Government must step up for homeowners and renters

Font Size:

Outright ownership of one’s home has long been the de facto fourth pillar of Australia’s retirement income system, allowing the Government to keep the Age Pension at a relatively low fixed rate.

Indeed, when announcing the terms of reference for the first comprehensive review of retirement incomes in 30 years, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Assistant Minister for Superannuation Jane Hume explicitly acknowledged the critical role of the family home in providing a good retirement, by including it in the third pillar of the system, voluntary savings.

It’s clear, then, that careful consideration of the future role of the home in providing Australians with a comfortable and dignified retirement is essential.

The assumption underpinning both the setting of the pension and the structure of our superannuation system is that the majority of retired people will have very low housing costs, either because they have paid off mortgage debt during their working lives or, for non-homeowners, because they will be accommodated in low-rent social housing.

Yet over the past three decades, as house and land values in Australia have increased at a rate far outstripping income growth and investment in social housing has declined to record lows, there is growing evidence that this key plank in the foundations of our asset-based retirement income system is crumbling.

Of course, the popular narrative is that older Australians are sitting on piles of property wealth, driving up asset prices through the use of generous tax concessions and locking younger generations out of the housing market. This, some claim, is leading to significant generational inequality.

Challenging this view, however, is recent research that shows that Australia is now divided into asset-based classes of wealth and income, and that “what we’re seeing is not generational inequality, but class inequality across generations“.

Owning a home is the key determining factor of financial security and wellbeing in Australia, but it is a position increasingly out of reach – and not just for young people.

The fact is, the soaring cost of land and housing in Australia over the past three decades has effectively destroyed the asset base on which our retirement income system relies. The proportion of homeowners aged 55 to 64 who still owe money on their mortgage has more than tripled since the design of our compulsory superannuation system – from 14 per cent in 1990 to 47 per cent in 2015. Among those aged 45 to 54, the rate has doubled, as has the ratio of mortgage-debt-to-income (from 82 per cent to 169 per cent), while that same ratio has blown out from 72 per cent to 132 per cent for those in their last decade before retirement age.

This will have a significant impact on retirement incomes, one that will only grow as successive generations find it harder to enter the property market and live with higher levels of housing debt much later in life than experienced by previous generations.

The two obvious implications are that some future retirees will need to spend a significant lump sum of their superannuation savings to pay off outstanding mortgage debt at retirement. More of them will then be reliant on the Age Pension for income. Others will have no hope of ever owning a home and will, therefore, have to meet the rising costs of rent in the private market.

Older Australians have also traditionally relied on the equity in their homes to fund their care in later old age.

Many Australians expect to draw on the equity in the family home to fund entry to residential aged care, and still hold the hope of passing something down to their children.

These expectations are under significant threat from the declining rates of home ownership in Australia.

It is imperative, then, that the retirement income review engages deeply with the economic implications of changes to home ownership among retirees, both for individuals and for the Federal Budget, even in the context of relatively low housing costs. Currently, 2.5 million Australians receive the Age Pension and the Federal Government spends more on payments to older Australians than on any other benefits, with $70.2 billion forecast for the next financial year.

If a majority of age pensioners are not to be living in poverty by the middle of this century, the Government must implement policies to provide secure, affordable housing for the growing number of retirees who will not own their homes.

While the economic imperative is obvious, policies to deal with the changing role of the home in retirement must grapple with more than mathematical equations.

Increased housing costs affect more than just the economic wellbeing of retirees. Housing is a key social determinant of health at any age, and recent research shows that housing insecurity and debt already negatively affect the health of older people.

It is important for policy makers to understand the home as much more than a financial asset. The ‘home’ is not made of bricks and mortar, it is a place that can enshrine memory, a place from which, especially as we age, we can access support networks and family relationships.

Beyond its value as a financial asset, the home has a unique capacity to help us face other vulnerabilities we experience in older age, particularly social isolation and loneliness.

Per Capita’s own research suggests that older people experience home as a social relationship: a place to connect with others, somewhere they can sustain or build meaningful social roles, a community. This finding challenges the assumptions underpinning our policy settings that people will always make economically rational decisions in relation to housing.

