Why messing with NZ Super remains political dynamite
Universal super at 65 is increasingly unsustainable, but any attempt to change it will attract fierce political blowback. What's a government to do, wonders Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin.
No cuts to super – but everything else is on the table
Last week's budget delivered a raft of cost-cutting measures, from halving the KiwiSaver member tax credit to tightening access to the Best Start payment. But superannuation was conspicuously untouched – a move that came as no surprise, given NZ First's long-standing defence of the universal pension. High-income earners who can no longer access the KiwiSaver contribution remain fully entitled to super, a benefit projected to cost nearly $25 billion this year and rise to over $45 billion by 2037.
Critics have pounced on the apparent double standard, reports RNZ's Susan Edmunds. As economist Shamubeel Eaqub put it: 'It's incoherent … incentives for Kiwis to save for their future [are] means-tested, but New Zealand Super, which is universal welfare for older people, is untouched.'
National's slow path to raising the age
While ruling out means-testing, both prime minister Christopher Luxon and finance minister Nicola Willis have reiterated National's plan to raise the super age – eventually. The party's policy is to keep the current entitlement age of 65 until 2044, after which it will rise gradually to 67. No one born before 1979 would be affected.
In the NZ Herald (paywalled), Fran O'Sullivan argues that such a distant target is little more than political theatre. She contrasts Luxon's timidity on the issue with former National PM Jim Bolger, who methodically raised the age from 60 to 65 over a nine-year period. O'Sullivan notes that Bolger 'managed to convince New Zealanders that a gradual increase … was plain commonsense' at a time when life expectancy was increasing. By contrast, today's leaders seem content to avoid political pain, she writes, even as super becomes an increasingly heavy burden on the budget.
One millennial's wail of despair
The idea of delaying retirement might make sense on paper – but it's enough to send some younger New Zealanders into an existential tailspin. Writing in The Spinoff this morning, Hayden Donnell delivers a howl of generational frustration: 'Millennials have spent their formative years selling kidneys to pay rent on a draughty villa and getting bullied by gen Z for admittedly being huge losers. They'll spend the next 20 helping fund their parents' generation's Mediterranean cruises. Surely after that they can have a break? I guess not.'
Donnell's broader point is that policies like lifting the super age hit those with lower life expectancies and more physically demanding jobs hardest. And while life expectancy has barely moved in recent years – and is even declining in some countries – the financial squeeze on younger generations is intensifying, just as the likelihood of a guaranteed super at 65 starts to fade. Or, in other words: 'Come on man how much shit can people under the age of 40 have shovelled onto them from a great height god damn it christ on a bike argh argh argh no.'
'You can touch anything else. Do not touch my pension'
Two of New Zealand's most prominent right-leaning commentators have also weighed in – and their take is not encouraging for National. In his Mike's Minute, Mike Hosking warned that voters' emotional attachment to super far outweighs any argument of fiscal prudence. 'For many, superannuation is untouchable. It's a lifetime's worth of work. 'I paid my taxes' they say, even though that line isn't actually real because we spent your taxes years ago and then borrowed a bit more to keep the lights on.'
Hosking's Newstalk ZB colleague Heather du Plessis-Allan was even more emphatic: 'Don't touch my pension. You can touch anything else. Do not touch my pension.' Despite advocating for cuts to almost every other form of welfare, she drew a hard line at super, arguing that she and millions like her had earned it through years of tax contributions. 'So, good luck to Chris Luxon getting this one across the line,' she wrote. With opposition like that from his own ideological camp, Luxon may find that even floating the idea of reform is as far as it goes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Weak Environmental Standards Threaten Nature And Communities
New Zealand's environment and communities will face greater pollution, increased biodiversity loss and environmental damage, with a long-term cost to the economy, if today's Government rollbacks come into effect. The Government has announced proposals for new national environmental standards and national policy statements. These proposed changes – which include weakening protections for freshwater, coastal areas, wetlands, and native species – will put nature at increased risk from things such as water pollution under the Resource Management Act. 'This is just the latest blow in the Government's dismantling of environmental protections,' says Richard Capie, Forest & Bird's group manager, Conservation Advocacy and Policy. 'It feels like a century of evidence about how much we rely on the environment and how degraded it is becoming, has just drifted past this Government. 'Without a healthy, well-functioning natural environment, our homes, towns, farms, and infrastructure are at risk in the face of a changing climate. 'The Government seems determined to strip away protections for nature, yet most New Zealanders just want clean, healthy ecosystems and thriving communities. They have consistently said that they want to be able to swim in their local rivers and beaches, have safe drinkable water, and for our wildlife and wild places to flourish. 'Instead, these proposals pave the way for weak environmental standards that will mean more pollution and put more pressure on our already endangered species and vulnerable habitats. 'Our export economy runs on clean water, a liveable climate, low pollution, and a breathtaking natural world. Our EU and UK trading relationships are based on the promise that we will raise environmental standards, not lower them. Weakening environmental standards will harm us and our international reputation.' The proposed changes include: Making it much easier to mine and quarry in areas that contain significant indigenous biodiversity, as well as wetlands, by removing existing requirements that protect nature. Introducing a new national direction for infrastructure and amended direction on electricity generation projects, which is likely to mean a reduction in protections for biodiversity, natural landscapes, and seascapes. Amending the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 to make it easier to consent activities in the vulnerable coastal and inshore environment, including in areas with important coastal value (which are already faced with significant pressures). Removing 'Te Mana o te Wai', our overarching freshwater guiding concept which currently prioritises looking after the environment and human needs. This change will result in the weakening of freshwater protections, enabling more pollution in waterways, increased loss of essential wetlands, overallocation issues, and more. Removing the requirement to exclude grazed beef cattle and deer in low intensity farm systems from wetlands; wetlands are essential in supporting biodiversity and a haven for our threatened species. Forest & Bird will be calling for urgent improvements to the national standards and policy statements to ensure nature and communities are better protected. We urge the Government to: Prioritise nature-based solutions for managing natural hazards and infrastructure. Working with nature – rather than against it – allows local and regional government to protect nature, reduce costs, and create more resilient communities. Strengthen freshwater rules by retaining Te Mana o te Wai, seeking swimmable rivers and strengthening bottom lines for pollution and the health of freshwater. Protect biodiversity on private land by supporting and encouraging landowners to look after significant ecological areas and penalising the destruction of important habitats. Protect and restore wetlands so we can increase critical habitat for endangered species and support carbon sinks to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Safeguard our delicate coastal and inshore marine environments so that they are protected from further degradation and biodiversity loss. 'National environmental standards and national policy statements must serve future generations – our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren,' says Mr Capie. 'They need to be enduring, not focused on short-term interests.'
