It would be impossible at this stage in the election campaign to be unaware that housing is a critical, potentially vote-changing, issue. But the suite of policies being proposed by the major parties largely focus on young, first home buyers.

What is glaringly noticeable is the lack of measures to improve availability and affordability for older people.

Modern older lives are diverse, yet older people have become too easily pigeonholed. No more so than in respect to property, where a perception has flourished that older people own more than their fair share of housing wealth.

While the value of housing has no doubt increased, home ownership rates among people reaching retirement age has actually declined since the mid-1990s.

Older people can also face rental stress and homelessness – with almost 20,000 homeless people in Australia aged over 55. Severe housing stress is a key contributing to those homelessness figures.

It’s easy to blame older Australians for causing, or exacerbating, the housing crisis. But doing so ignores the fact that right now, our housing system is badly failing many older people too.

More than 20,000 older Australians are homeless, blamed in part on severe housing stress. Michael Heim/Shutterstock

No age limits

Owning a home has traditionally provided financial security for retirees, especially ones relying on the age pension. This is so much so, that home ownership is sometimes described as the “fourth pillar” of Australia’s retirement system.

But housing has become more expensive – to rent or buy – for everyone.

Falling rates of home ownership combined with carriage of mortgage debt into retirement, restricted access to shrinking stocks of social housing, and lack of housing affordability in the private rental market have a particular impact on older people.

Housing rethink

Housing policy for older Australians has mostly focused on age-specific options, such as retirement villages and aged care. Taking such a limited view excludes other potential solutions from across the broader housing system that should be considered.

Furthermore, not all older people want to live in a retirement village, and fewer than 5% of older people live in residential aged care.

During my Churchill Fellowship study exploring alternative, affordable models of housing for older people, I discovered three cultural themes that are stopping us from having a productive conversation about housing for older people.

• Australia’s tradition of home ownership undervalues renting and treats housing as a commodity, not a basic need. This disadvantages older renters and those on low income.
• There’s a stigma regarding welfare in Australia, which influences who is seen as “deserving” and shapes the policy responses.
• While widely encouraged, “ageing-in-place” means different things to different people. It can include formal facilities or the family home that needs modifications to make it habitable as someone ages.

These themes are firmly entrenched, often driven by policy narratives such as the primacy of home ownership over renting. In the past 50 years or so, many have come to view welfare, such as social housing, as a last resort, and have aimed to age in their family home or move into a “desirable” retirement village.

Variety is key

A more flexible approach could deliver housing for older Australians that is more varied in design, cost and investment models.

The promises made so far by political parties to help younger home buyers are welcome. However, the housing system is a complex beast and there is no single quick fix solution.

First and foremost, a national housing and homelessness plan is required, which also involves the states and territories. The plan must include explicit consideration of housing options for older people.

Funding for housing developments needs to be more flexible in terms of public-private sector investment and direct government assistance that goes beyond first home buyer incentives.

International models

For inspiration, we could look to Denmark, which has developed numerous co-housing communities.

Co-housing models generally involve self-managing communities where residents have their own private, self-contained home, supported by communal facilities and spaces. They can be developed and designed by the owner or by a social housing provider. They can be age-specific or multi-generational.

Australian policy makers could look to the success of social housing developments in Copenhagen, Denmark. ToniSo/Shutterstock

Funding flexibility, planning and design are key to their success. Institutional investors include

• so-called impact investors, who seek social returns and often accept lower financial returns
• community housing providers
• member-based organisations, such as mutuals and co-operatives.

Government also plays a part by expediting the development process and providing new pathways to more affordable ownership and rental options.

Europe is also leading the way on social housing, where cultural attitudes are different from here.

In Vienna, Austria, more than 60% of residents live in 440,000 socially provided homes. These homes are available for a person’s entire life, with appropriate age-related modifications permitted if required.

At over 20% of the total housing stock, social housing is also a large sector in Denmark, where the state and municipalities support the construction of non-profit housing.

