IT’S an admonition we’ve heard so often it’s starting to sound like a political slogan – “the age of entitlement is over”.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Since winning power, the federal government – elected on a mandate of fixing the fiscal train wreck it inherited – has telegraphed its intentions like a Babe Ruth home run.
But by flagging the possibility of hoisting the age pension age to 70 this week, treasurer Joe Hockey has failed the most fundamental test of fairness and commonsense.
Tough times call for tough measures, but targeting a group that has contributed to the nation its whole working life is the unkindest cut of all.
The latest figures from the Association of Superannuation Funds estimates a single person would need $42,157 a year for a “comfortable” retirement or $23,157 for a “modest” retirement.
Even with all the supplementary allowances and add-ons, the age pension still falls nearly $2000 a year behind a “modest” retirement.
Is this any way to treat our older citizens?
Many of them find themselves on the pension due to their own lack of foresight or laziness, but plenty of others are there due to issues beyond their control.
People like Peter Blom, an OAM recipient and former Lions district governor, who has been a pillar of the community his entire life.
Under the government’s proposal, Mr Blom would be stuck on the work treadmill for another five years before being eligible for the pension.
And he’d be happy to oblige, except he can’t find a job.
Despite applying for more than 100 positions, including at fast food chains and the abattoirs, Mr Blom has not even landed an interview.
The reason is clear – employers see him as too old.
This is just another gaping hole in Mr Hockey’s baseline logic; the fact is, older people struggle to find work through no fault of their own.
Making them suffer the ritual humiliation of rejection for another five years is an affront to their dignity, and to the principles that made us the lucky country.