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
The New Zealand Initiative Supports Resource Management Reform Package As Important Interim Step
The Government's announcement of sweeping reforms to national direction under the Resource Management Act represents an important interim step toward fixing New Zealand's broken planning system. The reforms include proposed amendments to a suite of existing national direction instruments and several new instruments across three key areas: infrastructure and development, primary sector regulation, and freshwater management. "We applaud Ministers for stripping out unnecessary consenting hurdles and bringing forward an NPS on infrastructure to speed up investment and housing supply," says Dr Oliver Hartwich, Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative. "But without similarly bold action to lower barriers in the grocery sector, New Zealanders risk missing out on the opportunity to open up the retail grocery sector to competition." The reforms tackle multiple fronts simultaneously – from enabling granny flats and papakāinga housing to removing barriers for primary sector development and streamlining infrastructure projects. New national policy statements for infrastructure and renewable energy generation signal that the Government recognises infrastructure as vital to prosperity. "We particularly welcome the focus on removing unnecessary consent requirements that have added cost and delay without meaningful environmental benefit," Dr Hartwich said. The Government's commitment to removing certain types of land from the National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land reflects common-sense priorities. "These changes represent a philosophical shift from discretionary control to enabling development," Dr Hartwich said. "The new National Policy Statement for Infrastructure sends a clear message that infrastructure is critical to our prosperity, not an inconvenience to be managed." However, The New Zealand Initiative believes the Government can do more. The organisation's recently released proposal on Fast-Track Supermarket Entry and Expansion would perfectly align with the suite of reforms the Government has put forward. "By integrating our Fast-Track Supermarket Entry and Expansion framework into this package, Ministers would remove planning, consenting and investment barriers all at once," the Initiative's Chief Economist Dr Eric Crampton added. "That single, coordinated pathway would finally allow well-capitalised new entrants to open a network of supermarkets well in advance of the final phase of resource management reforms being implemented." The proposal would enable the market to discover what is possible in grocery retail by removing regulatory bottlenecks that have historically protected incumbents from new competition. "Nothing we do now under the existing RMA framework will ever be truly sufficient, given the fundamental structural problems with the current regime," Dr Hartwich said. "But the Government is making meaningful progress while we wait for Phase Three's complete overhaul – and our supermarket framework shows how they could go further." The organisation noted that the reforms align with evidence-based approaches to urban development and economic growth, including enabling mixed-use development and reducing barriers to productive land use. "These reforms demonstrate that good policy can advance environmental outcomes and economic development simultaneously," Dr Hartwich said. "The question was never environment versus economy – it was about creating systems that work for New Zealand families and businesses."
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
National Caves To ACT To Ram Through Regulatory Standards Bill
Press Release – New Zealand Labour Party The Prime Minister failed to show leadership on the Treaty Principles Bill and hes failing again. Christopher Luxon is clearly too weak to stand up to David Seymour. Once again National has caved to ACT by today agreeing to shorten the select committee process for the Regulatory Standards Bill. 'The Regulatory Standards Bill puts corporate interests ahead of our communities, environmental protections, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi,' Labour regulation spokesperson Duncan Webb said. 'The Prime Minister failed to show leadership on the Treaty Principles Bill – and he's failing again. Christopher Luxon is clearly too weak to stand up to David Seymour. 'For a Bill that claims to attempt to embed 'good law-making', it is staggering that National would agree to cut short the public's chance to have their say. 'Under the Regulatory Standards Bill, laws that would keep people healthy and safe, like requiring landlords to heat homes, or limiting the sale of vapes, would be at the whim of whether David Seymour thinks they're a good idea or not. 'It is unbelievable that the Government is cutting short the time the public will have to weigh in on such a consequential Bill. 'Today, the Government voted to shortcut the select committee process from six months to four months, all because David Seymour wants this wrapped up before the end of the year. They also cut short the public submission period from six weeks to four. 'Luxon needs to start standing up to the extreme voices in his Government, but instead he's bending over backwards to accommodate them,' Duncan Webb said.
