English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Key aspects of Australia’s retirement incomes policy focus on needs rather than rights. Unlike most other countries, Australia has an age pension that is a means-tested payment, rather than a universal entitlement. The pension is set with reference to notions of an ‘adequate’ income, currently defined by the requirements of a ‘modest’ lifestyle. Private superannuation is earnings-based, and aimed at building improved lifestyles in retirement for individuals with a capacity to save. There are crucial gender implications associated with this policy approach, including aged women compared to men being disproportionately dependent on the age pension and more vulnerable to poverty. In contrast, the generous taxation concessions available for occupational and private superannuation tend to benefit men more than women, with high-income men on average benefiting the most. Whilst the gender inequality in superannuation has been widely noted (see, for example, Austen et al. 2015), few studies have an explicit focus on the gender issues associated with ensuring adequate retirement incomes.

Budgeting for women’s rights in retirement