Older Australians are also hurting from the housing crisis. Where are the election policies to help them?

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.


Homelessness 1.PNG
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.


Denmark Housing.PNG
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.
 

Seniors Discount Club

Sponsored content

Info
Loading data . . .
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 agree we need to stop bringing in more people until we have housing and infrastructure for the people already here. There won’t be many houses built here in QLD because all the builders etc will be working on the Olympic Games buildings. Also if prices of every damn thing doesn’t stop going up and up there will be an awful lot more homeless people up here.
 
Allowing 1.5 million immigrants into the country in 3 years has also driven up the housing shortage. Not only that, but those 1.5 million people also put stress on our services. Not just hospitals schools and housing, but traffic, food supply, and ongoing government support, to name just a few problems. If we can't house our own people, why are we compounding the problem by supplying housing to others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Still Ebby
Allowing 1.5 million immigrants into the country in 3 years has also driven up the housing shortage. Not only that, but those 1.5 million people also put stress on our services. Not just hospitals schools and housing, but traffic, food supply, and ongoing government support, to name just a few problems. If we can't house our own people, why are we compounding the problem by supplying housing to others.
Where did you get this mythical figure from?

Divide it by three and you would be closer to the mark!
 
  • Like
Reactions: PattiB
lf you type it in you will see it is actually 1.15 million he has let into the country the highest number in a a single government
I will rely on my official source thank you. Here are the immigration figures from data.gov.au.

For the year 2021-22: 143556
For the year 2022-23: 195004
For the year 2023-24: 190000

A grand total of 528560. A far cry from 1.15 million!

You can view the data in the link I provided in a previous post of mine, post #26 to be exact. It is in an Excel spreadsheet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PattiB
I will rely on my official source thank you. Here are the immigration figures from data.gov.au.

For the year 2021-22: 143556
For the year 2022-23: 195004
For the year 2023-24: 190000

A grand total of 528560. A far cry from 1.15 million!

You can view the data in the link I provided in a previous post of mine, post #26 to be exact. It is in an Excel spreadsheet.
Well l have just typed in again '''How many immigrants has Albanese let into the country '' and that is what it came up with .So l will stick with that .l'm quite willing to say if l am wrong but l'm not.
Not worth falling out over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marni
Well l have just typed in again '''How many immigrants has Albanese let into the country '' and that is what it came up with .So l will stick with that .l'm quite willing to say if l am wrong but l'm not.
Not worth falling out over.
Typed in your suggested Google search terms and what I got was a bunch of propaganda, misinformation and conjecture from sites such as Dutton's Facebook page and interviews from LNP Shadow Minister Taylor and Nationals Leader Littleproud (to be of).

All politicians make up facts as they go to suit their own agendas.
 
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 .
Yes we moved to a leisure village near our children. The way it works here is so much friendlier than city living. Scared of the cost of nursing homes in the future
 
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.
We found the incentive of allowing $300,000 to be put into super a great idea. We now benefit of tax free income
 
  • Like
Reactions: mylittletibbies
Is that true…..do lesser parties actually sell any votes they get, to one or the other main parties :oops:
yes they get about $3 for every vote
also when we vote the vote become preferential
voting is number 1 first then the rest
1 gets first vote number 2 gets second vote etc. if more people vote for number 2 or 3,4,5,6they then become prefferential votes and major parties can buy them from the lesser parties
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miss Chris

Join the conversation

News, deals, games, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.

Seniors Discount Club

The SDC searches for the best deals, discounts, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.
  1. New members
  2. Jokes & fun
  3. Photography
  4. Nostalgia / Yesterday's Australia
  5. Food and Lifestyle
  6. Money Saving Hacks
  7. Offtopic / Everything else
  • We believe that retirement should be a time to relax and enjoy life, not worry about money. That's why we're here to help our members make the most of their retirement years. If you're over 60 and looking for ways to save money, connect with others, and have a laugh, we’d love to have you aboard.
  • Advertise with us

User Menu

Enjoyed Reading our Story?

  • Share this forum to your loved ones.
Change Weather Postcode×
Change Petrol Postcode×