To: Michael Pettersson MLA, Member for Yerrabi, and to the federal, state and territory ministers responsible for ageing, housing, consumer affairs, fair trading and retirement village regulation.
Create a National Star Rating for Retirement Villages
We’re calling on federal, state and territory governments to create a mandatory National Retirement Village Fairness Rating system – so older people and their families can clearly compare retirement villages before signing complex contracts or handing over their savings.
Right now, retirement villages are regulated differently across the country. Some states are improving protections, but residents still face a confusing patchwork of rules, fees, contracts and complaint processes. For many people, moving into a retirement village is one of the biggest financial and housing decisions of their life. It can involve selling the family home, paying a large upfront amount, agreeing to ongoing fees, and accepting exit arrangements that may only become clear years later.
Governments should make this information simple, public and comparable.
A national ratings system should show whether a retirement village is fair, transparent and safe across the whole resident journey – before people move in, while they live there, and when they leave.
At minimum, the rating should assess:
- whether contracts and fees are clear and easy to understand;
- whether deferred management fees, exit fees and ongoing charges are fair and transparent;
- how long residents or estates typically wait to receive exit entitlements;
- whether residents have a real say over budgets, maintenance and village rules;
- whether buildings, facilities and common areas are safe, accessible and well maintained;
- whether complaints are handled fairly and independently;
- whether there have been serious disputes, tribunal findings or regulatory action;
- whether residents are supported if their care needs change or they need to move into aged care.
This system must be mandatory, not voluntary. Retirement village operators should not be able to opt out of public accountability.
It should also be independent, not controlled by industry. Ratings should be published on a public national register, written in plain language, and backed by real data – including complaints, exit payment timeframes, fee structures, resident feedback and regulatory history.
The rating must include clear warning flags. A village should not be able to receive a high rating if it has serious unresolved safety issues, repeated exit payment delays, unfair contract findings, or a poor record of listening to residents.
This is not about punishing good retirement villages. It is about making fairness visible. Operators that treat residents well, explain costs clearly, maintain safe communities and resolve disputes properly should be able to show that publicly. Operators that rely on confusing contracts, hidden costs or weak accountability should not be able to hide behind glossy brochures.
We want governments to work together through National Cabinet, consumer affairs ministers and relevant state regulators to create one national standard – so older people can make informed decisions no matter where they live.
Older Australians deserve more than fine print. They deserve clear, public information before they make a life-changing decision about their home, savings and future.
Why is this important?
No one should have to gamble their life savings on fine print.
For many older people, moving into a retirement village is not just a lifestyle choice. It is a major financial decision, a housing decision, a health decision and often an emotional decision made after bereavement, illness, caring responsibilities, loneliness or the stress of maintaining a family home.
Retirement villages are often marketed around security, community, independence and peace of mind. At their best, they can offer exactly that. Many residents value the friendships, safety, facilities and support they find in village life.
But too often, the real risks are hard to see upfront.
Contracts can be long and difficult to understand. Fees may be spread across entry payments, ongoing charges, deferred management fees, refurbishment costs, maintenance funds and exit deductions. Residents may not fully understand what they will pay until they leave – or until their family is trying to manage the process after death or a move into aged care.
This imbalance is not fair. Operators know the rules, costs, risks and past disputes. Prospective residents usually do not. They may have one brochure, one sales conversation and a pile of legal documents at the exact moment they are trying to make one of the most important decisions of later life.
The current system places too much pressure on individuals to protect themselves. Of course people should seek legal and financial advice, but that is not enough. Older people should not need a specialist lawyer just to understand whether a village has a history of delayed exit payments, repeated complaints or unclear fees.
This is also a national fairness issue. Because retirement village laws differ between states and territories, protections can depend on where someone lives. Some governments are improving the rules, but residents still lack a simple national way to compare villages.
A ratings system would help change that.
It would make the hidden parts of retirement living visible: not just the gardens and community rooms, but the contract terms, fees, complaints, exit processes, maintenance standards and resident rights.
It would help families ask better questions before signing. It would help residents compare villages more fairly. It would help regulators identify problem operators. It would help governments see where laws are failing. And it would help good operators prove they are doing the right thing.
Most importantly, it would shift power back toward residents.
A home is not just a financial product. A retirement village is where people build community, age, grieve, recover, receive care, maintain independence and spend precious years of their lives. Residents deserve dignity, safety and respect – not confusing paperwork and avoidable financial stress.
As Australia’s population ages, retirement villages may become an even bigger part of the housing and care landscape. If governments want the sector to grow, they must make sure it grows on a foundation of trust, transparency and fairness.
A national ratings system will not fix every problem by itself. But it is a practical, achievable reform that can expose unfair practices, reward good operators and give older people the clear information they deserve.
How it will be delivered
If we meet our signature goal of 50,000, we will deliver the petition to the relevant ministers.
