That depends upon who you ask
With two-thirds of older Australians relying on it, the Age Pension is a lifeline—but also a lightning rod. Designed to support those most in need, it’s highly targeted. But is it too complex? Too harsh? Or too generous in the wrong places? Now’s the time to ask: what would a fairer system look like to you?
Coverage: a shared foundation
Around 65% of older Australians receive either a full or part Age Pension, providing a crucial safety net in retirement. While eligibility is means-tested, the Age Pension isn’t directly tied to your past earnings, offering support to those with limited savings. Payments are indexed to keep up with living costs, and being government-guaranteed, they offer reliable income for life. That reliability matters. But is it sufficient to meet today’s costs?
Complexity: too many hoops
Let’s face it—the rules are hard to follow. Asset thresholds, deeming, income limits, super treatment—it’s no wonder so many applicants feel lost. Even official sites can leave you with more questions than answers. People worry they’ve missed out, or worse, made costly mistakes. Have you ever felt that way?
Centrelink stress: shared struggles
Navigating Centrelink remains challenging for many. In late 2024, average claim processing times improved to 32 days, down from 84 days the previous year. Yet, of over 55,000 new Age Pension claims, along with an additional 17,953 outstanding existing claims – many remained pending. Phone support answered only 34% of calls, with nearly half the callers receiving a congestion message before being disconnected.
Behind the scenes, Centrelink staff face immense pressure, often dealing with complex cases and frustrated clients. Reports indicate that staff manage numerous aggressive incidents daily, highlighting the emotional toll of their roles.
Have you noticed improvements, or do challenges persist? We invite you to share your experiences and thoughts in the comments below.
Couples vs singles: what’s fair?
A single person gets $1,149 per fortnight. Couples get $1,732 combined. Singles argue that living alone costs more—but couples say both people should receive the full rate. There’s no easy answer, but the gap sparks real debate. Where do you stand?
Homeowners vs renters: an uneven playing field
The family home is exempt from the assets test, giving homeowners a clear advantage. Meanwhile, renters face rising costs—and growing insecurity. Is the system out of step with the real cost of housing?
Self-funded retirees vs pensioners: false divide?
Some who saved feel punished for doing the right thing. Others point out they never had the same chances to build savings. Is the system rewarding the wrong behaviour—or just dealing with different life paths?
Working while on the Age Pension: is it still worth it?
Want to earn a little extra? Many Retirement Essentials members say that the rules make this feel risky. Small amounts of work can trigger cuts, delays, or stressful reporting. Some feel penalised for staying active or independent. Should it be easier to combine work and Age Pension entitlements?
The big picture: where’s the balance?
Australia spends less on the Age Pension than most developed nations—but almost as much again on super tax breaks, which mostly benefit higher earners. Should we be rethinking how we support retirement for all?
Time for a rethink?
A universal pension—paid to everyone of age, regardless of assets—gets plenty of support. Simpler, fairer, more transparent. Others argue the current system targets support where it’s most needed. What do you think? Should we stick with means testing or aim for a clean slate?
Can we help you?
Circumstances vary enormously for older Australians. The majority of retirees and pre-retirees will need to interact with government services well before they retire. Retirement Essentials provides a suite of affordable, bite-sized advice consultations for such members. Here’s some of what we can do for you in a guided review of your income possibilities:
- Maximising your entitlements – Assess any changes you might be able to make to maximise your Centrelink entitlements.
- Retirement Forecasting – Compare two scenarios of how your assets and income will look during your retirement journey.
- Understanding more about super – Assess the options to help make your super work better for you.
- Retirement Health Check – Identify opportunities to ensure your savings are on track to live your best possible retirement.
- Understand impacts of your home mortgage – look at the benefits of repaying or maintaining your mortgage in retirement.
We’d love to hear from you.
Have you faced challenges with the Age Pension?
What changes do you think would make the system fairer or easier to navigate?
Share your thoughts and stories in the comments.
My wife is younger than me and below retirement age, although she earns $2280 per fortnight, I have only $8000.00 in super still working when I get chance I’m 77 years old. If we where paid fairly we would be able to enjoy a stress free life however, we live month to month on what we can afford.