Overcoming stereotypes

Our population is ageing rapidly, and more older people are now renting or facing housing insecurity.

If policymakers continue to ignore their housing needs, even more older people will be at risk of living on the street, and as a result will suffer poor health and social isolation.

Overcoming stereotypes - such as the idea that all older people are wealthy homeowners - is key to building fairer, more inclusive solutions.

This isn’t just about older Australians. It’s about creating a housing system that works for everyone, at every stage of life.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

[NotNats]

Our biggest problem is the housing market itself. For us older people for us to downsize, very few of us can buy another place without going back into debt again or using our retirement super so we can be mortgage free.
Yes, our house's value may have increase way beyond our first investment but to buy a smaller place or go into a retirement village or even a nursing home in most cases costs more than what we received by selling our larger home.
Example: - selling your larger 3+ bedroom home with a good yard size to buy a 1- or 2-bedroom home with little to no yard costs about the same (if not more) than what your you sold your family home for. The only time this isn't true is when we sell our home in the city and move way out west into the countryside. Away from family & friends and our way of life.

So, in the end we are not better off other than less yard/house size to maintain.
So, bugger off to everyone who say's I'm being selfish in keeping my larger home for a 1 or 2 people to live in.

 

[darrellh]

Our biggest problem is the housing market itself. For us older people for us to downsize, very few of us can buy another place without going back into debt again or using our retirement super so we can be mortgage free.
Yes, our house's value may have increase way beyond our first investment but to buy a smaller place or go into a retirement village or even a nursing home in most cases costs more than what we received by selling our larger home.
Example: - selling your larger 3+ bedroom home with a good yard size to buy a 1- or 2-bedroom home with little to no yard costs about the same (if not more) than what your you sold your family home for. The only time this isn't true is when we sell our home in the city and move way out west into the countryside. Away from family & friends and our way of life.

So, in the end we are not better off other than less yard/house size to maintain.
So, bugger off to everyone who say's I'm being selfish in keeping my larger home for a 1 or 2 people to live in.

And on top of all the above I feel safe in my home with the extras we have put in, know the neighbours, the area and it has everything I need in close proximity as I age and may not be able to get around so easily. All my friends and hobbies etc are handy so it's not a simple solution to just sell and buy something smaller. All the smaller homes in my area are cheap crap built by Niche living which I would not touch with a barge pole. They look cheap and nasty and will not stand the test of time .

 

[mylittletibbies]

Our biggest problem is the housing market itself. For us older people for us to downsize, very few of us can buy another place without going back into debt again or using our retirement super so we can be mortgage free.
Yes, our house's value may have increase way beyond our first investment but to buy a smaller place or go into a retirement village or even a nursing home in most cases costs more than what we received by selling our larger home.
Example: - selling your larger 3+ bedroom home with a good yard size to buy a 1- or 2-bedroom home with little to no yard costs about the same (if not more) than what your you sold your family home for. The only time this isn't true is when we sell our home in the city and move out west into the countryside. Away from family & friends and our way of life.

So, in the end we are not better off other than less yard/house size to maintain.
So, bugger off to everyone who say's I'm being selfish in keeping my larger home for a 1 or 2 people to live in.

Everyone is different.
I happily sold my city home and moved to the country .
Country people are very friendly and it was easy to make new friends.
Neighbours came and introduced themselves within days. I've never known that to happen in the city.
I still see plenty of my city friends. I go and visit them, they come and stay for a while. Some of them I now see more of than when I lived in the city.
The major bonus was that I now have a substantial nest egg to boost my income
and as I live in WA I also get the $675/year fuel card for country residents.
Best move I ever made .

 

[Catherines]

Our biggest problem is the housing market itself. For us older people for us to downsize, very few of us can buy another place without going back into debt again or using our retirement super so we can be mortgage free.
Yes, our house's value may have increase way beyond our first investment but to buy a smaller place or go into a retirement village or even a nursing home in most cases costs more than what we received by selling our larger home.
Example: - selling your larger 3+ bedroom home with a good yard size to buy a 1- or 2-bedroom home with little to no yard costs about the same (if not more) than what your you sold your family home for. The only time this isn't true is when we sell our home in the city and move way out west into the countryside. Away from family & friends and our way of life.

