You Just Screened Out Your Best Candidate. They Were 52.

Digging Deeper

What age bias looks like in 2026

The AHRI and Commission survey is the fifth in a series that began in 2014. It gives the clearest picture of how Australian employers think about age. The 2025 findings are stark:

• 24 per cent of HR professionals classify workers aged 51 to 55 as older, more than double the 10 per cent recorded in 2023.

• One in five say their organisation’s recruitment practices negatively affect older workers. Almost the same proportion say the same about younger workers.

• 80 per cent are open to hiring people aged 25 to 34 to a large extent. For people 65 and over, the figure is 28 per cent.

• Younger workers are widely seen as more creative, adaptable and technologically capable. Older workers are seen as more experienced and knowledgeable, but that perception does not translate into hiring.

• Almost three in four employers now offer flexible work as a recruitment strategy for age-diverse hiring, up from 49 per cent in 2021. The tools exist. The shortlist is where they fail.

The view from the other side of the desk matches. A survey commissioned by COTA Australia found more than 72 per cent of people aged 50 and over believe ageism locks older people out of the workforce. Among those not in paid work, it was 75 per cent.

Earlier research from the same series found only 26 per cent of organisations methodically captured knowledge from departing staff. More than half seldom or never offered training on age bias. A decade ago the Commission’s Willing to Work inquiry found more than a quarter of Australians over 50 had experienced age discrimination at work. Little has changed.

Age bias in recruiting rarely takes the form of a stated policy. It looks like a job ad asking for a digital native. It looks like a recruiter screening out a 30-year career because it does not fit on one page. It looks like a lower offer because the candidate will retire soon. It looks like an interviewer silently wondering how long the candidate plans to stay.

What it costs your business

The true cost of age bias in recruiting is not a single number. It is a set of costs that compound. Think about what the plumbing contractor loses when it overlooks older workers.

Vacancy cost. Two open roles for six months means turned-away work, overtime for the existing crew and jobs that run late. For a trade business billing $150 an hour per technician, an unfilled role costs thousands of dollars a week in lost revenue.

Time to productivity. An experienced tradesperson, bookkeeper, or clinician can complete a full workload in a matter of weeks. A junior takes years and requires supervision that pulls senior staff away from billable work.

Turnover. ABS job mobility data consistently shows people over 55 change jobs far less often than workers under 35. Every departure incurs recruitment fees, lost productivity, and retraining costs. Older workers reduce that churn.

Judgement. Someone who has seen a hundred jobs go wrong knows how to price the hundred and first. That judgement shows up in accurate quotes, fewer variations and better client relationships. It cannot be trained quickly, and it cannot be bought from a job board.

Mentoring. Older workers are the people who train your apprentices and graduates. Remove them and your training pipeline collapses at the same time as your senior capacity.

None of these costs appears on a single invoice. They show up as lower margin, higher turnover and slower growth. Priced honestly, a senior hire usually beats a junior hire plus the re-work the junior generates. The companion calculator walks through the five cost lines with your own numbers.

What it costs the economy

KPMG Australia modelled the national cost of under-using older workers in June 2026. Australia’s participation rate for 55- to 64-year-olds was 69 per cent in 2025, compared with 84 per cent in Sweden and 80 per cent in New Zealand. Australia has slipped from 17th to 24th among comparable economies.

KPMG estimated that lifting participation to 77 per cent, roughly where Australia would be if its earlier trend had continued, would add around 240,000 workers. That translates to $16.7 billion in additional wages, $12.3 billion in extra business profit and $29 billion a year in GDP.

The finding is consistent with a decade of modelling. Deloitte Access Economics estimated in 2012 that a five-point lift in participation among people over 55 would add about $48 billion, or 2.4 per cent of national income. PwC put the potential gain at up to $78 billion if Australia matched Sweden.

The point is not the precise number. Older workers are the largest pool of skilled, available labour Australia has. Every sector says it cannot find people.

Key statistics

• Employers classifying workers aged 51 to 55 as older: 24 per cent (10 per cent in 2023).

• Employers open to hiring people 65 and over “to a large extent”: 28 per cent.

• Employers admitting recruitment practices disadvantage older workers: One in five.

• Australia’s participation rate, ages 55 to 64: 69 per cent (Sweden 84 per cent).

• Australia’s world ranking on 55 to 64 participation: 24th, down from 17th.

• Annual GDP gain from lifting participation to 77 per cent: $29 billion.