Morrison’s retirement u-turn reeks of opportunism

THE PM’s retirement age retreat might be an appeal to a cohort slipping away from the LNP, but ultimately, it will prove to be the right call. But for the wrong reasons, writes Terry Sweetman.

NEW York Times columnist Maureen Dowd visited Australia recently to cast a forensic eye over our political system.

She had a lot to say, little of it of comfort to our politicians, but what cried out was this: “In both countries (Australian and the United States), there is widespread exasperation with a flawed political system that coughs up heads of government who capture a branch of their party without capturing the hearts of most of the country.’’

She was looking directly at Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who in pre and post-coup polls ran a poor third to Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop.

For all his love deficit, Morrison became Prime Minister — although there are now grounds for suspecting that it wasn’t quite as accidental as he would have us believe.

Having captured a faction of his party, he is now setting about trying to capture the hearts of the country.

A major step has been to retreat from his party’s longstanding policy to gradually increase the age pension age to 70 by 2035.

His reasoning for dropping this major policy plank was only marginally more convincing than the reasons that were given for raising the age in Joe Hockey’s 2014 horror budget.

“I don’t think we need that measure any longer when it comes to raising the pension age,’’ he said which was pretty light on detail after years of government telling us of a looming ageing crisis, the budget emergency and the national bank balance.

Having captured a faction of his party, Scott Morrison is now setting about trying to capture the hearts of the country. (Pic: AAP/Daniel Pockett)

And the somersault was spectacular given Morrison’s long-term championing of a work-until-you-drop policy and his famous warning that the age pension might not be sustainable in the long-term.

But the deed is done, oddly announced on a bubblegum morning TV show and before it was formally put to Cabinet.

Morrison’s retreat might be a cynical appeal to a greying cohort that is slipping away from the Liberal National Party and positively galloped away in the Longman by-election, but it was the right call.

But it was for the wrong reasons.

The injustice of raising the pension age to 70 was no more palatable than that of prime minister Julia Gillard’s original increase to 67 years.

This all began back in 2007 with a recommendation from the Committee for Economic Development of Australia that the pension age be increased to 67 by 2015.

It was roundly panned by then treasurer Peter Costello and then opposition leader Kevin Rudd, which should have rung alarm bells, because two years later it was adopted by Gillard and supported by the opposition.

The nub of CEDA’s argument was that when the pension was introduced, the few people who made it to 65 could expect to live for about 11 years more.

In 2007 the retired had about 20 years ahead of them, expected to grow to 30 by mid-century.

Morrison’s retirement age retreat might be a cynical appeal to a greying cohort that is slipping away from the Liberal National Party, but it was the right call. (Pic: AAP/Dan Peled)

Back then, I asked: “Why shouldn’t older Australians enjoy a dividend of longer twilight years?

“Surely they didn’t work hard so that they can work even harder and longer.’’

The answer from successive governments was that they did.

The money-saving potential of lifting the age to 67 was eventually irresistible, particularly as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and Denmark were moving to lift their pension ages.

Now, I read, Canada, the Czech Republic, France and Poland have back-pedalled on planned increases and defaulted back to age 65.

The simplistic objection to lifting the pension age (to 67 or 70) is that it fails to take into account the wear and tear of some occupations.

“If you’re a tradie or a brickie or a shearer in rural and regional Australia, you don’t want some suit in Canberra telling you you’ve got to work until you’re 70,’’ said National Party Leader Michael McCormack, who seemed to have belatedly shared the PM’s conversion on the road to an election.

The fact is that lifting the age to 70 would have left burnt-out toilers at the mercy of a disability pension or unemployment benefits for anything up to a decade.

The budgetary savings of moving creaky people from one welfare list to the other seem problematical to me.

But the major fault is that we haven’t even begun to make the structural or attitudinal changes to provide secure, meaningful, dignified and satisfying work for those in their mid-60s.

We can’t even find places for those in late middle age who find themselves looking at the help wanted advertisements.

Until government can do that it can’t in conscience even think about asking the elderly to bear the burden of its failures.

Terry Sweetman is a columnist for The Courier-Mail.

@Terrytoo69