So, in the end we are not better off other than less yard/house size to maintain.
So, bugger off to everyone who say's I'm being selfish in keeping my larger home for a 1 or 2 people to live in.

I agree with what you’ve said. It’s now not a ‘size’ value any more; down-sizing isn’t necessarily going to give you extra money in your hands.

My husband & I are fortunate to have owned our 4-bedroom low-set brick home outright since early 1990. Our 3 children had left home by the late 90s and we’ve stayed in this bigger place since. We do not wish to move to a smaller place at this stage of our lives and lose money doing so. If there was a guarantee by the government that we can get inch for inch $ value in the same area there might be something to consider. But, as we all know, that’s not how the property market works and that’s not how the money market works. Besides there’s commission, moving costs and other loss in the selling and buying of a place.

So we intend to stay put where we are whether or not anyone thinks 2 people living in a big house is selfish or is damaging the property market. We have all amenities within close proximity - shops (3 major supermarkets), bus, train, church - and as time advances our disabilities/mobilities we can get a taxi for the less than 1 kilometre distance to all of these. Our doctor is also on a train line and just 3 stations away. Staying put.

 

[mylittletibbies]

I agree with what you’ve said. It’s now not a ‘size’ value any more; down-sizing isn’t necessarily going to give you extra money in your hands.

My husband & I are fortunate to have owned our 4-bedroom low-set brick home outright since early 1990. Our 3 children had left home by the late 90s and we’ve stayed in this bigger place since. We do not wish to move to a smaller place at this stage of our lives and lose money doing so. If there was a guarantee by the government that we can get inch for inch $ value in the same area there might be something to consider. But, as we all know, that’s not how the property market works and that’s not how the money market works. Besides there’s commission, moving costs and other loss in the selling and buying of a place.

So we intend to stay put where we are whether or not anyone thinks 2 people living in a big house is selfish or is damaging the property market. We have all amenities within close proximity - shops (3 major supermarkets), bus, train, church - and as time advances our disabilities/mobilities we can get a taxi for the less than 1 kilometre distance to all of these. Our doctor is also on a train line and just 3 stations away. Staying put.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree.

My husband and I were in the business of flipping houses for many years and therefore did a large amount of property deals.

Unless you are trying to sell a 4x2 in not so good condition and upgrade to a newer upgraded smaller property there is a considerable difference between a 4x2 and a 3x1, or even a 3x2 although less difference here.

There are nice units or duplexes for reasonable prices. It all depends on what you are looking for.

Unfortunately yes, stamp duty is a big expense and if the government really want seniors to scale down then they should offer stamp duty exemption the same as they do to first home.buyers.
They should also offer an incentive, such as the first home buyers grant to any senior who downsizes to help compensate them for selling and moving expenses.

Anyone looking into selling could consider selling their property themselves, without an agent. It is quite simple really. Obviously you don't do the legal settlement yourself, but this is the cheapest part of selling your home.
Agents charge astronomical amounts for showing people through your home and doing some very simple paperwork.

I have shown many friends how to do this snd saved them a pretty penny.

Why is everything for the young who have not yet paid their dues, while senior's who have spent their lives paying taxes barely receive enough to live on.

Anyone who wishes to stay in their larger home should be entitled to without feeling any I pressure to have to move to suit the government's agenda.

 

[Ittybitty]

Our biggest problem is the housing market itself. For us older people for us to downsize, very few of us can buy another place without going back into debt again or using our retirement super so we can be mortgage free.
Yes, our house's value may have increase way beyond our first investment but to buy a smaller place or go into a retirement village or even a nursing home in most cases costs more than what we received by selling our larger home.
Example: - selling your larger 3+ bedroom home with a good yard size to buy a 1- or 2-bedroom home with little to no yard costs about the same (if not more) than what your you sold your family home for. The only time this isn't true is when we sell our home in the city and move way out west into the countryside. Away from family & friends and our way of life.

