Increasing pension age to 70 will hurt older workers: AIST

According to peak super body, many people don’t get to choose when they retire.

Increasing pension age to 70 will hurt older workers: AIST

According to the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST), not enough thought has been given to the high levels of involuntary retirement when considering raising the Age Pension eligibility age to 70.

Research conducted by the Australian Centre for Financial Studies and the AIST found that up to 40 per cent of older Australians do not choose when they retire.

Those working in community and personal services, in clerical and administrative roles, sales workers and labourers are between 35 and 50 per cent more likely than professional workers to retire before the age of 60.

AIST Chief Executive Eva Scheerlinck said that it isn’t just people with health issues who are struggling to work until age 70.

“Many older Australians do not get to choose when they retire,” said Ms Scheerlinck.

“We know that while health plays a role, other factors such as age discrimination, job type and caring demands all have a significant impact on when a person retires from paid work.

“Ensuring long-term sustainability of the system is important but we need to make sure there are appropriate mechanisms in place to protect older Australians who are unable to work longer,” said Ms Scheerlinck.

She added that any increase in the eligibility age would also add to workers’ concerns about not having enough money in retirement.

“Any changes that affect access to the Age Pension need to be part of a broader community conversation on retirement objectives,” said Ms Scheerlinck.

“We do need to look at ways to keep Australians in the workforce longer but simply raising the pension age is not the answer.”

In 2015, Susan Ryan, then age discrimination commissioner, found that more than one in every four workers over 50 had faced age discrimination.

A report commissioned by financial company AMP and undertaken by Canberra University’s National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) found that people will simply be too sick to work by the time they reach qualifying age.

Opinion: There are still too many barriers to working up to 70

If the Government is ever going to get its legislation raising the pension eligibility age to 70 passed, it has to ensure that it is a feasible prospect. At the moment, that simply isn’t the case.

As we have previously discussed, there needs to be an alternative for those who are physically or mentally unable to work until they’re 70.

There also needs to be work done to break down the barriers and discrimination facing the over 50s when they apply for new jobs.

Currently, workers in the older age bracket are told that their skills are outdated and there is little value in training someone in their 50s.

This issue isn’t just about the Government’s bottom line it is a serious mental health and confidence issue.

There are more people over 50 on work-for-the-dole schemes than unemployed people below 22. Men aged between 45 and 65 who have lost employment are one of the largest growing groups of people with mental health issues.

However, changing the mindset of employers will not be easy.

The Government has already tried a scheme offering $10,000 for companies taking on older workers but fewer than 3000 people responded when it was hoped the number would be closer to 32,000.

Perhaps offering subsidies for reskilling and training over 50s would be one way to approach the problem. Possible programs could include education campaigns with business leaders who employ a mix of age ranges in their workplaces, and getting out and spreading the word about the benefits of having more experienced staff members.

What would you like to see done to address the age discrimination issue in Australia? Would bigger subsidies work? Should the Government abandon its plans to lift the eligibility age for the pension?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    sirrom
    8th Jun 2017
    10:50am
    Labor actually proposed the 70 retirement age - and left it hanging - as with most things they did - no planning .
    MICK
    8th Jun 2017
    11:10am
    Neither has this government planned. Just announced this is what it wants to do. So who is worse, the party which wanted to have the discussion or the one which is hell bent on imposing it on retirees?
    jackie
    8th Jun 2017
    11:16am
    sirrom...You forget that it was Labor that introduced the Age and Invalid pensions, free education, Medicare and decent work rights for people. The Liberals have always tried to eradicate them. They have done an excellent job doing it.
    Anonymous
    8th Jun 2017
    12:26pm
    jackie, it's all well and good to cast aspersions but a bit of proof would be welcome to support your accusation that the Liberals are trying to eradicate age and invalid pensions, free education, Medicare and decent work rights for people.
    Swinging voter
    8th Jun 2017
    1:42pm
    Labor introduced the HECS scheme, knowing full well that they and all future governments would be able to increase the fees over time and they sure have! They privatised the Commonwealth Bank removing the only competitive alternative to the other four big banks. They upped the age of retirement, opening the door (as with HECS) to even more increases. They opened the floodgates for 50,000 Centrelink seeking boat arrivals, many of whom have never been thoroughly security assessed. They introduced the biggest financial trick ever perpetrated on the Australian people - Nick Sherry's superannuation scheme - a minefield that requires ordinary people to fork out for the services of costly, greedy financial "advisors". The vast majority of people coping with the physical restrictions/aches and pains from old age cannot find, or be reliably employed, until 68, let alone 70.
    TREBOR
    8th Jun 2017
    1:57pm
    For the record, I've blasted Labor over that here and elsewhere for years now. It always was a stupid idea.
    jackie
    8th Jun 2017
    2:28pm
    Old Man...Where have you been these last few decades? Would you please open your eyes. Here is a pdf for you to download and read. There are plenty of other resources to back yup my claim.
    http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/eco/chron_superannuation.pdf
    Anonymous
    8th Jun 2017
    3:06pm
    Thank you jackie, your link fails to show that the Liberals are trying to eradicate age and invalid pensions, free education, Medicare and decent work rights for people. It does show that changes have been made to super and pensions but that doesn't follow that the changes mean an eradication. Please feel free to give the links to the "plenty of other resources"of which you write.
    tia-maria
    9th Jun 2017
    10:59am
    Jackie 100% behind your comment........ and unfortunately Old Man being a devoted Liberal man has no idea how tough its been for many hard working Aussies......Lets not forget that Medicare was brought in by Labor Party for all aussies (not just for the wealthy)
    Old man your entitle to ones opinion but I don't agree with it.
    TREBOR
    9th Jun 2017
    3:04pm
    Asking for proof doesn't make him a Liberal supporter or apologist... but perhaps OM needs to consider that it is unlikely that such moves would offer substantial evidence towards proof, and would be well-diusguised and hidden within party ranks.

