The Writer’s Wrath

“The characteristics of modern Western society comprise a short attention span, a desire for instant gratification and a reluctance to read anything of substance irrespective of style, or length or to take responsibility for their own actions. It is a contagion that has spread more recently with the electronic media and we are set to ignore Santayana’s injunction that: ” Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (Origin unknown – sounds appropriate).

Warning 1. If you have a short attention span don’t continue because I am taking the editor’s advice, not that of bloggers who’s distinguishing characteristic appears to be ignorance.

Warning 1a. Snivel and whine all you like about the length. No one is forcing you to read on.

Warning 2. What follows is long and is likely to cause distress. Leaving out subheadings you are looking at about 5500 words. It is your choice whether you read it or pass by on the other side. A partial nude photograph will offend delicate sensibilities.

You have been warned!

On with the Motley or how it doesn’t pay to be old.

In the last few days, the electronic and print media have been warning us that the demographics of the Australian population and the costs, means that future generations will face looking after us in our dotage. I have no particular objection to being called elderly, an old man or even a crusty and no, I am not he! I don’t much care really because over the years a number of nicknames had been attached to me like tin can to a dog’s tale. Some were obscene, others restrained and I will keep them to myself. These days, most who know me, call me by my Christian name and I am quite happy about that but with some bad health, I have experienced what are often referred to as intimations of mortality. I had reason to jettison a piece written especially for this week because certain events came at me and with due apologies, I feel I must return to the problem raised by another writer about getting old and the ageing process. Anyone under 25 years of age need not bother reading this because they are immortal and it’s only later that you find out that you grow old and die (been there, done that). It had always been my ambition to retire and become determinedly dissolute and grow old disgracefully but my style has been cramped.

The thing I object to most about growing old is not necessarily physical deterioration and I know I still have all the tiles on the roof but if you are not working, your status undergoes a crashing change. Like it or not, we are defined by what we do, and in many respects, along with material possessions, occupation is a key indicator of what would, in days gone by, be called social class. The truth of the matter is that the old-fashioned class notions, which migrated, to Australia never really took root. I learned very early on that the prime determinant of social status was wealth and it didn’t matter how you got it, just that you had it. In a parody of the lion lying down with the lamb, a brothel owner and criminal or a used-car king can afford more than a brain surgeon – I know of such a case. As a consequence, once you get over the hurdle of telling someone you are retired and you can afford to buy them a drink, they unbend to the extent that they don’t treat you as though you are mentally deficient but there is something deeply wrong with Australia and that is its preoccupation with the cult of youth which follows us everywhere.

Some boring stuff – skip it if you like.

Australia is often referred to as a young country and in some respects it is correct but I don’t think you’d get too much agreement from aboriginals. Our culture, such as it is, still has to find a notion of what it means to be Australian. What we refer to as motherhood statements and notions of a fair go for all, egalitarianism, and a general: “she’ll be right, mate,” attitudes are not a real substitute. I’m prepared to say up front that I consider myself a Tasmanian first and foremost and Tasmania is the smallest and in some aspects the poorest in the Federation. Fairly typical that I would follow by jumping from the Taff rails of the Titanic to the Lusitania.

As we all now or should know, the PM and the Federal Treasurer are embarking on a series of statements and policy intentions to meet the cost of ageing Australia. Last week, the 730 Report on ABC TV devoted itself in large part to the concept of a bigger Australia in population terms. Look at the country on a map and you see a huge continent. Most people don’t realize that Australia is the same size as continental US, without including Alaska. Our coastline is longer but our population at 23 million or thereabouts is miniscule by comparison with the US. I’m not going to go all green on you but viewed from space or from altitude, you get a much more realistic impression of what the country is really like – arid, with large areas simply uninhabitable. In fact, on a number of overseas trips, I flew over central Australia towards dark and the landscape resembled pictures from Mars. As a people, for the most part, we cling to the coasts of the big Island and Tasmania is the youngest state geologically speaking and when I was interested in glaciation, the courses of glaciers actually appeared on topographic maps although the ice had long retreated. A quick trip to Cradle Mountain will show you all the geographic features you want to prove that the sharp arêtes are much newer than the mainland.

