Why I'm worried our retirement system isn't ready for us
As policymakers, captains of industry and economists prepare for this month's economic reform roundtable, much of the attention will focus on productivity, tax reform, and workforce participation.
But there are three areas that require immediate policy attention: the age pension assets test, Commonwealth ent assistance (CRA), and the growing backlog in the home care package system.
New research provides compelling evidence for reform across each of these domains.
First, the age pension assets test has no alignment with modern asset distributions.
It fails to account for the reality that many older Australians are "asset rich, cash poor" with significant equity tied up in the family home.
Under the current system, these individuals can access the pension while those with modest superannuation savings are penalised.
This creates two major inefficiencies. It discourages prudent saving and disincentivises "rightsizing" into more suitable housing.
Research shows the pension means test is a key structural barrier preventing seniors from moving into safer, more manageable homes.
Reforming the test to treat housing wealth more equitably - without unfairly penalising homeowners - could free up 60,000 homes nationally, increase mobility, and reduce long-term pension costs.
It's important to understand that over the past 30 years, capital city median house prices have increased by 600 per cent but over the same period the allowable assets to receive a full age pension have increased by only 178 per cent for a single home owner and 193 per cent for a couple.
This tells us that housing markets have evolved in recent years, yet the age pension practically remains frozen in time, meaning older Australians are left disadvantaged.
Second, CRA is no longer fit for purpose. Originally designed as a modest supplement, it has failed to keep pace with rent inflation or housing market changes - particularly in the private rental market and retirement villages. Older Australians who do not own their home are increasingly vulnerable to rental stress and homelessness, especially women over 55.
As Australia's aged population swells, demand for income support that truly reflects housing costs will only grow. So, reforming CRA isn't optional - it's essential if we're to stop it lingering as the policy relic it has become and restore fairness to our retirement system.
Finally, the backlog in home care packages continues to leave almost 100,000 older Australians without timely access to basic care.
Research shows that delayed access not only worsens health outcomes but also drives higher system costs through avoidable hospital admissions and premature entry into taxpayer-funded residential care.
This means accelerating access to home care is not merely a social good - it is fiscally prudent.
Australia's retirement systems were built for a bygone era. Reform isn't about slashing support - it's about re-targeting assistance to make it fairer, more efficient and sustainably fit for today's needs.
These are not fringe issues - they are core to Australia's economic future and Treasurer Jim Chalmers' roundtable must ensure they are on the agenda.
Any serious conversation about the long-term economic sustainability of our country must confront the design of Australia's retirement income and care systems - particularly how they interact with housing, income support, and aged care.
As policymakers, captains of industry and economists prepare for this month's economic reform roundtable, much of the attention will focus on productivity, tax reform, and workforce participation.
But there are three areas that require immediate policy attention: the age pension assets test, Commonwealth ent assistance (CRA), and the growing backlog in the home care package system.
New research provides compelling evidence for reform across each of these domains.
First, the age pension assets test has no alignment with modern asset distributions.
It fails to account for the reality that many older Australians are "asset rich, cash poor" with significant equity tied up in the family home.
Under the current system, these individuals can access the pension while those with modest superannuation savings are penalised.
This creates two major inefficiencies. It discourages prudent saving and disincentivises "rightsizing" into more suitable housing.
Research shows the pension means test is a key structural barrier preventing seniors from moving into safer, more manageable homes.
Reforming the test to treat housing wealth more equitably - without unfairly penalising homeowners - could free up 60,000 homes nationally, increase mobility, and reduce long-term pension costs.
It's important to understand that over the past 30 years, capital city median house prices have increased by 600 per cent but over the same period the allowable assets to receive a full age pension have increased by only 178 per cent for a single home owner and 193 per cent for a couple.
This tells us that housing markets have evolved in recent years, yet the age pension practically remains frozen in time, meaning older Australians are left disadvantaged.
Second, CRA is no longer fit for purpose. Originally designed as a modest supplement, it has failed to keep pace with rent inflation or housing market changes - particularly in the private rental market and retirement villages. Older Australians who do not own their home are increasingly vulnerable to rental stress and homelessness, especially women over 55.
As Australia's aged population swells, demand for income support that truly reflects housing costs will only grow. So, reforming CRA isn't optional - it's essential if we're to stop it lingering as the policy relic it has become and restore fairness to our retirement system.
Finally, the backlog in home care packages continues to leave almost 100,000 older Australians without timely access to basic care.
Research shows that delayed access not only worsens health outcomes but also drives higher system costs through avoidable hospital admissions and premature entry into taxpayer-funded residential care.
