“Well, we DID actually say all of this in our report nearly nine years ago and we DID say back then that we needed to do something about all this sooner rather than later if we were to avoid the need for big emergency policies in the future….  Stitch in time, saves nine, all of that.” A cheeky paraphrase of the introduction to the recent Productivity Commission research paper

Playing catch-up this week with my reading of the Australian Ageing Agenda (AAA) news website, I read the wonderful opinion piece by Emily Millane from the think tank, Per Capita [“Beyond the sound bite,” 21 January 2014].

Having been otherwise occupied over the summer months, I’ve felt a bit distanced from the issues that dominated most of my waking hours as editor of AAA.  As the dust settles and my thoughts return to topics broader than my domestic ones, Millane’s discussion and analysis around November’s Productivity Commission Research Paper – An Ageing Australia: Preparing for the Future – scored some welcome ‘cut-through’ with me.

Her lament about our failure to have the big conversations necessary in order to have good, timely policies; the negative influence of the political process in this; and the predictability of stakeholder views, brought my own thoughts and frustrations tumbling back.

I haven’t read the Productivity Commission’s paper in its entirety but I have read the thoughtfully provided 19 page overview a couple of times.  I was away all of December and most of January so I can’t be sure, but my impression is that the paper received rather little attention from the media and certainly less than it deserved.

“The point is, we are not getting the point! “

What I did catch in my limited exposure to media reports was, as Millane says, predictable responses concerned with defending various patches.  Again, I agree with her that all that is good and proper for stakeholders to do but it is by no means enough.  The point is, we are not getting the point!  Successive Governments, while sometimes making understanding noises and chipping away at the sides of some of these issues, have been more or less fiddling while Rome burns.

We can’t say we didn’t know

The Productivity Commission is no stranger to these issues. It has by necessity investigated the implications of an ageing population in many of its inquiries and papers over many years, such is the very broad influence of an ageing population on a society and an economy. There have been several inquiries and reports specifically around the health and aged care implications – in particular the watershed public enquiry, ‘Caring for Older Australians’ which reported in 2011.  And it identified the big economic implications quite directly in its first Economic Implications of an Ageing Australia back in April 2005.

So, in many respects, the findings and recommendations in this paper feel a bit like groundhog day…. again.  You can almost see the head-shaking and hear the sighing and tutting of the authors in the introduction to the Overview.

A cheeky paraphrase of it might run along the lines of: “Well, we DID actually say all of this in our report nearly nine years ago and we DID say back then that we needed to do something about all this sooner rather than later if we were to avoid the need for big emergency policies in the future….  Stitch in time, saves nine, all of that.  And of course there HAS been the small matter of a couple of Intergenerational Reports, the last one being, er…four years ago now.  Oh, and let’s not forget all the demographic data and international factors….”

There’s palpable exasperation here [and this is a direct quote, not a cheeky paraphrase]: “Even with ever more information on trends, the near inevitability of significant fiscal and policy consequences of demographic change seems not to have created much genuine desire for reform.”

Now they’re getting to the crux of it….

“Further, recent interventions to address the threats posed by global economic events have left Australian governments less well placed to handle the effects of ageing than most would have expected in initial debates. On top of these factors, Australia is much closer to the time when the most significant effects of ageing are likely to be felt.”

It’s a pretty clear message coming through; with an eerie deja-vu element that goes beyond the fact that the PC (and plenty of other institutions, academics and organisations) has been talking about these issues and the increasing urgency to address them for many years now.

The climate change factor

It’s brilliantly apt that the title of Millane’s recent Per Capita report on the subject, [Still kicking. Ageing and longevity: the demographic climate change of our time] references climate change.  The similarities between the way governments have engaged with and responded to climate change issues and ageing population issues are pronounced.

Remaining calm and polite, the opening remarks in the PC’s recent research paper could just as easily be talking about responses to climate change.  It goes on:

“Like any analysis associated with forecasting very long term trends, this study is exposed to the charge that it extrapolates in ways that may not be representative of reality.

“The apparent neat precision of any particular number is not meant to convey that this shall inevitably be the result, when over a 50 year period a wide variety of unknown factors will arise. But the existence of unknown factors is no basis for not considering the trends, which are the important aspect of this analysis.

“The trends are unmistakable in most cases. They point to the need for serious contemplation of future policy measures sooner rather than later.”

Facing facts; sourcing solutions

At the recent G20 finance ministers meeting in Sydney, Treasurer Joe Hockey dusted off the ‘ageing population challenge’ for an outing, noting – with a touch of grim satisfaction I thought – that Australia isn’t on its Pat Malone when it comes to dealing with this challenge.

“An ageing population is something that is not unique to Australia,” said the Treasurer. “It’s common to most of the developed world.”

“We’ve got to recognise that there are unique costs associated with that and you’ve got to ask whether the current system is able to cope with that on a sustainable basis.

“If it’s not able to cope with that over the medium and longer term, what are we going to do about it?”

The G20 meeting was as safe a context as any treasurer could find for raising the spectre of things like an increased pension age, longer workforce participation, changes to superannuation, Medicare co-payments, increased taxes, more user-pays and other electorally terrifying topics.

But as Emily Millane says in her piece, “These are the sorts of questions we need to be sitting down at the table and thrashing out. Arguing over. Critically analysing. Then agreeing not to leave the room without a consensus on.” “It’s a very basic proposition,” she says.  “You live longer: someone has to pay for it.”

The policy debate Australia has to have

In addressing population ageing and ‘closing the fiscal gap’, the PC’s paper acknowledges that, “Taxation will inevitably be part of the story, as will be targeting of any wasteful or inefficient spending.”

“But,” it goes on to say, “some creative options also warrant exploration in the policy debate that Australia must have.”

This where it gets really interesting!

There is no shortage of good research, innovative ideas, successful pilots and passionate commitment from and within the many sectors and stakeholders that are invested in these issues. We are not short on sensible, sensitive, equitable – not to mention appealing – approaches to helping create the type of sustainable society we can all actually enjoy growing old in. Millane notes a couple of those ideas, such as rethinking the concept of retirement, and it will be interesting to explore that and others in coming posts.

Of course we all get a thrill from reading articulate opinions that heartily concur with our own but I’m here to say that I’m with Emily Millane: the time for finding consensus (and agreeing not to leave the room without it!) really is way overdue.  Governments don’t have all the answers but, by the sounds of it, the still-fresh Treasurer is up for it and ‘open for business’, as his boss says.  There’s not a moment to lose.

I shall leave you with the words of the Productivity Commission’s Chair, Peter Harris, from his foreword to the paper:

“The policy issues are carefully chosen to address needs that, if not immediate, will necessarily be so tomorrow. The intent is that the paper supports an informed discussion and leads towards policy thought in anticipation of need, rather than in the face of it.”