyone by protecting them from unfair discrimination in certain areas of activity. Amongst other things it seeks to achieve this by prohibiting both direct and indirect discrimination, on the basis of certain grounds or attributes, such as age, sex, race and impairment, in particular areas of activity, such as employment, education, provision of goods and services and accommodation. However not all actions in the areas of activity prescribed are prohibited as the Act provides for ‘specific exemptions’[3] and ‘general exemptions’[4]. Other legislation may also provide for specific exemption from the operation of the Anti-Discrimination Act.[5]
- [7]Under the General Exemptions (Part 5) provisions, the Act also provides a process whereby on Application the Tribunal may at its discretion, grant the Applicants an exemption from the operation of a specific provision of the Act.[6] These exemptions are commonly referred to as ‘temporary’ exemptions because if granted are limited to a specified period of not more than 5 years, notwithstanding on further application they may be renewed for further periods of not more than 5 years.[7] The exemption may be granted in such terms as the Tribunal provides and only applies in such circumstances, or in connection with such activities as the Tribunal determines.
- [8]The Act further provides that before deciding such an application the Tribunal must give the Commissioner, of the Anti-Discrimination Commission, Queensland, a copy of the application and the supporting documents and have regard to any submission the Commissioner makes on the application, including any submission on the process for considering the application.[8]
- [9]Other than that described above the Act does not prescribe any specific matters for the Tribunal to consider in its deliberations. However the case law has developed some guidance in regards to the types of things the Tribunal can consider, including whether an exemption is necessary, whether there are non-discriminatory ways to achieve the purpose for which the exemption is proposed, whether it is appropriate and reasonable to grant an exemption, whether there is community support, whether it is in the community interest, and the effect of not granting the exemption.[9]
Commissioner submission 1
- [10]The Commissioner provided initial submissions on 23 November 2015.[10] The Commissioner advised that there were no current complaints before the Commission against the Applicants.
- [11]The Commissioner noted that whilst he has not previously opposed similar applications he has reconsidered that position in light of reports of increasing demands for affordable housing. The Commissioner opined that residential parks are becoming ‘de facto retirement villages and senior’s lifestyle resorts’ and expressed concern that this type of affordable housing is becoming exclusive to active over 50 year olds to the exclusion of other segments of the community, particularly those in need of affordable housing.
- [12]The Commissioner also noted that unlike the Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld), the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 (Qld) does not provide a lawful basis to discriminate on the basis of age in limiting residences to older members of the community. The Commissioner submits that this indicates that it was not the intention of the legislature that this housing model be restricted by age.
- [13]The Commissioner also expressed concern about whether the homes catered for an older demographic with the increased likelihood of disability with age, and whether the houses and facilities were accessible and met universal design standards to meet the needs of people at various stages of their lives. The Commissioner specifically referred to clause 1(f) of the Site Agreement[11] and questioned whether it meant that someone requiring in-home care would be in breach of the Agreement.
- [14]The Commissioner expressed further concern about the differential site rental price for singles and couples, and whilst noting that the Site Agreement is a lease of land suggested this could amount to discrimination on the basis of relationship status in the disposition of an interest in land under the Act.
- [15]In conclusion the Commissioner submitted that to grant an exemption the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is appropriate and reasonable to so and that this includes a consideration of public interest as described in Boeing case.[12] The Commissioner submits that quarantining a segment of the community from the general population does not demonstrate any public interest. The Commissioner further submits for a community style residential complex to be restricted to older people consistent with the Act there should be an element of welfare to the group. The Commissioner submits that an exemption should not be granted in circumstances.
Applicants’ response and submissions
- [16]Mr Pradella provided a further Affidavit[13] addressing the issues raised by the Commissioner noting that whilst the Park was not developed as an Aged Care Facility for those with high needs, it was designed and built for ‘baby boomers’ looking for alternate housing suitable to their needs and circumstances in the approach to and through their retirement years. Mr Pradella states the communal facilities in the clubhouse and outdoor pool meet the minimum standards of accessibility under the premises standards as certified under the Building Code of Australia and outlines the various accessible points including step-free access, single level living spaces, wide entry doors and extra large showers in most instances.
- [17]Mr Pradella, in response to the Clause 1(f) concern, states approximately 40 home owners in the Park engage ongoing services of external care providers, such as Blue Care and Anglicare, and deposes that some home owners have live-in carers.
- [18]Mr Pradella denies that the differential sites fees for singles and couples is discriminatory as suggested by the Commissioner, but states that the site fees cover a wide range of communally available services and facilities and that the differential site rent charged to couples is simply to amortise the cost over all users and potential users of the services, that is there is more than one user of the services.