    You can only judge the pudding by the eating....... which is what many are doing when they see what is going on with those issues raised. Those complaining are the ones eating it - those creating the environment in which these socially upward measures will fail are not affected in the least.

    Which is more entitled to a voice?
    Kez
    12th Jun 2017
    3:50pm
    This is totally unfair to people without enough super to retire on.
    I'm 63 yrs. The past 9 years I can only get manual jobs. Currently recovering from Carpal Tunnel surgery in my left hand. I also have it in my right hand. I have a pencil line of cartilage left on my right knee and when that goes I need a knee replacement. My body is sick from working.
    almost a grey hair
    8th Jun 2017
    11:05am
    I am 60 and retired i.e. not working and not looking for work this means I am self funded. However if the Libs bring this in I will be straight down to the rock and roll office and register as able and willing to look for work. This means that I will probably be on the dole for ten years until I transfer to the pension. In the meantime my super, still held in accumulation phase will not be counted as an asset until age 70 thereby increasing in value. I can also withdraw lump sums from my super fund any time I like to supplement the dole. Sounds like Utopia to me, am really pleased I worked hard and scrimped and saved, paid off a house, helped kids in business and home purchasing, now I can kick back and enjoy life as it was meant to happen, Happy days
    jackie
    8th Jun 2017
    11:46am
    almost a grey hair...Please stop dreaming...the reality is you won't get a cent. they will send you to a job network provider that will be on your back to find work by yourself whilst they get a nice salary for doing so.
    older&wiser
    8th Jun 2017
    1:43pm
    True, and they put you on Newstart, which is really poverty. You can only get that too if you have practically no savings and no assets.
    Rae
    8th Jun 2017
    2:08pm
    Rent an office and start a job provider business. That's where the real taxpayer dollar is to be had. Cheap offices in most of the areas of huge population growth and few jobs.
    Anonymous
    10th Jun 2017
    6:56pm
    Every generation lives longer so it makes sense to keep people working longer (if they are able).

    I could easily still be working and I am over 70! I am fit and healthy.
    MICK
    8th Jun 2017
    11:08am
    Same old same. Recycled story.
    The issues have not changed:

    1. many older workers are thrown on the scrapheap and never offered another real job.
    2. manual jobs where bodies are worn out after 50 result in workers UNABLE to work to 70.
    3. high stress jobs are not manageable forever either unless you want people to end up with mental issues.

    The whole argument of working to 70 fails on all but economic grounds and this is the reason why it keeps being pushed by our dreadful current government which simply does not want to pay pensions. Od course the fact that money which could be used to fund pensions is being sent to the top end of town by way of tax cuts is not up for discussion. It is what it is.
    GeorgeM
    8th Jun 2017
    1:40pm
    Yeah, MICK, same old story trying to get people to react again.

    First step to stop Age discrimination is to fix the problems created / allowed by Govt by throwing people out of work - forced redundancies (for CEOs to increase their bonus & profits, often hand-in-hand with Outsourcing), Outsourcing to low-wage countries such as India / Philippines, 457 visas (or it's recently proposed substitute) preventing roles at all levels being available to locals, shutdown of most manufacturing (sent off to China).

    The whole idea of increasing Pension age to 70 absolutely stinks when people cannot have jobs, even if they are healthy & able. Besides that, how dare these politicians try to stuff everyone else, while they have nicely feathered their own nests for retirement See below:

    Link to see what current (new MPs since 2004) pollies get:
    http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/bn/1011/superannuationbenefits

    The current system allows them access to GREAT pensions at 55-60 years (latter age limit being phased in by 2025), with NO ASSETS or INCOME TESTS EITHER, after a mere 8 years service, and STARTING at $92,500 based on 50% of current salary of $185,000, and increasing with years of service) - FOR LIFE. Also, they can have additional pensions if they are Ministers, etc. No justification whatsoever for their special pensions!
    All of us have a duty to GET RID OF THESE LEECHES!
    musicveg
    11th Jun 2017
    10:55pm
    Yes George it is totally disgusting how they keep paying the pollies so much pension, should be the same for all no matter what job you have done or for how long and pensions for pollies should start at the same age as everyone else. $92,500 is a lot of money that is at least 4 years of pension payments to the average person.
    almost a grey hair
    8th Jun 2017
    11:09am
    It may have been Labour that proposed retirement age at 70 but it will be the Lib nazis that introduce it without thinking of the consequences. What difference does it make paying me the dole or the age pension at 65 or for me now 66.
    MICK
    8th Jun 2017
    11:11am
    On the money. Exactly...unless further attacks are planned to make retirees spend their family home.
    TREBOR
    8th Jun 2017
    2:01pm
    Yes - the (un)hidden agenda is to force people to de facto fund their own 'retirement' for at least five years, thus running down their assets and placing those into the market so as to stimulate it and profit its owners (sic).