We are regularly reminded that we have the thinnest soils in the world and there isn’t much you can do with some of the land. Of course, Tasmanian governments do their best to wreck the forests and engage in encouraging development in the name progress, a term that is open to interpretation in many forms. The urban sprawl around Hobart and Launceston are similar but trifling compared to their mainland counterparts. As yet, Hobart does not appear to be a heat sink like Melbourne or Sydney but I would like to see some more forward planning especially where transport is concerned. I would also like to see some notions of infilling before some of the excrescences that dot our landscape are perpetuated.

At the risk of sounding too prescriptive, until this country has a population program then talking about further immigration and breeding more of our own at prohibitive costs is something of a waste of time. This view is held by may who are experts in the field. I stand firmly with those who believe in a sustainable population and we have seen the effects of globalization slash our industries to pieces, robbing skilled workers of jobs without any real prospect of retraining, while resources are exported without value-adding and apparently without any consideration of the national interest. I was reminded of this when I lobbied the federal Minister for Transport about the government selling natural gas to China at bargain basement prices. It will bring in export dollars but I’m old-fashioned and believe the government’s first duty is to the people and natural gas is the fuel of the future for the internal combustion engine. His view was that the sale provided income and he ignored any concept of national interest.

What has put a burr under the saddle of Canberra-based politicians are the demographics of our population and the indisputable fact that we are ageing and in so doing, living longer in most cases and ultimately requiring medical help. Somewhere in the Bible, it says that man’s allotted span his three score years and ten or for the numerically challenged 70 years. I think there would be something comforting if we were designed to reach optimal performance by our early 20s and continue to our 60s and slowly start to shut down shortly before 70 and fall off the perch according to the timetable.

However, that is not the design factor/feature of humankind and I for one believe that no father should have to bury his children and because I am acquainted those who suffer with pain and sickness, I will continue to support assisted departure as proposed by Nick McKim. I’ll be quite plain and say that those who talk about hospices and pain relief know nothing about it and I’ve watched too many people die in pain, with tubes in each orifice and endured the carrying on of so-called “right to lifers.” A person’s religion is his own business, more so than ever before and it would be indeed pleasurable to tell those who believe in prolongation of life by any means from the standpoint of religious conviction, that the day could come when they would call for surcease.

So the politicians are getting worried and rather than re-train displaced workers for other tasks, they are all too willing to make the pitch for skilled migration. To give the union movement its due credit, it has striven to expose the unscrupulous that bring in non English-speaking migrants and rip them off. I have heard Mr. Rudd and Mr. Swan talk about working longer and working smarter. It is my personal belief that a person should work for as long as he is able and has the desire. Ageism should not be grounds for turning over staff. But the problem that we are dealing with constitutes a most formidable hurdle and I have yet to hear how the government will tackle the root cause of the problem, which is naturally enough, cultural.

An Indecent Obsession.

I don’t watch a great deal of television but a couple of things spring to mind. Our TV programming is like one year repeated n number of times, where n represents years, so basically we are looking at 54n. Hook your home to a satellite service and apart from the news channels, it’s more of the same as free to air. The dreadful combination known as infotainment, distressingly interrupts advertising and when I watch TV, it is to be entertained, not hectored and have good shows ruined by raucous advertising.

What do we see when we look at TV? Like it or not, whether it’s advertising or entertainment, the media parades young and fit people, leaping into utes, convertibles and the like, all the while giving the impression that the average Australian is under 30. It caters extensively for the young (and dare I say, those inclined to torpor – the lounge lizards). It’s okay to relax after a hard days work and watch the idiot’s lantern but that has come at the cost of reading and sometimes, human contact.

