At forty, Jessica never imagined starting over. After her marriage ended, she received a modest property settlement. However, years spent raising children full time had already reduced her earning capacity. She returned to work on minimum wage, without a home, superannuation, or car.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Her situation did not improve. Her former partner, self-employed and declaring minimal income, was awarded child support from her. Jessica made these payments from her limited income while also covering school costs, medical care, therapy, clothing, and activities. The system allowed this imbalance, and she carried the responsibility alone.
Jessica worked to regain stability. She paid down debt and saved what she could. Buying in Sydney was unachievable, so she purchased an investment property in Queensland. When the pandemic hit and costs surged, she was forced to sell. Her savings were quickly spent on basic living expenses.
Jessica is not a first-time buyer, but in every practical sense, she is. She owns no property, has no equity, but is excluded from schemes designed to help Australians purchase a home. Under current New South Wales policy, there is no support to help her begin again.
Jessica's experience is not unique. Across Australia, thousands of people who once owned a home but lost it due to separation, illness, job loss, or caring responsibilities now struggle to re-enter the housing market. In most states, support remains geared toward first-time buyers, leaving those trying to rebuild with few viable options.
This is a failure of fairness. In most states, unless you are buying for the first time, you are locked out of meaningful support. Even those who have lost everything are often denied a second chance.
The policy is not only outdated, it is unjust. It punishes people whose lives have not followed a straight path. If your name was ever on a title, even long ago, you are excluded from stamp duty relief and deposit support. These schemes exist because governments acknowledge how difficult it is to gain footing on the property ladder without family wealth or assistance. Yet they ignore those trying to rebuild after falling through the cracks.
By contrast, the Australian Capital Territory has gradually replaced stamp duty with a land-based tax. This reform reduces barriers to ownership for all buyers. Though some critics raise concerns about its impact on investors and retirees, it has improved access overall. NSW should consider a similar option for non-homeowners and owner-occupiers seeking to re-enter the market.
Jessica's financial position has stabilised. She is hoping to purchase a modest townhouse in Western Sydney. She is not looking to build wealth. She simply wants security, not charity, just fairness.
As the Federal government prepares to implement Help to Buy, second-chance buyers must not be overlooked again.
Applications are expected to open later this year, with the scheme launching in late 2025.
Jessica may also qualify for the Family Home Guarantee, which supports single parents. It allows purchases with a 2 per cent deposit and no mortgage insurance. However, buyers still need to service the loan. In Sydney, this often requires two middle incomes or one high income, thresholds many second-chance buyers do not meet.
These federal initiatives are a positive step, especially Help to Buy. But they are not enough. The Family Home Guarantee remains tied to narrow categories, and state costs such as stamp duty still fall hardest on those without equity. These are not recovery-focused policies. Without better coordination between federal and state governments, progress will remain limited.
MORE OPINION:
State governments must do more. Broader stamp duty reform and inclusive buyer support are essential. Jessica would face around $33,000 in stamp duty, more than three times what a first-time buyer would pay. Despite rebuilding her financial position, she is penalised simply because she once owned.
Public discussion on housing tends to focus on first-time buyers and investors. Those who once owned, lost everything, and are now excluded receive little attention. They include people affected by divorce, illness, job loss, business failure, and unpaid caregiving. Many have depleted their savings and have no way back in.
That must change.
We must expand eligibility to include non-homeowners without equity. Recovery-focused support must replace rigid categories. Second-chance buyers need a path back to ownership.
Housing is not only an asset. It is a foundation. It offers safety and dignity. Jessica is not asking for a handout. She is asking for a fair go.
And in Australia, that should be possible.
- Leigh Tindale is a mortgage broker and public policy student based in NSW, with lived experience navigating housing insecurity and financial recovery.
