A major Australian thinktank releases Hit and Miss, arguing that about 3.6 billion in this year’s cost-of-living relief from Commonwealth, state, and territory programs went to the top 40 percent of residents due to poorly targeted concessions.

The report highlights that roughly 3.6 billion went to the wealthier segment by income or wealth, prompting recommendations to overhaul around 12 billion in government program spending.

Lead economist Nicholas Tarrant calls for reallocating support to those most in need and criticizes the system’s reliance on fuel usage or property value as the main eligibility tests.

Illustrative examples show wealthy retirees with huge homes can receive substantial rebates, while a renting single mother may receive far less.

The discussion comes ahead of NSW elections and emphasizes a shift from simply expanding benefits to redesigning delivery to better target those in need.

The thinktank estimates potential annual savings of about 1.3 billion by redesigning concessions, including merging into a single cost-of-living allowance and tightening eligibility for Pensioner Concession Card holders on a full Age Pension in Western Australia.

Reforms proposed would tie older Australians’ support to pensioner concession cards and reassess the NSW Seniors Card to prevent wealthier retirees from unduly benefiting, with a potential saving around 300 million annually.

Leadership from the thinktank includes figures like John Wylie and Kate Torney, signaling established cross-sector credibility.

The report contends the current patchwork of energy rebates and toll relief largely benefits higher-income households because eligibility depends on consumption or ownership, not need.

Concessions tied to consumption or ownership lead to disproportionate benefits for the well-off, with higher toll relief for frequent drivers, especially in Western Sydney.

Policy recommendations call for using Services Australia data to better identify those in need and to reduce blanket concession access to avoid windfalls for wealthier households.

The mis-targeting is attributed to lack of means testing, flawed eligibility rules, and consumption-based program designs across government supports.