So, what policy changes should the retirement income review consider in tackling the challenge of the changing role of the home in retirement?

Some argue that, given the disproportionate increase in the value of housing over recent years, it is past time to include the family home, or a portion of its value over the median, in the Age Pension assets test.

This is politically difficult, to say the least; indeed, Mr Frydenberg has already ruled it out, saying it “will never be part of [government] policy”.

Beyond political concerns, though, including the home in the assets test arguably would result only in more retirees being cut off from pension access, thus reducing their standard of living without meaningfully improving the living standards of non-home owning pensioners.

Far more pressing is the massive increase in the number of older people entering the private rental market in recent years. Renters in the 55–64 age cohort have risen from 14.7 per cent to 21 per cent in the past 20 years alone. Worryingly, this includes former homeowners, forced out by mortgage foreclosure and life events such as family breakdown, ill health and unemployment. The rates of older women experiencing homelessness, with those over 55 now making up the fastest growing cohort of homeless Australians, can no longer be ignored.

Anglicare’s 2019 Rental Affordability Snapshot shows that only 0.8 per cent of rental accommodation is accessible for a single age pensioner. This points to the urgent need for significantly more age-appropriate social housing to be built by state and federal governments.

In the short term, however, the most immediate solution is to increase Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) for those in receipt of social security payments. The rate of CRA has not kept pace with the cost of private rental properties, largely because increases are linked to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which is lagging far behind the rise in the cost of housing.

With forecasts of a 60 per cent rise in eligibility for CRA by 2031, increasing the rate to align it with housing costs is critical to addressing short-term housing stress for older people, but any increase should come with legislated protections against rental price gouging by landlords.

Finally, the Government must grapple with the reluctance of older Australians to tap into home equity to provide income in retirement. Reverse mortgages, offered by private financial institutions, and the government-backed Pensions Loan Scheme (PLS), which enables homeowners to increase their pension payments by 150 per cent, have low take-up rates. YourLifeChoices’ 2019 Retirement Matters Survey shows that fewer than one in five retirees would consider accessing their home equity to increase their income.

Policy makers can no longer ignore the behavioural factors – the desire to ‘age in place’, the fear of needing assets to draw on during late old age due to infirmity or illness and the hope to leave an inheritance for the next generation – that make people resistant to drawing on their home equity. A different mix of social policies, such as the universal provision of in-home care as a replacement for residential aged care, is needed to resolve this issue.

The retirement income review provides us with an opportunity to think more broadly about what makes it possible for Australians to live a good life in retirement. If that is our collective goal, we must shift how we think of the home, away from its role as merely a financial pillar of retirement income.

Having a place to call home, one that cannot be taken from us, is perhaps the greatest source of security there is. Providing that to all Australians should be the fundamental aim of retirement income policy.

Should the Government be looking long and hard at how housing affects retirement outcomes – from both financial and wellbeing perspectives?

* Emma Dawson is executive director of public policy think tank Per Capita and Myfan Jordan is Per Capita’s director of social innovation. Per Capita is an independent, progressive think tank dedicated to fighting inequality in Australia.

If you enjoy our content, don’t keep it to yourself. Share our free eNews with your friends and encourage them to sign up.

Join YourLifeChoices today
and get this free eBook!

By joining YourLifeChoices you consent that you have read and agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy


Total Comments: 35
  1. 0

    Excellent article which, at last, recognises that a house is a home and a community for seniors, which is many times more valuable than the cash value that so many ‘economists’ are so bent on liberating for the benefit of others.

    The cash value of homes owned by most seniors grows mainly through government policy that creates scarcity of housing, and the inevitable rise of values in inner urban areas. So many low income seniors bought cheap housing in inner urban slums and working class suburbs where they could afford them. Not our fault that gentrification and scarcity has increased the cash value of our homes and improved our communities.

    Who will pay for my health care, mental health care, rent, etc if LNP policy based on economist preferences that devalue my quality of life, to say nothing of my struggle to get and keep a house in the first place while on a low income, prevail? Why are someone else’s needs more valuable than mine? Why, when housing scarcity has been government policy for decades, and no affordable public housing has been built, should I be blamed for the outcomes of policy failure, and forced out of my home and community by more unwarranted policy changes, when proven alternatives are available.

