National wants to make it harder for migrants to qualify for Super and raise the age of entitlement. It's also interested in tweaking the tax system to benefit savers and lowering the company tax rate

National wants to make it harder for migrants to qualify for Super and raise the age of entitlement. It's also interested in tweaking the tax system to benefit savers and lowering the company tax rate
National Leader Simon Bridges, National Finance Spokesperson Paul Goldsmith

National will go in to the 2020 election campaigning on raising the age of entitlement for New Zealand Superannuation to 67.

It’s committing to sticking to the position it took under the leadership of Bill English in 2017 to progressively start raising the age from 65 from 2037.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, ahead of the 2017 election, said she’d rather resign than raise the age of entitlement.

National, in a discussion document release on the economy on Monday, also said it would increase the amount of time someone needs to have been a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident for to be eligible for Super from 10 to 20 years.

New Zealand First MP Mark Patterson had a member’s bill pulled from the ballot in October last year that proposes a similar change. The bill hasn’t progressed through the Parliamentary process.

On the tax front, National is seeking feedback on tweaking the system so savers pay less tax. It wants to allow savers to deduct the inflation component from their interest incomes.

It is also consulting on lowering the company tax rate from 28%.

Another part of National’s economic strategy is repealing 100 regulations in its first six months of taking office, should it get into government.

It hasn't pin-pointed which regulations would go, but said that for every two to be struck off, a new regulation would be introduced.

In terms of the management of Crown accounts, National said it would need to wait until next year before determining its debt target, "as conditions are changing rapidly".

It said it believes in reducing net debt when the economy is growing so there is capacity to borrow when times are tough.

These are the other new commitments National announced on Monday:

  • Requiring all government departments and government agencies to pay their contractors on time and within 30 days;
  • Establishing  a voluntary initiative committing large New Zealand businesses and not-for-profits to ensure New Zealand small businesses are paid on time and within 30 days;
  • Requiring quality cost-benefit analysis for any major new regulation;
  • Māori land reform; and
  • Ensuring the Treasury has a greater focus on providing sound advice on the effectiveness of government spending, identifying wasteful spending and driving higher productivity in the public sector.

 These are additional proposals it’s seeking feedback on:

  • Introducing youth wage rates;
  • Considering new ways to fund infrastructure;
  • Considering pricing mechanisms to manage the flow of traffic that are revenue neutral;
  • Accelerated depreciation of business assets;
  • Removing the ability for governments to give preferential pay agreements to union members during public sector wage negotiations;
  • Bank account number portability to lower the cost of switching banks and increase competition between banks; and
  • Removing all remaining tariffs.

These are existing policies it’s reaffirming its commitment to:

  • Indexing tax thresholds to inflation;
  • Repealing the Regional Fuel Tax;
  • Not increasing petrol excise taxes during its first term;
  • Returning the brightline test to two years (from five years) and removing the ring-fencing of rental losses;
  • Repealing the ban on oil and gas exploration;
  • Overhauling the Resource Management Act;
  • Reintroducing targets in health, education and law and order;
  • Repealing restrictions the Government has introduced on the flow of foreign capital into New Zealand businesses. The document doesn't say anything about repealing the foreign home buyer ban;
  • Repealing recent Government changes made to the Employment Relations Act, such as removing 90-day trial periods.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

94 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

National will go in to the 2020 election campaigning on raising the age of the entitlement for New Zealand Superannuation to 67.

What choice do they have, central banks erroneously and continuously cut interest rates in half to supposedly boost GDP growth whilst ignoring the reality that discounted Net Present Value costs of future liabilities such as pensions etc double at the same time rates halve?

10
up

Well they have also committed to addressing the tax bracket creep, just about all governments have taken advantage of. Believe there is a huge consensus out there that the age for the pension needed to be lifted, just as much as it will be politically, highly unpopular. Is this then a brave move by National? Perhaps it is.

Pretty much the same in those regards as last election - the current government repealed the slated tax threshold increases for low and middle incomes (which would also have provided fiscal economic stimulus). Still, I'd prefer Kiwisaver being taxed less (low flat rate, not PIR) and accessible at say 60, for those who need/want to retire earlier and can self fund. If that were done then the pension could (fairly ?) be means tested. Australia has developed a pretty good system over the last 30 years or so.

