Australia’s housing crisis is often described in broad terms: rising rents, falling affordability, a generation locked out of home ownership. But these averages can obscure a deeper truth. The crisis is not experienced equally, and women are bearing the brunt of it.
Each year, Anglicare Australia’s Rental Affordability Snapshot measures whether people on low incomes can afford to rent a home in the private market. This year, we analysed nearly 49,000 listings across the country.
What we found was stark. A person on JobSeeker could afford just one property nationwide. A young person on Youth Allowance could afford none. A single person on the Age Pension could afford barely more than zero percent of rentals. Even full-time work no longer guarantees access to housing. A single worker on the minimum wage can afford just less than one percent of listings.
These numbers are confronting on their own. But when we look at who is most likely to rely on these incomes, a clearer picture emerges. Women are overrepresented in almost every group that the rental market is failing.
They are more likely to be on lower incomes, to work part-time or in insecure jobs, and to take time out of the workforce for caring responsibilities. They are more likely to rely on income support, particularly as single parents, carers, or older Australians without superannuation to fall back on. And they are far more likely to enter retirement as renters.
For these women, the results of the Snapshot are not abstract. They reflect the daily reality of skipping meals to pay rent, staying in unsafe housing, or facing the constant threat of homelessness.
Older women are now the fastest-growing group at risk of homelessness in Australia. Many have spent years out of the workforce raising children or caring for others. When relationships break down or housing costs rise, they have little buffer to fall back on.
At the other end of the spectrum, young women are trying to study or enter the workforce while competing for a shrinking pool of affordable rentals. For those on Youth Allowance, the Snapshot shows there are simply no options available.
Single mothers face an even more constrained market. The costs of raising children reduce what they can afford to pay in rent, while suitable properties are harder to find. The result is a system that leaves many with nowhere to go.
At the same time, the benefits of Australia’s housing system are not evenly shared. Tax settings like negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount have helped to drive investment in housing as an asset. These policies reduce the cost of holding property and increase the returns from rising prices. The benefits are concentrated among those who already have wealth to invest, and that group is more likely to be male.
Men are more likely to have higher incomes, more continuous workforce participation, and greater access to capital. They are more likely to own investment properties, and to benefit from the tax concessions attached to them.
This is not just about individual choices. It reflects structural inequalities that play out over a lifetime with differences in pay, superannuation, caregiving responsibilities, and access to assets.
The result is a housing system that amplifies gender inequality. Women are more likely to struggle to afford a home, while men are more likely to benefit from the policies that have made housing less affordable. This divide is becoming harder to ignore.
For years, housing policy has focused on increasing supply or helping people into home ownership. These approaches have not addressed the underlying imbalance in the system.
Building more homes is important, but if those homes are priced beyond the reach of low-income households, they do not solve the problem. First home buyer incentives may help some people, but they tend to push prices higher and do little for those who are already locked out.
What the Snapshot shows is that the private rental market is not delivering for a growing share of the population, especially women on low incomes. Addressing this demands that we rethink the approaches that have shaped the housing system as a whole.
Reforming investor tax concessions is a critical part of that. Winding back negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount would reduce the extent to which the system favours speculative investment, and begin to rebalance the market.
Just as importantly, it would free up resources to invest in social and public and community housing. That is housing that is linked to people’s incomes, and designed to meet need rather than maximise returns.
For women at risk of homelessness, for single mothers trying to keep a roof over their children’s heads, and for older women entering retirement without security, this kind of housing is not a luxury. It is essential.
The housing crisis is often framed as a generational issue. But it is also a gendered one. If we are serious about equality, and about ensuring that women can live with security and dignity, we cannot ignore the role that housing plays.
The results of this year’s Snapshot make one thing clear. The system is not working, and for women, it is failing in ways that are both predictable and preventable.
We have the tools to change it. The question now is whether we are willing to use them.