Residents' Rights Come with Responsibilities — It's Time Operators Stopped Being Afraid to Act

In the Aged Care Sector, particularly amongst residents, we hear a lot about the Code of Residents’ Rights (CoRR) and the Code of Practice (CoP). And rightfully so, these are vital frameworks designed to protect the dignity, independence, and well-being of older people in retirement communities. But there’s something missing from the public conversation: the fact that these rights exist within a community context, and with them come responsibilities. The Retirement Villages Act 2003, the CoRR, the COP, and the Occupation Right Agreement (ORA) all point to the same fundamental principle: residents and operators/managers are meant to co-exist respectfully. These frameworks are not a one-way street; I'm pretty sure they were never intended to be documents that shield poor behaviour behind the language of entitlements. And yet, that’s exactly how it’s often interpreted and used. 

Most ORAs include a nuisance clause, a standard, legally binding agreement that residents will not interfere with the peace, comfort, or quiet enjoyment of others in the village. This clause is there to ensure that one person’s disruptive behaviour doesn’t undermine the experience of the entire community. I might add here that quiet peace and enjoyment are very subjective, especially when a resident is complaining about their peace when in actual fact being more disruptive than a whole village put together. 

Unfortunately, enforcement of this clause has become nearly impossible in practice. Why? Because operators are afraid of the media. Operators who try to hold residents accountable under the nuisance clause risk becoming the subject of damaging public stories. The possible headlines tend to write themselves: Elderly Resident Forced Out by Heartless Village Operator. These emotionally charged narratives erase the context, demonise the operator, and rarely reflect the full picture, especially when the “victim” is the source of persistent and harmful disruption to others. The result? A silent, corrosive problem. 

Operators tend to avoid conflict, even when it’s justified. They tolerate behaviour that erodes staff morale and drives away other residents. A single disruptive resident can make life miserable for everyone around them, and yet too often, nothing is done not because the legal tools don’t exist, but because the reputational risk feels too high. We’re now at a tipping point. If operators cannot enforce the very agreements residents sign when entering a village, what is the point of having them? 

We talk about maintaining “a harmonious community” a goal enshrined in legislation, but harmony doesn’t happen when disruptive behaviour is allowed to fester unchecked. What’s needed is balance. The public, the media, and regulators must come to see that residents’ rights are only meaningful when they are accompanied by responsibilities. 

Operators should be empowered, not vilified when they take reasonable steps to protect their staff and the well-being of the broader community. It’s time for the conversation to shift. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Fair enforcement of village rules shouldn’t be a last resort or a media risk; it should be seen for what it is: the upholding of standards that make retirement villages safe, supportive, and enjoyable for everyone. Unfortunately, the narrative currently being weaponised from advocacy groups is that Operators are making money off the vulnerable elderly whereas, I would argue the narrative is being deliberately constructed and used to manipulate, discredit, or control, used to emotionally charge the personal opinions of those who purport to be advocates for all residents utilising aged care services.