    This article provides a bit of perspective that is wider than ‘young people can’y buy houses so let’s force the oldies to sell’. Seniors have whole lives and support systems bound up in their living places and living conditions. Modern capitalists won’t pay enough tax to fund all the costs of tens of thousands of poorer pensioners made homeless by government policy changes to pension eligibility by including the family home.

    Find another way to ensure asset and income rich pensioners are not scamming the age pension, instead of steadily increasing the access of genuinely wealthy people to the pension. Rank hypocrisy.

  2. 0

    Thanks for this balanced article – sick of my generation being blamed for working hard, saving and buying (without any government assistance). I see 2 almost opposite mindsets happening here -one group of people who don’t want to sell the house they have spent their lives working/paying for, especially when they have spent a frugal lifetime going without so they could retire in their own familiar neighbourhood with housing stability, people and shops they know, and financial safety – why would they want to go back to having a mortgage?
    I don’t know how large it is becoming, but there is another group of people now approaching retirement who are paying “interest only” on their mortgage instead of “capital and interest” and salary sacrificing the difference into their super. When they retire they can pay out the mortgage, but in the meantime they have had the advantage of paying only 15% tax while boosting their super balance and thus the earnings – I wonder if this might explain part of the rapid increase in interest-only unpaid mortgages?

    • 0

      Lizzy, you are right that there is an increase in ‘interest-only’ mortgages. This is mainly due to self-managed superannuation funds, which enjoy a 15% concessional tax, as you mentioned. The whole gambit of superannuation schemes is to replace the OAP system. However, whoever designed the current superannuation system didn’t have that in mind other than to benefit the investment industry. Although the Australian Superannuation Fund is the fourth biggest in the world with the size of AUD $2.9 trillion dollars in assets management, we are nowhere near enough to take care of a decent retirement for our retirees and to relieve the pressure on OAP. This begs the question, where did we go wrong?

      Please remember, when we were buying our homes, we paid a 17% interest rate for our mortgages. Now we survived the ‘Banana Republe’, during our retirement the interest rate of our term deposits has recently dropped to 0.75% in order to give the younger people to have access to the housing affordability.

      The abovementioned scenarios indicated that the government over the last three decades did not have the vision and mission through their policies to look after the interest of our retirees and superannuants. It took a long time for the Royal Commission to bring out the truth and the implementations of its recommendations are yet to be seen. This article hasn’t told us anything new.

    • 0

      I have only ever used interest only mortgages where I can dump and borrow money at my will. If you pay back principal your money is locked up with no access to it. That is not good for me at all.