Invariably, the dreaded Internet is my major source of information and I read about one third of the newspapers, which are disgrace and I’m not just talking about Hobart. And to think that Rupert Murdoch has the cheek to try and impose on us, charges for electronic copies of his rags. This country is grossly deficient in information rich newspapers as a quick trip to Europe or the US demonstrates amply. The noble project started in 1964, known as The Australian has slowly degenerated into being a partisan rag and since the election the Rudd government, most of its rusted-on writers still seem to think the country is still run, or should be run by John Howard. I like the columns with a picture of the journalists because Dennis Shanahan looks perpetually constipated – no doubt reaching for laxatives if he has to praise Kevin Rudd. Most of the reasonable stuff in that paper is taken from the Murdoch press overseas and without doubt, The Wall Street Journal is one of the best quality papers for news coverage, despite a heavy emphasis on the economy. The Australian Financial Review charges for its website and I don’t bother with it because as I would have said when a student, it caters for capitalists, rentiers and the shareholding classes. By now, some of the latter will have lost a lot of money and I well remember a millionaire saying a recession was just the ticket to shake off the fleas – so much for the much vaunted “Mum and Dad shareholders.” The Liberals have a lot for which to answer at the federal level.

TV advertising is pitched at the young with high disposable income and discretionary spending. I’m not sure whether the phenomenon of DINKS still exists (double income, no kids) and while we have managed to avoid the grinding poverty and slums of London, we are coming close. It means nothing to TV stations and advertisers – “Oh what a feeling” indeed.

Being curmudgeonly, I studiously avoid magazine culture. The glossies have a lot for which to answer but ‘hell, it sells’ is the name of the game. Being stuck in a doctor’s waiting room with nothing to look at but women’s magazines or decorating for the arty-farty rich is dispiriting. It is also an insult to the intelligence and I go back a few years to the front cover advertisements for two popular magazines and they concerned Danni Minogue, sister of you know whom. Apparently she had had breast augmentation and one magazine breathlessly reported: “Danni, I hate my new boobs!” while the other ran with: “Danni, I just love my new boobs!” I suppose they both paid her but something appeared to have been lost in translation. Much to my disgust, they didn’t show the mammaries for public examination, so that we could all make up our own minds. A copy of a Playboy shot appears below and I would say it’s a case of much ado about nothing or very little.

And another thing about those wretched magazines, the way they take photographs of so-called celebrities is positively weird. They all appear to have extremely short legs and even in the more upmarket magazines, there are very few carefully shot pictures of those in the news. Even that most venerable of magazines, National Geographic is badly adrift: I subscribed for many number years but the articles became much more dumbed down and earthbound – you can only read so much about jungles and primitive people. After a while, there is an uncontrollable urge to scratch.

It goes without saying that we live in the age of celebrities, and I quote as examples, Eddy (Everywhere) McGuire, with his obscene salary and the manikins at Channel 9. I suppose in a way it is a minor triumph for that channel that “Moonface” (and hairpiece) still get a run but the young and the beautiful dominate news desks in the main. The other commercials differ very little and my reason for selecting Channel 9 for a backhander is that its origins lay with the Packer group and they buggered up cricket. My last content analysis showed that there was more advertising than coverage of the game. The ABC is somewhat more sober-sided but it has an agenda with which no one dare disagree, lest the so-called board excoriate them. Don’t try to get a hearing if you disagree with AGW even after the Copenhagen debacle.

The editor of TT may take this sentence out but quite frankly, when it comes to so-called celebrities, I don’t care who’s up who and who’s paying provided that it’s not the taxpayer. I don’t give a hoot about the sex lives of film stars or TV bit players. It only by reading some of the foreign press that you get an insight into people who are genuinely popular. For example, I look critically at acting and films but not in the same way as he who writes for the Sunday Tasmanian and looks at film – I judge films by entertainment value. And naturally enough, I have some favourite actors. I have seen some horrendously shallow articles written about Harrison Ford, who is a crusty, or old fart, by local definition. Yet here is a man who started out as a carpenter on film sets and became variously, Indiana Jones, Han Solo, and a variety of heroes including the US president, when Air Force One is hijacked. Some months ago, an article in the US magazine Salon ran to a good four-five pages and a couple of photographs. It provided depth and definition, information that told us more about the man and his humanity. Obviously, this is too hard for the local media, with a few honourable exceptions.

