Young Women Concerned About Living Costs, Parties at Risk

As was widely predicted , the cost of living has dominated the federal election campaign. Soaring rents , grocery bills and energy prices have squeezed household budgets.

But these pressures aren't new. In 2022, voter frustration over living costs helped Labor oust the Coalition.

With economic pressures persisting, will history repeat?

Analysis of cost-of-living trends and voting patterns in the last election reveals the voters most motivated by hip-pocket concerns: young women.

What was the situation in 2022?

In the 2022 Australian Election Study - a nationally representative post-election survey - about 23.3% of respondents (577 out of 2,478) identified cost of living as the most important issue shaping their vote.

Younger Australians were the most concerned about the issue. Among the age groups, 38.9% of those aged 18-30 prioritised it, compared with 30.4% aged 31-45, 28.5% aged 46-60, and just 15.4% among those aged 61-90.

The generational pattern was clear: the younger you were, the more likely you were to vote on cost-of-living concerns.

Gender also played a role. A slightly higher proportion of women (25.1%) than men (21.1%) rated cost of living as their top issue.

But the age-gender breakdown reveals more: among cost-of-living voters aged 18-45, women made up roughly 70%.

In contrast, men outnumbered women among older cost-of-living voters (aged 60 and over).

These trends suggest the cost of living is especially salient for younger women - a key electoral demographic to watch. Evidence shows this cohort is almost twice as likely as young men to be undecided voters.

If we look at housing, cost-of-living concerns were most prevalent among renters, with 38.5% of public housing tenants and 32.3% of private renters citing it as their top issue, compared to just 16.4% of those who own their home outright.

Those paying off a mortgage (27.3%) and people in alternative living arrangements such as boarding or living at home (35.6%) also reported elevated concern, highlighting the strong link between housing insecurity and financial stress.

Looking at household incomes, it's no surprise low-income households were overrepresented among cost-of-living voters.

But concern wasn't limited to them. Middle-income households, including many earning six-figure incomes, also featured prominently, reflecting how rising rents and mortgage repayments are squeezing even those once considered financially secure.

A generation defining crisis

Cost-of-living pressures are widespread, but financial vulnerability heightens the risk of poverty, which already affects more than three million Australians.

As shown above, young people and young families are at the deep end of the crisis. For many, this is a generation-defining crisis, reshaping life expectations.

In 2017, 62.2% of Australians aged 18-24 saw home ownership as highly important . By 2024, that dropped to 49.5%. A similar decline occurred among 25-34-year-olds.

Those in the poorest suburbs or the poorest household are the least likely to value home ownership. This is potentially a sign they feel permanently locked out, deepening inequality.

As renting becomes more common, and rent prices skyrocket, young people are increasingly struggling to secure affordable rent.

It's no surprise Gen Z is more financially anxious than any other generation. The mental health toll of financial stress is stark, contributing to the high prevalence of mental health disorders among this age group.

With a sizeable youth electorate this time around, financially struggling young voters could be the power brokers of the election. So who might they vote for?

The politics of living costs

In the last election, 61.7% of voters concerned about the cost of living backed a left-of-centre party, while 38.3% voted for the right. Despite the Coalition's historic advantage on economic issues, they faced an incumbent disadvantage among cost-of-living voters.

In an Election Monitoring Survey conducted in October 2024, only 23.7% of Australians were living comfortably on their present income, while 46.4% were coping, and 29.9% were struggling.

Those facing financial hardship were more dissatisfied with the country's direction, less confident in the government, and more likely to dislike both major party leaders.

Unsurprisingly, October 2024 saw a decline in trust in the federal government, with 15.7% of Australians reporting no trust at all, up from 8.3% in May 2022. Those who did trust the government remained around 32%.

This shows cost-of-living voters - much like young and female voters - are likely to explore alternatives beyond the major parties, continuing the 2022 trend.

Both major parties have seen a steady decline in support over the past two decades, with less than 70% of the primary vote between them in 2022.

This time around, Labor can afford to lose only two seats before facing minority government . Peter Dutton, on the other hand, faces a tougher task, needing nearly 20 seats for a majority.

With increasing dislike for the major parties among financially struggling voters, there's a real chance of a hung parliament , where neither party secures the 76 seats needed to govern outright, making negotiations with minor parties and independents crucial.

Policy battleground

The major parties know how important the rising cost of living is to voters . A slew of policies has already been announced , from cheaper doctors visits , to lower cost medicines and power bill rebates . On all these fronts, the Coalition has agreed to match Labor's proposals, ensuring a tightly contested debate.

Notably, Labor's proposal to top up stage three income tax cuts won't kick in until mid-next year, but will cost the government $17 billion over four years.

Meanwhile, the Coalition's pledge to halve the excise on fuel duty for a year, will cost $6 billion in lost tax revenue in a year.

But whether it will be enough to stop cost-of-living voters siding with a minor party or independent remains to be seen.

Intifar Chowdhury does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.