Sector frustration at incomplete rules comes to head – tensions rise in Victorian retirement living conference

As the sector navigates the changing landscape of regulation and compliance post act, a trend is emerging. Provider heads are increasingly speaking of the confusion, inconvenience, and now, potential inability to even meet compliance due to opaque, incomplete and changing rules. Sector leaders have noted that in the lead up to the implementation of the act, rules were given last minute and even late, near Christmas-time. This frustration has pointedly been showcased in a tense Victorian retirement living conference with reform handling heavily criticised by peak body members, applauding provider leadership and resulting in disagreeing government staff and speedy exits. As the sector, its staff and government move towards finding better solutions for ensuring quality across aged care, providers and advocates more than ever ask for government to step into discussion, and maintain proximity in the hard discussions.

New reforms

Two months away are the new slew of the Victorian government’s retirement living reforms, set to come into play 1 May 2026. Yesterday saw a heightened Property Council breakfast with Consumer Affairs Minister Nick Staikos leaving the premises quickly following consistent and frank critique surrounding the reforms.

The current Retirement Villages Act 1986 is set to have an overhaul with the reforms amended to facilitate a “rights-based framework”, so as to improve resident protections.

The reforms, which are not yet finalised nor provided in full to provider leadership are substantial.

Key changes include:

·   Mandatory standard-form contract with full explanations on entry, exist and financial arrangements

·   Increased transparency around fees, including delayed management fees and any hidden or unexpected charges

·   What has been articulated as “fairer” exit or termination procedures

·   More robust dispute resolution opportunities, inclusive of enhanced internal procedures and access to conciliation measures or the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

·   A mandatory code of conduct for operators

·   Mandatory requirements and reporting for 10-year capital maintenance plans

·   Increased and additional obligations surrounding emergency planning and payments towards aged care or alternative accommodation

Government standpoint

The messaging from government has shaped these updates as critical to meeting prior failures of confusion, opaqueness, unfair financial burdens on residents, and inadequate complaint handling. Residents have spoken of feeling vulnerable in the face of moments of disagreement.

For many of the providers present at the breakfast, the reforms are understood to be a move to improve both functioning for the sector, residents and many support the intention to improve. However, it is in the government’s timing, lack of clarity on changes and the impact to operational functioning in two short months where friction points have tightened.

The breakfast

It is noted that Mr Staikos arrived 10 minutes after the formal event had commenced. He used his time to defend the reform, pressing them as a vehicle to reconcile confidence for residents in the sector.

And yet, pointedly, peak body member, Retirement Living Council Executive Director Daniel Gannon returned serve with a response speech that left little sentiment softened. He narrowed in on the issues that provider leadership have been wrestling with for months. The issue of the reform lay in the absence of finalised and complete regulations and the time to absorb and react. He clearly articulated that this government approach to reform was to deliver a profound “compliance choke point.”

Gannon elaborated that the result of the opaqueness and confusion of the reform rules could mean current or upcoming contract void and non-compliant. Far from quality care, he noted, this could render displaced seniors in alternative options such as motels, caravan parks, while providers direct resources to administrative and rules-based hurdles.

Gannon’s remarks were frank, they highlighted a profound disappointment in the government’s approach, and voiced the need for a deferral of the May enactment date to provide appropriate preparation time. The sentiment of provider leadership in the room was felt as significant applause was noted at this time. As the majority applauded, analysts see this as a clear showcase of extensive disquiet within the retirement living industry surrounding the approach of the reforms and the time that has been given. Coupled with the absence of complete, full and clear guidance on the rules two months off May, frustration has decidedly turned to unease as to the sureties of a fallout.

Disagreement intensifies

Those present share that through Gannon’s speech, Staikos was consistently seen shaking his head in disagreement. Following Gannon’s speech conclusion, he swiftly left the venue, alongside his staff team. Department representatives, while being slotted for later panel discussions in the programs, also left.

Following the breakfast and prompt exit, Staikos has rejected the notion that he left before the time widely understood for him to depart. He says that his schedule had always indicated he would leave after his own speech and he had remained to witness the counter-view.

Staikos sees the criticism by Gannon and the peak body as partisan, saying that it is connected to a former Liberal staffer. He articulated that he remains committed to his focus on protecting retirees’ dignity and choice rather than moving to the calls of “powerful interests”.

Reform in the real-world

The retirement living industry is far from alone in having concerns surrounding the speed and incompleteness of reform before enactment. Provider heads in residential aged care and home care too note that challenges have been rising from the sheer amount and waves of sizable regulatory overhauls in a complex sector.

Providers have repeatedly welcomed measures to safeguard the protection of seniors across Australia. It is in pinpointing the real-world situations these reforms must work within, that of operators already facing profound practical pressures to maintain operational stability that these reform changes must be managed. They say it is vital that high-performing and sincere providers can maintain residents stability and quality of care through the change itself.

Many providers across the nation have publicly supported the government’s commitment to resident protections, and addressing long-term issues of vulnerability and confusion. Arguably evident from the applause at the industry breakfast is a disconnect of reform to the real-world. Providers are seeking closer consultation, timeliness and clarity on complex regulation change, all so as to maintain the pragmatics of operating in a highly complex industry, already with significant compliance regulations and need for consistent stability for seniors.

Partnership

Change must be wrought from the close partnership of those that are charged with shaping reform, taking significant insight from those that are doing the job of care on the ground. The balance of safeguarding residents, maintaining operational viability and managing regulatory administrative burdens will continue to be the complexity that public and private relationships must tackle.

This means maintained discussion, and coming to the table for those that may not see eye to eye but need to nonetheless sit at that table, for the case of the vulnerable human-beings who rely on excellence of morality, business and checks and balances to be the health of the sector.