It makes no difference because the fascination with youth is associated with sport and because some young sports people behave in a certain way, the general public is expected to regard it as normal. I remember when firstly Jimmy Connors and then John McEnroe started carrying on while playing tennis, abusing umpires and hurling obscenities at officials. It probably says something about the way they were raised. The only comment I make about tennis players who play up on court and abuse umpires is that someone asked arguably the greatest tennis player of all time, Rod Laver what would’ve happened had he had a brain snap during a match and hit a ball at a linesman or crudely suggested that the central umpire was blind. Always the gentleman, he said that Harry Hopman and the Australian Tennis Federation would have dealt with him, possibly by suspension. Now, whether it’s cricket, tennis, football or any sport with a mass audience, it’s all about me, me, and me. It pays to have a reputation – very well indeed if you look at some of the incomes. And the trouble with high profile is that the young tyros are role models for those who follow in their footsteps. I still find it hard to believe that Tiger Woods became a billionaire last year for playing golf and fronting for advertising.

By way of humorous diversion, I was very friendly with the neighbours a few years ago and they moved interstate. Their young son was sports crazy and we were invited to visit them in another state. As the cricket season was approaching, I purchased the Shane Warne guide to young leg spinners, which came with a cricket ball. The little fellow was delighted with the gift and Dad and myself had to immediately retire to the backyard for an impromptu net session. The young tacker took the cherry in one hand, tossed it to the other for a few times, turned spat on the ground and came in to bowl. I was convulsed with laughter, as the expressions and body language were exactly the same as the cricketer. I don’t think his mother was impressed and it took me some time to redeem myself with an intense course in a fairly elementary mathematics to make up for the deficiencies of the school system.

In due course, I will have more to say about the effects of technology on the young but seriously, should primary school students be allowed to carry mobile telephones? Laptop computers and notebooks are carried around as a matter of course and in some cases it’s compulsory. My biggest fear is that we are producing a generation, which can handle high-tech but can’t talk to one another, let alone an older generation. I guess that we are all accustomed to new words making their way into the accepted vocabulary and some are related to high-tech but others come from disparate sources and the Australian dictionary now includes the word “bogan” which is a definitional term and something to be written about in its own right. However, in early January, I was extremely surprised and distressed by reports in the UK press that teenagers are becoming unemployable because they use a vocabulary of just 800 words. Two national dailies reported that school leavers also have a limited linguistic range which consists of a made-up words and “teenspeak” largely derived from SMS and social networking sites. Other foreign research is worrying, in that it claims brain changes are being caused by exposure to too much high-tech, overwhelming the sense and modifying brain function. (Anyone with an interest in the subject is politely requested to contact the editor).

I do not circulate a great deal among the young and on the basis of personal experience, most of the kids with whom I have something to do speak reasonably well and are articulate – perhaps the worst I can say of them is that they have no sense or appreciation of history and tend to speak down to older people: implicitly for many young people, the elderly are by definition stupid. It all depends on who you meet and where because in some areas, the elderly are terrorized. My alter ego, writing in a national journal made the point that the pace of life is faster and it’s not just the elderly that feel it because the young report being under pressure, whether it’s school, at home or work. I told my children and I will tell any new parent that the early years are to be treasured because once the kids start at kindergarten, you have lost them. I watched it with my daughters and a deep sense of dismay. It’s worse today because there seems a pressure to grow up more quickly, absorbing technology as you go. For the moment, I will leave this particular subject but it is an ongoing interest.

The curse of ageing.

Contrary to popular belief, and I might say a number of Internet sites, people over 40 are not old. You can define age quite simply in terms of the number of years a person has lived but it doesn’t tell you a great deal about what they know and whether they can still contribute to society in one form or another. I’m rather proud to say that I was once quite friendly with Dr. Natalie Jackson, a demographer at the University of Tasmania. As some would say, Natalie was no spring chicken but lunch and a chat were events to be treasured, because of the breadth of knowledge and the wide-ranging interests she showed. Unfortunately, Natalie has returned to the University of Waikato in the land of the Long White Cloud and we are momentarily out of touch, which is something of a tragedy.

