Mahatma Ghandi famously said that the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members. Australia, while a democratic and economically prosperous nation, still is home to many vulnerable people.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The Turnbull Government has restricted access to the aged pension for 300,000 older Australians as part of a tightening of the assets test. According to AAP, about 330,000 Australians have had their pension decreased and about 90,000 have lost it entirely. In examining these cuts, I asked a friend from a small, poor South American country if he, currently unemployed, had access to any benefit from his government.
His answer was: "No, only the elderly receive a government benefit in this country."
So, simplistically speaking, even a country with an extremely low GDP sees value in the preservation of its older citizens as a priority.
Now, in Australia, some of the cuts may make good sense. We certainly would not argue in favour of middle class welfare at the expense of the poor, and would hope that those with the possibility of providing for themselves could be encouraged to do so.
Social services organisations have questioned the government at length over this move in order to make sure those who genuinely need the pension are not forced to live in abject poverty during their retirement. The reason for this is because the recent history of the current government's welfare strategies has been extremely chequered.
Last week Liberal Democrat crossbencher David Leyonhjelm said Australians should "reinforce the notion" that "when you retire you will only receive the pension if you're poor and it's nothing to be proud of".
We are inclined to disagree with this statement. Each year, Anglicare Australia recognises long-serving volunteers in a National Awards ceremony.
The 2016 winner and the two recipients of the highly commended honours were three elderly women who had worked as volunteers for many years, serving Anglicare members in places around Australia.
One is a volunteer grief counsellor; another cooks delicious food every week for young homeless men; and another is a refugee who after many years in Australia is now helping other refugees to integrate into the community. These women could be – or one day will be – considered "poor pensioners", and yet their contribution simply cannot be measured. Instead of lining their pockets to save for their retirement, these generous women have chosen to serve in a volunteer capacity, and this has extraordinary value.
As a nation – rather than penalising or shaming our elderly citizens – we should be celebrating their particular contributions, regardless of their economic status.
Those pensioners, who have spent their entire lives working and paying taxes, often in thankless jobs deserve our compassion and our thanks. They do not deserve to be subject to an assets test that fails to recognise their holistic contribution.
