Senior Civic Participation in Australia

Older peoples’ civic participation in Australia is simultaneously characterised by a tumultuous democratic climate of socially exclusionary and ageist political policy – while non-governmental organisations promote a new paradigm in gerontology (del Barrio et al., 2018). Considering active citizenship is “an exercise that is sustained by action” (Arendt, 1993, as cited in del Barrio et al., 2018, p. 10) Australia must maintain meaningful and ongoing conferral elderly rights, beyond political participation. The staggering growth of Australians over sixty-five, predicted to represent 24.5% of the populace by 2057 (Australian Bureau of Statistic, 2013, as cited in Serrat et al. 2013), poses emerging opportunities and challenges to build a more egalitarian society that recognises the value of age diversity. Contemporary federal and legislative frameworks threaten “the legitimacy…[of] the representative government” (Norris, 2002, as cited in Martin, 2014, para. 2) - perpetuating misplaced economic and discriminatory age biases. Conversely, civil society’s growing emphasise on the active aging discourse and diversity frameworks are shifting senior citizenship from a “needs based” to “rights based” approach (Older Persons Advocacy Network, 2010). The implications of the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing digital literacies has transformed the actualisation of active citizenship.

The performative dimension of Australia’s reductive and prejudicial ageist policy has systematically elicited the aging population’s “crisis of democracy” (Norris, 2002, as cited in Martin, 2014, para. 2). Recognising that “civic participation provides important opportunities” (Anderson et al. 2014; Greenfield & Marks, 2004, as cited in Serrat et al., 2013, p. 55) to foster inclusivity, “health, participation…and independence” (del Barrio et al., 2018, para. 1), exclusionary governmental legislation has caused powerlessness and poor advocacy amongst seniors. While the Discrimination Act (1998) has enshrined ageism unlawful, “endemic and pervasive in Australia” (Council on the Ageing Australia, 2022); 35% of citizens aged between fifty-five to sixty-four confess they have experienced age bias discrimination (Face the Facts, 2014, as cited in Martin, 2014, para. 15) and “two-thirds…don’t seek help when they are abused” (Patterson, 2021, as cited in Australian Human Rights Commission, 2022). The ‘What’s Age Got to Do with It?’ (Human Rights Commission, 2022) Commission reinforces 90% of Australians acknowledge ageism’s existence, while 83% regard it a human rights violation. Undermining liberal political and rhetoric theories which value the “democratic potential of voice”, Australia’s policy failure elicits an “obedience and submission” to government (Dreher, 2009, p. 446, as cited in Macnamara, 2013, p. 161) – generating widespread “demassification and fragmentation” (p. 160). The breadth of Australia’s legal framework in preserving elderly civil rights possess “a low level of uniformity, enforcement and enforceability at both state and federal levels” (Australian Association of Social Workers, 2022), with reforms proposed by the Greens confederation (2022), Council on the Aging and ‘Living Longer, Living Better’ package (2012) advocating the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Older People (Council on the Aging Australia, 2022) provide a definitive position that discrimination “is morally and legally unacceptable” (2022). This legislation would convert older persons’ political involvement from “a waste of time because the government won’t listen” (AUS16_66F, 2013, as cited in Serrat et al, 2013, p. 73) to valued civic participation. Linguistic generalisations of government and spokespersons shorthand terminology of “the elderly” (Ageism in the Time of COVID-19, 2020) socially excludes senior citizenship rights as negatively stereotypical, “conservative” (Fillieule, 2013, p. 1) and “past their use-by date” (Face the Facts, 2014). Conversely, appropriate phraseology could “ensure older people…participate on equal terms with others in all aspects of life” (EveryAGE Counts, 2022) and irrevocably “allow voice to be meaningful and matter” (Macnamara, 2013, p. 170). The further necessity for disaggregation of geographical data and domain coverage of elderly health and wellbeing issues would effectively expose the moral significance of decreased citizenship rights (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2021) including reduced First Nations life expectancy (The Greens Older People, 2022), seniors’ comprising 7% of the homeless population (Face the Facts, 2014), 80% of Australians relying on age pension (2022) and one-in-four elderly women living in poverty (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2021). Governments blatant age bias, discriminating seniors’ civic participation through policy evidently challenges Australians in exercising and enhancing active citizenship.