Yes same situation younger wife working ,but in this day & age we are all independent so pension should be paid not taking into considration my wifes income
No, the aged pension is not enough and is not a fair balance. The pension is not merely a ‘good will’ gesture for those moving the retirement phase of our lives, and ought not be considered as a benevolent gift to an aging population. Access to an aged pension income is an ‘inherent right’ for all whom have contributed to society over a lifetime. Natural physical attrition occurs as our bodies age, regardless of how much money we may / or may not have acquired, and we need to slow down. By simple extrapolation, all who attain 60-65 years old have paid taxes for at least 45 years. (allowing age 20 – age 65). On an assumed basic income of $60,000 gross / year an average of $12,500 tax per year (assuming no wage increase). Ergo the average Australian has paid about $562,500 per person over 45 years worklife. It is demeaning to expect subsistence living on $1,144.00 per fortnight if single ($29,700 /annum) ;- and if married we are demeaned to a mere $862.00 per fortnight (each) -being $22,400 each. Apparently we eat les and have lower medical costs if married ?? Simple logic equates a marriage as two single people, so two single pension amounts is not an unreasonable expectation. >> By contrast- for Aussie Politicians, the minimum Commonwealth funded pension is about $250,000 with a maximum of $337,185…plus other benefits. The majority of Australians are not greedy, we are not whingers, and not bludgers. But No… the aged pension is not enough and is not a fair balance.
What with that amount of super you will get no pension. Seems like you have well above what a lot of others don’t have dollar wise. And you live week to week
There should be a universal pension. I have worked with people who have earned just as much or more than I have through out their lives. They had no trouble getting the full pension. Because I saved more than them I can only get a part pension. There is no justice in that. I believe the government does not want you to save as spending makes the economy better and easier for the government of the day to do less.
On the subject of applying for the pension in my case if Centrelink trained their employees better they could have saved the wages of at least five people accessing my application.
No very Unfair, those of us who worked our whole lives 50 yes plus, should be rewarded far more than those who did not contribute to the tax system hardly at all or even Not at All ! are treated the same if not Better if they were pushed onto a disability pension back in Howard’s reign to keep the Unemployment figures lower ! We should be Rewarded to the extent of 60 to 70 % above the Non Contributors !
The government doesn’t have their own bucket of money, they use tax payers money to pay for Age Pension.
As such, Age Pension should only be paid to those who genuinely need it, not to those who structure their affairs to maximize their wealth.
Age Pension is a welfare payment that provides a safety net to those in genuine need. People who use Age Pension as wealth maximization are using other taxpayers taxes which could otherwise be used to fund other services.
so what you are trying to say is that a person who is an Alcoholic, Gambler, druggie and so on who had no ambition to save some money and only worked when he wanted should get the FULL PENSION due to his financial position. While the other person that has worked all his life, saved and paid his TAXES, should get no PENSION. Is that fair? What is the Government trying to tell us? to be drunks, gamble and take drugs?
Mark why would the person get no pension? The limits are quite high, you can get a pension AND have a large amount of cash.
And the pension that the Alcoholic, Gambler, druggie gets is not enough, especially if renting, it’s hard for them, so it’s not like they are getting it easy as you suggest.
In NZ and the Uk there is no income restriction on the pension. Those that continue to work pay the required amount of tax going towards their own pension. The asset threshold is still quite high.
I think the fee for home care package.Too much!
Age pension is not fair and it is too complex to administer.
Should be increased to at least the minimum living wage, and indexed appropriately
Copy NZ and pay it to all above pension age – save millions in admin, stop demeaning reporting – and the federal govt can afford to do this
So what if a few rich people get a bit extra
If you want more incoming you have to reduce your outgoings, therefore; Reform the ridiculous tax “system”,audit ALL government grants, tenders, contracts & land councils leading to mass reductions or abolition.Reduce immigration to a sustainable level, demand ALL government departments reduce costs by 20 percent, overhaul the NDIS “system”. Should have voted for me or a party that could get their head around this simple but doable model.
Visited a Centrelink office today. It is situated on a prominent piece of real estate. Very large, spacious building with very few staff in a lot of empty space. If we followed the NZ and UK model, the staff and administrative savings plus the tax paid by those who continue to work would would go a long way toward covering the cost of paying all those over 67 the full pension. No reporting requirements therefore no need to have staff checking and processing data fortnightly to determine payments.
I think it’s really unfair that everyone doesn’t get an aged pension. I have worked full time my whole life and saved.
As a couple we both work 6 days a week and our assets are just over the cut off point.
We have gone with out to save for retirement.
Good point Caroline, there are many people who have done the right thing by saving for the future and are subsequently punished in retirement. There should a more generous buffer before the aged pension is reduced or cut completely. Perhaps a $1 reduction for every $2 received from the account-based super pension might do the trick.
