You have to laugh. The OECD, along with a number of other international organisations, has the mother of all pension (superannuation) schemes for its staff, based on ridiculously generous promised pensions upon retirement.
It is said that quite a lot of retired OECD staffers earn more in retirement than many current staff members.
But the organisation has not been prepared to face up to the financial implications of this crazy arrangement and makes NO provision whatsoever in its accounts to fund the actual and potential retirement pensions of its staff. It is a pay-as-you-go scheme, whereby the current contributions of the members are in part funding all those ex-staff members sunning themselves in the south of France.
(Any lectures from the OECD on fiscal prudence and budget management should be immediately dismissed, if they have not been already.)
Evidently, Austraila thinks this arrangement is no good and has campaigned to have some explicit accounting for the costs of current and future pension entitlements. But the organisation is not having a bar of it. Evidently, UNESO is in the same boat. My guess is that it applies to all sorts of international organisations, many of which got going in the early 1960s.
Maybe it is time for Australia to withdraw its membership. The terms of membership and the option to withdraw make no mention of being liable for any run-off costs, so now could be a good time.
It’s hard to know what we get for our money in any case, given the recently released Survey of Australia, with its particularly corporatist (and impenetrable) take on industrial relations; its endorsement of all enviromental measures, notwithstanding their ineffectiveness and costliness; and its mirror-take (reflecting Treasury’s wish-list) on preferred medium term ‘reforms’.
Go on, Swanny.