The governments misplaced preoccupation with the economic encumbrance of aged care services have trivialised and neglected the civic participation of seniors in the decision-making process. With the Federal Budget delivering a $17.7 billion increase to aged care in 2021 (Australian Government Department of Health), media and politicians deemed “an ageing population…a threat to not just the Australian economy, but also our political system” (Kent, 2013, para. 1). Despite only 4.8% of men and 8% of women at age eighty receiving permanent residential treatment (Living Better, Living Longer, 2012), overarching financial objectives to conserve elderly employment, tax payments and reform the aged care system have ignored “many of the broader challenges that people face as they age” (Jehoel-Gijsbers & Vrooman 2007; Warbuton et al., 2013, as cited in Serrat et al., 2013, p. 54). Delegitimising Aged and Community Services Australia (2022) and civic concerns that this financial budget must insight far-reaching reform - policy is yet to negate the workforce crisis. The Participatory Action-Research methodology (Marquez, 2014) also emphasises that when government does not “seek alliances…with key stakeholders across all sectors of society” (Warth, 2015, pp. 39-40), older people are reduced to “passive” or “dependent” citizens (World Health Organisation, 2009). The additional social exclusion and “denial of resources, rights, goods and services and the inability to participate in…normal…society” (Walsh et al., 201, p. 83) during COVID-19 debilitated community political cohesion, increased incidents of ageism and limited civic engagement by older people. Prior to the pandemic more than 35% of Australians aged sixty-five to seventy-four would volunteer in citizenship projects (CSI Response, 2020), with direct democratic participation falling to less than 21% during lockdowns (Democracy in the Times of Corona, 2020). Findings by the World Health Organisation (2022) reaffirm the prevalence of anxiety, depression and psychological distress impacting the older populace, indirectly restricting civic participation and causing social regression. This limited engagement, particularly exacerbated by increasing governmental ageism and “the implication that older people’s lives are more expendable…their deaths less tragic” (Ageism in the time of COVID-19, 2020) explicitly violates the Open-Ended Working Group human right’s framework (2010) and Marshallian discourse of equitable citizenship (as cited in Kenny, 2004, p. 70). Australia’s 0.67% death rate in residential aged care has exacerbated exclusionary civic participation (Dawes, 2022), delimited elderly political aspirations and reduced opportunities for advocacy during the pandemic. Thus, Australia’s economic fixations and the global pandemic have excluded citizens as a social “burden” (CSI Response, 2020) and politically disengaged populace.

The “rights based” (Older Persons Advocacy Network, 2010) emergence of Active Aging Discourse (Elena del Barrio et al., 2018) within Australian non-government organisations has provided radical opportunities to strengthen political engagement and self-determination for senior citizens. Supporting Byrne’s theory that “social movements grow spontaneously out of a need for change” (Byrne, 2016, p. 406), the prominence of the Active Aging Reform Social movement recognises “the competency and knowledge that older people possess” (CSI Response, 2020). Particularly as elderly Australians were over-represented in the 2004 federal election, comprising 11% of the total population, but 19% of voters (Borowski et al., 2007, p. 1) – this framework powerfully engages citizens to create change from “own forms of activity” (Walker, 2002, p. 125) and a highly participatory bottom-upwards model. Applying the new paradigm in gerontology (Kemp, 2013), the development of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities within Australia (Gilleard 2005, as cited in del Barrio et al., 2018, para. 1) has enhanced increased opportunities for citizens to participate in social, civic and cultural aspects of life. Australians aged fifty-five years and over are estimated to contribute $74.5 billion each year in unpaid caring and volunteer work (Face the Facts, 2014), harbouring an active relationship between participation, aging and independence. Political parties including The Greens (2022) further advocate for older people to “stay in charge of their own lives for as long of possible…and…contribute to the economy and society” (2022). Fashioning a networked, rather than hierarchal relationship with elderly, they further promote senior active citizenship and “guarantee efficiency…[and] good orientation of policies” (European Anti-Poverty Network, 20003, as cited in del Barrio et al., 2018, p. 3). Joint movements by the Older Person’s Advocacy Network (2022) and Open-Ended Working Group (2022) have also strengthen elderly human rights, through United Nations involvement, submissions to the Royal commission, senate and parliamentary inquires and joint statements including ‘Caring of the Elderly’ (Royal Commission, 2021). The national coalition for action, EveryAGE Counts is “motivated by evidence…to manage the pandemic…regardless of our age” (2022) and galvanise Australian leaders to reject ageist policies through meaningful discussion. The effectiveness of these various campaigns has seen the Government accept initial Recommendations by the Royal Commission and increased Commonwealth support like the Carer Payment (2021) and Carer Allowance services (2021) to enable senior independence. While governmental policy challenges active citizenship in Australia, non-government organisations provide increased opportunities for meaningful civic participation.

