This paper focuses on aging in Australia, the different policies and services for the aging population, and provides some examples about what it would be like to age in Australia. First, it is important to understand the age care policy in Australia. There are four different components to this policy: the old-aged pension system, pursuit of the aging-in-place policy, self-funded services and supports, and residential and frail aged care. The aged care policy in Australia is “built on the premise of independence and individualization and assumes that older people will remain in the community for as long as they are able to” (Gray & Heinsch, 2009, p. 108). In order to fully understand these different components of this policy, each of them will be looked at more closely.
Old-aged pensions were the first form of income support provided for the aging population and today, nearly two-thirds of retirees in Australia rely on this pension as their main income source (Grey & Heinsch, 2009). Currently, it is required that men be 65 years of age in order to receive this pension, and an estimated 63.5 years of age for women. It is estimated that by 2014, women will also be required to be 65 years old to receive the pension. One component of the old-aged pension is the superannuation guarantee, which was introduced in 1992; it consists of a mandatory employer contribution to a private pension plan, and the rate has been 9% of employee earnings since the 2002-03 tax years (“Australia”, n.d.). According to Gray and Heinsch (2009), aged pensions make up the largest portion of the welfare budget (about $22.6 billion in 2006-2007). Generally, the Australian public seems to be pleased with the old-aged pensions and often desire increases to the pension.
Next there is the pursuit of the aging-in-place policy, and this is maintained through community care. The public opinion in Australia generally sways in favor of community support. Not only are families and neighbors pitching in to help the aging population, but “large religious charities, such as Anglicare, UnitingCare, Benevolent Society, Salvation Army, and St Vincent de Paul, are key providers of formal, paid community care” (Gray & Heinsch, 2009, p. 109). The increasing amount of community care in Australia has led to more informal and unpaid care, where family members and neighborhood services provide assistance with household tasks, such as shopping, cooking, and cleaning and other sorts of chores (Gray & Heinsch, 2009). This type of support is essential for the aging population, as many older people feel that they are a burden when they need help with simple tasks. It is generally the responsibility of the daughter in the family to be responsible for the care of an aging adult, but if they get busy or find that they cannot devote as much time/services that is necessary, this can leave the elderly adult in a sticky situation. “Swedish research has found that older people prefer help from public services rather than having to rely on family and friends” (Gunnarsson 2009; Szebehely and Trydegård 2007). This is one of the reasons it is so crucial for services to be provided for the aging population and that they know where to look for whatever assistance they may need in their lives. In Australia, “there are currently several government-funded programs rendering community-based care, namely, the Aged Care Assessment Program (ACAP), Home and Community Care (HACC), Community Aged Care Package (CACP), and Extended Aged Care at Home (EACH)” (Gray & Heinsch, 2009, p. 110).
The next part of this policy, self-funded services and supports, is exactly what it sounds like: the aging population in Australia is given more responsibility regarding their retirement and finances. This shift is implemented by the Australian government and encourages self-responsibility among the aging population (Gray & Heinsch, 2009). As expected, it is common that elderly adults with more competence around their retirement plan and financial situation find themselves to be more independent and happier with their situation. One of the interesting things about this portion of the aged care policy is that there is a significant gender difference surrounding it. It has been observed in Australia that women are generally poorer than men when they retire and that they prepare less for this period of time (Gray & Heinsch, 2009).
There are a few different reasons for this phenomenon as illustrated by Gray and Heinsch (2009): “women feel that retirement planning is a male role, and that they will be taken care of; women find existing preretirement planning programs are generic, male or couple oriented, and do not address women’s specific needs and situations; women are traditionally ‘otherfocused’ and place their wellbeing behind nurturing others; and women may not feel they have a locus of control.” It is fascinating that these differences are illustrated, and they really make a lot of sense. The point about how women place their wellbeing behind nurturing others is really key; it is discussed so much in class about how women are often placed with the pressures of caring for their elderly parents or family. It is really interesting that this theme of caring for others seems to follow women up until and through their own retirement, when self-care is truly essential. It is really important as a social worker working with this population that women are reached out to and informed about the importance of planning for their retirement, in order to minimize this gender difference in satisfaction after retirement.
Finally, there is a portion of the aged care policy in Australia that addresses residential aged care. “Residential aged care is divided into nursing homes, now referred to as ‘residential aged care facilities’ (RACFs), where nursing care is required and aged care accommodation, where it is not a major service” (Gray & Heinsch, 2009, p. 112). Although residential care is used in Australia, it is still the goal to maintain the idea of aging-in-place. For example, it is often the case that once an elderly adult enters into a residential facility, they will remain in the same room (or at least the same space) for the entirety of their stay. Also, there can be self-care units, where it is encouraged that when an elderly adult enters any given residential care facility, they remain in the same facility as their physical or mental capacity worsens. In simpler terms, imagine that an elderly woman enters a residential care facility, but she can still walk around and remain somewhat active. As she continues to grow older and it becomes harder to be mobile, this individual would simply move to a different part of the given facility where there is more care provided; this maintains the idea of aging-in-place.
The need for residential care facility for the aging population in Australia is quite prominent, as “At the end of June 2008, there were an estimated 175,500 aged care beds in Australia, an increase of 5,500 on the previous year. These ‘beds’ could be in nursing homes, hostels, or independent units within an aged care setting” (Gray & Heinsch, 2009, p. 113). The increase of beds can be partially explained by two different factors: the fact that people, in general, are living longer, and that the baby boomers are quickly reaching old age. One flaw in the area of residential care in Australia is the Aged Care Funding Instrument (ACFI). This instrument measures the needs of the residents, rather than the care that is actually provided to them. Residential care facilities are not fond of this instrument because “it is highly manipulable and does not encourage improvement in residents since it pays more when people are frail resulting in a disincentive to work towards increasing resident capacity” (Gray & Heinsch, 2009, p. 114).
One final issue that needs serious attention is how Australia refers to their social workers in relation to elderly care. Gray and Heinsch (2009) “refer to social workers in Australia as poorly skilled workers, who may only have undertaken a 10-week course, may be poorly educated and, while often well intentioned, poorly equipped emotionally” (p. 115). These two authors continue to maintain that social work in the aging population is decreasing in demand, and this seems ridiculous. It is discussed in class how crucial it is for social workers to be available for the aging population, especially since it is a fast growing population. The aging baby boomers and the fact that people are living longer are contributing to the fact that there is a higher demand for support for the elderly population. One statistic from the article by Gray and Heinsch (2009) suggests that only 7% of social workers work in aged care.
This interesting phenomenon may be explained by the fact that there is a continuing growth in community-based care in Australia, where most of the care is provided by family and close friends. The fact that these authors had such negative things to say about the social workers that do work with the aging population in Australia is rather disturbing. It is maintained that when care for the aging population is not provided by the community, it is taken care of by health care professionals. There doesn’t seem to be a demand for social workers, as most people in Australia appear to be pleased with the policies in place for the aging population. On the other hand, it is surprising that there is not a demand for social workers in this country for the aging population.
If there is not a current demand, then why tamper with the system? It is my belief that as people continue to grow older, there will be an increased demand for social workers to serve the aging population. Although Australia seems to be able to manage without the support of social work, it is likely that this may change in the future. It may also never change, but if it does, it is essential that there are more educational programs and training provided for social work, in order to prevent social workers from being referred to as incompetent and ‘well-intentioned’.