In response to our last news update, Retirees WA has published a statement on their website, in an attempt to discredit the information RWB provided to concerned newsletter subscribers.
As always, we remind readers that the information provided is taken from publicly available information & records, but may be incomplete – please use your own judgment when interpreting information provided.
You can view the full statement on their website here. The points which need addressing are covered below, for clarity and transparency’s sake:
1. Membership Revenue v Overall Revenue
RWA accuses this this newsletter of publishing false information, when stating they only received around $100K in Membership revenue last year. This is not false information – whilst the Membership revenue does not appear to be accounted for in the 2024 AFS, the 3 previous years recorded $110K, $104K, and $92K; it has been consistently around the $100K mark for several years (as the membership is around 2300 people, paying $40ea per annum).This is clearly different from the total revenue for the org, and does not negate the overall revenue being $12.6M. However, as the Board’s primary responsibilities are to serve the interests of the Membership and oversee compliance, it makes sense that any Board remuneration would be relevant to the Membership revenue specifically.
If the overall revenue of RWA was to be relevant, then the overall expenses for 2024 must also be considered. The expenses per the 2024 AFS totalled $12.3M – merely $300K actual surplus for the year. Reading these numbers together provides a more accurate picture of the financial position of the organisation than simply “$12.6M revenue”.
2. Remuneration of RWA Management
RWA has gone to great efforts in their statement to justify the salaries of the C-level staff. Whilst the salaries may be comparable with industry, these are still material in judging the overall investment in the management team (incl. Board), due to the very concerning financial performance and alleged misconduct over the past several years, as revealed in the 2024 AFS.
3. Further Discussion on Remuneration of Board Members
RWA states they have acknowledged the $4.8M loss of Funeral Fund monies. Whilst the 2024 AFS statement reveals this (Note 10), we are yet to see any comment or statement from RWA acknowledging this. Nor was any acknowledgement or discussion on the matter forthcoming at the 2024 AGM, where it would have been appropriate to bring it to Members’ attention.RWA goes on to excuse this alleged financial misconduct as pre-dating the current Board. However, the three remaining Board Members (not Independent Appointees) have been serving on the Board as early as 2016. Candessa Ashbury, the acting President, joined the Board in 2016 and was appointed VP in 2019. Danuta Newman, the acting VP, joined the Board in 2023. Stanley McFarlane joined the Board in 2018.
These individuals were all Board Members in Nov 2023, when Lois Jones (President at the time) authorised a mortgage over the Geraldton Lighthouse Estate, held by Samson Homes – owned by Frank Pinner (Margaret Thomas’ husband). Two were Board Members when a mortgage was issued over Joseph Banks Estate to Retirement Village Developments – a company owned by Graeme Wovodich, RWA’s ex-Auditor. They were all Board Members as Margaret Thomas paid herself as a CFO consultant as well as appearing to receive a CEO salary, and as she paid her son Kristian Thomas at least $220K in IT Consulting fees. And they were Board Members while many of these transactions were concealed from the Members, until Consumer Protection intervened.
It is understandable that a Board with significant oversight responsibilities and legal demands may require and deserve remuneration. But the suggestion that these continuing Board Members should not be held accountable for decisions and conduct that occurred during their tenure, and instead should be remunerated several $’000’s per year, is hard to fathom. Especially well in advance of the AGM, where Members would actually be able to assess the viability of paying the Board, and assess whether the continuing Board Members have actually been effective, based on the 2025 AFS and whether there’s been genuine improvement on last year.
RWA asserts that the appointment of Independent Appointees serves to “protect RWA from the weakness of not having professional, independent non-Members” that contributed to the substantial financial losses the charity has recently realised. This does not support the argument for paying the existing Board Members, and though independent professionals may be a valuable addition to the Board, they were selected by the pre-existing Board and are yet to be ratified by the Membership. Again, this is not a strong argument in favour of authorising remuneration months before the AGM, where it would be far more appropriate to evaluate.
4. CBA Loan Repayment Correction
RWA purports to have repaid $16M of the $32.7M CBA loan. This has rightfully drawn our attention to a misinterpretation of the 2024 statement by us (RWB). In the previous newsletter we identified that RWA was relying on the Aged Care RADs to pay $9M off this loan in the 2024-25 Financial Year. This was a misstatement – the 2024 AFS actually states that the loan amount due to be repaid by 30 June 2025 is $23,248,021 (Note 17b), with $9M due next financial year.
Despite RWA stating they are “way ahead of expectations”, they appear to actually be $7M short of their CBA loan obligation for this financial year.
5. Financial Performance
Considering the revenue for the 2024 financial year was, as RWA pointed out, $12.6M, and this financial year RWA has already outlaid $16M in loan repayments, with some $16M more owing within the next 13 months, it’s hard to believe the organisation isn’t haemorrhaging cash.
In fact, the only way to be sure the organisation isn’t in a dire financial position as it appears, is to wait until the 2025 Financial Statement is released at the AGM later this year. In particular, to see whether the “material uncertainty casting significant doubt over the organisation’s ability to continue” identified in the 2024 Auditor’s qualified audit, has improved or not.
Additional Comments
Further to the above, concerns have been raised that the notice for the Special General Meeting does not appear to have been circulated in a state-wide newspaper, as is required under Section 18(e)(ii) of the RWA Constitution. Without this sufficient notice, it would render the upcoming special resolution vote on 29 May invalid.
As a final note, whilst RWA may now be attempting to be more transparent with members, the issues highlighted on the RWB website and associated distributions brought facts to the Membership and Residents long before RWA was willing to address them. It is ‘third parties’ who have worked tirelessly to bring the facts to the surface, and led to issues like the alleged misappropriation of the $4.8M of Funeral Fund monies being uncovered.
These ‘third parties’ have spent years working towards the improved financial stability and compliance of RWA. They have never been remunerated for their efforts, nor appreciated. Quite the opposite – they have been consistently fought by RWA Management & Board Members who neglected to undertake their duties to the Membership and Residents with appropriate skill or care.
As RWA has reiterated – “Members have been invited to cast their votes to remunerate the Board Members for the work they do” – but without providing any evidence of what this work entails, nor whether it has been effective in rehabilitating RWA’s legacy, reputation, or bottom line.