Civil society has enhanced opportunities for elderly active citizenship through contemporary Diversity Framework’s (Australian Government Department of Health, 2017) and reimagined digital literacies. It is estimated by 2044 to 2045 one-quarter of the Australian populace will be aged over sixty-five (Australian, Bureau of Statistics, 2018). This incremental life expectancy coupled with Australia’s ever-changing social and cultural milieux are challenging the three-stage life course (ILC, 2015, as cited in del Barrio et al., 2018), in which youth learn, middle-aged work and elderly retire. Reshaping citizenship opportunities and engagement of older people, citizens aged over sixty are twice as likely to respond that voting is “very important” (The Australian Election Study, 2010), with 88% reporting they would continue to partake in non-compulsory voting (2010). However, the Coronavirus pandemic and shifting reliance on digital social and political support services has presented remarkable challenges for seniors as the most digitally excluded group in Australia. While 70% of elderly Australians have “gone online” (ABS, 2015, as cited in Council on the Ageing, 2022), 62% have never made a video call (Cash, 2020, as cited in EveryAGE Counts, 2022), 58% never chatted on social media (2022) and only 15% of this group have accessed government services or information via the internet (Morgan, 2015). Similarly, 54% of respondents stated they were “very dissatisfied” with primary government interactions shifting online (2015), with 57% of Australians over seventy having low to no digital literacy (Cash, 2020, as cited in EveryAGE Counts, 2022). Australia’s Seniors Gateway Agency Referral is committed to providing over twenty-one initiatives and services to support aged care (Living Longer, Living Better, 2012), including additional funding for telecommunication services (Cash, 2020, as cited in EveryAGE Counts, 2022), digital literacy training programs and age-friendly citizenship initiatives. Acknowledging that “what is lacking…is an overarching, meaningful and integrated policy response to older Australians in the context of all their human and civil rights” (Living Longer, Living Better, 2012), COTA (2022) has developed five core principles to shift Australian politics and policy from a “needs based” to “rights based” approach (Older Persons Advocacy Network, 2010). Rejecting ageism and challenging negative stereotypes, COTA’s digital inclusion policy and the governments $3.7 billion aged care reforms in 2012 (Ross) are enhancing active citizenship for older peoples’ remaining socially isolated. Recognising that “there can be no daily democracy without daily citizenship” (Nadar, 1976), Aged Care Diversity’s ongoing Framework Initiative “takes a comprehensive approach based on the recognition of human rights” (2022) to maintain the diverse civic involvement of senior citizens. Studies (Serrat et al., 2013) comparing the organisational representativeness of Australia and Spain’s aging political ideology emphasises the power of non-electoral political participation, in enhancing citizenship. Hence, Havighurst (1961) and Marsillas’s (2016) activity theories reinforce that organisational promotion of “productive” citizenship in the digital age is associated with holistic “healthy” aging (2016).

Ultimately, while civic participation for older peoples continues to be delimited by socially exclusionary policy and economic fixations, the increasing emerge of non-governmental organisations is providing new opportunities for active citizenship. Age-related discourse regarding citizenship has typically focalised the citizenship challenges for youth demographics - however, the influence and opportunities of an increasingly senior population is transforming the nature of active citizenship in Australia.