I have no issue about people like myself who are easily able to have enough not getting the aged pension. We need a progressive system that rewards people for doing the right thing during their working life. Currently, they are rewarded for blowing the lot and then putting their hands out for the taxpayer to support them.
Why am i on a full couples pension rate when my wife is below pension age . Should i be on the single pension rate instead as i feel i am be penalised because she is under 67 yrs old of course she get nothing
Hi Norm, you are actually being assessed correctly. Centrelink assess you as couple/single based solely on whether or not you have a partner not based on who is eligible.
Should other tax payers contribute to age pension for those who don’t need it? My understanding is Age Pension is a welfare payment to assure a safety net for those who are not fortunate enough to survive without it. Taxpayers pay for the Age Pension and as a self- funded tax paying retiree, I want to only pay for those who need it.
I see Norms concern and wonder IF Centrelink know his full story ? Just maybe go have a talk before this hits the fan and Norm has to repay a lump of money ?
My application has been over 12 months of continually answering silly questions devised to nip you in the bud . Finally a letter that over assessed me by a million that I do not have. I now sit next week with a face to face and hopefully finally sort it out . How does anyone without the smarts ever get through this paper trail ..
Lentheaussie – Did you complete the application online, it’s fairly simple, only asks pertinent questions. I did my wife’s online, straight through no extra information required, no problems and approved 7 weeks later.
What’s the point of working your whole life to be told you have too much money in savings and will not receive the aged pension. The little bit extra we have cuts us off this is unfair and the pension should be for everyone regardless of their savings. How is it that politicians can keep earning a wage and still get their pensions.
i am 78 but my wife is younger and i will be dead by the time she is eligible. i get a single pension but for every $ over $300 my wife earns i am deducted 50 cents in the dollar of her gross pay. So she pays tax and i also lose 50% so i end up with very little. Please bring in the NZ system which does not have this rule and also allows us to work and pay tax on that earnings. that would help us and put our skills and knowledge to work for better productivity for the nation as many of pension age are still fit for work.
If you are of retirement age you should be able to get the pension – and it should be calculated as individuals regardless of marital status. When you are retired and 1 works part time and when the ‘earning credits’ are gone then it is 50 cents in the $1 reduction in pension. Being married/partnered results in 25 cents in the $1 coming off your pension and the same off your partner ( as you are a couple) – Oh and the person working is also taxed. This rule kicks in when you earn above $300 in a fortnight. Hardly an incentive for anyone to work !!! But wait – the non working partner loses off their pension – because they are ‘partnered’ – all the while their pension shows they have the maximum unused earning credits, that their partner CAN NOT access because earning credits are ‘individual’. The non worker can’t even have their 25 cents in the $ deducted from their own earning credits !! This way of working out $ is very flawed as the Government is ASSUMING that money earned by the working partner will be shared with the non working one. There is also the necessity for both to report fortnightly. Much fairer to all get the pension when you qualify, – if you work then your income is added to your pension and you pay tax as per usual. There you go – that would save a lot of mucking about every fortnight for many. I sent this to my Member of Parliament over a year ago and did not even get a generic response. The current system is only a benefit to the Government to pay out the bare minimum.
Totally agree as thousands do the current system is well outdated and not just.
We need a partition to replace it with the better NZ system
Albo, now is your chance to do this. PLEASE.
Try private renting living solely on the Aged Pension. I pay now about 60% of my pension on rent .
Unfortunately superannuation wasn’t around when I was working in NZ and unfortunate circumstances have caused dimished savings..
At least I still have a roof over my head I guess, not quite sleeping in my car yet.
l am 4 years off getting a part pension and agree with getting rid of the asset’s and income tests and moving to a universal pension system.
I think the residency rules need to be abolished or amended the current portability rule of having to stay in Australia for 2 years should be reduced to 6 months
why penalise retirees who have worked all their lives and paid taxes if they choose to retire overseas because the cost of living is more affordable
I am still at a loss as to how 2 people can supposedly live more cheaply than one. Married couples should not be penalised and should get the same as singles. With the cost of food now we cannot live more cheaply than one.