This means accelerating access to home care is not merely a social good - it is fiscally prudent.
Australia's retirement systems were built for a bygone era. Reform isn't about slashing support - it's about re-targeting assistance to make it fairer, more efficient and sustainably fit for today's needs.
These are not fringe issues - they are core to Australia's economic future and Treasurer Jim Chalmers' roundtable must ensure they are on the agenda.
Any serious conversation about the long-term economic sustainability of our country must confront the design of Australia's retirement income and care systems - particularly how they interact with housing, income support, and aged care.
As policymakers, captains of industry and economists prepare for this month's economic reform roundtable, much of the attention will focus on productivity, tax reform, and workforce participation.
But there are three areas that require immediate policy attention: the age pension assets test, Commonwealth ent assistance (CRA), and the growing backlog in the home care package system.
New research provides compelling evidence for reform across each of these domains.
First, the age pension assets test has no alignment with modern asset distributions.
It fails to account for the reality that many older Australians are "asset rich, cash poor" with significant equity tied up in the family home.
Under the current system, these individuals can access the pension while those with modest superannuation savings are penalised.
This creates two major inefficiencies. It discourages prudent saving and disincentivises "rightsizing" into more suitable housing.
Research shows the pension means test is a key structural barrier preventing seniors from moving into safer, more manageable homes.
Reforming the test to treat housing wealth more equitably - without unfairly penalising homeowners - could free up 60,000 homes nationally, increase mobility, and reduce long-term pension costs.
It's important to understand that over the past 30 years, capital city median house prices have increased by 600 per cent but over the same period the allowable assets to receive a full age pension have increased by only 178 per cent for a single home owner and 193 per cent for a couple.
This tells us that housing markets have evolved in recent years, yet the age pension practically remains frozen in time, meaning older Australians are left disadvantaged.
Second, CRA is no longer fit for purpose. Originally designed as a modest supplement, it has failed to keep pace with rent inflation or housing market changes - particularly in the private rental market and retirement villages. Older Australians who do not own their home are increasingly vulnerable to rental stress and homelessness, especially women over 55.
As Australia's aged population swells, demand for income support that truly reflects housing costs will only grow. So, reforming CRA isn't optional - it's essential if we're to stop it lingering as the policy relic it has become and restore fairness to our retirement system.
Finally, the backlog in home care packages continues to leave almost 100,000 older Australians without timely access to basic care.
Research shows that delayed access not only worsens health outcomes but also drives higher system costs through avoidable hospital admissions and premature entry into taxpayer-funded residential care.
This means accelerating access to home care is not merely a social good - it is fiscally prudent.
Australia's retirement systems were built for a bygone era. Reform isn't about slashing support - it's about re-targeting assistance to make it fairer, more efficient and sustainably fit for today's needs.
These are not fringe issues - they are core to Australia's economic future and Treasurer Jim Chalmers' roundtable must ensure they are on the agenda.
Any serious conversation about the long-term economic sustainability of our country must confront the design of Australia's retirement income and care systems - particularly how they interact with housing, income support, and aged care.
As policymakers, captains of industry and economists prepare for this month's economic reform roundtable, much of the attention will focus on productivity, tax reform, and workforce participation.
But there are three areas that require immediate policy attention: the age pension assets test, Commonwealth ent assistance (CRA), and the growing backlog in the home care package system.
New research provides compelling evidence for reform across each of these domains.
First, the age pension assets test has no alignment with modern asset distributions.
It fails to account for the reality that many older Australians are "asset rich, cash poor" with significant equity tied up in the family home.
Under the current system, these individuals can access the pension while those with modest superannuation savings are penalised.
This creates two major inefficiencies. It discourages prudent saving and disincentivises "rightsizing" into more suitable housing.
Research shows the pension means test is a key structural barrier preventing seniors from moving into safer, more manageable homes.
Reforming the test to treat housing wealth more equitably - without unfairly penalising homeowners - could free up 60,000 homes nationally, increase mobility, and reduce long-term pension costs.
It's important to understand that over the past 30 years, capital city median house prices have increased by 600 per cent but over the same period the allowable assets to receive a full age pension have increased by only 178 per cent for a single home owner and 193 per cent for a couple.
This tells us that housing markets have evolved in recent years, yet the age pension practically remains frozen in time, meaning older Australians are left disadvantaged.
Second, CRA is no longer fit for purpose. Originally designed as a modest supplement, it has failed to keep pace with rent inflation or housing market changes - particularly in the private rental market and retirement villages. Older Australians who do not own their home are increasingly vulnerable to rental stress and homelessness, especially women over 55.