    • 0

      Lizzy, yes we Seniors worked our butts off with the help our collective parents minding our children (they could comfortably retire & live on an earlier OAP back then). Many of us, after wed & had a child, either lived with our parents for free (just helping ’em ard their then old homes) or rented a dilapidated old home approx 20kms from CBD – the “back blocks/woop woop.” Usually only took max 2yrs to save a home deposit if male had a f/t job & his wife had a p/t job (I waitressed @ Manhattan Pub 3 nights wkly) & buy a new estate home in those back blocks. Yes, we were inflicted with 17% interest mortagages but didn’t spend $000s on holidays, drove our one only old cars to camping areas near beaches. The new home we bought 12mths later was 20kms out of the CBD & now old, needing heaps of repairs/upkeep is now worth almost one $m as it’s still only 3 b/rm, no en-suite or walk-in robe altho’ does have what we used to call a study (now a Computer rm!?). No o’seas hols ’til in our late 40s, just a short cruise. Managed to buy 2 Investment properties approx 25kms from CBD (Vic) within 10yrs which we paid high taxes on + many repairs/cleaning et al when renters weren’t as good as their requested references however happily offered ’em to our kids @ discount price when they were in their early 20s & we were both working f/time. They accepted soon after as had jokingly told ’em if they hadn’t left home when 25yo we’d kick ’em out (we never would have, just encouragement) – were well aware that entering the housing mkt/own home early was essential. Mortage interest rates were much lower by then. Most gratefully our 2 kids then didn’t enough disposable income to be mischieveous, they had mortgages & loved their freedom/homes (bit younger than ours). They’ve now gifted me, very sadly widowed 10yr ago, 6 adorable grandkids I love so very much & was more than happy to mind them when pre-schoolers (still youngest 2 when needed during school hols), eldest 2 @ Monash Uni as will be my 3rd as within 10% highest ATAR score yesterday & will want to be with her cousins @ Monash. However, I chose not to go back to work after approx 2yrs of what think were depressive yrs & couldn’t work during my beloved spouse of 40yrs 9yr shocking battle with cancer. Thereafter I wanted to be on stand-by to mind/babysit my then 4 grandkids to help my kids/families so they could work, loved it – kept me happy, fit & healthy as does minding my 2 youngest grandkids which only now needed during school hols altho’ still want to be on stand-by “just in case” ie: if parents need a wk-end away etc. Needless to say, my much loved dear old home & all appliances have needed heaps of repair/replacement in past 10yrs & funds seriusly depleted….I’m far from wealthy, gratefully our kids are wealthier than am I. However, I’m more than happy now, knowing kids/families all good, to sell a % of my home to Bendigo Bank re their Homesafe plan if needed as will be soon. Kids know it & happy for me to do so, very gratefully as they’re OK & help me often with repairs/gardening etc etc. The OAP is definitely not enough to live on reasonably, especially if have a super spesh Border Collie as I do, gifted to me by kids/families 6yrs ago as additional protection + fitness. Most of u won’t agree with me but I do believe that anyone on OAP, with no mortgage, who’s home is valued over $2.5M should be taxed, as they’re wealthy & we’re all paying for ’em. They could easily sell 50% of their home (we all know their kids are ‘well off’ already, if not, been neglected by their parents) & live off the proceeds. It won’t happen as most Pollies are in that category!?

    • 0

      Sorry loloften but I don’t agree. Just because half the planet wants to buy a house in Sydney and Rudd let them doesn’t mean the hard working people who bought there and paid off that reasonably priced home for decades has to pay for it because someone says they are “wealthy” because the house has hyper inflated in price.

      It’s a bit like the fuss in France where train drivers took less pay for an early pension for decades and now the government wants to renege on the plan.

      There are at least 6 million under 18 and they need to get off their phones and get on with life and that means work even if it’s not your dream job and your dream house in your dream location.

  3. 0

    Really great comment, TJ. For too long have those homeowners, who made continual sacrifices to own their own home during their working life, failed to have their efforts and determination acknowledged.

  4. 0

    Emma Dawson unravels the reality of life for the older and for the younger Australians.
    A line from George Bernard Shaw’s play Back to Methuselah: “Life is not meant to be easy, my child; but take courage: it can be delightful.”

  5. 0

    One group that continually gets overlooked is those pensioners still with a mortgage. May not have been planned that way, but they seem to be the forgotten ones.

    • 0

      The ex and I are in that position – due to necessity of having a place convenient for her with disability and suitable. down-sized and up-marketed and doing renos (still)..

      Hmm – mortgage assistance would help… or get the beneficiaries to buy us out and we pay rent and let GuvCo support us..

    • 0

      Agree sunnyoz – altho’ reckon there’s more than a few dear ol’ tradies who are paid in cash, as is one of mine b/c just a regular small amount & doesn’t have credit card access – a burden on the “forgotten.” Can’t find a Tradie to do my job who has credit card access – all want cash.
      Trebor I feel for u & your ex, it’s so damn complicated & our Govn’mts don’t want to know.

  6. 0

    For younger people job security or the lack of it has a lot to do with some no longer trying to get their own home. When I look at my past 40 years we bought and sold 7 houses and now live in the 8th. Paid a lot of stamp duties and estate transfer fees etc but even in my day the jobs dried up and one had to move. Would have been easier just to rent. Father and grandfather all had life long employment and there was no problem retiring without a mortgage hanging over them.

