GRICE, Mr Chris, Chief Executive Officer, National Seniors Australia SMITH, Mr Luke, Policy and Engagement Advisor, National Seniors Australia [14:35] CHAIR: I now welcome representatives from National Seniors Australia to come forward. I understand that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses giving evidence to committees has been provided to you. It's lovely to have you here in person. Thanks for making that effort. I now invite you to make a short opening statement. At the conclusion of any remarks, we'll come back to you with any questions. Thank you for your submission also. Mr Grice : National Seniors Australia is a peak consumer body representing older Australians. In our submission, we expressed a hope that the committee would take a broad view of the issue of intergenerational housing equity. In our view, 'intergenerational' is the wrong framing to consider housing inequity. Housing inequity exists between generations but also within generations. We are increasingly seeing people approach and enter retirement, if they can afford to retire, without a home or still with a mortgage; yet the retirement income system, including the age pension, is predicated on people owning their home outright. Increasingly, this is also the case for aged care and health systems. In recent years we've seen changes that mean seniors will pay more for aged care and pay more for health care. We encourage people to consider when they are seeing housing wealth to realise that there are a number of demands already put on what we describe as retirement savings. The latest available tax office statistics have the median superannuation balance for someone aged 65 to 69 at $208,143. This means that their home, if they have one, would likely be their greatest asset, but this does not make it an unlimited source of funds. The government increased the amount an aged-care provider can charge for a residential care place from $550,000 to an indexed amount of $750,000 with higher rates allowed on approval on top of other fees and contributions. Many people are now asked to pay co-contributions for in-home aged care of up to 80 per cent. Last month the government announced that price caps, which were originally meant to apply when changes commenced, are indefinitely delayed. Current prices for people holding top-level private health insurance hospital cover, which covers joint replacements from age 65 to 75, would cost over $93,000 at current prices. This is before the annual premium increases or the annual and proposed rebate reductions. This is what success in retirement looks like currently in Australia—not luxury, but choice of care received. In looking for the cause of inequity, we suggest the committee look at decisions that have been made by government over decades. As set out in the submission, too often governments have turned to putting debt on younger people to make cheap fixes to complex problems. Expanding the five per cent home deposits may sound good at first, but they come with higher interest rates, higher repayments, longer terms and higher risks. Job-ready Graduates is just marketing for putting more university debt on people who haven't even started their careers. With some degrees costing over $70,000, this could be the largest debt that someone takes on after a mortgage and done at an early stage of their life and without the consumer protections required for other forms of debt. This debt can have lifelong impacts from borrowing for a home and into retirement. We may not see the full impact of these decisions for 50 years. Constrained supplier and higher building costs will mean bigger and less affordable mortgages. Since the end of 2019, the ABS has put inputs for house construction material prices up almost 39 per cent. Just in 2021 and 2022, costs were up almost 28 per cent. At first, this looks like it could be because of COVID, but this doesn't explain why costs didn't start going up until 2021. We suggest it's because of the infrastructure spending by the state and federal governments as they tried to boost the economy coming out of lockdowns, but this spending increased demand for materials and labour, pushing up prices and likely crowding out home construction. Consider that the 2020 Australian Infrastructure Budget Monitor had infrastructure spending of $225 billion over the forward estimates, which is approximately, as they noted, the equivalent of a Western Sydney airport every month. Much of this was for transport infrastructure, such as the Sydney Metro, Victorian Big Build and the Queensland Cross River Rail. Infrastructure is necessary, but at a time of constraints on material, labour and finance, budgets are a matter of choices. All of these shovel-ready projects have flow-on consequences. Money spent on infrastructure reduces the available funding for health and aged care, leading to rationing. While a new road gets a ribbon cutting, this isn't the case for a Support at Home aged-care package for which over 100,000 people are still waiting. While this infrastructure spending would have had economic benefits, as data centre building is currently, this comes at a cost, and AI cannot build a house. As we noted in our submission, there are nationwide shortages of many construction workers. Though existing and planned infrastructure spending wasn't limited to New South Wales or Victoria, Brisbane, where we are today, won the bid for the 2032 Olympics in mid-2021. But COVID saw the trend of over 1,000 new hotel rooms a year; in greater Brisbane, hotel rooms dropped to zero, putting Brisbane behind on the forecast requirement for the 2032 Olympics—future construction demand which will compete for workforce and resources. A lack of hotel rooms could shift long-term rental properties into being short-term Airbnb-style accommodation. Rents have also increased, up 28.6 per cent in capital cities between June 2018 and April 2025, according to ABS. PropTrack has rental affordability at the worst since 2008. While availability is down, rental vacancies reached a new low of 1.47 per cent in late 2025, down from the pre-COVID average of 3.3 per cent. Anglicare, in their Rental Affordability Snapshot, found that 0.3 per cent of rentals were affordable for a single person on the age pension in March 2025. Natural disasters place increased pressure on housing supply. For each property destroyed, this is a loss of two from the housing supply because those people still need to find somewhere to live, and resources which could build new homes are required to rebuild new ones instead. Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred led to over $900 million of personal building claims. Even without direct impact, people can face substantial insurance premium increases because houses are having to be built in high-risk areas. There are three things that the committee could consider to improve intergenerational equity. For early in life, reconsider how much debt the current HECS-HELP system places on younger people and, if nothing else, there should be a financial services guide or a product disclosure statement in place for someone taking on HECS debt. Then the government could consider encouraging 10-year fixed rate home loans for first home buyers to support them in the early years of a mortgage and then, for later in life, bring forward the review of residential aged-care refundable deposits, which is due in 2030, to investigate how capital costs for aged-care places are funded. We welcome any questions of the committee. CHAIR: I want to start with your suggestion that it isn't an intergenerational crisis so much as a broader crisis. I completely understand why that is an important point that you make. I don't think this inquiry will be assisted by a duelling struggle over who is the most disadvantaged and whether it's really intergenerational. It's clearly very complicated, but I want to put it to you that there are certain fundamental things that have changed for young people. We got the Parliamentary Library, for example, to look at a couple of those indicators. I'm sure you won't argue with me about the price of a home. We're looking at three generations: boomers, gen X and gen Y. Average rent for those three generations at midpoint in their thirties when they were looking at renting has gone from $149 a week for that boomer through to $521 now for a gen Y. It's a massive change in your rental picture if you're young. We know the mortgage picture; it's huge. It now takes many more years to save an average kind of deposit. For a boomer, it was five years; it's now 10 for a gen Y. Then, of course, there are home ownership rates for the three generations, which are also very different. I'm really glad that you've raised HECS, because I think it's very important. If we look at the average HECS, which we've got people to look at, too, across the generations, the average HECS for people as they approach mortgage is something like $30,000. I don't know if my eye will get to it quickly enough. You mentioned it can be up to $70,000. I think that's really important, too. Young people come to the position of trying to buy a home now with a sizeable debt, on average; certainly it is probably close to 30. They come to it with a very different labour market experience—less job security, and of course the prospect of AI. We don't know how that's going to pan out, but it's not looking all that fabulous if you're a 30-year-old professional who trained in coding. Then, of course, they are coming to rent or to buy. I think there are some fundamental things there. Do you concede that's real? Of course, that is not denying the very significant issues there for older Australians as well. Mr Grice : The older cohort is competing in that same system, and there are a significant number of older Australians who are still continuing to rent. National Seniors is very concerned over the horizon in terms of the impact that the housing situation is causing today, but also what it will cause tomorrow for those young people as they move through life. In the submission, we say of the system as it sits at the moment in terms of the retirement system and the aged-care system that a fundamental component around those systems is that you are in a fortunate position to be able to own your own home. Quite often, the Intergenerational Report gets quoted around that these are the things that emerging over the next 30-40 years. We're looking at it today because we're worried about someone in 30 or 40 years time if they start this process loaded up with debt. Sometimes that's debt for degrees they may not even continue to translate into a career. They have that debt and so what does that mean in terms of slowing down their capacity to participate in the housing market because of the deposits they need? Then if they can't participate in terms of home ownership, they can't age in place when they get much older. It would be a frightful situation to see a significant number of 75- or 80-year-olds—because our life expectancy is growing—who do not have security of tenure insofar as being able to age in place in their own home. Clearly we're not building enough residential aged care, so you could argue, 'No worries. We'll put them to residential aged care.' Again, from a residential aged-care perspective and funding a bed or funding a room, it requires home ownership because of the whole refundable accommodation deposits that are required. You can see how they're sort of intertwined. We're very concerned for the younger folk of today and what their future will look like. People might say, 'Hang on, why is this a seniors issue?' We are concerned for those young people today who will be the seniors of tomorrow. CHAIR: They're playing out the life course in terms of their asset ownership and insecurity? Mr Grice : Yes, exactly. That's the piece that we're