    Like all such cunning moves, it is as transparent as glass.
    niemakawa
    8th Jun 2017
    3:13pm
    The preservation age for eaccessing Super. will almost certainly be raised to the retirement age as well. What is left? as MICK so rightly pointed out "the family home".
    Rae
    9th Jun 2017
    9:05am
    Save money out of super and there are no age rules at all.
    TREBOR
    9th Jun 2017
    10:29am
    True, but you pay tax on any income derived and it also affects any social security rights under an assets and incomes test.
    musicveg
    11th Jun 2017
    11:00pm
    The difference is that the dole is less money and also creates more work for job providers.
    jackie
    8th Jun 2017
    11:11am
    I am in my 60s and still working because I can't live off New Start Allowance. I have several medical conditions but our Government will not give me a Disability pension unless I can prove that I am literally dying. I am lucky to have survived so far considering I have known many people that died at much younger ages. One of them last week from a heart attack at 52. Our politicians are hypocrites because they can claim their hefty pensions that aren't means tested but ordinary Australians have to wait for theirs till 70.
    MICK
    8th Jun 2017
    11:17am
    I understand that there are ober 1 million Australians on a Disability Pension. How come you missed out?
    Many of us see this pension as a rort but not having a medical problem (touch wood) maybe the glaring figures are correct. Unlikely.
    jackie
    8th Jun 2017
    11:29am
    MICK...I am not the only one that has missed out...there are thousands of Australians that miss out each week. Many commit suicide because of the knockbacks. I am talking about Australians that were born here not the ones that weren't. They don't have the same problem.
    KSS
    8th Jun 2017
    12:33pm
    Jackie the fact that you are capable of working (and indeed you are doing so) simply goes to prove that you are not eligible for the Disability pension however much you might think you deserve it. I find your comment that you are 'still working because you can't afford to live on New Start Allowance' frankly disturbing.

    Yes it is sad people die young but that has gone on since time began and will continue into the future. That is LIFE.

    You have missed out on nothing! You simply don't qualify because you are more than capable of working. I too am in my 60s and working full time. You are not the only one. There are millions of us!
    TREBOR
    8th Jun 2017
    2:03pm
    DSP is not a simple handout or process, Mick - you must know that. There are many hurdles to jump through to get it, and viewing it as a rort is pure self-centredness and inability to see reality.
    jackie
    8th Jun 2017
    2:40pm
    KSS... Whilst I am working paying my taxes to support our politicians, my health is deteriorating. That is because I am not supposed to be working according to the medical profession. There are people with missing legs, deaf, almost blind and can't get a Disability pension. They are left to rot on the dole and accused of being bludgers. Thank god I have another 15 months to go before I qualify for the Age Pension. That's if I make it.
    niemakawa
    8th Jun 2017
    2:48pm
    @MICK. The net for the DSP has been caste wide and does not only cover physical disabilities but an array of "mental health issues". The latter which I believe accounts for a substantial number of DSP recipients. ( Especially new arrivals) I think if there is any rorting then it is coming from this group.
    Anonymous
    9th Jun 2017
    10:49am
    I know a fellow who had multiple major physical disabilities and was certified 'unfit to work' by multiple doctors and specialists on account of a serious back injury, injuries in both shoulders, an injured hand from an old break that occurred during military service and was never fixed, an ankle injury, respiratory illness, gout, and severe frequent headaches accompanied by dizziness and partial blindness. At 64 years of age, having never done anything but labouring work and having no education or skills, he was denied disability benefits because ''he could be phased back into the workforce over a 2 year period with physio therapy, counselling and being forced to do voluntary work part time''. A social worker told him to resubmit his application listing psychological disabilities and it was immediately approved.

    A 55-year-old woman I know has been on disability for over 30 years with nothing at all wrong with her. Someone recently provided photos of her dancing and running in a marathon to Centrelink to evidence that her claims of being 'crippled' and needing a wheelchair were false. She claimed 'mental incapacity' and retained her benefits.

    On the other hand, I know of cancer patients who can't get DSP.

    The system is completely broken - likely beyond repair!
    TREBOR
    9th Jun 2017
    3:06pm
    Rainey - I had no idea you knew me...... though not the labouring work or the hand .... nope - can't be me...
    inextratime
    8th Jun 2017
    11:15am
    I managed to work until I was 68 mainly because I was at a desk. Then my employer decided I was too old and insisted I retire. However they now say that sitting at a desk all day is the new 'smoking'. So your doomed if you work manually or at a desk. Then you have to contend with employers who want to replace you with younger staff. Talk about a minefield.
    MICK
    8th Jun 2017
    11:18am
    Ageism. Supposed to be illegal but it is rife.
    KSS
    8th Jun 2017
    12:27pm
    It is the 'ism that is most difficult to prove, that's why MICK.

    No employer would ever admit that someone didn't get a job interview, or didn't the job, or were denied training, learning and development opportunities because they were considered too old. Ooh Nooo. You get told you are too experienced/not experienced enough, too qualified/not qualified enough, the training doesn't apply to your role.........
    Swinging voter
    8th Jun 2017
    1:47pm
    Desk workers, commercial drivers etc. are far less likely to be unemployable in older age than building tradesmen, concreters, etc. who are usually crippled by the time they are 50 when they either get a desk job (impossible) or drive a cab (dangerous) for 20 years?
    Ted Wards
    8th Jun 2017
    11:18am
    Maybe the writer of this article should actually step out of the office and out of behind the computer and the stats. The truth is many workers are working in their 70s already. They work shared jobs, shorter days. What is needed is a raft of policies to ensure that the workforce can cope with older people officially working even into their 80s. Full time work may not be the answer but shorted days and so on needs to be considered. The trouble is we see older people as a burden and as useless. There is such an ageist attitude that permeates even this site and the articles. Ageing pople are rich resource, they are not a burden and the experience they take with them when they leave can never be replaced. Maybe the point of the article should be why isnt Australia willing to embrace older workers and support older workers as they make up a huge part of the working population and will only increase in numbers as the population ages. Its only the young that see them as a burden but youth and inexperience is also a burden to the workforce!
    jackie
    8th Jun 2017
    11:36am
    Ted Wards...It's about time oldies handed the jobs over to the young people. They have huge education debts before they start work and their houses will cost them billions in a casualised workforce. Oldies can do voluntary work if we are bored at home.
    KSS
    8th Jun 2017
    12:37pm
    Why jackie? Why should someone have to give their job in favour of someone younger? That is just perpetuating the ageism that already exists.