  7. 0


  8. 0

    I agree. Many Aussies worked hard to buy a home. Now, many of them are old, sick, frail and they do not need the threat of losing their pensions, or part of, because they own their primary home.
    I know a man -ex conatruction worker- who built his home in a suburb that was in the outskirts of the city, so land would have been cheap 40 years ago. Now the suburb where he lives is considered to be in a good suburb, not far from the city any more so his house has appreciated in value.
    He is now 80 y.o., with osteo arthritis, reumatism and Alzeimers. His 70 yo wife looks after him even when she has many health problems herself.
    If their home, which might be sold x maybe a million or thereabouts, was to be included in the asset test, they would lose their pension.
    Some “smart” financial gurus, with an extreme socialist 9r communist view of things might cry out: “they are rich, get them to sell their home and let them move into a cheaper home in a cheaper suburb.
    My question is: why? Why would they have to sell the home they built and have lived in x 40 plus years to receive a pension? It’s nor their fault their home has appreciated over the years, but now they need a pension to survive!
    Do politicians have to sell their primary homes to receive their FAT pensions x life?
    Why would u push this couple into poverty simply because they worked hard, paid taxes and have been good, honest, law-abiding citizens?
    STOP people who want to push older Aussies into poverty.
    The primary home has been an Aussie dream DO NOT KILL IT!!!

    • 0

      Hmm – Red Guards and the cultural revolution… one target was ‘rich landlords’.. these gurus seem to consider us all in that category.

      Maybe we should make it a law that anyone who advocates such things must be forced to sell their home on retirement and go rent…

    • 0

      Agree Blinky – altho’ reckon anyone owning a home worth more than $2.5M & claiming OAPs should sell half of it to a couple of good plans (not a reverse mortgage, avoid it like a plague), eg: Bendigo Bank Homesafe is one I’ve investigated thoroughly & no I’m not & never have been theirs or any other Banks’ employee. Their kids will still inherit heaps over the remaining yrs re Capital Gain, & they could very comfortably live off the $1.25M + %interest (will get more than most as Banks love those huge deposits, altho’ still not great now) ’til it runs out – then learn to live on the OAP as many of us have to do if still alive, altho not likely by then. This would save $billions which hopefully our Govn’mts could spend on helping the poorest & disabled, not themselves for a change……one can live in hope !?

  9. 0

    I feel sorry for the less fortunate older single/widowed women considered as “homeless” through circumstances beyond their control. Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) should be increased for these vunerable people with social housing the main priority.

  10. 0

    Re the part that said “Pensions Loan Scheme (PLS), which enables homeowners to increase their pension payments by 150 per cent” Does that mean a retired couple would then receive from the govt an aged pension of about $90K per annum ??

    • 0

      No – is badly worded. Instead of saying ‘increase by 150%’ – should say ‘increase to 150%’. As a couple, the Pension is $1407 per f/n. The 150% means – 100% is your pension amount, then you can get another 50% of $1407 ($703) on top of that. So you can get $2110 p/f. Makes $54860 per annum.

    • 0

      thanks sunnyoz

    • 0

      Going on from there and thinking about strategy. Would I be right in saying that about $20K could be added to the $54860 per annum bringing the overall total to about $75K per annum for a couple. ?? Assuming of course nearly $400K in super assets with say 5% drawdown ??



continue reading


Vaccine overdose cases raise questions over doctor training

Australia's vaccine rollout suffered a major hiccup, with health minister Greg Hunt revealing on Wednesday that two elderly residents at...

Retirement Income

Why middle-income Australians are the big losers in retirement

Australia's middle-income earners are losing out when it comes to retirement income. That's the view of Mercer's senior partner, David...


Nine food and heart health myths busted

Should you cook with butter or olive oil? Is that drink of red wine protecting your heart? Pink Himalayan salt is healthy, right? There...


What to do if your diesel car runs out of fuel

Surely, we've all had those niggling thoughts when driving about - whether what we are doing is shortening the lifespan...

Living in retirement

How to embrace early retirement

Not having to get up early for work or take orders from a boss you don't really like, while still...


Essential skincare knowledge for men

It's a sweeping stereotype, but lots of men have a fairly basic - or entirely non-existent - skincare routine. Compare...

Superannuation News

ATO on the lookout for suspicious superannuation activity

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has made it clear that it will continue to crack down on people who attempt...


Billy Connolly: I don't want to be on stage with Parkinson's

There's a river that flows right behind Sir Billy Connolly's Florida home, and he likes to fish in his slippers....