Jane Wrightson: Retirement Commissioner on the reforms to the Retirement Villages Act 2003

The Retirement Commissioner's unfazed at the prospect of a potential retirement village price rise. 

The Government's announced changes to the Retirement Villages Act 2003, aiming to ease the experience of elderly people and their families.  

Changes include ensuring money is paid back within a year after a resident leaves. 

Commissioner Jane Wrightson told Mike Hosking it’s been a five-year process with painstaking consultation and assessment, and the Government has done a very careful balancing act, going straight through the middle of most of the disputes. 

She says that both parties, the operators and the residents, are pleased about some things and not so pleased about others, which suggests the changes are mostly right.  

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The retirement sect to getting some attention bills drawn eleven
thousand submissions expected to be introduced midnext year. Key changes
will include refunds paid no later than twelve months after
the units vacated, weekly fee stopping immediately when the resident leaves,
and the new process for former residents to apply for
early access to funds and cases of specific needs. So
what do we make of all of this, Jane Wright?

(00:20):
Since the retirement commissioner and there's with us, Jane, very
good morning to.

Speaker 2 (00:23):
You, good morning.

Speaker 1 (00:24):
May have they got it covered with this.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Pretty much? Yes? This has been a five year process,
with painstaking consultation and assessing various sets of arguments. The
Government's done a very careful balancing at going straight through
the middle of most of the disputes. I think both parties,
the operators and the residents are pleased about some things

(00:49):
and not so pleased about others, which suggests to me
it's mostly right.

Speaker 1 (00:53):
Is the industry problematic because the industry is problematic or
because of rules and regulations that needed changes?

Speaker 2 (01:00):
Is it?

Speaker 1 (01:00):
They're are the rules?

Speaker 2 (01:02):
I think as largely the rules. The Act's over twenty
years old now and it was written in a very
different time with the fledgery industry. Now, the industry is,
as you know, is large and growing, dominated by six
large players and a number of smaller ones. And the
difficulty around all of this has been trying to balance
the rights and obligations of both residents and operators. So

(01:25):
a lot of the criticism around things like repayment of
capital sum after twelve months, which is not unreasonable in
my view. In fact, it could be shorter. Some of
the opposition to that will be that the village is
simply can't afford it, and you go, well, some of
this is the market speaking, Yes, I think they can.
But if it's a small village of less than fifty units,

(01:45):
there's a provision already built into that that will give
them an exemption. So there's a fair bit of rattitude
built into what will be the new legislation.

Speaker 1 (01:54):
What happened to the eyes wide open scenario, which is,
you know, all the complaints seem to be to me,
correct me if I wrong that you knew what the
deal was going in. Now you may not be happy
at the other end, but you did know what it
was going in or has that not been the case?

Speaker 2 (02:09):
Well, that's that's the caveat into a principle. You know,
let the buyer beware. That doesn't mean there are no
consumer protections, right, and consumer protections have changed over the
last twenty something years. So this overhaul was an effect
about rebalancing the rights and responsibilities of.

Speaker 1 (02:25):
Each Okay, by the way, Trump is suggesting this morning,
don't freak out when I use that word, and this
question is coming out of left field to you. He's
looking at an Australian style retirement program. He's had a
look at Australia. You know, your worker contributes, worker, the
worker employer contributes. He says, it works. Well, it's a
good plan he's looking to implement in America. If you

(02:47):
could magic wand retirement, would you look at Australia as
a great example.

Speaker 2 (02:53):
If I could magic wand at thirty years ago, probably yes.
What's interesting to know about the Australian superannuation system is
that while that sounds very good and principle and it is,
because there's twelve percent of a word, contributions going in
a routinely first three that's on top of pay, not
within pay. So that's interesting. And secondly, that's underpinned by

(03:16):
really heavy SAT tax subsidies, and if you add up
the tax subsidies in Australia, they're not far off that
the overall cost of enzed super. So then you go
which is better? And enzed super is not connected to
the labor market, it's gender blind. It's more fair and
equitable than a tax based system based on your employment history,

(03:38):
which of course doesn't necessarily address very well the issues
of people who come in and out of the workforce
over time.

Speaker 1 (03:44):
No good answer, Well done, Appreciate it very much. Jane wrtson,
who's the Retirement Commissioner? This morning? For more from the
Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to news talks that'd be
from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.