It happened rather quietly. A couple of weeks ago, the Federal Parliament passed a bill for veterans that made military pensions more generous. It meant veterans would get their retirement income linked to changes in average weekly earnings, rather than changes in inflation.
It means more money after years of fighting for it and it fulfilled an election pledge by the Coalition, which managed to get the bill through the Senate before Anzac Day.
But it runs contrary to Treasurer Joe Hockey's newly-revealed plans to rein in the cost of the age pension - easily the largest chunk of the welfare budget. It also flew in the face of a review commissioned by the former government that found, in 2008, there was ''no case'' for improved indexation for military pensions. It will cost the government $162 million over the next four years.
When Hockey ran head-first into the swirling politics of pension rates again this week it was to indicate bad news for most pensioners.
Hockey appeared on the ABC's Insiders program on Sunday to argue that the population was ageing and that most countries were in the process of lifting their pension ages.
Given the way things were headed, he said, his generation might have to work a few more years at the end of their careers to ease budgetary pressures from an ageing population.
''It may be the case that my generation has to work for an extra three years … the fact is that now, as in the United Kingdom, it's probably the case in Australia, one in every three children born today will live to 100,'' he said.
If the Abbott government lifts the pension age to 70 then Australians will become some of the oldest workers in the developed world.
Recent data from the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development shows if Australia acts it will be doing so years before other countries.
Australia is already lifting its pension age to 67 by 2023, but if it then starts to lift the age to 70 it will be jumping ahead of other countries - in some cases by a long way.
Canada and Germany will finish lifting their pension age to 67 by 2029, while Britain will be done by 2036. South Korea will just finish lifting its to 65 by 2033. China has no scheduled increases above 60.
So why is Australia jumping so far ahead - a country which has had compulsory superannuation since 1992?
Populations are ageing thanks to medical improvements and healthier lifestyles. So it would not be a sign of the failure of our superannuation system, but a consequence of our ability to live longer, economists say.
The Productivity Commission and the Grattan Institute both support raising the age to 70, saying it is reasonable in the face of an ageing population and that Australia is right to tackle the problem early.
''If we make it 70 by 2030, we'd certainly be in front of others who have legislated changes,'' Grattan Institute chief executive John Daley said.
''But all that does is show that we are facing up to this problem a little earlier than others.
''Many people in Europe are not so much worried about the existing debts that European governments have run up as their future pension liabilities, which are just terrifying.''
But despite the problem of an ageing population the Abbott government's plan was still heavily criticised, particularly by seniors and the Labor Party.
The opposition spokeswoman on families, Jenny Macklin, said the legislated rise to 67 had not even begun yet, and the government would need to account for serious age discrimination in the workplace before lifting it to 70.
But this came after the Labor Party, seniors groups and unions had accused the government of preparing to break an election promise that there would be no cuts or changes to pensions.
Then Hockey gave a speech in Washington last week in which he stressed the need for the federal budget to be sustainable, signalling pension changes.
Hockey used the Washington speech to warn that the number of Australians aged 65 to 84 will double between 2010 and 2050, while the number of people aged over 85 will quadruple.
He said access to the pension system will need to be ''prioritised for the most vulnerable''.
So not only is the government considering lifting the pension age to 70, it is also considering making changes to the indexation of pensions to slow the rising cost of the payment.
This news prompted the chief executive of National Seniors Australia, Michael O'Neill, to tell the ABC's Radio National this week that changes to the pension indexation rate would break an election promise.
''They trusted the government in no uncertain terms at the time of the last election,'' he said. ''The reality is for those folks who are just on the pension, not with other income but just on the pension, they have very little room to manoeuvre.''
Then on Thursday, the president of the Superannuated Commonwealth Officers' Association, John Coleman, said the government would be ''unashamedly'' imposing double standards on how retirement incomes are indexed if it reintroduced consumer price index indexation for the age pension.
MPs' pensions are not indexed to the CPI. MPs who joined Parliament before the 2004 election get a more favourable defined benefit pension which is indexed by movement in parliamentary salaries and allowances.
''When they retire, Tony Abbott's and Joe Hockey's very large pensions, undoubtedly more than $100,000, won't be indexed by the CPI,'' Coleman said. ''If Tony Abbott is taking the axe to age pension indexation, he is morally obliged to do the same thing to MPs' pensions.''