- [19]The Applicants also provided a Report by Dr Sandra Woodbridge,[14] prepared in relation to this application. Dr Woodbridge’s Curriculum Vitae and qualifications are attached to the Report and include post-graduate study, to doctorate level, in various areas relating to the aged and ageing. In the Report Dr Woodbridge advises she has read the Applicants material and Commissioner submission 1, and inspected the Park in March 2016. In the body of the Report Dr Woodbridge provides and overview, a part on Older Australians in the 21st Century including commentary about downsizing decisions, age-friendly communities, active ageing and ageing in place. Dr Woodbridge also outlines community benefits of a Manufactured Home, and concludes there is a place for age-restricted accommodation of the kind offered by the Park.
- [20]The Applicants provided extensive written submissions.[15] In summary, the Applicants firstly submitted that notwithstanding the absence of a specific exemption from the Anti-Discrimination Act under the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act, there is no indication in either Act that an exemption should not be granted if in all the circumstances, as provided in the Boeing case, it is appropriate and reasonable to do so. The Applicants further submit that it is the objects and intention of the Anti-Discrimination law that are relevant to the application rather than broader policy objectives of other legislation relating to housing schemes. The Applicants submit the TJ & RC Walsh Pty Ltd case[16] supported this view when the Tribunal observed:
“the objects of the Anti-Discrimination Act to educate the community to appreciate and respect the dignity and worth of everyone are not inconsistent with, in an appropriate case, permitting seniors to reside in accommodation which caters for their specific needs and requirements…” and further noted that “this type of affordable accommodation [manufactured homes] is particularly attractive to seniors . It would be incongruous if one segment of the accommodation market specifically designed to appeal to seniors is permitted to restrict residency to older persons while another segment is not.”
- [21]The Applicants also noted that whilst the Commissioner’s concerns about age exclusivity and affordability relied on the ‘Out of Reach Report’ and it’s broad finding that Australia has a housing affordability problem, the Applicants submitted that the Commissioner did not relate that issue to the specific circumstances of this application, and that the Applicants propose to provide appropriate accommodation to a demographic for whom there is, and for the foreseeable future will be, a specific housing need and shortage. The Applicants refer to other reports, including the Productivity Commission 2015, Housing Decisions of Older Australians, Research Paper, that identify this shortage.[17]
- [22]In relation to Site Agreement Clause 1 (f) the Applicants submit that, as deposed by Mr Pradella, a number of home owners engage external care and live-in carers, have lived there into their 70’s and 80’s and have aged and are ageing in place, and that it is not the intention of the Clause to exclude such arrangements, but rather discharge obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld). Moreover, the Applicants note that the Commissioner raised this concern in relation to potential discrimination in accommodation based on impairment, and the Applicants confirm that it is not seeking an exemption on the ground of impairment.
- [23]In relation to the Commissioner’s views concerning a need to demonstrate a public interest and welfare, the Applicants submit that this concern is based on factual assumptions that are wrong. Firstly, that the application seeks to quarantine active older people in a community on their own, away from the general population and secondly, that the ‘quarantined’ group, will be limited to people who are physically active. The Applicants submit that the Park is designed to cater for designated age group by providing the elements of an age-friendly community that facilitates active ageing in place, home ownership is not limited to those who are capable of physically active pursuits and nor is it a requirement to live without the care or assistance of others. The Applicants submit that it is not the intention to quarantine anyone from anything, only that persons under the age of 50 will not be able to buy a home and live in the Park for so long as the exemption remains. The Applicants submit that it is inconceivable that 330 homes, anticipated to become 425 households, in suburban Gold Coast, could ‘quarantine’ itself from the general population.
- [24]The Applicants submit that the Commissioner’s views that “there is no public interest in confining a lifestyle resort suitable for active people to those who are over 50 years of age” provides no assistance in determining the merits of the application, nor whether an exemption is appropriate and reasonable, especially if considered in isolation. The Applicants refer to points raised by Dr Woodbridge’s Report, including that the lifestyle on offer in the Park is particularly designed for the older demographic consistent with government policy and objectives relating to the establishment of age friendly communities, the encouragement of active ageing and ageing in place.[18] The Applicants submit there is significant public interest in granting the exemption and rely on the material provided, including the Productivity Report and the NSPAC Reports, in that, it is providing age appropriate accommodation to a demographic for whom there is, and for the foreseeable feature will be, a specific housing shortage.
