Falling behind on investment income

Australia’s housing market is the single largest store of household wealth in the country. It shapes retirement, the intergenerational transfer of wealth, credit growth and economic stability. When we talk about property, we are not really talking about bricks and mortar. We are examining the foundations of capital, security and long-term power.

So where do Australian women sit in that critical equation?

More than 140 years since the Married Women’s Property Act formally recognised women’s right to own property in their own name, participation is no longer the question. Australian women hold substantial property assets.

The real issue now is how that ownership is structured, and what it means for long-term wealth accumulation, which is a key focus of Cotality’s Women and Property Australia survey each year. Successive years of these reports have unveiled one critical caveat to women’s property ownership – and it has enormous implications for their wealth as a whole.

This year’s survey shows an equal split in home ownership, with women and men each comprising 50 per cent of owners in the housing market. Women and men are also equally represented in sole ownership, at about 17 per cent each.

So women are not peripheral to the property market; they are central to it. And nor are their holdings marginal. The average total property value for women is about $1.18 million, with nearly one in three estimating their portfolio to exceed $1 million. These are substantial assets by any national standard.

Just as significant is how that ownership is managed. Women are more likely than men to own their property outright; 41 per cent have cleared their housing debt, compared with 35 per cent of men. That signals balance-sheet strength, lower leverage exposure and a clear tilt towards stability.

But here is where the gender equation takes a difficult turn: investment property remains a disproportionately male domain.

While Australian property ownership is heavily concentrated in the homes people live in – with 64 per cent owning a primary residence – property investment remains a minority behaviour at just 20 per cent of owners. The family home has always been the cornerstone of household wealth. But the difference emerges when we examine the gender split.

Years of Cotality Women and Property reports show women are consistently well represented among primary home owners but underrepresented among residential property investors – particularly when they have reached an age at which many men are earning sufficient incomes to begin building long-term property portfolios.

This year’s report found that 19.4 per cent of men own at least one residential investment property, compared with 11.6 per cent of women. The gap widens among younger Australians: 11.5 per cent of Gen Z men compared with 6.9 per cent of women in the same age group.

So while home ownership rates between men and women are broadly comparable, that is not the case for investment property. There are four structural reasons why this gap matters for women.

First, Australia’s tax system rewards investment property ownership – and that disproportionately benefits men while they remain on higher average incomes. Negative gearing allows investors to deduct rental losses against taxable income, while the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount rewards long-term asset growth. The Reserve Bank has also highlighted the role of leverage in housing wealth accumulation. These settings amplify results for those who own multiple properties – mainly men – and compound their gains over time.

Second, investment property is a significant driver of retirement income. Women already retire with lower average superannuation balances, shaped by the gender pay gap and workforce patterns, while ATO data shows that rental income forms part of many retirement strategies. Owner-occupation delivers security and cost stability, but investment property delivers income streams and capital growth. These different asset structures create materially different retirement outcomes.

Third, Australian household wealth is heavily concentrated in residential property, and that is especially so for women. When wealth sits primarily in a single residence, it remains illiquid, geographically concentrated, and dependent on a single market cycle. Diversified portfolios, by contrast, allow income generation, staggered asset disposal and broader distribution of risk.

And, finally, intergenerational wealth transfer in Australia is increasingly property-based. The Productivity Commission and the Grattan Institute have documented the growing role of housing in family wealth transmission. Owning multiple properties increases estate planning flexibility and transferable asset volume. Concentration in a single primary residence limits those structural advantages unless home owners intentionally access some of the equity built up in their property.

If you’re not a woman, you may think this doesn’t affect you. But this is not simply a “women’s issue”. OECD research shows that greater equality in women’s economic participation materially strengthens national growth. Expanding their long-term wealth-building should be a national priority, for everyone’s benefit. Stronger balance sheets for women mean a stronger balance sheet for all Australians.

Who wouldn’t want that?

Lisa Claes is president of the property data company Cotality (formerly CoreLogic).

Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.