Recent reporting on South Australia’s growing retirement village waitlists paints a picture of overwhelming demand and a sector struggling to keep up with an ageing population.
According to the Retirement Living Council , almost 27,000 Australians are currently on waiting lists for retirement villages, with South Australia accounting for almost one in five of those prospective residents.
Industry representatives argue this demonstrates the need for more retirement village development and fewer planning and regulatory barriers.
But there is another issue that deserves equal attention.
At National Seniors Australia (NSA), we recognise that retirement villages can provide an attractive housing option for older people. Many residents enjoy the social connections, age-friendly design, and access to support services these communities can offer. However, the existence of long waitlists should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that older Australians are enthusiastic about the current retirement village model.
In fact, one of the strongest barriers to greater uptake of retirement villages is a lack of consumer confidence in the sector itself. NSA has consistently found that many older Australians are wary of retirement villages because of concerns about complex contracts, confusing fee structures, delayed exit payments, and inadequate consumer protections.
Why older people are hesitant
Over many years, NSA has contributed to reviews of retirement village legislation in South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, and other jurisdictions. A consistent theme across these submissions has been that retirement village laws have failed to keep pace with community expectations and have not provided the level of protection older Australians reasonably expect.
One of the most concerning findings is that many older people mistakenly assume retirement village legislation provides strong consumer protections.
In many retirement villages, the resident pays a substantial ingoing contribution to the operator in exchange for a contractual right to reside in a dwelling, rather than purchasing the property itself. This is very different from the freehold ownership model that most people know and understand.
Buyers need to be wary and clear about what they are signing up for before signing a village contract.
NSA has argued that the very existence of retirement village legislation can create a false sense of security. They think they are buying a property, and the language used in retirement village marketing reinforces this idea.
This is particularly problematic because retirement village contracts are often lengthy, highly complex, and difficult to understand. The average resident enters a retirement village in their mid-70s, and many are making major financial decisions during periods of significant life change, such as widowhood, declining health, or downsizing from the family home.
Many prospective residents are confronted by arrangements involving deferred management fees, exit fees, refurbishment charges, service fees, and resale conditions that can be difficult even for financial professionals to interpret.
NSA has repeatedly highlighted that independent legal advice can cost thousands of dollars, creating yet another barrier for older Australians trying to make an informed decision.
The real issue is trust
If retirement villages are such a compelling solution to Australia’s housing and ageing challenges, why do many villages still experience lengthy resale periods?
In our submission to Victoria’s Retirement Villages Act review, NSA noted that some retirement village units can take many months to resell despite broader housing shortages. We argued this reflects a wariness among older Australians about the retirement village model and concerns about the financial consequences of entering one.
The industry’s claim that more supply alone is needed overlooks the fact that many consumers remain unconvinced by the product itself.
Older Australians are sensible consumers. They hear stories about significant exit fees. They discover that they may not own their unit in the traditional sense. They learn that different rules apply in every state and territory. They worry about how long it will take to recover their money if they later need residential aged care.
These concerns are not irrational; they arise from genuine flaws in existing legislative frameworks.
Until these concerns are addressed, many older people will continue to hesitate.
Sure, the sector fills a gap in lower-cost seniors-friendly housing, but some people are choosing this because no other alternatives exist, and it comes at a significant future cost to older people (and their children) down the road.
Reform must come before expansion
The answer is not simply to build more retirement villages.
NSA has long advocated for nationally consistent and strengthened retirement village legislation to protect consumers and restore confidence in the sector. Our policy platform calls for:
Consistent protections across all states and territories, ideally by legislating retirement villages as a financial product.
A national retirement village ombudsman to educate consumers, monitor the sector and investigate complaints.
Plain English contracts with clear disclosure of all fees and charges.
Greater transparency around entry fees, exit fees and ongoing costs.
The abolition of deferred management fees for new contracts.
Faster repayment of exit entitlements when residents leave.
Clear disclosure of whether residents are purchasing property, a leasehold interest or merely a right to occupy.
In South Australia specifically, NSA has previously argued that the current legislative model contains structural deficiencies and that a comprehensive redesign of the retirement village framework is required to place consumers at the centre of the system.
We also proposed significantly shorter resale and repayment periods, particularly where residents move into residential aged care.
Older Australians need more housing choices
Australia unquestionably needs more age-friendly housing . We need more accessible homes, more downsizing opportunities and a broader range of housing options that allow people to age safely and independently. Retirement villages can form part of that solution.
However, policy makers should be careful not to confuse a waiting list with consumer satisfaction.
If governments and industry want retirement villages to play a larger role in addressing Australia’s housing and ageing challenges, then they should support stronger retirement village protections.
Only when older Australians are confident that retirement village laws genuinely protect their interests will retirement villages become the housing option they have the potential to be.
Check out and join NSA’s Better Housing campaign to support our call for better retirement village protections and more.