    Houses will cost them 'billions'? Huh???

    Oldies can do voluntary work if bored at home??????? Why? If they want to keep working why push them into voluntary work 'if they are bored at home'?
    Trees
    8th Jun 2017
    1:30pm
    Don't understand your thinking Jackie.

    I would imagine that the majority of older people that are still working would gladly give up their jobs if they were financially
    secure obviously they are not.
    TREBOR
    8th Jun 2017
    2:05pm
    Spot on, Ted.

    KSS - no need for anyone to 'give a job' if there are sufficient jobs to go around.

    I, for one, am OK financially but would prefer to work if I can find a job that will suit my mounting disabilities. Considering driving a bus.... watch out, people... cranky old git at the wheel....
    jackie
    8th Jun 2017
    2:46pm
    KSS....Oldies can't take it all with them. Yes, houses will cost billions...no thought 40 years back that city shacks would cost millions. At least when I was young there was stable work that provided security. That has all gone for the new generations..I remember there was a time when wealthy older people volunteered but now they never have enough money.
    niemakawa
    8th Jun 2017
    3:02pm
    The fact is there will be less and less jobs in the future as many processes become automated and we enter the age of the robot. So even the young will find it even more harder to find work. We are going through a new "industrial" revolution which the Politicians have little idea in planning for the dramatic challenges that we face. In Norway and I also believe in Switzerland everyone is paid a living wage working or not. Maybe Australia will go down this road.
    KSS
    8th Jun 2017
    3:27pm
    'Oldies' are meant to use it to fund their retirement! If they did there would be no possibility of 'taking it with them'!
    TREBOR
    8th Jun 2017
    7:07pm
    Meant to use their house to fund their retirement? Is that what is being mooted here?

    Well - welcome to geriatric tent city....
    disillusioned
    8th Jun 2017
    11:24am
    I retired just before my 70th birthday, and was glad to do so, as I worked in an intensive people-focused industry, and was probably on the verge of burnout, plus had had several health problems. However, how come the politicians don't apply the same rule to their OWN pensions? I am disgusted at the huge pensions and entitlements that they reef from the taxpayer when they swan out the door of the parliament, at whatever age they choose (or are booted!), no matter how good, bad or mediocre they have been. Seems like a massive rort to me!
    jackie
    8th Jun 2017
    11:38am
    disillusioned....No one cares that politicians can retire at 60. Australians are pulling them up about that.
    Sundays
    8th Jun 2017
    1:00pm
    Jackie, Anyone with superannuation can retire at 60 and many do. The politicians pay into their own superannuation scheme (albeit a very generous one). It seems to me that you are unhappy about having to wait until retirement age before you get the age pension. There has to be a cut off date. However, I do think that 70 is too old and at this point in time it is just being talked about, not actually in place.
    KSS
    8th Jun 2017
    1:21pm
    Anyone can retire at any age if they can support themselves. There is NO retirement age in Australia only the age at which you become eligible to apply for a pension.
    jackie
    8th Jun 2017
    2:49pm
    Sundays I have friends that retired in their 50s but politicians can retire at 60 plus get a huge taxpayer pension that is not means tested. That is disgusting.
    Sundays
    8th Jun 2017
    4:32pm
    Jackie, I'm not sure what you mean. They get a superannuation pension to which they partly contributed their own money as well as paying taxes. The scheme is too generous but so are other public and private super schemes. You can't compare it to the age pension. If there is any consolation the income from the politicians pension will exclude them from double dipping and also getting the OAP.
    John from Perth
    8th Jun 2017
    11:31am
    They just want people on the Dole until 70. That way politicians
    can save for their own pension at an early age.
    jackie
    8th Jun 2017
    11:50am
    John from Perth...Governments receive more taxes than ever these days and claim to have less money than ever.
    KSS
    8th Jun 2017
    1:23pm
    And there are more people than ever who all want things from their government, more hospitals, more schools, more health care, more infrastructure, more pensions, more welfare.........
    TREBOR
    8th Jun 2017
    7:36pm
    And more governments that want all things from their people... it's a symbiotic relationship - something politicians etc have yet to learn.

    Council rates are applied for rise of 11% - followed by the consecutive years of a further 5% each...

    Wow - might get the road finished as long as the CEO gets his super etc.
    Rae
    9th Jun 2017
    9:12am
    REBOR our useless council has lost millions. Yes the money is just missing and can't be found.

    In fact any paperwork lodges seems to go missing almost immediately.

    If it was a private business it would be insolvent and not allowed to operate.
    TREBOR
    9th Jun 2017
    10:35am
    Ours wants an 11% increase, then 5% next year on 111%, then a further 5% than a further 5%, meaning they'll get close to 30% over four years. They reckon they're broke, but how can they reconcile that increase with wages etc?

    I say lies, they're just bloody inefficient.

    The ceo said 'we can't just keep going cap in hand to the State government for money, yet we all know how fat councils are and how overpaid their head honchos are these days.

    I used to know a farmer from Eugowra, and he once said of his farmer brother-in-law - 'he's got a gut on him like a Council horse'...