Reference List

Aged Care Diversity Framework initiative. (2022). Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://www.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/aged-care-diversity-framework-initiative.

Ageing in Australia. Aasw.asn.au. Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://www.aasw.asn.au/docume... Institute of Health and Welfare. (2022). Older Australians, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/sitecore/content/Home/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/pops/pop60/c03

Barraket, P., & Wilson, D. (2022). Digital Inclusion and COVID-19. Csi.edu.au. Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://www.csi.edu.au/media/uploads/csi-covid_factsheet_digitalinclusion.pdf.

Blanche-T, D., & Fernandez-Ardevol, M. (2022). (Non-)Politicized Ageism: Exploring the Multiple Identities of Older Activists. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12020040

Borowski, A., B. Hudson, R., & McCormack, J. (2007). Elder Participation and Senior Power in Australian Electoral Politics. Journal Of Aging & Social Policy. https://doi.org/https://doi.or... for the Elderly' - an Overview of Aged Care Support and Services in Australia. Aph.gov.au. (2022). Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://www.aph.gov.au/About_P... For Older Australians. COTA. (2021). Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://www.cota.org.au/about/our-work/our-principles/.

COVID-19, Social Isolation and Ageing. Csi.edu.au. (2020). Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://www.csi.edu.au/media/uploads/csi_fact_sheet_social_covid-19_social_isolation_and_ageing.pdf.

Dawes, P., Siette, J., Earl, J., Wuthrich, V., & John, C. (2020). Challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic for social gerontology in Australia. Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajag.12845.

del Barrio, E. (2018). Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://www.researchgate.net/p... in the Times of Corona. (2020). Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/people-and-communities/general-social-survey-summary-results-australia/latest-release.

Didds, S. (2022). Gender, ageing and injustice: social and political contexts of bioethics. Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://jme.bmj.com/content/31... abuse conference to drive positive change. Australian Human Rights Commission. (2022). Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://humanrights.gov.au/abo... Counts. EveryAGE Counts. (2022). Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://www.everyagecounts.org.au.

Fenna, A., & Phillimore, J. (2022). Age bias in the Australian welfare state, Alan Tapper. Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.471155867249721.

Fillieule, O. (2013). Age and Social Movements. Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319554939_Age_and_Social_Movements.

Hardill, I., & Baines, S. (2009). Active citizenship in later life: Older Volunteers in a deprived community in England. The Professional Geographer, 61. Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00330120802577640.

Kemp, L. (2013). How Australia's ageing population threatens our democracy. The Conversation. Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://theconversation.com/ho... Government’s role in promoting active ageing and wellbeing amonst residents. (2022). Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/elder-abuse-conference-drive-positive-change.

Macnamara, J. (2012). Beyond voice: audience-making and the work and architecture of listening as new media literacies. Continuum, 27(1), 160-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2013.736950

Martin, A. (2014). Political Engagement among the Young in Australia. Papers On Parliament, 60. Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://www.aph.gov.au/sitecore/content/Home/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/pops/pop60/c03.

Megalogenis, G. (2022). The hapless politics of our aged care catastrophe. Smh.com.au. Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://www.smh.com.au/politic... People. The Greens. (2022). Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://greens.org.au/policies... Persons Advocacy Network. (2022). Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://opan.org.au.

Ross, M. (2013). Aged care groups urge politicans to embrace further reforms to improve lives of older Australians. Retrieved 22 April 2022, from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-13/aged-care-groups-set-out-political-reform-desires/4884150.

Serrat, R., Warburton, J., Petriwiskyj, A., & Villar, F. (2022). Political participation and social exclusion in later life: What politically active seniors can teach us about barriers to inclusion and retention. International Journal Of Ageing And Later Life, 53–88. https://doi.org/10.3384/ijal.1652-8670.18395

Qureshi, H. (2002). Social and Political Influences on Services for Older People in the United Kingdom in the Late 20th Century. The Journals Of Gerontology, 57(11). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/57.11.M705