particularly worried about. CHAIR: In your submission, you refer to the first home buyer scheme in particular, and I wanted to ask you some questions about that. You examined the risk of these schemes and how they 'increase debt risk for first home buyers and inflate property prices'. Of course, they're also very meaningful assistance for some who use them. Mr Grice : Yes. CHAIR: You cite AHURI research that shows that such schemes have tended to result in higher house prices, largely benefiting people who already own homes. Can you expand on that? Mr Grice : If I may, that is worthy and has merit absolutely of schemes of this type. That's undeniable. The thing is—pardon my expression—the sugar rush that comes with it. In a perfect situation when you've got interest rates that remain stable and cost of living and an inflation that's under control, that's something that can be managed for a younger person in terms of home ownership. However, when you have these outside influences, that's the piece that in particular we're concerned about. We got you going, we got you started, but that's only a small percentage of the real story; our concern is we've got to keep them in that home. That's the most important piece. That's significant and that's why we included it in there. Mr Smith : That research is primarily about the existing direct grants, rather than some of the newer schemes in place and the effect of how do you make something more affordable through giving people more money to spend on it? It's a complicated problem. There are no easy solutions here. It's good to get people into a home, but we want people to stay in the home throughout their life, and take that home into retirement because of the detrimental effects renting or not having a home into retirement can have given our current settings. CHAIR: Are there things you think should be done, other than feeding demand, to make the housing market more genuinely affordable for young people? Are there ideas you would bring to the table on that front? Mr Grice : In the opening statement, we looked at whether there is a way that, potentially, government could participate where loans are at a fixed rate? CHAIR: Yes, I was interested in that. Mr Grice : When someone is younger, they're developing their career and they're finding their feet, we can't have shocks for them. They could lose their job and what have you. More often than not, they can be in situations where, from a transport perspective, they're outside the CBD-type areas. They may have a car loan and some are in a precarious position. They need to at least have that stability in place for a prolonged period. I'm sure economists will do the numbers and work out the viability, but we see in other parts of the world fixed rates, long-terms—30 years. We're not suggesting that because of how that could have a detrimental impact on the broader economy, existing borrowers and what have you. In a more sustainable sense, can there be longer term fixed rates for loans? CHAIR: The US have a 30-year product, don't they? Mr Grice : They do. CHAIR: Have you done any costings on that at all yourselves, or are you just thinking that's something we should be thinking about here? Mr Grice : Yes, we think that's something that should be at least considered and might be socialised, but it might be ruled out. We think that, to get some long-term traction for younger people, they need that upfront help, and then let's help them stay in that home. CHAIR: Without the risks of a larger loan, for example, but you would still be feeding supply and changing who's bidding and perhaps giving an advantage to a first home buyer. Mr Grice : Yes. CHAIR: That's something we should definitely take up with the banks as a potential idea. Mr Grice : Yes. CHAIR: You raised points about older renters, which I absolutely concede and see the argument there. You refer to Anglicare's rental snapshot. As you said in your contribution, only 0.2 per cent of rentals are affordable for someone on a single age pension. What do you think we need to do in the rental market for all Australians, including those on the age pension? We've had propositions put to us, for example, about stabilising rents, relating them to CPI, and having longer periods of lease. What's your thinking about rentals? Mr Grice : They have been shared previously and we think that they're worthy. If nothing else, Commonwealth Rent Assistance absolutely needs to be reviewed because it is not keeping pace with rents that are currently across the country. This isn't a city versus regions type of thing; it's happening everywhere the length and breadth of the country—the uncertainty that comes in the rental market. CHAIR: Senator Brown. Senator CAROL BROWN: A lot of my questions have been answered, and I thank the chair for her forensic questioning. I do want to go back to, in your view, what policy changes and reforms would have the biggest impact in improving housing outcomes? You just mentioned a review of the Commonwealth Rent Assistance, but it would be interesting to know National Seniors' view about what you think it is that government needs to do—either continue to do or implement differently as policy? Mr Grice : Whilst it might sound simplistic or whatever, I think this is something that requires local, state and federal governments to be unified on this—maybe it's oversensationalised—crisis in terms of housing. As an observer, we do see that there—and whichever colour—is always this particular state versus federal, 'No, that's a state issue. No, that's a federal issue.' This something that requires a unified approach to get a solution. That's the piece on which we really need to get people around the table and in a genuine sense to come up with, 'How do we solve this?' Clearly there are workforce challenges, as I mentioned in my opening statement, around these massive infrastructure projects. They're important for the nation, but