    We often travel The Lakes Way - getting worse by the day... the worst and most heavily traveled spots get no treatment at all, but the nice bits get an upgrade once every couple of years.
    Jurassicgeek
    8th Jun 2017
    11:47am
    only a bunch of parasites who never did a hard days work in their lives would be advocating a retirement age of 70 for others....
    TREBOR
    9th Jun 2017
    10:35am
    Now that says it in a nutshell.
    Andy
    8th Jun 2017
    11:54am
    both the Liberal (greens) and Labour parties need the wire brush through them, now days they are all for them selves, this has got to stop, before any decent planing will be done for pensioners. I worked til 70, and would have worked longer, if I could have. One fact that is not mentioned is that most insurances stop or try to stop coverage at 70, so what you say? a lot of people dont get sick or start to have bad effects from an accident til after they leave work. At 65 you have 5 years to work it out.
    Phil1943
    8th Jun 2017
    12:06pm
    I was so lucky - as I got older my employers recognised that I wasn't young anymore and wasn't going to be a vibrant ball of fire, or whatever. I negotiated such benefits as working from home two days a week and starting early/finishing early that suited my changing lifestyle.
    When I finally pulled the plug at 72 it was my choice and I had simply had enough. Not enough money in the bank, true, but enough of working in offices and dealing with people who were both younger and more active.
    I suggest that as part of your retirement planning you also plan to 'downscale' your job. It might cost you some income, and certainly won't help your probably negligent chances for a promotion, but it lets you stay employed up to and past 70 if you have an understanding employer and if you can still make a contribution to the organisation.
    KSS
    8th Jun 2017
    12:42pm
    Phil1943 that was exactly what the transition to retirement opportunity was all about. Allowing people to cut down on their working hours whilst still being able to contribute to super and drawing down the minimum amount to make up for lost salary.
    Aussie
    8th Jun 2017
    1:27pm
    Hey Phil1943 ...same here I work until 71 then I try to live in AU but to hard and expensive so I decide to Hop like a Roo from country to country ..... Great stuff only with pension nothing else ...... good luck mate ....
    TREBOR
    8th Jun 2017
    7:37pm
    Good work if you can get it............ most can't....

    Ideals are peaceful - history is violent (Fury with Brad Pitt)...
    Charlie
    8th Jun 2017
    12:35pm
    Its stupid, living longer is not an indicator or physical fitness. The overweight generations coming up, are going to be unfit for full time employment a lot earlier, so will be sucking the life out of the disability insurance scheme.

    What they are going to need at that end of the scale are jobs with shorter hours, unfortunately, not at a full week pay.

    I have advertised in the paper more than once to get 4hrs a week casual work and not a single phone call.

    It seems that the unions have made casual labour a profession that requires a piece of paper, or the employers think that being on age pension makes it illegal to earn any money at all.
    KSS
    8th Jun 2017
    12:48pm
    Perhaps try advertising your services without mentioning the pensioner bit in the first instance. And are you advertising in the right places? Many employers no longer use newspaper advertising so wouldn't be looking there. So why not try one of the on-line websites. There are options and alternatives out there. You just need to look for them.

    I'm not saying it is easy but it is better than just putting ads in the local 'free' newspaper and hoping for the best.
    TREBOR
    8th Jun 2017
    7:38pm
    Just filled out a job app for bus driving - at the question about long term health problems - I said no....
    Charlie
    8th Jun 2017
    10:23pm
    KSS..Yes I should try some of the other ones like Gumtree. Mainly for selling but some employment too. There were some agencies a couple of years ago, but the government restructured them and they've since been disfunctional, probably due to agencies advertising employment through another agency. Your application never reaches the actual employer because the screening process is computerized and only selects, perfect match applicants.
    Blossom
    13th Jun 2017
    2:27pm
    In some cases pensioners and dole people are better off not working at all. I will give you an example not of an close to pension age person but of a Dad with a wife, a toddler and a young baby with medical problems. He was retrenched from his job, together with a few others. After hunting for jobs he applied for the dole and was asked why he didn't apply sooner. After he got the dole he was offered 3 days work - all the same week. Naturally he had to declare it. Starting early before public transport started in the morning, being too far to walk or go by taxi meant he had to travel by his own car (petrol price was high at the time but he had no other option). By the time Tax, transport costs and pension cut, he actually cleared less income that had no not worked at all. That is why some won't take a few days casual work.
    niemakawa
    13th Jun 2017
    2:34pm
    Blossom, so the "dole" allowance is too high!!

    8th Jun 2017
    12:44pm
    If we look back at the history of the age pension, 65 was the age for men and 60 for women at a time when the average male lifespan was 57. Now we have moved on to the new century and the average life span has increased so that the average male lifespan is in the 80's. I don't believe that the increase is any justification for increasing the pensions age. I didn't agree with the increase to 67 and I certainly don't support the proposal to lift pension age to 70. I was a white collar employee for most of my working life and whilst the physical side was not too onerous, rising to management level brought its own share of psychological problems. People who are blue collar workers surely cannot be expected to continue after 65 as the toll on their bodies will be exponentially greater at that age.

    The government is obviously concerned about the age pension and is already taking steps to reduce expenditure by forcing those with too high an asset value to use their own funds before applying for an age pension. The DSP list is reducing because the government has cracked down on those who claim illness and an inability to work by enforcing medicals by an independent doctor.

    More needs to be done and raising taxes is not necessarily the answer. A close look at expenditure should reveal areas where savings can be made. I note that consultants are a drain of over $5B annually and this is ludicrous. Some of the consultants are public servants recently retired who are asked to contribute at an exorbitant cost. Why have these public servants not trained others in a succession plan. Governments of all persuasions have boasted about reducing the public service but they have done this by retiring people and paying them as consultants.

