Publications

The draft of proposed amendments to the Retirement Villages Act bill fails to address many concerns raised by and on behalf of residents, in particular around management standards and fairer fees. The bill allows the most exploitative and predatory operators to continue to operate according to ‘churn’ business models where they are incentivised to maintain high turnover rates by systematically pressuring residents to leave once their exit fees reach their maximum value. The bill abandons the concept of a rights-based framework in favour of vague unenforceable ‘principles’. Overall, the bill simply fails to address serious public concerns about exploitative business practices in the retirement village industry, much less the concerns expressed by the many residents who have made submissions to this review.

Read the submission here

Submissions to the Review of the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement that reflect the actual experiences and words of women who live with housing stress, insecurity and homelessness as part of the Housing Older Womens Movement

Read the Submission here

Australia’s housing system is failing people experiencing disadvantage, particularly older people who are falling through the cracks. The existing policy frameworks are inadequately equipped to support people at risk of homelessness and there is a clear need for national leadership through a National Housing Strategy to develop and deliver sustainable solutions that are properly resourced.

Read the submission

HAAG supports an explicit objective in the regulatory system to protect and safeguard the interests of current, prospective and future tenants. We note that there is tension between the practical application of putting “tenants in the centre” in the broader context of a housing policy direction focussed on transfer of stock and redevelopment of public housing. While this independent review of social housing regulation is occurring, Homes Victoria is simultaneously relocating existing public housing tenants from their homes under the public housing renewal program. Those tenants are not “at the centre” of this decision, and the practical aim of applying this approach is questionable in a context where tenants feel powerless in the face of the decisions made by government to move them out of their communities and into an uncertain future.

Read the submission here

The Federal Government must Incorporate Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning, fund targeted measures to increase affordable housing stock earmarked for older people, and incrementally remove Capital Gains Tax and Negative Gearing to create an equitable housing market.

Read the submission

We support the stated aim to “provide advice on harmonising resident rights under public and community housing and options to ensure effective complaints management” however, we are concerned that the directions in the consultation paper appear to erode tenant rights, by using current community housing as the benchmark, rather than public housing. We support strengthened tenancy protections for older tenants in community housing, rather than diminishing of protections for older tenants in public housing.

Read the submissison

The inadequacy of social security payments can have significant negative physical and mental health impacts on people and forces them to rely on community services that provide mental health, housing and homelessness, and other similar services. Increasing these payments would result in people being able to manage their expenses and, as a result, alleviate pressure on community services that are already struggling to meet the community needs.

Read the submission

We are encouraged to see the government’s interest in better understanding and addressing the economic inequalities that women experience. However, it is disappointing to note that focus of this inquiry on economic equity for women fails to include equal access to housing as a core issue, even though safe, affordable and adequate housing underpins all other aspects of life, in particular women’s economic independence and security.

Read our submission to the inquiry here

The options set out in this paper show a serious lack of understanding of the issues raised by residents and other stakeholder about retirement village residencies. Retirement villages are too often unfair and exploitative. The Options Paper proceeds as if the problems were only that residents mistakenly perceived villages to be unfair and exploitative, or as if more information would resolve resident concerns. This is not the case. Again and again, the options paper proposes more information rather than increased protections for residents. This is a persistent failure of the options paper, and if the government proceeds on this basis the reform process will fail current and future retirement village residents.

Read our submission