That could be a good approach for National to make it more palatable to younger voters. At present they simply carry on giving the older folks the better deal while giving the younger ones short shrift. If they were to accompany the raise in pension age by a drop in Kiwisaver tax for younger voters that mike be the spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down.

I don't think young voters would want to increase the age that they themselves can get NZ super. Why would they?

Hopefully because they realise that universal non-means tested Super is a part of a population based Ponzi-scheme, and they are most likely going to be the ones that end up being shafted when the ponzi scheme falls over as they always do?

Interesting line that struck me; "These are existing policies it’s reaffirming its commitment to:... Overturning the Government’s foreign investment changes"

Does this mean National will re-open the NZ residential property market to foreign investors?

NEW INFORMATION EDIT: I got in touch with my local MP on this question, and he had this to say; "In short, the suggestion is not around residential property. It is more about commercial opportunities. Naturally, as a discussion document, feel free to comment as widely as you wish."

I really hope not.

16
up

of course they will and they will fling the doors wide open on immigration, that is there only growth policy

14
up

This policy alone will see them remain in opposition. Until the infrastructure is fixed NZ does not need another million people moving into Auckland.

As long as we allow skilled migrants only and increase the skills of NZers. Low wage jobs are on their way out. And National would have my vote for that and raising the age of entitlement for NZ Super - we all know that has to be done.

Didn't Bridges announced a "special" visa couple of months ago to relieve skill shortages at farms? In short, bring more slave labour so that farmers can privatise profits and socialise long-term costs associated with low-skilled labour.

M1, I can't see the quote "Overturning the Government’s foreign investment changes" where is it or did you rearrange the wording to suit ?

It's this part: "Repealing restrictions the Government has introduced on the flow of foreign capital into New Zealand businesses. The document doesn't say anything about repealing the foreign home buyer ban"

I think the original version of the article didn't have that second sentence, and might have been phrased closer to what M1 wrote. Can't remember for sure, though.

Certainly wouldn't be surprised to see them looking to free things up on property investment under the disguise of "business", though. 3.4 properties per National MP, on average.

That would make National a poor choice for younger Kiwis if the party is looking to start pushing home ownership further out of reach as they did during their last 9 years of governing.

It's not very honest to quote a text in brackets but then change the words in the quote

Strongly agree. But see my other comment: I copy and pasted the quote I used from the bullet point in the article, but the article has since been amended (potentially in response to my comment, as the new wording directly addresses my question).

Yea, the article on Interest has changed since I originally commented. However when I commented I did a straight copy and paste of the entire bulletpoint.

People who take quotes out of context deserve to be shot, so appreciate you calling me out on it (though hopefully you accept my response that I did quote fully, and the article has since changed).

My understanding is that the foreign home buyer ban would stay under National. 

They will have to rule out doing away with it or reducing it. Otherwise it'll be the easy prey as CGT was for National with older voters.

Does a leopard change its spots ?

20
up

why wait till 2037 to start raising the retirement age.. why not 2025 or maybe sooner. Oh, because that would annoy a significant bunch of your voters, so instead they are going to wait and pull the ladder up after them. B-holes.

Exactly right! Every year the proportion of GDP required to fund over 65's increases which means there is less money for everything else. When the concept of old age pension was first introduced relatively few people lived to the age where they would receive it, it was a safety net to avoid having old people becoming destitute, but in the past decades it has been seen a right that the government will fund the last 20+ years of you life so that you can live in retirement. Its just not sustainable which is obvious to anyone who looks a the numbers but unfortunately its politically unpalatable to implement and real change.

Exactly, they want to make sure all the boomers and most of generation X get in before they pull up the ladder. Which is ironic since it is the boomer bubble that causes they pay as you go problem in the first place.

I’m surprised and disappointed by this:

“Returning the brightline test to two years (from five years) and removing the ring-fencing of rental losses;”

I thought since labour did the hard work of introducing it, they would continue. The property investor class must be strong in the National Party.

Soon we'll be working and commenting on interest.co.nz until we are well into our 90s. Thanks to the Nat.

And so the King said to the good people of ID. I have good news and bad news. The bad news, I am going to nationalise all your superannuation schemes. The good news, you will be allowed ro work until you are ninety.

22
up

Good idea and long overdue - so start now...