So, in the end we are not better off other than less yard/house size to maintain.
So, bugger off to everyone who say's I'm being selfish in keeping my larger home for a 1 or 2 people to live in.

Good point & usually going to a smaller place is in a complex you have corporate body fees which are expensive. The country is beautiful though. Your family would probably visit more.

 

[Still Ebby]

lf they keep letting all these people into the country and letting them buy several houses at a time there won't be any left for anybody. Houses in Hobart are around a million dollars now and Hobart full of people
Big mistake Albo you bloody idiot

 

[mylittletibbies]

Good point & usually going to a smaller place is in a complex you have corporate body fees which are expensive. The country is beautiful though. Your family would probably visit more.

That is true. Family and friends are seen more often when you are living in the country.
Everyone likes a free holiday, lol

 

[Vio Kot]

Everyone is different.
I happily sold my city home and moved to the country .
Country people are very friendly and it was easy to make new friends.
Neighbours came and introduced themselves within days. I've never known that to happen in the city.
I still see plenty of my city friends. I go and visit them, they come and stay for a while. Some of them I now see more of than when I lived in the city.
The major bonus was that I now have a substantial nest egg to boost my income
and as I live in WA I also get the $675/year fuel card for country residents.
Best move I ever made .

But that's the crunch it depends which state you live in, NSW and especially Sydney it's just ridiculous with the cost of everything

 

[mylittletibbies]

But that's the crunch it depends which state you live in, NSW and especially Sydney it's just ridiculous with the cost of everything

I heard on the news just recently that Perth has now surpassed all states.
It's hard to believe that 50 years ago when I moved here from Victoria we sold our Country cottage and were able to pay cash here for a brand new much bigger home.
In those days you could buy two homes here for the price of one in Victoria.
Unfortunately interstate investors have pushed the prices up here forcing a lot of first home buyers out of the market.

 

[Jennylolo]

Where I am now, I have everything about me within 5-20 mins, 10 supermarkets, medical and health treatments, other than when need to go 1/2 hour to hospital for a couple of specialists.

And my best buddy is a 4 min drive from me and she can't drive for a fused ankle.

Done upgrades here and now have paid off mortgage with inheritance. 5 min drive from 2 beaches and also a wetlands/reserve - air is fresh/clean, and area is quite open and lots of little parks/reserves.

I wouldn't want to move to a smaller place which will cost double what they were 13 years ago when I came here and half the size. I came from 8 sq housing trust to my current maybe 15 sq on a largish block so not with a neighbours wall against my fence. One room is becoming an art studio and another room for genealogy- so 3 beds is necessary.

When I can't care for myself it will be rural with a niece and her husband on a mixed farm/property. Done the country living a fair bit over my life. But happy where I am now.

 

[Rosi Gordon]

Good point & usually going to a smaller place is in a complex you have corporate body fees which are expensive. The country is beautiful though. Your family would probably visit more.

I'm in the process of getting ready to sell my 3 bedroom home plus yard to move into a 2 bed appartment and as you say there is body corporate fees but not having to pay for the mower man (I can no longer garden), no more house insurance and maintenance on an older house will cover the fees and give me a good nest egg to fall back on. I'm also looking at having more security living in an apartment.

 

[Jest]

WELL! IF ALBO HAD FULFILLED HIS PROMISE OF THOUSANDS OF HOMES BEING BUILT INSTEAD OF LYING AND NOT ONE BUILT WE WOULD NOT BE IN THIS MESS.
MIND YOU, HE IS THE WORLD'S BEST LIAR.