We knew sufficient to be able to say that a man looking for work over the age of 40 is really struggling and women? Even a well-preserved and knowledgeable 35 years old with a good education can find it hard going. I’ve met plenty of both and strangely when I was in the full-time work force, the older experienced employees were almost invariably good value but there were exceptions – those who hated work and wanted out. It remains a sad fact of life for many people; they’re more or less finished after about 20 years in the workforce. If you are not disposed to believe me, spend some time in Centrelink and you will see them arrayed before you. I am not qualified to speak as a demographer but the figures however you manipulate them, don’t lie on this occasion.

The question of the ageing of the population is not restricted to Australia. There is a similar and ongoing debate in most of Europe, the UK and the US. The only reason I made a diversion to talk about the obsession with youth was because it is more pronounced here than overseas. Quite rightly, writers in foreign newspapers have pointed to the cultures where age is respected, celebrated and venerated. I have some cynicism about the latter, having no wish to be celebrated or venerated. However, in The New York Times on February 1, an op-ed columnist wrote an article entitled: “The Geezer’s Crusade” and I confess to being genuinely surprised because the word geezer is very common in the UK and it is the first time I have heard or seen an American use it and in context.

I make no apology for quoting the following extract: “Developmental psychologists, when they treated old age at all, often regarded it as a period of withdrawal. The elderly slowly separate themselves from the world. They cannot be expected to achieve new transformations. “About the age of fifty,” Freud wrote, “the elasticity of the mental processes on which treatment depends is, as a rule, lacking. Old people are no longer educable.”

Well, that was wrong. Over the past few years, researchers have found that the brain is capable of creating new connections and even new neurons all through life. While some mental processes — like working memory and the ability to quickly solve math problems — clearly deteriorate, others do not. Older people retain their ability to remember emotionally nuanced events. They are able to integrate memories from their left and right hemispheres. Their brains reorganize to help compensate for the effects of aging.

A series of longitudinal studies, begun decades ago, are producing a rosier portrait of life after retirement. These studies don’t portray old age as surrender or even serenity. They portray it as a period of development — and they’re not even talking about über-oldsters jumping out of airplanes.

People are most unhappy in middle age and report being happier as they get older. This could be because as people age they pay less attention to negative emotional stimuli, according to a study by the psychologists Mara Mather, Turhan Canli and others.” (New York Times/International Herald Tribune February 1, 2010 by David Brooks.)

I do not intend to be tiresome and push my barrow here. But I am compelled to say that while the Americans and the British seem to have no shortage of researchers capable of longitudinal studies, Australia appears strangely bereft and far too many of our social scientists sit around and are guilty of the most heinous crime of all – picking their noses, shining the seats of their pants while learnedly discussing postmodernism, deconstructionism and the evil that is America. They don’t all do it and one of Kerry O’Brien’s guests on the 730 report last week was Professor Bob Birrell, who was a lecturer at my alma mater. He is extremely concerned about overpopulation and also the lack of integration in Australian society and the inequitable distribution of wealth. I know Bob reasonably well and he returned from the US in the 1970s as a raging left-wing radical and promptly turned sharp right. He has been remarkably consistent and the papers published by the Centre for Population and Urban Research are extremely well produced and well researched. But he must be a very lonely man because not too many follow that path and precipitate government policy without research is foolhardy and costly.

Let’s rage against ageism and negativity!

Dr. Natalie Jackson, mentioned above, as some would say, is no spring chicken but lunch and a chat were events to be treasured, because of the breadth of knowledge and the wide-ranging interests she shows. Unfortunately, Natalie has returned to her homeland and we are out of touch, which is something of a tragedy but she is now a professor at the Waikato University.

The reason I mention Dr. Jackson is because we frequently discussed the concept of ageing in Australia and especially in Tasmania. Not long after the New Year, when I heard the Prime Minister and Treasurer talking about Australia’s ageing population and the problems associated with paying for anticipated extra health costs: this was a good fortnight before more official statements. We also got a watered-down version from local politicians who, of course, are cognizant of the fact that the bulk of Tasmania’s population comprises people over 40. I was tempted to bore you with facts and figures from the census and from other sources, usually federal government reports. There is a general perception in federal political circles that sooner or later, the age of retirement will increase again and that raises a question rarely dealt with: do we live to work or work to live. No doubt there are some people who believe that the best thing that could happen is for a person to work productively and then die before enjoying retirement.