Oh wait...that's right, we have to look after the boomers..the largest group of self licking ice creams the planet has ever known and who got the easiest ride..

So we lay this on the young ones as well;

Amazing what a difference been born a generation too late makes:

- No free tertiary education like they got
- No house on one income and mum at home.. no its 2 people working to stand still
- No wage growth for a decade and bugger all in the future

And guess what...you can retire later too because the boomers stripped the cupboard bare.

I'm Gen-X but it sickens me..I'd pull the plug on the lot of them

13
up

Another ill informed, uneducated extremist crawls out from under a rock! You need to study up on your history MV, tertiary education was never truly free, there have been articles on this, and in the military through the 70's, 80's and 90's went for a little over 10 years without a pay rise. Why don't you put the blame where it belongs? On the heads of Government. If Muldoon had not dumped the GSF into the consolidated fund the country would not be under stress for retirement funds. Boomers were made promises that the Government reneged on and continues to. A house on a single income again look to the Governments who adopted economic policies that shafted the working class, as well as allowing unfettered foreign investment into residential property.

Blaming boomers only shows that you are not capable of critical thought, and have little to no understanding of what actually happened.

and who elected those politicians, and went along with those plans?

25
up

Haha...extremist?

That's funny...I'm 52 years old, married, kids, decent income (top 5%) , white, hetero and as boring and centrist as they come so don't fit the profile of the "young crazy extremist".

OK, so who kept voting Muldoon back in....?

Who were the biggest supporters of JK that continue the status quo as the immigrants flooded in and pushed house prices through the roof?

..Yep....that's right...

Just call it as I see it personally - I've never met a group (meaning the boomers) who are so intent on preserving all they somehow feel they 'deserve' and screw the rest and no matter how many facts you bring to the table they honestly felt they had it tough..its hilarious

I'm Gen-X and I KNOW I had it way easier than today youth - its willful dishonesty and blind ignorance to think otherwise

Are the young today any more frivolous then I was at that age? No, not at all - I for one was probably worse..and could I catch up really fast and get the big ticket items sorted once I stopped fooling around - heck yes!

With boomers it's endless stories of 20% mortgage rates in 1985 (omitting the commensurate insane wage growth at the same time inflating their debt away..)...

We didn't have cell-phones (well, they weren't invented yet were they?)
We didn't have overseas holidays... true, but owning a bach was pretty common.
We didn't have shops open in the weekend..(so everyone got time off!)

We'll agree to disagree.

11
up

+100

+200

mvgsmf, are you sure that hating a group of the population is going to make you happier or more successful?

Are you sure being smug is the best response to the groundswell of resentment that continues to build toward a certain group of the population for the way they've sold the rest of us down the river?

MV, yes times were different, but think back on your elections. In how many did the politicians provide you with the detail of how they would implement their policies? Instead we just got an over view, no one got to vote for Muldoon on a platform of robbing the GSF, no one got to vote for the Lange Labour Government on a platform of introducing Free Market Economic policies with a complete breakdown of the consequences, no one got to vote for the myriad of changes that you detail. We vote our politicians in on the basis that they will serve our interest when in office. But yes I do agree that a vast majority of the public seem to vote mindlessly rather than intelligently, and many more don't even bother, but that doesn't mean the public have not been betrayed by their MPs. If you want to feel guilty, go right ahead, but don't blame the boomers for the current mess!

It's true but it's not the fault of one generation. It's really the neo-classical/neoliberal, so called free market, trickle-down school of economics dating back further than boomers - Thatcher and Reagan weren't boomers. The invisible hand of the market was supposed to make us all prosperous. It's made some people very rich, and quite a few a lot less well off, and has produced greater inequality in general. I'm GenX and squeaked through with very low uni fees, managed to save and invest, just managed to catch the property bubble in time, and managed to learn enough (and was privileged enough) to be able to work the increasingly brutal, individualistic system, so far at least.

@voiceofreason

yes - agree you're pretty much on it..(Im Gen-X too)

I was tongue in cheek with my "pull the plug" line but can imagine some of the younger ones wont be!

This is so frustrating, the free market is always blamed without the acknowledgement of depegging from Gold in 71’ and banking reforms in the early 80’s. Two of the most fundamental changes in our monetary history. Have a look at any asset price graph through history and see what happens particularly in the 80’s.
It’s not the free market that has failed, its money creation which is to blame for the unfair advantages outlined in this and many other comments. Have a look at the graph in the link below (its for the US but pretty much the same in NZ):
https://media.cheggcdn.com/media%2F2c5%2F2c506bd3-fc1f-400a-aa74-ccd0682...

