More households want to go full electric but lack spark
But many Australians remain confused about efficiency ratings and potential savings from energy upgrades, and those aged over 35 are more likely to take action.
Origin Energy and the REA Group revealed the findings from the second PropTrack Origin Australian Home Energy Report on Wednesday, which also found efficient lighting and solar panels were among the most popular ways to save energy.
The report comes after the re-elected Labor government committed $2.3 billion to cut the price of solar batteries by 30 per cent, although renewable energy groups say the program could cast a wider net.
The research, which surveyed more than 4800 Australians, found more than half (56 per cent) planned to improve their home's energy efficiency in the next five years, and 40 per cent would consider an all-electric household upgrade.
The number of people who would not consider disconnecting gas and swapping to electricity also fell from 31 per cent in 2024 to 28 per cent.
But the study also identified widespread confusion, with two in five reporting they did not know how to improve their household's energy efficiency and most respondents (71 per cent) saying they were unfamiliar with the
Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme
.
People who were confident about energy-efficient upgrades were more likely to invest in them, REA Group senior economist Eleanor Creagh said, indicating greater education was needed.
"It does clearly highlight there's a gap in consumer knowledge, not just around rating systems but also around many energy-related terms," she told AAP.
"Those who did respond that they had a good grasp of those key terms, they were significantly more likely to have made upgrades, to have shifted energy behaviours, to plan further energy improvements, and to have higher projected budgets."
The study also found most households (70 per cent) had tried to reduce energy use and Australians aged over 35 were more likely to invest in energy upgrades.
Efficient lighting and solar power were the most popular energy upgrades, while glazed windows and home batteries were among the least popular, but Ms Creagh said that could shift with financial incentives from state and federal governments.
"Financial motivations were behind a lot of the decisions people were making in terms of energy-efficient upgrades in the home," she said.
Interest in home batteries had already started to soar after the incoming Labor government's commitment to reduce their cost by 30 per cent from July, Solar Citizens Heidi Lee Douglas said.
But the scheme should be extended to more households, she said, to ensure the greatest benefit.
"People in apartments and people in rental (homes) might feel like they're locked out of batteries," she said.
"We'll be putting pressure on Labor to come up with policies that support electrification and rooftop renewables for the rest of Australia."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
8 minutes ago
- The Age
The act of bastardry that's hurting young generations
So post-tax income and pension payments have gone up relative to the overall population, but not all parts of the population. Older Australians have a post-tax income one-third higher than someone aged between 18 and 30. They used to be around the same. The change has been caused by more tax on the younger cohort and less tax (and larger income streams) for the older bunch. Before the turn of the century, retirees received relatively little in the way of income, relying largely on the age pension to get by. Superannuation was created to ensure older people did not have to rely on government support. It was all aimed at giving retirees dignity in their later years. But along the way, it's gone way beyond dignity. In too many cases, it's become estate planning, tax management or wealth transference. The average 60-ish retiree drawing tax-free income from their super plus a bit of the age pension is getting the same income as an average working 40-year-old. But the spending pressures on a retiree and someone in their early 40s are very different. The retiree doesn't face the 'pressures of saving for the future or supporting a growing family'. They've probably paid off their mortgage while they spend far less than someone of working age. One of those saving pressures is finding a deposit for a home. In 1990, to buy a median-priced house in Sydney required almost seven times the median income. It's now more than 13 times the median income. That's a big factor in the collapse in home ownership among under-35s. That fall in ownership is one of the factors contributing to the drop-off in fertility rates among younger couples. We're asking younger Australians to pay huge amounts for their higher education, leaving many in debt for longer (another issue making it more difficult for this group of people to save for a deposit). Breunig and his team point out that we have a tax and welfare system which rewards people who move their wealth into income-generating low- or no-tax asset classes. About two-thirds of income is captured by the tax system. That's great if you have assets not attracting tax. But for those who don't, like most people under the age of 40, that translates into paying more tax. And that tax is probably going towards services (the health system, aged care) used by older Australians. This is why Breunig and his team believe the intergenerational contract is broken. 'The current tax and transfer system, with its growing obligations to the growing cohort of older Australians and shrinking resources from which to meet those obligations, is spiralling down and unsustainable,' they found. To resolve this problem, you could slash spending. The second-largest expense for the federal budget is the age pension, at $66 billion a year. That's followed by the NDIS ($51 billion), aged care services ($41 billion), medical benefits ($35 billion) and assistance to the states to run their hospitals ($34 billion). Loading The largest expense in the budget world is actually the GST at $101 billion, which goes straight out the door, mostly to fund state hospitals. Combined, that's about 40 per cent of the budget, much of which flows to the old, the sick, the disabled and the young. Another option is to increase taxes on older Australians. That would be the bunch of politically important voters who have managed to move the tax system in their favour over the past 30 years. The economic roundtable was all about finding ways to lift our nation's collective living standards while also fixing the budget bottom line. When it came to tax, the usual ideas such as company tax or the GST dominated discussion.
