Victoria’s retirement village reforms are here – is your capital planning ready?

From 1 May 2026, significant changes to Victoria’s retirement village legislation have come into effect.

While these reforms are specific to Victoria, they reflect a broader shift happening across Australia. Expectations around asset management, capital planning and transparency are rising, and operators are under increasing pressure to demonstrate a more disciplined approach to long-term asset management.

MDFM works with retirement village and aged care providers across the country to support this shift. In our experience, the real challenge is rarely understanding the legislation itself: it’s whether existing asset data, lifecycle assumptions and planning processes are strong enough to support a compliant and defensible position.

At the centre of the Victorian reforms is a clear expectation. Operators must take a more structured, transparent and evidence-based approach to capital maintenance planning. While that creates new compliance obligations, it also provides an opportunity to strengthen how capital decisions are made across a portfolio, particularly where assets are ageing or capital exposure is not well defined.

A more formalised approach to capital maintenance

A key feature of the reforms is the introduction of a mandatory Capital Maintenance Plan (CMP) for each village.

Consumer Affairs Victoria requires operators to prepare a plan covering all capital items they’re responsible for, including buildings, infrastructure and key plant and equipment. 

This isn’t intended to be a high-level document. The plan must clearly identify: 

• What assets exist and their current condition
• When works will be required and what those works will cost, and 
• The information relied on to support those conclusions. 

In practical terms, this represents a shift away from generalised forecasts toward a more structured and defensible planning model.

If you’re outside Victoria, this direction will feel familiar. Similar reforms in other states and territories are also moving toward stronger disclosure, clearer asset accountability and more rigorous long-term planning.

A shift in accountability

Alongside the planning requirements, the reforms reinforce a clearer line of accountability for operators. Industry commentary highlights that the new framework places greater responsibility on operators for capital maintenance and replacement, along with increased expectations around transparency and governance.

In practice, this means operators need to be able to demonstrate a stronger level of control and clarity across their assets. This includes being able to:

• Clearly define which assets sit under operator responsibility
• Forecast future capital requirements with reasonable confidence
• Support assumptions with documented evidence, and
• Communicate the plan and its delivery to residents.

Consumer Affairs Victoria also requires the Capital Maintenance Plan to be tabled at the annual meeting, with reporting on implementation and any unplanned maintenance expenditure. That level of visibility brings capital planning into sharper focus for boards, executives and residents alike.

From compliance to capability

Although the reforms are driven by legislation, the implications go beyond compliance. 

Across the aged care and retirement living sectors, there’s a clear move toward more mature asset management practices. Operators are expected to manage long-life assets with a level of rigour that aligns more closely with infrastructure, health and other regulated asset environments.

To meet that expectation, a Capital Maintenance Plan needs to be underpinned by a number of core elements:

• A complete and reliable asset register
• Consistent, defensible condition assessments
• Clearly defined lifecycle assumptions
• Long-term capital forecasts aligned to those assumptions, and
• Documented methodology and supporting data.

Without these foundations, preparing a compliant plan becomes difficult. More importantly, it becomes difficult to defend that plan if it’s scrutinised by residents, boards or regulators.

This is equally relevant beyond Victorian borders. Even where the legislation differs, the underlying direction is consistent.

The broader compliance environment

The Capital Maintenance Plan is just one part of a wider compliance framework.

Victorian regulations also require operators to maintain structured safety and operational practices across the village. This includes carrying out a formal safety inspection at least once each year, preparing a written report of the findings, and making that report available to residents on request. There are also ongoing obligations around emergency planning, evacuation procedures and communication with residents.

Together, these requirements point to a more integrated approach. Asset condition, safety and operational governance are no longer separate considerations: they’re increasingly expected to be aligned.

The practical challenge 

For many organisations, asset information is often spread across multiple systems, legacy registers or spreadsheets. Condition data may be inconsistent or based on assumptions rather than inspection. In some cases, there’s limited visibility of remaining asset life or future capital exposure. Under previous frameworks, these issues were often manageable. Under the current environment, they present a more tangible operational and governance risk.

The difference is not just compliance. It’s the expectation that planning decisions can be explained, supported and, where required, challenged.

A window to strengthen asset strategy

While the Victorian reforms increase compliance requirements, they also provide a clear opportunity. Organisations that take a structured approach to capital maintenance planning can use it to strengthen broader asset strategy. This includes improving capital prioritisation, refining long-term financial planning, and gaining clearer visibility of risk across ageing assets.

It also supports more transparent communication with residents and stakeholders, particularly where major capital works are required over time. In many cases, this will be the first time capital planning is brought together in a single, structured and defensible framework. That in itself has long-term value.

Moving forward

As the new framework beds down in Victoria, the focus for leaders is to establish a clear and defensible starting point. That typically involves understanding the current quality of asset data, the level of confidence in lifecycle assumptions, and whether capital forecasts can be supported with documented evidence.

For those outside of Victoria, the same questions apply. The legislative detail may differ, but the direction of reform is consistent.

Taking the time to establish the right foundations now will place your organisation in a stronger position, regardless of where you’re based.

A practical partner in capital planning

MDFM works with retirement village and aged care providers across Australia to support asset management, capital planning and compliance.

This includes working across different state-based frameworks to help organisations build reliable asset baselines, undertake condition assessments, and develop practical, fit-for-purpose capital maintenance plans. As expectations continue to shift, those that respond most effectively are likely to be the ones that treat capital planning as a core operational discipline, not just a compliance task. For anyone currently reviewing their approach, this is a timely point to take stock.

If you’re preparing for the Victorian reforms or reviewing your capital planning approach more broadly, MDFM can support you with asset audits, condition assessments and practical, compliant planning. Get in touch to start the conversation.