Man, you're grievance ridden. Older gen-Xers got a chance at a free university education, and probably less than 5% of boomers actually got a university bursary. University participation rates have exploded since the days a tiny group of boomers got their free varsity. As for real incomes, bollocks, in NZ they've been growing solidly for the last ten years. House prices are dearer - tough break, all generations seem to be pushing for lower interest rates and NZ has become a more desirable place to live. Reversing either of these would get you cheaper houses, but would you want that? Pretty much everything else is cheaper so stop griping.

@BS

I'm Gen-X and certainly not 'griping' for me..the difference is I know I had it good and have no problem with the pension age being pushed out.

The issue I have is yet again every political party dances around the boomer demographic.

I don't mind either, an increase in the eligibility age is inevitable, but you have to give people time to sort out their financial planning. 18 years is generous maybe.
It was lucky you had it good. Like plenty of boomers (and I'm only on the cusp), I did tough times when the regions started to struggle in the early 80s, and then later during the 91 recession (deeper in NZ than the GFC). So, every generation has it's trials. Usually it builds resilience and self-reliance.

Mvg

You don't have to "pull the plug"

Just get out and vote. Your generation are looking down the barrel of all our muckups so take charge of your destiny.

I remember back in the 1990s when I first started working, I realised that given the (neoliberal) changes underway, if it continued down that path, it seemed unlikely there would be any govt funded super at all by the time I hit retirement age, at least severely means tested. It seemed in line with the ideology, going back to Thatcher, Reagan and Roger Douglas. I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet to be honest.

A bit of mixed bag here; some good and some not so good. What is with National and roads?.What I don't see (and not from the current government either) is how we are going to grow the economy. How are we going to get new business off the ground delivering the new jobs we need.

For example fintech is exploding and places like Singapore are at the forefront because their regulation allows new entrants to enter the market. But it will take actual leadership to drive regulatory change at the FMA and the RBNZ. The FMA is openly hostile to new entrants and new ideas and want some industry to exit the market. The current PM is clearly is not up the challenge but is Bridges?

I didn't think 90 day trial periods were removed? Just restricted to businesses with no more than 19 employees?

Yep.

It really sums us up as a country when pulling the ladder up like this AFTER the boomers are safe and sound is considered "politically brave"...

Is Simon breaking with Judith/Key on the retirement age ?
I see there is a cozy to Winston on residency criteria for Super.
Canny moves much..

when first started working it was compulsory retirement at 60 then within a couple of years bang out to 65 and then bang get rid of age limit for working.
so where will it end up for youngsters in school now, that's simple unless you can afford it you will work your whole life
the idea of true retirement will only be for those wealthy enough

Don't pay super to people working full time.
How much would that save?

One quick reduction in the work force. So fewer income tax payers to pay for super.

However I'd support making it means tested for those like myself who only paid in for 11 years but get the same super as a Kiwi with 45 years of tax payments. Simon Bridges proposal to make it 20 years contributions has my support despite my own arrival aged 54. It is simply a matter of fairness. Related issue is making the qualification for Super less arbitrary; if I had paid tax for 9 years and it would be no Super. Lets copy other countries and pay super by the fraction of the years you have contributed by being a tax payer. My case 11/20'ths of Super would be reasonable.

Great initiatives, will get my vote, I agree on almost all except reducing bright line test to 2 years

Will you safely be over the line before the Super age increases would kick in?

No not at all but I recognise it needs to be done

some of these are going to be very hard to do
•Bank account number portability to lower the cost of switching banks and increase competition between banks;
How will they achieve this?
•Removing all remaining tariffs.
this will destroy large parts of NZ manufacturing that we still have, they can not compete against 3rd world low wage economies not to mention government assisted countries
•Considering pricing mechanisms to manage the flow of traffic that are revenue neutral;
again How do you do this? this is just pie in the sky stuff
•Māori land reform
good luck, hornets nest comes to mind

this is pure opposition stuff , fluff up the page with lots of nonsense that cant and wont get done and have three of four key things you want to do

Well if they didn't come up with any initiatives, wouldn't you complain that they have no new ideas, nothing to offer?

that's the point they don't
most of the stuff they will do is the same as last time
pump up immigration and selling houses, cut spending on health, police and schools by setting BS targets, build roads
they have the same main policies for the last 20 years

this is not even their policy, this is an act policy and they rejected it last time they were in power
•Indexing tax thresholds to inflation;
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/74616/government-says-open-act-suggestio...

