ArticleThe wash-up from the Albanese Government’s policy wonk-fest last week is that it’s time to tackle “intergenerational bastardry”. But in a public square that never wants for vitriol, let’s try not to be bastards about it.
Last week’s roundtable was supposed to be all about productivity. There was some of that. However, what emerged was a different source of media interest, cross-sector consensus, and national urgency: intergenerational equity .
As former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry summarised – every single participant agreed with the need for us to do better at giving younger generations the opportunities that older generations have had. Treasurer and chair of the roundtable Jim Chalmers agreed.
The term ‘intergenerational equity’ refers to a range of issues: the income tax burden on younger workers, housing unaffordability, superannuation, and the tax treatment of capital gains and family trusts. Such issues tend to evoke emotional reactions from all sides. Negative stereotypes wait – like coiled springs – to be flung into the public square: Those smug asset-rich retirees. Those cocky homeowners. Those double-dipping pensioners. Those whingeing renters. Those entitled students. Those lazy young workers.
In our search for fairness, we would do well to remember that our fellow Australians are not the enemy. Unfairness is.
The disparity in tax treatment between working age Australians and retirees has been referred to as theft and bastardry. Perhaps in a systemic sense. But those who benefit from a bastardised system are not necessarily bastards.
As we seek more structural economic fairness, our form will be just as important as our substance. The project to give working Australians a fairer go – which, as a working-age Australian, I’m fully on board with – need not be glazed with “OK Boomer” jibes. This would be a retrograde step. You don’t solve intergenerational inequity with intergenerational incivility.
Psychiatrist Stephen B. Karpman identified three false narratives that underpin destructive interactions: thinking of ourselves as victims, considering others as villains, and rendering the situation hopeless. Avoiding these will help ensure that correcting inequity does not come at the expense of decency.
British politician and philosopher Edmund Burke referred to society as a contract – “a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” Burke’s contention speaks to moral and relational realities that highlight our connectedness.
Growing up, I remember my two grandmothers quietly and regularly – like seasoned dons in the financial underworld – inconspicuously slipping money into my hand. As I grew up, I was impressed to find that this behaviour was part of a broad conspiracy involving doting grandparents across the world. I know a few love-gifts doesn’t make for a house deposit, but surely heart postures should be more important than wealth transfers.
All economic debates that divide us have moral dimensions that unite us. We are all outraged at stories of elder abuse. Working Australians want to see their parents well cared for in retirement.
Retirees want to see their children and grandchildren have the opportunities they had.
Many homeowners want a fairer go for first home buyers. Different generations might do things differently, but we are necessarily in each others’ lives. When the urge arrives to cast the first stone, it’s worth remembering the age-diversity around our family Christmas tables.
Negative stereotypes can be replaced with positive assumptions. Retired Australians built our country. Sure – some of them got rich while doing it – but they played by the rules. They also paid a ton of tax throughout their working lives. Wealth does not denote greed or malice. Meanwhile, younger folks are willing to work hard and deserve a fairer go, to give themselves and their children the best quality of life possible. Their frustration is not a sign of lethargy. A desire for fairness does not denote entitlement. Of course, there are exceptions to these claims. But the outliers have no claim on our national tone.
My 8-year-old son recently announced his two favourite collective animal nouns: a “tuxedo” of penguins and an “embarrassment” of pandas. I can’t help thinking that – stay with me – both phrases have something to offer our present national moment. Loveable as they are, pandas evoke clumsiness, tactlessness and simple-mindedness – improper lenses through which to think about our elders and juniors. By contrast, a tuxedo of penguins has intimations of sophistication, elegance and solidarity – sorely needed qualities as we navigate tricky structural economic reforms. If we are going to get rid of bastardry in our real economy, we need to eliminate it from our moral economy too.
Anything less would be an embarrassment.
Max Jeganathan is Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Public Christianity. He is undertaking a PhD on the ethical foundations of liberalism. This article was first published in The Canberra Times.