As Australia's aged population swells, demand for income support that truly reflects housing costs will only grow. So, reforming CRA isn't optional - it's essential if we're to stop it lingering as the policy relic it has become and restore fairness to our retirement system.
Finally, the backlog in home care packages continues to leave almost 100,000 older Australians without timely access to basic care.
Research shows that delayed access not only worsens health outcomes but also drives higher system costs through avoidable hospital admissions and premature entry into taxpayer-funded residential care.
This means accelerating access to home care is not merely a social good - it is fiscally prudent.
Australia's retirement systems were built for a bygone era. Reform isn't about slashing support - it's about re-targeting assistance to make it fairer, more efficient and sustainably fit for today's needs.
These are not fringe issues - they are core to Australia's economic future and Treasurer Jim Chalmers' roundtable must ensure they are on the agenda.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
27 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Victoria is the nation's debt dunce but the competition is hotting up
Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan has previously indicated she is up for a conversation about how to broaden the tax base of states that don't have access to lucrative resource royalties. It may surprise some to learn that if you mention vertical fiscal imbalance, the premier can talk the leg off a chair. She also understands the urgency. Although a national agreement on health funding – the biggest expense items within her government's budget – commits the Commonwealth to eventually provide what the states consider a fair share, that day is still 10 years away. In the meantime, the state must find savings elsewhere or keep borrowing to make up the shortfall. This year the funding gap is $1.6 billion in a $22 billion health budget. (This column's earlier, unsolicited advice for the premier to dump her pet infrastructure project, the Suburban Rail Loop, has so far gone unheeded.) The state premiers didn't make it onto Chalmers' guest list and state/federal finances aren't on the agenda of his three-day powwow in Canberra next week. Eslake doesn't criticise these omissions from an already jam-packed roundtable program but he wonders how bad things need to get before Australia turns its mind to the thorny problem of rebalancing how money is spent and how revenue is raised across the Commonwealth. 'I think federal/state financial relations is an important issue, but I don't have a lot of company,' he laments. So, what exactly is this $900 billion elephant? According to the latest budget figures compiled by S&P Global Ratings, an international rating company that keeps a close eye on the fiscal position of the federal and state governments, this is the combined, gross debt of Australian states and territories forecast for the end of this decade. If we include the gross debt forecast to be on the federal government's own books by that stage, Australia's debt mountain will reach a $2.1 trillion base camp by June 30, 2029 along the way to a still unknown peak. Victoria, by its own budget figures, is the most indebted state in Australia. The $213 billion gross debt it has amassed as of July 1 this year represents nearly one third of the total debt currently owed by all states and territories combined. The best news for Victoria is that, in its push towards fiscal profligacy, it has some serious competition from Queensland and Tasmania. S&P lead analyst Martin Foo says while Victoria still has the weakest balance sheet of all state and territory governments, its raft of new property and payroll taxes unpopular with business has at least stabilised its fiscal position. 'We have pointed out consistently that a lot of the fiscal challenges Australia faces right now are at the state level, rather than federal level,' he says. 'Victoria has been the focus of attention for the last couple of years. Maybe it has flown under the radar a bit but some of the mid-sized and smaller states, particularly Tasmania and Queensland, are accumulating debt at a very rapid pace.' Eslake reckons his home state of Tasmania, which remains without a functioning government after two elections in the space of 15 months, already deserves Victoria's mantle as Australia's fiscal dunce. In 2019, Tasmania's gross debt was just $3.2 billion. That figure is forecast to treble this year and to increase more than six-fold from its pre-pandemic level by 2029. Loading Queensland is sharply accelerating the amount of debt it is taking on, with last year's figure of $106.6 billion forecast to nearly double by the end of the decade as the state prepares for the 2032 Olympics. Although these numbers look scarier the further you look into the future, the source of the problem is more immediate. The S&P figures show that in the last financial year, the states and territories posted a combined cash deficit of $55 billion.