Sydney Morning Herald
8 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The act of bastardry that's hurting young generations
So post-tax income and pension payments have gone up relative to the overall population, but not all parts of the population. Older Australians have a post-tax income one-third higher than someone aged between 18 and 30. They used to be around the same. The change has been caused by more tax on the younger cohort and less tax (and larger income streams) for the older bunch. Before the turn of the century, retirees received relatively little in the way of income, relying largely on the age pension to get by. Superannuation was created to ensure older people did not have to rely on government support. It was all aimed at giving retirees dignity in their later years. But along the way, it's gone way beyond dignity. In too many cases, it's become estate planning, tax management or wealth transference. The average 60-ish retiree drawing tax-free income from their super plus a bit of the age pension is getting the same income as an average working 40-year-old. But the spending pressures on a retiree and someone in their early 40s are very different. The retiree doesn't face the 'pressures of saving for the future or supporting a growing family'. They've probably paid off their mortgage while they spend far less than someone of working age. One of those saving pressures is finding a deposit for a home. In 1990, to buy a median-priced house in Sydney required almost seven times the median income. It's now more than 13 times the median income. That's a big factor in the collapse in home ownership among under-35s. That fall in ownership is one of the factors contributing to the drop-off in fertility rates among younger couples. We're asking younger Australians to pay huge amounts for their higher education, leaving many in debt for longer (another issue making it more difficult for this group of people to save for a deposit). Breunig and his team point out that we have a tax and welfare system which rewards people who move their wealth into income-generating low- or no-tax asset classes. About two-thirds of income is captured by the tax system. That's great if you have assets not attracting tax. But for those who don't, like most people under the age of 40, that translates into paying more tax. And that tax is probably going towards services (the health system, aged care) used by older Australians. This is why Breunig and his team believe the intergenerational contract is broken. 'The current tax and transfer system, with its growing obligations to the growing cohort of older Australians and shrinking resources from which to meet those obligations, is spiralling down and unsustainable,' they found. To resolve this problem, you could slash spending. The second-largest expense for the federal budget is the age pension, at $66 billion a year. That's followed by the NDIS ($51 billion), aged care services ($41 billion), medical benefits ($35 billion) and assistance to the states to run their hospitals ($34 billion). Loading The largest expense in the budget world is actually the GST at $101 billion, which goes straight out the door, mostly to fund state hospitals. Combined, that's about 40 per cent of the budget, much of which flows to the old, the sick, the disabled and the young. Another option is to increase taxes on older Australians. That would be the bunch of politically important voters who have managed to move the tax system in their favour over the past 30 years. The economic roundtable was all about finding ways to lift our nation's collective living standards while also fixing the budget bottom line. When it came to tax, the usual ideas such as company tax or the GST dominated discussion.