Over the years there have been some attempts to redress the bias against the elderly but they are foredoomed to failure. Personally my stomach heaves when I hear someone say they are “60 years young” which I find demeaning. There’s nothing wrong with being young at heart even if you are riding around in an antique carcass but we must face reality and that is the dominant paradigm and it’s attendant narrative favours the young.

Sometimes, I wish that the notion of the elderly being “grey panthers” or grey wolves had possessed genuine teeth. The potential of older Australians to transform the political landscape is latent rather manifest because while our politicians are usually above the average age, they make the decisions. I’ve seen far too many political flyers of pollies slumming it with the elderly in a cheap attempt to gain publicity. I regret to say that I’ve heard one or two discuss these events as necessary but unpleasant. Then of course, there are specific publications for the elderly written in a highly patronizing fashion. My copy goes straight into the rubbish bin.

In the Weekend Australian last Saturday, an article passed me by, albeit temporarily. When I backtracked, I was horrified. The article in question did not come from local sources but was written by Brendan O’Neill, who edits an online journal-come-blogspot called The Spike. Entitled “Longevity is a triumph, not a problem,” O’Neill takes careful aim at the British author Martin Amis who had written in the previous weeks Sunday Times. Amis makes his name by being controversial, which may be seen as being based on the principle that any publicity is good publicity. Amis, who’s not exactly young (he’s 51 and that’s getting on) took aim at the elderly with some memorable phrases”… in Western societies’ ageing populations, there will soon be too many “demented old people, like an invasion of terrible immigrants stinking out the restaurants and cafes and shops”. He described the growth in the number of older people as a silver tsunami that might be so socially destabilising it will provoke “civil war between the old and the young”. Furthermore, “There is only one solution: euthanasia booths on street corners, where elderly people will get a “martini and a medal” if they voluntarily exit this mortal coil.” Not bad really when you consider the film Solyent Green, made in 1973 and starring Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson had an overpopulated world with minimalist diets and civilized dying centres. The character played by Robinson dies in one of these facilities to the music of Beethoven’s Pastoral Symphony and Heston discovers that the bodies are recycled to make food for the population.

Where O’Neill hits the hotspot is with his comment that: “Western society finds it extremely difficult to value older generations, instead of viewing them as a burden on social services and the environment. ”The ageing are seen as a problem akin to a ticking timebomb, rather than a testimony to scientific advances and leaps in medicine. Put starkly, In Britain in 1901, life expectancy was 48 years; by the end of the 20th century it was 77.7. In the US, life expectancy in 1901 was 47; 100 years later it was about 75. An Australian woman born in 1901 could expect to live to 54.8 and a man to 47.2. Australian girls and boys born today can expect to reach 81.5 and 75.9 respectively.” This is most impressive but not when you have perceptions of ageing populations being not a source of wisdom or adding value to your community but in the crudest terms of the elderly leeching/leaching resources that should be allocated to younger, healthier people.

Let’s face it, although we live longer and could if we so choose (provided employers make the adjustment) work longer through reduced hours and working from home, the ageing population is seen quite clearly as a problem. O’Neill concludes his article by saying that unless we challenge today’s antihuman outlook, which treats people as polluters and human ambition as dangerous, then we may find more people asking: What’s the point of old people? My response is to galvanize the “silver tsunami and unleash the tide.

This is the challenge for Australia even more than Britain because of the obsession with youth. The young don’t realize that their life expectancy has been improved by people who died much earlier than they can reasonably expect to and furthermore, many older scientists have made outstanding contributions to science and society. I can’t pretend that I am happy with being old but it doesn’t matter how much I worry about the situation, I cannot change it and hope to die with dignity. However, I find myself resenting the implication that I should be making room for still more younger people because the truth is that our population is only increasing by migration, not by natural reproduction and the cost of having kids is far too high. It is not good enough for governments to have ministers who are allegedly responsible for aged care and the like. We are in the majority and if we don’t like what they’re doing, then we can change it: the onus is on us. We have worked to secure the financial security of this country and every year on Anzac Day we hear something that will never be said of us.