Sydney Morning Herald
27 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
We've worked hard, got an education, found jobs. But it's not enough
Younger Australians have done what society told us to do. We've worked hard, got an education, and found jobs. Yet, that has not been enough for teachers, nurses, mechanics and countless other workers to achieve financial security. The social contract, the idea that a job is enough to feed and house a family, has been lost. A recent episode of the Diary of a CEO podcast highlighted a vital debate we need to have. It featured rockstar British economist Gary Stevenson and Daniel Priestley, an acclaimed Australian serial entrepreneur. The host, Steven Bartlett, asked both men what advice they would give to young people. Priestley suggested that we focus on entrepreneurship, as the digital economy offers incredible opportunities to create wealth. Stevenson disagreed, arguing that this advice is harmful because, if you can't get ahead, then it must be your fault. Instead, the economic problems we face are structural. Without reforming how our economy works, Stevenson argued, financial and business advice is like giving out stock tips on the Titanic. The most common story we do hear is the one promoted by Priestley, about individual financial success. It's pushed by social media finfluencers, tech bros, and self-help gurus who claim that the pathway to economic security is through speculative property investing, starting a dropshipping business, or investing in the latest cryptocurrency. Movements like 'girlboss' and 'quiet quitting' have sent the message that you have to save yourself in these tough economic times. The key to the social contract working, in whatever form, is that people feel their efforts are rewarded and that they believe the contract is fair. The contract, then, is hanging by a thread. The cultural dominance of individualism, however, perpetuates an economic system that is harming us. It means that avenues for collective action, such as union membership, political party involvement, and volunteering, are in decline. Policy debates pit winners against losers without considering what's best for everyone, and the government and its tax and transfer system are cast as a 'burden'. Loading In contrast, the postwar version of the social contract promoted the idea that, in return for contributing through work, care, and paying taxes, individuals had rights to essentials such as healthcare, housing, and employment security. You could find a stable job paying enough to feed and house your family, retire with a pension, and be assured that your children would have it better. A second version of the social contract was adopted in the 1980s and 1990s. It presented a more individualistic vision aimed at removing the 'shackles' of taxation and regulation. Tax rates on the wealthy were reduced, public services privatised and superannuation introduced to prioritise individual responsibility and private wealth accumulation.
Sydney Morning Herald
27 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Amazon launches its own ‘trusted' version of Temu in Australia. Here's what we know
'Consumers are increasingly looking for value; price is biggest driver of where consumers are shopping, coupled with an increased focus on discounts, researching online and deferring unnecessary purchases,' wrote respected retail analyst Ben Gilbert in a joint white paper with Shippit. 'We found a third of respondents' delivery expectations lifted in the past 12 months as a direct result of Amazon/Temu/Shein.' Retail consultant Trent Rigby said Haul's key differentiator would be fulfilment. 'Temu, Shein and Ali typically ship directly from Chinese manufacturers, whereas Amazon can leverage its established fulfilment infrastructure. That means Haul could, in theory, offer faster delivery, better customer service [although they're getting better, these Chinese marketplaces generally have pretty woeful customer service] and stronger product guarantees – addressing three major pain points for consumers with these low-cost marketplaces,' he said. Haul is Amazon's bid to capture the budget-conscious, younger customers who have flocked to Temu and Shein – if they get the experience right, he said. Loading 'The challenge will be matching the rock-bottom prices of these rivals while maintaining the delivery speed and trust that consumers expect from Amazon.' Temu was named by customer spending analytics platform Fonto as Australia's fastest-growing consumer retail brand for the 2025 financial year, winning more than 1.3 million new customers across the year. Cost of living pressures have also helped Shein and Temu capture greater market share in Australia, where 3.8 million customers have tried Temu at least once and 2 million customers have bought from Shein, according to Roy Morgan data. Together, Temu and Shein are expected to surpass $3 billion in sales. Coles and Woolworths have become increasingly threatened by Amazon's aggressive expansion. During the ACCC's supermarket inquiry, Coles chief Leah Weckert said the US giant was 'quite disruptive to our business model', while Woolworths chief Amanda Bardwell said Amazon now covered 40 per cent of what the supermarket sold. Gilbert described Amazon as a 'force to be reckoned with in Australia' and 'growing faster than we thought'. 'We estimate Amazon Australia, by gross merchandise value, is now larger than Accent Group, The Reject Shop, Beacon Lighting Group, Temple & Webster, Premier Investments and Universal Store combined,' Gilbert wrote in a note to clients issued in March last year. What's the catch? Australians will only be able to access Haul through the Amazon app – and only some customers will see the new feature, which is still in the beta phase and will be rolled out to remaining customers 'in coming days', the company said in a press release. Haul is not available on Amazon's website in any country. Amazon Haul was launched in November last year in the US, UK, Germany, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Mexico. To lure customers in, Amazon is adding a 60 per cent discount on all Haul items that will be applied at checkout for the first two weeks. But don't expect next-day delivery; since the products are being shipped from overseas, your Amazon Prime subscription will be useless as deliveries are slated to arrive 'in two weeks or less'. 'The products on offer via Amazon Haul are manufactured and shipped from abroad and sold by Amazon,' said Henley.
