The Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2024 was passed, with amendments, by the Legislative Assembly in Victoria on 28 May 2025, giving some of the most significant reforms seen in retirement living legislation in Australia.
The main details, including a mandatory code of conduct, reported by The Weekly SOURCE was the most-read story by subscribers to the newsletter.
Law firm Russell Kennedy and the lobby body Residents of Retirement Villages Victoria (RRVV), have now responded to the passing of the amendments.
Russell Kennedy's team of Jessica Kinnear, Kathryn Elleman, Donna Rayner and Rosemary Southgate have published a response, noting "there are a number of significant changes, which will require operators to consider their financial and operating models for retirement living moving forward."
"Most of the amendments which will impact financial matters, such as deferred fees, exit entitlements, recurrent charges ceasing and maintenance and repair obligations, will be prospective. However, requirements in relation to village operations, contract checks, termination of contracts and disputes will apply to existing contracts," their report stated.
In contrast, the RRVV has labelled the new legislation “something of a mixed bag”.
"Our concerns are substantial," said President Helen Betros.
"Many of the beneficial changes will only apply to those residents who sign their contracts after the new Act comes into force, which is scheduled for May 2026. Given that this is consumer protection legislation, the failure to address the issues of existing residents is somewhat bewildering. We believe it is essential that beneficial changes apply to all residents, both now and in the future. We understand this was the approach adopted for previous amendments to the very same Act.
"Retirement villages can still apply for exemption from all or part of the legislative framework. Prospective and current retirement village residents should be able to be safe in the knowledge that a property that calls itself a retirement village, complies with all relevant legislative provisions. All villages must be required to adopt and comply with the legislation and the Code of Conduct. To have a class or classes of villages exempt means that adequate consumer protections are not extended to all.
"There is a new provision that extends the time for payment of an exit entitlement, from a maximum of six month to a maximum of 12 months. This is too long and does not provide the protection required where there is an extended sale period."
RRVV also listed further concerns:
"Existing Contracts: The Deferred Management Fee (DMF) for residents who have an existing contract or sign a contract prior to the new legislation coming into effect, will still be based on sale price. In addition, they will not get the benefit of the provisions relating to reinstatement of the property on exit nor those relating to the cessation of service fees on vacant possession. This means that the vast majority of existing retirement village residents will be at a significant financial disadvantage when compared to newer residents. It also begs the question – if there is a perceived need to alter the provisions relating to the DMF and “reinstatement”, why would you apply this to only one class of resident?
"Meeting issues: The new legislation provides that only a Residents’ Committee or the operator can convene meetings of residents. This is not satisfactory as a significant number of villages do not have a Residents’ Committee – what if there is no residents’ committee? In those cases, it means that only the operator can call meetings and this is not satisfactory.
"Village Management: Operators/proprietors will be able to retain any operating budget surplus. Given that operating budgets are drawn from the Service Fees paid by residents based on budgets prepared by operators/proprietors, there is an obvious concern that such a provision could be subject to abuse. Allied to this, is our concern that there is no ceiling on increases to Service Fees which could be set at a level to deliver a surplus."
