It’s hardly rocket science

After seeding debate for weeks beforehand by drip feeding comments on the “soon-to-be-released” Intergenerational Report, the Federal Government has finally brought it out of the closet. Since then we have had a week of commentators swooning about the perils of an ageing population – can’t anyone see the upside?

We should not be surprised by much in this report – after all these ageing baby boomers were born when births peaked from 1947-64, so we’ve all had more than 40 years to get our heads around the fact there will be an increased number of older people on the planet.
The pity will be if the ongoing argy-bargy between the Rudd and Abbott camps scuttles informed debate – and if we all think ramping up GDP and fuelling consumption is the only way to solve the challenges of ageing populations here and else where.

The report claims that “population ageing reduces the proportion of working age people supporting people aged over 65 years”. This makes it seem that all those aged over 65 are dependent. They are not. Many are self-funded, many have paid more taxes than any other generation, and many are supporting young adults living in the family home.

To quote from the report, “permanent spending growth… will reduce ...the economic and fiscal consequences of ageing”. But surely that’s how we got into a GFC in the first place? Supporting spending is one thing, but how about looking at saving as a strategy, particularly enforced saving by way of an increase in mandatory superannuation contributions for individuals? Employers are currently paying 9% - a number that the Howard Government resolutely refused to increase during 11 years in power. The Rudd government seems similarly disinclined but bemoans the lack of individual retirement savings. The money has to come from somewhere.

Participation is one of the “Ps” highlighted in the report. Pardon my yawn, but the idea of keeping older workers engaged and happy at the coalface becomes top-of-mind with the release of every Intergenerational Report, and then quickly fades from consciousness in the three-five years in between. Why? Because the government is not serious about hiring and training older workers. If it was it would allow them to have workplace insurance after 65 years of age, would stop sacking older judges, would have a REAL age discrimination commissioner instead of making this role an add-on to that of sex discrimination and, most importantly, it would take a long, hard look at the gatekeepers of hiring – those bouncy, pert 29-year-olds who reject older applicants without even bothering to grant them an interview.

Lastly, but by no means least, it is an erroneous and extremely arrogant assumption that an army of low paid potential migrants are sitting waiting for the opportunity to come here and do the less than glamorous work we don’t want to do ourselves. Yes, we may indeed be the Lucky Country, but we are not the only nation in the world struggling with a looming skills shortage. Most countries in Europe, North America and Asia are facing the same need. And when we all bid for the same workers, guess what will happen? Too right, cobber, their price will go up. Solutions to the challenges of an ageing population are not rocket science. Getting serious about offering reasonably remunerated work to those 50 and 60 and 70 year olds who want it would be a great start.
And removing the penalties and barriers associated with their participation would be even better.

Kaye Fallick is publisher of About Seniors website and a director of the International Federation on Ageing.