 

[Jest]

Our biggest problem is the housing market itself. For us older people for us to downsize, very few of us can buy another place without going back into debt again or using our retirement super so we can be mortgage free.
Yes, our house's value may have increase way beyond our first investment but to buy a smaller place or go into a retirement village or even a nursing home in most cases costs more than what we received by selling our larger home.
Example: - selling your larger 3+ bedroom home with a good yard size to buy a 1- or 2-bedroom home with little to no yard costs about the same (if not more) than what your you sold your family home for. The only time this isn't true is when we sell our home in the city and move way out west into the countryside. Away from family & friends and our way of life.

So, in the end we are not better off other than less yard/house size to maintain.
So, bugger off to everyone who say's I'm being selfish in keeping my larger home for a 1 or 2 people to live in.

YOU GO GIRL. WE ALSO RATTLE AROUND A 3+ LARGE HOME WITH A VERY LARGE SECTION. I AM NOT GIVING UP MY VIEWS TO SOMEONE ELSE JUST YET,

 

[mylittletibbies]

Not sticking up for Albo at all. But a lot of the problem, at least here in Perth is a lack of supplies and even more so, tradies to do the work.
A house behind me had been started when I moved to my home three and a half years ago and it's still not finished. Trades come and go with many months of inaction in between.
Our Premier has been advertising interstate, with very good incentives, for trades. Problem being where do you house them when they get here.
A good start would be to ban interstate investors from buying a property where a resident of that state is interested in the same property.
I recently went to look at a property for a friend. This property was a price that I considered high on bricks and mortar value, but reasonable considering the current state of the market.
The Agents had it listed for online auction (grrrr) and interstate investors pushed it up another $105,000, a ridiculous price that, in my opinion, was way over value considering it needed painting, new floor coverings, a new kitchen and bathroom.
Interstate investors don't care. They just rent it out as is for ridiculous rents.
At least now that Perth prices are up to eastern state prices they might stay in their own backyard. They've already ruined the market here, putting young people in a situation where they will be lucky if they can ever afford their own home.

 

[Knell]

Not sticking up for Albo at all. But a lot of the problem, at least here in Perth is a lack of supplies and even more so, tradies to do the work.
A house behind me had been started when I moved to my home three and a half years ago and it's still not finished. Trades come and go with many months of inaction in between.
Our Premier has been advertising interstate, with very good incentives, for trades. Problem being where do you house them when they get here.
A good start would be to ban interstate investors from buying a property where a resident of that state is interested in the same property.
I recently went to look at a property for a friend. This property was a price that I considered high on bricks and mortar value, but reasonable considering the current state of the market.
The Agents had it listed for online auction (grrrr) and interstate investors pushed it up another $105,000, a ridiculous price that, in my opinion, was way over value considering it needed painting, new floor coverings, a new kitchen and bathroom.
Interstate investors don't care. They just rent it out as is for ridiculous rents.
At least now that Perth prices are up to eastern state prices they might stay in their own backyard. They've already ruined the market here, putting young people in a situation where they will be lucky if they can ever afford their own home.

I thought the Govt. had recently put a temporary ban on foreign investment such as you speak of?

 

[Subduedshilo]

I heard on the news just recently that Perth has now surpassed all states.
It's hard to believe that 60 years ago when I moved here from Victoria we sold our Country cottage and were able to pay cash here for a brand new much bigger home.
In those days you could buy two homes here for the price of one in Victoria.
Unfortunately interstate investors have pushed the prices up here forcing a lot of first home buyers out of the market.

It is not just interstate investors that are the problem. Our biggest problem is foreign ownership.
I was reading the other day where it was suggested that all property owned by foreigners should be made to sell up within 2 years. fabulous! What is even better is that the buyer must be an Australian citizen. Now that is the smartest idea I have heard of in australia for years.
buy back what should never have been sold off shore in the first place.

 

[Veggiepatch]

lf they keep letting all these people into the country and letting them buy several houses at a time there won't be any left for anybody. Houses in Hobart are around a million dollars now and Hobart full of people
Big mistake Albo you bloody idiot

I didn't know that immigration started on 23 May 2022....

 

[Still Ebby]

I thought the Govt. had recently put a temporary ban on foreign investment such as you speak of?

Too late the damage is done

---