    Politicians' salaries are acceptable but the expenditure in items they claim is associated with their work is not. When a wife costs $50,000pa to accompany her husband to do his job, I don't think that this is at all acceptable. The costs of having family reunions is an anachronism left over from the days when trains were the only means of travel. Cancel the costs of family reunions in Canberra. Please feel free to add to this list.
    Sundays
    8th Jun 2017
    1:10pm
    I agree completely Old Man. The Government has made big cut backs to the Public Service, but still want the work done. Answer: Hire consultants because it is a different bucket of money and won't show in the staffing figures. Who are they trying to kid. I would also look at the duplication of services between departments and some of the airy fairy programs. As for politicians I would add the double dipping where the spouse buys a place in Canberra which they negative gear, the politician stays there and 'pays rent' but gets travel allowance to do so. Cut out any accommodation payment that is not to a hotel and pay the hotel direct after negotiating good deals.
    Aussie
    8th Jun 2017
    1:18pm
    Hey I have a great Idea .... lets change the retirement age to 85 or 90 with a free cemetery box benefits .... The way we are going is just Crazy .... they get big juicy pensions and nobody in the government complains .... Shit how unfair for us .... I no longer give a shit ..... they will do whatever they want to their benefit and we can do nothing ..... so I make my own rules .......

    Now I am happy traveling the world I am like a Roo .... jump from country to country ....stay on medium class hotels or rent small apartment in some cities, travel by train, Bus or wait for the cheap plane ticket some time a get a free ride with someone ... stay always near the beach ..... No super or any other income just pension .... so great stuff travel travel know the world ....I am over 70 so come on get off your seat and travel out to see the world ........ forget about the retirement age .... Have fun on your old age .... can you walk ??? if the answer is "YES" then GO GO GO ........ take your pills with you he he he he and have fun for the rest of your life short or long .....

    Br Happy and enjoy live ....... just be sure your passport is up to date and always in a secure place when travel ...(Between your legs) do not get cash take nothing just a carry on small suitcase with tee's shorts .... nothing heavy ...oh oh oh oh your toothbrush he he he and con.....s just in case ......

    If you have a hotel without a safe .... cut a 2 or 3 inch on the inside side of the mattress, put your passport and credit card on a plastic bag inside the mattress small cut you did and saw it back ..... be sure you saw the mattress before you go ..... he he he he ... I got robbed 4 times on hotels but passport and CC always save because they will lift the mattress to check but never look on the sides Top of the mattress .......

    So Forget about all this retirement age and have funnnnnn
    Chris B T
    8th Jun 2017
    1:23pm
    You can retire at any age and return to work when ever you feal like it as well.
    It is a state of mind you can change your mind.
    The only thing is changing is age accessibility for age pension.
    Put your super to better use, than paying down debts.
    If you can while working pay down debts or didn't put yourself into unmanageable debts, especially bad debts.
    TREBOR
    8th Jun 2017
    7:40pm
    .. and all you have to do is find a job....
    Chris B T
    9th Jun 2017
    9:40am
    Still looking for your first job since the 1960's.
    TREBOR
    9th Jun 2017
    10:38am
    Ahhh... yeah...mmaaaan.. the surf is like.. you know... too good today ... the job can wait.....

    I KNOW I've done more than most... thank you for coming.
    Pamiea
    8th Jun 2017
    1:28pm
    Ridiculous to expect people to work to 70. Some could and a lot couldn't plus they would have to put up with discrimination from younger workers!!
    TREBOR
    8th Jun 2017
    1:56pm
    It was always a stupid idea thought up in five seconds of whining in the back room at Lib HQ, and should never have received the time or effort to even voice it out loud.
    TREBOR
    8th Jun 2017
    10:06pm
    My apologies - it started with Labor under Gillard... Burn The Witch!
    Aussie
    8th Jun 2017
    1:59pm
    This is interesting have a read what the USA politicians get in pension .... must read all the report to understand how do they get the pension and at what ages ..... then compare with the Australian Politicians and you will see that become Australian politician is one of the greatest jobs you can get in life and full security for ever .....

    http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2013/jan/11/chain-email/can-members-congress-retire-full-pay-after-just-on/
    niemakawa
    8th Jun 2017
    2:11pm
    The Government and most other political parties all would like to see the retirement age shifted to 70. Remember the old biblical saying three score and ten, I think they've hooked onto this, in a hope that many older people will die soon after. Certainly would inprove their bottom line. Many European countries have a retirement age of 60 and there is no reason why Australia cannot do the same. A pension for all retirees regardless of income and assets would reduce the administrative costs which are escalating with the means tested system.
    ex PS
    8th Jun 2017
    4:28pm
    After witnessing many people working well after retirement could have been taken and either dying or having to go into care shortly after retirement I planned for and took retirement at 55. I had every intention of never having to access a taxpayer funded Pension Entitlement. But after seeing the total disregard this government has for retirees I am not even giving a moments consideration to stretching out my self funded pension, I will spend what I want on holidays and new cars and if I run out of money I will take my Pension Entitlement. This government is more interested in taking from the workers and giving to their campaign contributors than looking after the workers who have spent over 40 years working and paying taxes.
    niemakawa
    8th Jun 2017
    9:04pm
    ex PS. I do not blame you. Enjoy the fruit of your endeavours before the Government takes it from you. You have paid your dues and you have aright to a State pension. Sadly the Government thinks that only those (many people) who have failed to make any or little effort in life to put a penny aside for their latter years are entitled. No sob stories please.
    Anonymous
    9th Jun 2017
    11:02am
    I'm with you all the way on that one, ex PS. No rewards for being responsible, hard working or frugal in this society. I'm still working past retirement age but only casual and only because I love what I do and I have a lot of freedom to work when it suits. I also spend freely and have no qualms about - when the time comes - claiming every cent of benefit I can qualify for.