The current pension system is ridiculously complex and a nightmare for government to administer. I suggest that the NZ model makes a lot more sense- give all people over a certain age the full pension but also make it taxable. No more arguments about fairness, who should get what, etc
When single pensioners received only half the rate of pension received by couples, it was far more of a hand-to-mouth existence. Singles have to pay the same access charges for all kinds of utilities as a couple or even a large family. If you have a partner, there are other cost benefits such as shared skills. A woman on her own is far more likely to have to hire more tradesmen for help and is more likely to be ripped off. A man on his own may need to get clothing altered by a tailor. A person who is alone may need to pay for more services after they have had an operation, whereas a couple has more scope to look after one another. The big issue with Centrelink payments and means tests is their failure to keep up with cost of living increases. To take the Assets Test as an example, in 2000, the lower limit at which a pension decreased was around the same value as a 3 bedroom, 1 bathroom home. Now it would not buy even half a block of land in an outer suburb, forget about a home on it. It is also of great concern that are now seniors’ organisations telling people over the retirement age that they should be required to take in boarders or engage in some other cohabitation arrangement. Are these people working for the older people, or are they supporting the introduction of a Bedroom Tax to force us out of our homes?
I have an issue with people working beyond the retirement age getting a break on the Income Test, while those who do voluntary work and/or have income from other sources are discriminated against. The Income Test should apply equally to everyone. Financial institutions should also have to pay interest at rates commensurate with Income Test on ordinary cash accounts. Government should wind back the Coalition’s punitive taper rate on the Assets Test which has been in place since the Tony Abbott government (more than 10 years). It seems to me that the government leaves no stone unturned to financially dud Centrelink clients and make our lives hard across a wide spectrum of issues.
I am on the aged pension. I work two days a week as a carer. I love the job. I lose a lot from my pension, pay tax. Then at the end of the year they add my pension and work together and I end up paying more tax. I think this is unfair and no incentive to work. I am in an industry which has a shortage of workers yet I will cut down soon. No inventive at all to work. Working is good for me. It just seems very unfair.
The reason the Aged Pension is so complex to navigate and to administer is because the Government want it that way. This keeps people employed who otherwise might be unemployed.
I receive a part pension as I’m still working part time. I’m salaried, so receive a monthly salary – same amount each month on the 1st. My assets are well below the threshold, so you would think it would be a simple declaration of salary and assets and then receive fortnightly (equal) payments.
But no, I have to complete a return every fortnight, one with my monthly earnings and then next showing zero. Add the assets change too and someone in Centrelink has to go and check on all that ( I know it is computerised – thats my industry). Total waste of time and money.
Developing the software to cater for all the nuances in the calculations, define the problem develop the software, test it, maintain it – all cast a LOT of $$$
The whole fiscal system needs a brave overhaul for a simpler, fairer system.
Ideally universal basic income.
A land tax over $1.5M (indexed)
A wealth tax over $10M (indexed).
Universal pension for all citizens who are residents of pensionable age.
No means test. No unnecessary reporting. No clawbacks except fraud.
Allow people over pensionable age to work without penalty if they want to.
Then Centrelink can be drastically reduced.
Regular bank transfers done by technology automatically.
Dignity and respect.
Our original retirement plan (married Couple) was to build our super purchase our own home and have a rental home. On retirement we planned to sell our home and live in the rental. I am 13 years older than my wife. Currently that would mean we would have capitol of Super $500,000, Sale of our family home $1,000,000. Pay off mortgage on our rental $450,000. And cash $50,000. Total $1,100,000. Sounds great. Come covid 38-year-old son business fails. Lent him 50,000 to stave off Bankruptcy and let the rental to him for $450 per week. Market rental value $600.00 per week. This produces a $4000/annum Loss. His family will never own their own home. To make matters worse the value of the rental will increase. While I am alive, we can claim a part state pension. It looks like we will remain in our own home. Our son and his family will remain in the rental. As rental house values continue to rise and my wife lives on what remains of the superannuation the rental will be above the asset limit for the pension. We hope to leave the rental to our son’s family when we both die. This could put my wife in penury in the last years of her life. Of course, she could sell the rental and put our son’s family on the street. Meantime I have cost the taxpayer nothing to educate my 4 children or to educate my wife or myself. I arrived in Australia in 1972. Why do we have to fill in complicated forms to obtain only a part pension and subsidise the taxpayer through “the Bank of mum and dad” and have people whinging about the ‘Baby boomers’ costing the country money?
RE:Homeowners vs renters: an uneven playing field
Rents can be subjected to increases but home owners are subject to substantial increases in body corporate fees & “special levies”. i.e. I am paying levies of $3,090 per quarter for a 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom apartment south facing, zero view, ground floor. This is not sustainable sadly. It is not possible when planing retirement to factor in an increase from $110 per week in 2022 to $237.69 per week currently {210% increase 3 years which is well over the CPI) with a further increase planned after end of financial year 2025. Additionally there is increasing rates & water prices as a home owner. Body corporate costs should be factored in for eligibility of pension just as rent is.