Yeah and regurgitate ole favourites like ' overhauling the RMA'
The Nats are such a broken record.

Pension age should be set at percentage of age expectancy, which calibrates automatically every few years, or we will have the same problem again when everyone lives to 90....100....110....120...etc or if suddenly we all start dying at 50 from weed induced car crashes on our way to KFC then the pension age can automatically reduce.

The original pension age was the average life expectancy. It should be altered to say 12 years less than the current average. Then the treasury has a known future commitment. Even the current age is too old for some manual workers - there nneds to be some process whereby the drain-layer and the scaffolder can find less demanding work well before official retirement age.

That is a very good point, heavy labour should get retirement earlier, office people later

I'd like to see more retirement age people doing child rearing/teaching/mentoring activities - tons of experience and typically more patience than younger adults.

You might be surprised how many office workers would change to manual work as they got older.

12
up

Gen X here...what utter tripe from the National (no real policy) party. Most of it just seems to heap unfair penalties on workers and young NZers. Want my vote? Tell me you'll cut super to the wealthy boomers who make up your voterbase and put that money into free education for anyone who needs to retrain. Want my vote? Stop taxing kiwisaver and put the govt contribution back where it used to be. Want my vote? Stop putting up false policy, like how you were going to turbocharge the extractive sector or close the living standard gap on Australia. Yup still waiting on that....

Geez it's getting hard to choose which group of overpaid and underperforming public servants to choose for the inevitable ineptitude that comes with running the country.

Overhauling the Resource Management Act;

.

Well that means precisely nothing. Overhaul it to improve what? Remove what? Add what?

National are also going on about level entry to showers and a bus depot with no walls having an exit sign. Those are building code items not RMA.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/115276419/national-turns-to-trump-brita...

National went on about making grand changes while in opposition and John Key appeared to ripped off part of my submission to a select committee. However when he got in power he forgot about neoliberalism and switched to adding more regulations. Building compliance costs went up and Nick Smith was doing damage control the whole time.

National are a centre party the same as Labour. They should stop mucking around and go into coalition together.

Visionless:

Adjective. Lacking the faculty of sight; blind. Lacking intelligent foresight or imagination; uninspired: visionless bureaucrats.

Well barring all the devil in the detail (eg 'Māori land reform' could keep politicians fully busy with protestors and nothing would get done) I'm quite impressed. Mr Bridges comments about his work as a lawyer in the Herald last Monday impressed me too. I get the impression of a far more genuine sense of compassion then Ms Ardern but she is way better at public relations and selling her empathy. So am I alone in preferring him to Jacinda? I also prefer Andrew Little so maybe I'm unique.

He must be working very hard at cultivating "authenticity" these days, based on identifying the need.

I’m pretty sure Bridges compassion is for Bridges.

He comes across as genuine as a $3 coin

Pity I can't vote National since I've promised in words and writing that I will not vote for them while they have a spy as an MP and in their shadow cabinet. I've also said that if the shadow minister of statisitics ever makes any criticism of the Chinese Communist party I would write and apolgise for my public comments and reconsider my voting options.

Would appear you seem to be acknowledging you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Even IF he were a spy for the Chinese government (and that is a pretty giant IF) what do you think he would be able to do? It's common knowledge we have virtually zero military capability whatsoever but we are hardly a strategic target. He going to soften the AML/CFT laws? He going to allow people with Chinese sounding names to buy property again? What is it you are worried about?

Agree his background is less than ideal, but relative to the CoL who are simply a bunch of academics and tree huggers with zero real world knowledge or practical experience..... I'd rather have a question mark over one minister than the whole lot.

Agreed he is not a very useful spy. It is a matter of principle.
Seriously it would not be difficult for Jian Yang MP and Raymond Huo MP to issue a realistic joint statement about arbitration over the Spratleys, organ harvesting of Falun Gong supporters or the many well researched articles about the million Uyghurs experiencing compulsary reducation in camps surrounded by barbed wire with watch towers. Just a little evidence of independence from the Chinese communist party is all I ask.
If enough voters take the same line as myself maybe things might improve a little.