there's choices that we've made. We're saying we're going to build those big projects, but that means we take workers out of the system that would otherwise build houses. Local government do planning and state government has a role to do with planning. We need to have the three levels of government working together on this particular issue. Senator CAROL BROWN: There's a number of decisions that the federal government has made, particularly around skills, but also around planning and construction. Personally, having the federal, state and local governments singing from the same song sheet is something that I think needs to happen, too. It's just joining those dots. I'm sure you understand it's not always an easy thing to do. Mr Grice : Yes. It wasn't that long ago that I think in nearly every state in the country there was an alignment between federal government and state government in terms of the same party, and still there wasn't agreement even though they were on the same side. We get that; we understand it. I think an important point to be made is particularly there's a lot of hope directed at the older cohort that they need to downsize, that they've just got to get out of these big homes and get into smaller places. The challenge is that the stock, as it were, is just not available. More often than not it's not downsizing; what's being proposed is upsizing. Whilst developers may be building properties, they are high-end-style properties. Whether they're penthouse apartments or not, they're developments that are expensive. This decision that, let's say, an older person might make in terms of, 'It makes sense for me to get into something that's much more practical'—in terms of the cost they can't move to something which is described as downsizing, because they're paying a lot more. Then remember that, regarding our aged-care system and healthcare system, to be self-sufficient now requires their own savings. There was a time when you could say the whole idea was, if you had a larger home, you could downsize, you could move into something more fit for purpose to allow you to age in place and you might have had a bit of money left over. You had a little chunk of money, and that chunk of money would go towards your future aged-care costs or your future healthcare costs to remain in the private health system. That now doesn't happen; it can't happen in a generalised sense. In some respects we have to take the solution of 'We'll just get all these older people to downsize and then suddenly we'll create all of these opportunities for younger people to move into homes'—it's just not there. We just don't have enough appropriate stock, nor do we have across-the-board enough homes being constructed that are appropriate. Like I said in the submission, you just need a major event. Queensland is at the epicentre of things that happen, the federal government and the state government were involved, there was a big tick on that and there were buybacks. Something like 800 properties, in round numbers, were impacted. That 800 becomes 1,600 because the 800 is gone and those people then have to move into something else. When Queensland has these weather events it can have a significant impact on housing. We can take into account what we're now seeing regarding people who lived in caravan parks. It is fantastic for low cost, but because we're not building enough hotels, we now need those caravan park sites for holiday-makers. They then turf out the long-term affordable accommodation tenants, and where do they go? I think that goes to the last session and those people who are unfortunate homeless folk. You'll probably find there would be a big chunk of those who were probably in that style of situation. There's a segment that's been removed from the system, in some respects. I hope that helps. Senator CAROL BROWN: Has National Seniors done any work in the private rental market for seniors who are approaching retirement or retired who are looking for social housing? In Tasmania we call it public housing. Mr Grice : It's more of a general but not a specific piece of research on that particular issue. We do get absolutely people who come to us expressing their concerns with issues. In that connection we do get a lot of people providing feedback to us around their concerns about what their retirement looks like because of the amount of their mortgage they still have. Is their retirement actually affordable and is their housing situation secure, because they still have this significant amount of debt? Like it or not we still have challenges in Australia around mature-age workers and, not to be too harsh, ageism that can occur in employment practices. That really starts to be a problem for people; it compounds if they're renting or they still have a big mortgage as they're moving into retirement. There's also AI, as mentioned before. These sorts of things are all considerations. There are a few things. It's something that we could certainly turn our attention to. It might take a bit of time for that to work through, but it's certainly something that we'll make a note of, trying to collect that sort of data. Senator CAROL BROWN: If you do some work in that area, I would be very happy to be informed about it. Senator MULHOLLAND: I guess my take from reading your submission is it's important for our committee to recognise that younger Australians are struggling to enter the housing market but older Australians are also experiencing housing insecurity. That's something for us to obviously be aware of and reflect on in our report. CHAIR: Thanks, both of you, for your evidence today. It's much appreciated. There were also very insightful and useful recommendations. The committee has agreed responses to any questions on notice should be provided within two weeks of you getting the Hansard transcript. Thanks so much for your time and for your submission. Proceedings suspended from 15:05 to 15:16 .