    This government has no clue how to manage the economy. Their cruel and stupid policies will continue to drive increasing economic problems. Raising the retirement age is false economy, as was changing the assets test. Both policies will ultimately drive costs up and revenue down. But there's no way to educate the idiots in power, nor those of the populace who blindly support them, incapable of understanding the logical consequences of dumb policy changes.

    Common sense dictates that the retirement age should be LOWERED, not raised. The government should be ensuring that the benefits of increased productivity and technological changes that replace labour should be shared across the community through reduced working hours and earlier retirement. To reduce unemployment, abolish payroll tax and instead draw up a formula requiring that businesses employ N workers for each $100K of turnover, or pay a penalty tax equal to the wage cost avoided. Make businesses that benefit from reduced labour needs pay the resulting increased costs of supporting the unemployed.
    Anonymous
    9th Jun 2017
    11:02am
    I'm with you all the way on that one, ex PS. No rewards for being responsible, hard working or frugal in this society. I'm still working past retirement age but only casual and only because I love what I do and I have a lot of freedom to work when it suits. I also spend freely and have no qualms about - when the time comes - claiming every cent of benefit I can qualify for.

    This government has no clue how to manage the economy. Their cruel and stupid policies will continue to drive increasing economic problems. Raising the retirement age is false economy, as was changing the assets test. Both policies will ultimately drive costs up and revenue down. But there's no way to educate the idiots in power, nor those of the populace who blindly support them, incapable of understanding the logical consequences of dumb policy changes.

    Common sense dictates that the retirement age should be LOWERED, not raised. The government should be ensuring that the benefits of increased productivity and technological changes that replace labour should be shared across the community through reduced working hours and earlier retirement. To reduce unemployment, abolish payroll tax and instead draw up a formula requiring that businesses employ N workers for each $100K of turnover, or pay a penalty tax equal to the wage cost avoided. Make businesses that benefit from reduced labour needs pay the resulting increased costs of supporting the unemployed.
    Dollars over Respect?
    8th Jun 2017
    3:00pm
    Age discrimination exists against the majority of people who (for any number of reasons) lose their jobs - if over 52 yrs it is rampant. Employers choose someone who is younger over a middle aged person, as they also have a degree of experience - not as much as an older person in most cases but are cheaper to employ. When a senior, successful, older worker (even in possession of a superb record of achievements plus an excellent CV) is in the running against a younger person for the same role, the younger person is chosen for the job. The rationale often is that the younger candidate is more than likely just managing to get ahead at this stage and is still supporting a family (a large mortgage debt to pay out plus the cost of educating their kids), whereas an older candidate should be, in the minds (pure imagination) of the employer, less in need of the income because such types of debts are behind them (or almost behind them). Fact: Jobs are getting scarcer, the 'new' technological jobs needed for the future have not yet evolved, so making the older worker stay in the workforce longer will achieve nothing. Many older, healthy, vital people do not want to retire even at 65 years, however, they are the first to be made redundant when available jobs are under threat - this is how it is! Before the Govt decides to raise the pension age, they need to resolve the serious job issue (they haven't been able to yet). If you can't get a job, you'll need to go on welfare (to continue paying off the mortgage and all the other living expenses). What's the point whether you are on the pension or receiving welfare, older people will still govt financial support until a full working life of continual compulsory retirement savings has accrued - enough to draw upon (women are still the worst affected as child care facilities are still in short supply and child care unaffordable for most young families). Imagine being a very senior professional who is forced to work till 70 and finds the only jobs available are what you did at a teenager/student (grocery shelf stacking/waitering). Abhorrent way to reward a hard-working, decent, responsible, lifelong contributor to our wonderful Australian society! This is what awaits a 70 year old - if you are healthy! However, if you've worn your body out doing 'hard-work", and earning an income and paying taxes for many years, tough! Perhaps you'll be successful in your application for support from NDIS...well possibly.
    ex PS
    8th Jun 2017
    4:18pm
    What it comes down to is that instead of paying benefits to young unemployed we will be paying benefits to old unemployed, or visa versa. Until we have full employment this is just another ploy by an unprepared government to make it look like they have some sort of plan. Just more smoke and mirrors from a government that has no plan and no ideas.
    shirboy
    8th Jun 2017
    5:11pm
    People should be able to retire from work when they want to. The 70 year old proposal is cruel & ridiculous.
    shirboy
    8th Jun 2017
    5:12pm
    People should be able to retire from work when they want to. The 70 year old proposal is cruel & ridiculous.
    arbee
    8th Jun 2017
    8:15pm
    Where is the magic bullet coming from, we already have high unemployment and massive underemployment, where is the workload going to come from for this ageing population. I remember 20 or 30 years ago they were saying that the retirement age would be brought down to about 55 years by now. As industry becomes more automated there will be even less job opportunities. The only solution I see world wide is to start using the Chinese one child per couple system. We also have to start looking after ourselves as well and cut migration to this country if we do not have the jobs available. We are also paying huge sums in welfare to encourage migrants to have large families. I am sick of the bleeding hearts who would want to fill this country with migrants who have nothing to offer (except radicalism)
    pedro the swift
    8th Jun 2017
    8:50pm
    Well, that will pass me by! I have retired (made redundant) in Feb. My age? 73.
    Aussie
    8th Jun 2017
    10:49pm
    Time to have fun Pedro Fiesta todo el dia Yeahhhhhh
    niemakawa
    9th Jun 2017
    12:50am
    Australia is a signatory to this agreement. Many people on these forums have highlighted that many Companies are shifting profits offshore to avoid paying local taxes.

    http://www.oecd.org/tax/ground-breaking-multilateral-beps-convention-will-close-tax-treaty-loopholes.htm
    AutumnOz
    9th Jun 2017
    6:58am
    An interesting article. Thanks for posting the address.
    TREBOR
    9th Jun 2017
    10:41am
    Been saying that steps are in train to slow down or halt the bleeding of national cash overseas into tax havens...