- [25]The Applicants, whilst disputing the proposition by the Commissioner that incapacitated home owners are likely to be unwelcome in such a complex, submit that the Commissioner’s views that “for a community style residential complex to be restricted to older people consistent with the Act there should be an element of welfare for that group by including services and facilities that assist and encourage them to age-at-home.” are already met by the design and facilities offered to home owners in the Park specific to over 50’s.
Commissioner submission 2
- [26]The Commissioner made a further submission[19] in reply to the further information provided by the Applicants. The Commissioner in summary submits that whilst the Tribunal must deal with an application on a case- by-case basis and decide if an exemption is necessary, appropriate and reasonable, these considerations do not exclude broader policy and public interests or other legislation.
- [27]The Commissioner notes that the Seachange Village is regulated under the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act and that in practical terms the housing there is a permanent arrangement, whereas exemptions under the Anti-Discrimination Act are temporary in nature. The Commissioner noted that the Australian Human Rights Committee (sic) granted an exemption from the Age Discrimination Act 2004 for 3 years in respect of a community title complex at Caloundra “to allow the Applicant time to utilise the existing legislative avenues to confirm the status of the village.” [20]
- [28]The Commissioner further submitted that the purpose of the exemption should be consistent with the purpose of the Anti-Discrimination Act, that is the promotion of equality of opportunity which encompasses diversity and inclusion and which is a cornerstone of current government strategies[21] aimed at developing age-friendly communities. The Commissioner submits age segregated environments do not foster intergenerational relationships; rather they foster ageism and negative stereotypes. The Commissioner submits that the manufactured home model of affordable housing should generally remain available to all groups and not become exclusive to people aged 50 years and over.
- [29]The Commissioner submits, notwithstanding previously granted exemptions the Tribunal does not have to continue granting exemptions as communities change and the public interest changes.
- [30]Furthermore, the Commissioner opines that the purpose for the exemption as stated by Mr Pradella to appeal to baby boomers, to suit their needs and circumstances, such as affordability, security, interactive lifestyle, and location to city infrastructure, appears to have been achieved. And observes Dr Woodbridge’s report, that the common reason for moving to a manufactured home park is living with like-minded people and having company during the day and they appeal to people because of lower cost, less maintenance, safety, lifestyle and ageing in place.
- [31]The Commissioner also submits, citing the ABC Business Australia Pty Ltd [2013] QCAT 719 case, that it is not unlawful to design a product suitable to appeal to a target group and marketing to those people, it is just not permissible to restricting the service or product to persons of a particular age.
- [32]The Commissioner submits that in all the circumstances, including the growing issue of availability of affordable housing, it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to grant the exemption sought.
Is an exemption necessary?
- [33]The Park has been in operation since December 2008. The Commissioner advises that, unlike the Retirement Villages Act, there is no specific exemption under the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act from the operation of the Anti-Discrimination Act. The Commissioner advises that the Commission has no current complaints against the Park, but opines that it appears this Park has been operating by discriminating not only on the basis of age, but also the bases of impairment and relationship status. Whilst the Applicants and Commissioner made generally statements about equality of opportunity and welfare in submissions, neither specifically addressed whether section 104 or section 105 of the Anti-Discrimination Act could provide any defence for the Applicants should a complaint of age discrimination be lodged against the Applicants and/or associated personnel. However, in submissions the Commissioner implied that on the basis of the information provided by the Applicants he did not consider that the Park provided welfare measures and that any measure to provided safe and secure accommodation for seniors appears to have been achieved, and thus, by implication that section 105 would not be open to the Applicants to rely on as a defence to a potential complaint. The Applicants submit that an exemption is necessary and that without an exemption the proposal to market, sell and limit reassignment of a home to those over 50 would breach the Anti-Discrimination Act.
- [34]Based on the above information, and notwithstanding that the Applicants have not been subject of a complaint against them based on age discrimination, whether by acceptance of the age limits imposed by potential home owners or the wider public, the Tribunal is satisfied that an exemption is necessary if the Applicants wish to avoid the potential of falling foul of the Anti-Discrimination Act.