Science is out..tree hugging is good for you...

After reading the drivel and propaganda put out by National recently I think we need to be a lot more picky as voters. We should hold politicians to a higher standard. They should have at least worked at a job, and I don't mean someone who worked on a farm for a few months before becoming a career politician.

Is it too much to ask that the major parties have at least one MP that has had some RMA or Building Act experience.

Frankly, yes, all you need is tangible Feelz. That, or well-disguised utter zealotry that can be hidden until a Ministerial appointment occurs, and then it's Buzz Lightyear territory.

People will believe any absurd thing that is posted with one of my favourite ones from the last week being a tweet from the National party saying X is worse with a graph showing the line at the end going down. No labels on the axis, and apparently no real data either. Someone, somewhere in NZ is believing whatever is tweeted.

There needs to be more readily accessible fact checking tools for the typical voter. I doubt that National or Labour would want to support such a thing, and that is why it's needed.

I don't think the average voter will put effort into verifying information even with tools, I think the populist environment we live in the world over is testament to that. Now laws (with significant penalties) on what's stated, printed, promised or claimed might be a good start.

A consumer guarantees act for voters

Fair Trading Act covers misleading advertising. That would be more appropriate.

Consumer Guarantees Act is more when products or services turn out to be not fit for purpose... and frankly that would mean we have no eligible MPs at all.

Well said dictator… I believe all that is needed is a great smile and promises, delivery unnecessary, just look at how much Little got out smiled by Ardern to turn the party's fortunes around in no time.

And John Key before that.

At last some sensible policy.
Any intelligent person knows that the country can not continue to pay benefits out to all and sundry, and it is costing more every year.
People are living much longer and modern medicine will continue to make this so.
Not everyone lives to old age, but we do need people working and producing to enable the benefits to be paid.
We need people to take responsibility for themselves and not rely on others to pay for their lifestyle.
Personally won’t be collecting Super as we have taken the option of looking after ourselves now and therefore the future as well
Good on Simon Bridges for taking responsibility for the country, whereas Ardern just talks nonsense.

Really...can you contact Stuff tomorrow ...they would love a piece on a self made property investor in CHCH who as taken a vow to not take Super. I will send you a case of Parrot dog and imagine the kudos you would get Man!

Why would I want to contact Stuff?
It is not an ego thing Frazz,

We need people to take responsibility for themselves and not rely on others to pay for their lifestyle.

Agreed. That rules out landlords, for a start.

We have taken responsibility for our own financial position.
Landlords are providing housing to people that need it where the government can not.
The government are the worst performing landlords that there are, just have a look at the outside condition of most state houses.
They need to ensure that the tenants take some pride in the homes that they are provided with.

I can still retire at 65.

By excluding the effect of inflation from savings would benefit my Kiwisaver to the point where I could simply withdraw from my kiwisaver scheme for the two years from 65 to 67 what I would have received in NZ Super. The adjustment proposed would more than compensate.

There are two questions that I do have though.....

- If inflation is above the return of my savings do I get a tax refund? What if there was deflation?
- Naturally Kiwisaver balances would still be accessible at 65. I think it would unconscionable for the government to change the accessibility age to what is my money. I signed up to Kiwisaver on the premise my contributions would be accessible at 65.

On the face of it.. good policies .. but the devil is in the detail.

Just watching the Nats' Goldsmith on Q & A. Mediocre.
'Setting a bonfire to regulations' yawn....

Just raise it to 66 now for anyone under 65 (next time they are elected), 2037 is too far away, an makes it a nothing policy, who knows what the situation will be like in 17 years, all that will happen is tax payer money will be wasted talking about it. So what if I get my pension 1-2 years later, I will cope and so will most people, I would rather have that money spent on health so I live longer. Bite the bullet now, it will always politically inconvenient but it needs to be done. I really wish politicians would stop being such cowards.

Even Mike Hosking has stated that raising the age of eligibility for Super is an election losing proposal.
Is Simon having the support of the National caucus for this initiative/policy ?
Or are they silently allowing him to commit harakiri, in the hope that Judith can come in at the right time ?