    Thanks for your link.
    GeorgeM
    9th Jun 2017
    7:53pm
    Thanks for the news & the link, niemakawa.
    Didn't hear a word about it in the MSM news, although if it was regarding Climate Change it would have made the headlines!

    Now we can wait with bated breath for this business-friendly Govt (and their competitor, Bowen of the Labor) to give it some priority!
    sunnyOz
    9th Jun 2017
    1:05pm
    One very important thing to consider - Workcover for older workers. A great deal of misconception and inequality, and this needs to be properly sorted out before pushing more workers to work longer.
    justsay'n
    9th Jun 2017
    9:46pm
    The Governments goal both Liberal and Labour
    forcing individuals to work until 70 yrs is that they will be dead by before they retire and hence will never qualify for a Pension. I retired at 65yrs after working over 40 years with only a few years off for having children. By 65yrs it was not only the associated enforced political correctness, change in Management style upheaval and instability along with 2 hours in traffic every day I realised I just did not need this in my life anymore. I was a fit healthy person and yet each night I would arrive home after a 10 to 11 hour day from when I had left home at 7.30 each morning.
    I have no doubt that had so been forced to continue employment I would not have reached 70 yrs. One has to question why Politicians can retire at 60 yrs of age with full benefits yet their has been no mention of change to include them in these changes.

    10th Jun 2017
    2:01am
    While reputable advisory groups are debating the wisdom of reducing the working week - some suggesting to as little as 15 hours per week - in response to technological advances reducing the need for labour, the greedy idiots in power want to force SOME folk to work until they drop and some to live in poverty in old age because there is no opportunity for them to work or their health precludes it, while the PRIVELEGED FEW enjoy ALL the riches that flow from technological advances, living the high life and hoarding billions. The bottom line is that changing the retirement age to 70 is just another facet of the social engineering exercise in which the powers-that-be are engaged - endeavouring to restore the feudal society in which the poor were slaves to the filthy rich and rising above the class you were born to was impossible. We have a sick, vile and disgusting mob in power, and we need them GONE. Sadly, though, the alternatives are no more appealing. A complete overhaul of the system of government is required.
    musicveg
    11th Jun 2017
    11:46pm
    I feel the poor are already slaves, after all they spend any money they have, for example buying the cheap processed foods that the rich tell us we need to eat. Many other products are advertised to us that we don't really need. I am so sick of advertising, I now ignore all of it, the more it is advertised the more I ignore it.
    Liverpool Anne
    10th Jun 2017
    11:49am
    Retiring at 70 for a person sitting on the backside all day is okay. But not for a blue collar tradie. Most bricklayers, tilers etc. are completely stuffed by 60. back, knees etc. and even with retraining, there are no jobs. There are hardly any full time jobs for the younger in years, never mind for the oldies. Mind you pollies shouldn't get their retirement benefits until 70 as well. I can just hear the pollies screaming about that!!!
    musicveg
    11th Jun 2017
    11:50pm
    Haven't we already covered this topic recently?
    Kez
    12th Jun 2017
    3:43pm
    I'm 63 yrs. The past 9 years I can only get manual jobs. Currently recovering from Carpal Tunnel surgery in my left hand. I also have it in my right hand. I have a pencil line of cartilage left on my right knee and when that goes I need a knee replacement. My body is sick from working.
    Cruzisuzi
    6th Sep 2017
    8:28pm
    Successive governments have cashed in on taxes paid into a pension fund supposedly set aside for retirees, until they transferred it to general revenue and spent it. It is obvious that our pensioners are headed on a fast fright train to third world living standards while the government try to prop up their generous spending habits both here and overseas. As a seventy five year old retiree I find it astounding to see the tactics they are pulling to reduce entitlements to a pension. It is obvious there will not be jobs enough for the fit, able and educated in this technological age and I think our government needs to do a fast check on their spending habits as well as introduce a living wage ( this is already happening overseas) I applaud the border control as I think it is promising to save our country from unprecented and overwhelming takeover from uncontrolled populations overseas. We simply can't afford to extend our financial resources by allowing them to immigrate here in such overwhelming numbers. Better we offer help to those in their own countries. Hard decisions I know but we desperately need political leaders who have the guts and foresight to look at the hard facts and influences moving through our world today
    musicveg
    6th Sep 2017
    9:23pm
    Well said, it is really crazy how governments will spend money helping wars in overseas countries, and not help the civilians caught up in it. So many desperate people and no one cares. Let's help them rebuild their own countries rather than help them immigrate, this is what most would prefer is to stay in their homelands. Syria is an example, they all had a great life before the war.

    And full employment for all is a pipe dream, raising the pension age is just an excuse to make pensioners spend their savings or go on the lower newstart allowance. With our politicians being the second highest paid in the world I worry we are heading down the wrong road, giving more to the haves and taking from the have nots.