- [35]There has been much discussion in the cases about whether an s 113 exemption should be in keeping with the objectives of the Anti-Discrimination Act before an exemption should be granted. In the Ghostgum Development Pty Ltd case,[22] the Tribunal opined that whilst this is something that can be considered, consideration not be conclusive, and the Tribunal observed, given it’s unfettered discretion to grant an exemption it must mean the Act’s aims and objectives may not be achieved if an exemption is granted. This Tribunal agrees with that proposition. The construction of the legislation relating to exemptions suggests that could be an outcome of an s 113 exemption application, when either, a specific or other general exemption provision such as those specific types outlined in sections 104 or 105, could not be relied upon to defend a complaint of discrimination. It could be further argued that the ‘temporary’ nature of such an exemption in effect contemplates changing circumstances and societal expectations, and provides an opportunity for the legislature to catch-up should it be deemed necessary. The main issue for the Tribunal therefore is to consider whether it is appropriate and reasonable to grant the exemption. Consideration of whether the exemption proposal is in keeping with the objectives of the law, has an element of community or public interest, and whether it has community support for the exemption, and consideration of disadvantage if granted or not granted, are factors that can be encompassed within that framework.
Is an exemption appropriate and reasonable?
- [36]It is uncontested there is an ageing population in Australia. Dr Woodbridge reports that individuals 65 years and over represented around 12.5% of the population in 2001, 14.7% in 2014 and projected to be 24% in 2036. It is also uncontested that there is current debate, concern and demand around affordable housing. It is not surprising that these two issues may intersect, if only in part, as the demand for affordable housing clearly can impact young adults and families as well as older persons with lesser means to secure appropriate housing. Governments and developers are attempting to meet the needs of the population and their specific needs through the development of different types of housing and accommodation models compared to the limited models previously utilized in Australia. The new models are variously named and prescribed through legislation, they include Retirement Villages, Aged Care Facilities, Manufactured Homes, Strata Titled and Community Titled communities, Freehold property, Public Housing, Shared Housing for people living with disability and Rental properties.
- [37]This application is in essence a clear example of the issues surrounding the ageing population, and in part affordable housing. It also touches on personal preference, a major consideration for anyone entering a formal housing or accommodation arrangement. Choice, as a general concept in housing models can only advantage the community, and the Tribunal agrees with Dr Woodbridge’s report that a ‘one size fits all community housing’ model does not meet the needs of the over 50s in their desire for ‘active ageing’ and ‘ageing in place’.[23]
- [38]Seaside seeks certainty for itself, homeowners, employees and agents, from potential age discrimination complaints when marketing, selling or in the assignment of a home.
- [39]Seaside has been operating since 2008 and currently holds 330 residences, with approval up to 425. The prices for the homes range between $370,000 - $650,000.00 with additional site rent. The President of Seaside Home Owners Association Inc, writing on behalf of all residents, notes that the park promotes itself as a secure over 50s gated community and all residents have bought into the complex with this expectation.[24]
- [40]The Tribunal agrees certainty around homeownership or housing arrangements is very important as it contributes to financial security and personal autonomy.
- [41]The Tribunal also concurs with the Applicants submission, that whilst there is no specific age exemption provision under the Manufactured Residential Parks Act, it does not preclude the Tribunal from granting an exemption if it is appropriate and reasonable to do so when assessed on a case-by-case basis. There is a large number of Manufactured Home Residential Parks in Queensland,[25] and whilst many of the homeowners or renters may be over 50 years, only a handful of Parks, as indicated by the Commissioner have sought and been granted an exemption. The Tribunal is not persuaded by the Commissioners submission that the granting of an exemption would exclude those under 50 years who might enjoy this type of affordable housing, as the vast majority of Parks have no age restrictions and only a small number of Parks have been granted exemptions when considered on a case by case basis.
- [42]Furthermore the Tribunal accepts, and it has not been disputed, that those under 50 years will not be disadvantaged if excluded from the Park as proposed. Mr Pradella outlines[26] that there are other communities around the Park without age restrictions. Mr Pradella also commissioned two reports from RP Data, one relating to properties for sale within a 20km radius of Arundel and Carrara, and the second relating to properties for sale within the Gold Coast Local Government Area. The Reports indicated that there is an abundance of 2 and 3 bedroom properties and apartments available in the areas searched.[27] These Reports were not disputed and the Tribunal accepts the Reports as a reasonable representation of the available property for sale.