“They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old;

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them.”

Perhaps when we honour their sacrifice this year, we can recognize the trust placed in us who survived to make this a better world and possibly, just possibly, force a change in ideas.

Attachment from HeraldSun Melbourne November 17, 2009.

Australians are older, poorer, more disabled – Institute of Health and Welfare report

A REPORT has highlighted the issues faced by Australia’s rapidly changing population as it gets older, more disabled and poorer.

Australia will have 5.2 million children by 2038, but they will make up a smaller proportion of the national population than they do now. Nearly 30 years ago – towards the end of the baby boomer era – children made up 30 per cent of the population.

Today that proportion is 19 per cent and in another 30 years it will be 17 per cent, a new report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare estimates. The number of Australians with a disability also continues to increase, having doubled to about four million people between 1981 and 2003. While increasing numbers of older people report very good or excellent health, the rates of poor health and disability increase markedly in older age groups, with dementia being the greatest single contributor. The report found Australians are living longer, but at a cost, with greater life expectancy contributing to higher rates of disability.The report also reveals a rapidly changing society has contributed to broader and more complex needs for services and assistance.

Changed patterns of marriage and family formation, an ageing population, greater workforce participation by women, differing economic aspirations, and shifts in immigration policy had contributed to the change. “Some of the increase in the number of people with disability can be attributed to population growth, particularly the growth in the proportion of the population aged 65 years or over,” the report said. Meanwhile, improved diagnosis and heightened awareness of conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism-related disorders had increased the reported rates of disability among children, the report said.

The report found life expectancy in Australia continued to increase, but Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people still lag behind other Australians.If men lived until the age of 65, they could expect to live for a further 18.5 years (83.5) while women could live even longer, for another 21.6 years (86.6). When compared to life expectancy at birth rates, men could expect to live until the age of 78.7 and women until 82.6. But indigenous men only expected to live for an estimated 67.2 years and women until the age of 72.9.

The report also found most carers were looking after elderly people. Wives, mothers and daughters were most likely to be primary carers for people who need assistance with daily living, and most are aged between 25 and 54 years old. Many experience financial and social disadvantage. “In large part, the need for care is related to age – just over half (52 per cent) of all people with a primary carer were aged 65 years or over, and about one-third were aged 75 years or over (35 per cent).

For instance one in seven children lives in a jobless family. More than 34,000 children are subject to care or protection orders, up nearly 40 per cent from four years ago.

Australians are living longer and more than eight out 10 retirees rely on government pensions for support. The report finds the main source of assistance for people with disability and the aged are informal carers. “Many admit that they don’t find the caring role satisfying, and they report poorer health and wellbeing than non-carers,” institute director Penny Allbon said in a statement.

The report also found that family homelessness was an issue of growing concern. More than a quarter of homeless people in Australia were families with children. “The current demand for social housing exceeds supply,” Dr Allbon said, adding the situation was likely to improve because of the federal government’s investment in social housing. “High demand for rental properties resulted in median rents continuing to rise as vacancy rates remained at record lows in most capital cities (in 2009) around Australia,” the report said.

Home ownership rates had remained relatively stable over the years, but the cost of owning a home had risen faster than inflation, the report said. The March 2009 median house price of $437,121 was almost twice the amount it would be if median house prices had increased in line with the consumer price index (CPI) since 1996, the report found. Almost 380,000 households received social housing assistance at June 30, 2008, but the number of government-funded dwellings had declined since 2004, resulting in fewer new households of that type.

More than 920,000 private renters received Commonwealth Rent Assistance in 2008. Without it, over 150,000 of recipients would be in severe rental stress, the report found. More than $1 billion worth of First Home Owner grants were distributed to about 150,000 first home buyers in the financial year 2007-2008.