The Advertiser
8 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Big homes, small families: the Aussie housing mismatch
Australian households are mostly one or two people but analysis shows the housing stock is dominated by three-and four-bedroom properties. Couples without kids and people living alone make up 61 per cent of households, raising the question of how well a housing market focused on bigger families is serving real demand. A comparison between the number of people in a household and data on housing by number of bedrooms shows a stark mismatch, according to the latest analysis from property research firm Cotality. Research head Eliza Owen said a potential solution could lie in government housing reform. Governments could make it more expensive to have more housing than needed, and cheaper for those who opt to live in smaller properties. Abolishing taxes such as stamp duty could make it cheaper for those to move across different housing and the introduction of a broad-based land tax would raise costs for those who owned more land. "It's politically unpopular but has broad consensus among economists that it would help us achieve a more efficient housing market," she told AAP. The data also highlights the high number of empty nester households of people aged 65 and over. "There's a lot of scope for older Australians to leave their homes to free up homes for younger generations," Ms Owen added. "But it's really hard to implement taxes to encourage people to downsize. "Things like broad-based land taxes are an incentive for income-poor but asset-rich Australians to downsize." Strides are already being taken on the supply side to establish well-located apartments in larger cities to accommodate smaller households, but shifting demand through tax reform could help the take-up of these homes. "It's a tough transition to make," Ms Owen said. "But it's also a really hard ask to young families to pay a million dollars to own a house in one of our major cities." Australian households are mostly one or two people but analysis shows the housing stock is dominated by three-and four-bedroom properties. Couples without kids and people living alone make up 61 per cent of households, raising the question of how well a housing market focused on bigger families is serving real demand. A comparison between the number of people in a household and data on housing by number of bedrooms shows a stark mismatch, according to the latest analysis from property research firm Cotality. Research head Eliza Owen said a potential solution could lie in government housing reform. Governments could make it more expensive to have more housing than needed, and cheaper for those who opt to live in smaller properties. Abolishing taxes such as stamp duty could make it cheaper for those to move across different housing and the introduction of a broad-based land tax would raise costs for those who owned more land. "It's politically unpopular but has broad consensus among economists that it would help us achieve a more efficient housing market," she told AAP. The data also highlights the high number of empty nester households of people aged 65 and over. "There's a lot of scope for older Australians to leave their homes to free up homes for younger generations," Ms Owen added. "But it's really hard to implement taxes to encourage people to downsize. "Things like broad-based land taxes are an incentive for income-poor but asset-rich Australians to downsize." Strides are already being taken on the supply side to establish well-located apartments in larger cities to accommodate smaller households, but shifting demand through tax reform could help the take-up of these homes. "It's a tough transition to make," Ms Owen said. "But it's also a really hard ask to young families to pay a million dollars to own a house in one of our major cities." Australian households are mostly one or two people but analysis shows the housing stock is dominated by three-and four-bedroom properties. Couples without kids and people living alone make up 61 per cent of households, raising the question of how well a housing market focused on bigger families is serving real demand. A comparison between the number of people in a household and data on housing by number of bedrooms shows a stark mismatch, according to the latest analysis from property research firm Cotality. Research head Eliza Owen said a potential solution could lie in government housing reform. Governments could make it more expensive to have more housing than needed, and cheaper for those who opt to live in smaller properties. Abolishing taxes such as stamp duty could make it cheaper for those to move across different housing and the introduction of a broad-based land tax would raise costs for those who owned more land. "It's politically unpopular but has broad consensus among economists that it would help us achieve a more efficient housing market," she told AAP. The data also highlights the high number of empty nester households of people aged 65 and over. "There's a lot of scope for older Australians to leave their homes to free up homes for younger generations," Ms Owen added. "But it's really hard to implement taxes to encourage people to downsize. "Things like broad-based land taxes are an incentive for income-poor but asset-rich Australians to downsize." Strides are already being taken on the supply side to establish well-located apartments in larger cities to accommodate smaller households, but shifting demand through tax reform could help the take-up of these homes. "It's a tough transition to make," Ms Owen said. "But it's also a really hard ask to young families to pay a million dollars to own a house in one of our major cities." Australian households are mostly one or two people but analysis shows the housing stock is dominated by three-and four-bedroom properties. Couples without kids and people living alone make up 61 per cent of households, raising the question of how well a housing market focused on bigger families is serving real demand. A comparison between the number of people in a household and data on housing by number of bedrooms shows a stark mismatch, according to the latest analysis from property research firm Cotality. Research head Eliza Owen said a potential solution could lie in government housing reform. Governments could make it more expensive to have more housing than needed, and cheaper for those who opt to live in smaller properties. Abolishing taxes such as stamp duty could make it cheaper for those to move across different housing and the introduction of a broad-based land tax would raise costs for those who owned more land. "It's politically unpopular but has broad consensus among economists that it would help us achieve a more efficient housing market," she told AAP. The data also highlights the high number of empty nester households of people aged 65 and over. "There's a lot of scope for older Australians to leave their homes to free up homes for younger generations," Ms Owen added. "But it's really hard to implement taxes to encourage people to downsize. "Things like broad-based land taxes are an incentive for income-poor but asset-rich Australians to downsize." Strides are already being taken on the supply side to establish well-located apartments in larger cities to accommodate smaller households, but shifting demand through tax reform could help the take-up of these homes. "It's a tough transition to make," Ms Owen said. "But it's also a really hard ask to young families to pay a million dollars to own a house in one of our major cities."