- [43]The Commissioner submits that it is not in the public interest to ‘quarantine’ or ‘segregate’ a segment of the community in a community of their own away from the general population. The Commissioner submits, relying on various reports,[28] such arrangements do not foster intergenerational relationships; rather they foster ageism and negative stereotypes. Whilst the Tribunal agrees that a notion or practice of age segregation appears on the face of it an anathema to an inclusive society, and that community engagement is important to wellbeing, the Tribunal is not persuaded this is always the case, nor is it in relation to the Park subject of the application. Dr Woodbridge reports that many older people take up new activities upon moving to a Park, as they have been encouraged by others, and not felt embarrassed or laughed at by younger generations. Dr Woodbridge reports that older people report a higher level of self-satisfaction and an enhanced quality of life as a result of this participation. Dr Woodbridge opines this will substantially contribute to lowering the budget impact of conditions such as depression, loneliness and social isolation often experienced by older people living in the suburbs.[29] The Tribunal agrees with Dr Woodbridge. There are no guarantees that older persons either living on their own in a freehold property or Strata Titled Unit will not become socially isolated from peers, family or the community as a whole. The Tribunal is persuaded that aged restricted housing such as that proposed, contributes to the public interest of healthy and age-friendly communities. Nothing in the current proposal suggests that the residents of the Park do not engage in the broader community or with intergenerational segments of the broader community, particularly given its location within a busy and populated local government area.
- [44]The exemption application is not only supported by the homeowners association, but also by elected local representatives, Federal MP Mr Roberts and Councillor Owen-Jones. The elected representatives often have a close ear to residents’ concerns and needs within their communities, and their support in this application adds some persuasion as they both indicate a growing cohort of over 50s, and opine, given the stock other housing in the area younger people will not be disadvantaged. The University for the Third Age, a service provider in the Park also supports the application.[30]
Conclusion
- [45]Overall, the Tribunal is satisfied that the application for exemption as proposed, is appropriate and reasonable, the Park offers facilities designed to meet the specific needs of over 50s so that can age actively and in place, that because of its location does not disadvantage younger persons and is supported by the residents association, local and federal elected representatives and a service provider. It broadens the choice of housing models and contributes to the public interest in relation to healthy ageing and consumer choice. The exemption is granted as ordered, for a period of 5 years.
Footnotes
[1] Affidavit of David Henry Pradella, dated 15 July 2015, and Attachments DHP1 – 24.
[2] Op.Cit; Attachments DHP3 – 6.
[3] Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), for example, ss. 86 - 92 - exemptions for discrimination in accommodation area.
[4] Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), for example, Part 5, s. 104 - Welfare Measures, and s 105 - Equal Opportunity measures; s.106 Compliance with legislation etc.
[5] Retirement Villages Act 1999 (Qld) allows for certain age restrictions.
[6] Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), section 113 (1).
[7] Op.cit; section 113(6) and (7).
[8] Op.cit; section 113 (2)(a) and (b).
[9] Exemption application re: Boeing Australia Holdings Pty Ltd & related entities [2003] QADT 21; City of Brunswick; Re Application for exemption from provision of the Equal Opportunity Act (1992) EOC92-50.
[10] Commissioner submission 1 dated 23 November 2015.
[11] Op.Cit; page 3. Clause 1(f) The Home Owner must ensure that the Home Owner and any Authorised Occupant is capable at all times of effectively, properly and safely being able to live and care for the health and Welfare of the Home Owner and/or Authorised Occupant to the standard assessed under the ACAT or similar assessment process regulated by the Federal Government or other regulatory body.
[12] Ibid; Boeing case.
[13] Affidavit of David Henry Pradella, dated 15 July 2016, and further Attachment DHP 25.
[14] Report of Dr Sandra Woodbridge, July 2016, prepared for HopgoodGanim Lawyers in relation to the Exemption Application.
[15] Applicants 18 page written submissions, dated 21 July 2016.
[16] TJ & RC Walsh Pty Ltd [2013] QCAT 418, [21].
[17] Applicants submissions, pp.5 - 8 - referring to PC Report and National Seniors Productive Ageing Centre 2014 and 2015 Reports.
[18] Applicants submission pp. 12-14
[19] Commissioner submission 2, dated 20 September 2016.
[20] Op.Cit; p.2
[21] Op.Cit; p.3 The Commissioner noted the April 2016 Queensland Government Strategic Direction Statement and June 2016 Action Plan that refers to housing as one of the 8 key indicators of an age-friendly community. The government goal is that seniors housing options are affordable, accessible and close to transport and community services.
[22] Ghostgum Developments Pty Ltd ATF Coomera Development Trust [2015] QCAT 50 at [7] – [11].
[23] Dr Woodbridge Report, pp.6 -9.
[24] Affidavit, 27 August 15, Attachment DHP4.
[25] Ibid; Ghostgum case, para [45] noted there are 168.
[26] Affidavit, 27 August 2015, pp 17 -19.
[27] Affidavit, 27 August 2015, pp 19 - 21.
[28] Commissioner submission 2, p3.
[29] Dr Woodbridge report p.7.
[30] Affidavit, 27 August 2015, Attachments DHP 3 – 6.