Prime Minister Bill English wants to increase the age of eligibility for superannuation from 65 to 67 from 2037

Prime Minister Bill English wants to increase the age of eligibility for superannuation from 65 to 67 from 2037

The government has proposed raising the superannuation age from 65 to 67 from 2037.

Prime Minister Bill English and Finance Minister Steven Joyce announced the changes in Wellington on Monday afternoon.

The age will be raised by six months each year from 1 July 2037. The government also announced an increase in the residency requirement from 10 years to 20 years. The requirement will change when legislation is passed, English said.

Legislation will be introduced in 2018 - after this year's general election - to initiate the change, English and Joyce said. This will allow for the issue to be discussed in the lead up to the 23 September election and allow for other parties to give their stances on the issue, English said.

He added that he thought introducing legislation during the current parliamentary term would not work.

English said he supported the government's previous stance that the age would not be raised while former Prime Minister John Key was in the role. That promise - since 2008 - had created certainty for people during the financial crisis and was the right stance at the time, he said.

National Party MPs discussed the proposal in early February at an all-day caucus meeting, English said. He had always planned on making the announcement today after a cabinet discussion, he added.

English would not be drawn on whether National could change its stance on the policy if required to form a government after the election.

Current government support partner United Future does not support the move. Potential Kingmaker Winston Peters (NZ First), also attacked the move.

“The only safeguard that the superannuitants of this country have uniquely remains New Zealand First," he said.

English said he hoped other parties would come around to the proposal in time. Labour, in particular, needs to explain why the party used to support raising the age, but had shifted its stance under current leader Andrew Little, he said.

The policy should save about $4bn per year, or 0.6% of GDP, once fully in place, English and Joyce said.

Meanwhile, English said the government was not looking at other changes to the savings environment, such as tweaks to KiwiSaver. He reiterated that the government was planning on resuming contributions to the NZ Super Fund once its net debt to GDP had fallen below 20%.

Here's English's statement.

NZ Superannuation age to lift to 67 in 2040 

The Government will progressively lift the age of eligibility for NZ Superannuation from 65 to 67, starting in 20 years’ time, Prime Minister Bill English announced today. 

“New Zealanders are healthier and living longer so adjusting the long-term settings of NZ Super while there is time for people to adapt is the right thing to do,” Mr English says. 

The changes will be phased in from 1 July 2037 and will not affect anyone born on or before 30 June 1972. 

Even after the change, someone who retires at age 67 in 2040 is likely to receive NZ Super for longer than someone who retires at age 65 today. That is because average life expectancy is increasing by about 1.3 years each decade. 

The change will be legislated for next year. 

“This Government has a strong track record of supporting older New Zealanders. Since 2008 weekly payments to superannuitants have increased by 35 per cent after tax while inflation has increased by 14 per cent. 

“Gradually increasing the retirement age from 2037 will more fairly spread the costs and benefits of NZ Super between generations, ensure the scheme remains affordable into the future and give people time to adjust,” Mr English says. 

“It will also bring New Zealand into line with other countries like Australia, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany and the United States which are all moving to a retirement age of 67.” 

There will be no change to the universality or indexation of NZ Super. 

Mr English says the Government is announcing the change now so that political parties can debate superannuation transparently in the lead-up to the election. 

And here's one from Joyce.

Lifting NZ Super age the right thing to do

Progressively lifting the age of entitlement to New Zealand Superannuation from 65 to 67 is the responsible and fair thing to do for New Zealand, Finance Minister Steven Joyce says. 

"Average life expectancy is increasing by around 1.3 years each decade and more older people are staying in the workforce,” Mr Joyce says. 

“Greater life expectancy is of course positive but it does drive up the cost of NZ Super. While New Zealand has a more affordable scheme than most countries, the increasing costs would require future trade-offs – either restricting spending increases in areas like health and education, or increasing taxes.” 

The Government intends to increase the age of entitlement for NZ Super by six months each year from July 2037 until it reaches 67 in July 2040. This means everyone born on or after 1 January 1974 will be eligible for NZ Super from age 67. 

Other settings such as indexing NZ Super to the average wage and universal entitlement without means testing will remain unchanged; and the age that KiwiSaver funds can be accessed will remain at 65. 

“Making a change over a reasonable timeframe will give future generations of New Zealanders more choice as to how they allocate their government spending,” Mr Joyce says. 

"While others have called for an earlier transition, the Government's view is that giving 20 years’ notice balances timeliness with being fair to current generations of working New Zealanders.” 

Average life expectancy in New Zealand has increased by 12 years over the past 60 years, including by four years since 2001, when the age for NZ Super was increased to 65.  

“When the age was set at 65 in 2001, a retiree could expect to spend about a fifth of their life receiving NZ Super. That has since increased to around a quarter,” Mr Joyce says. “Following this change, those eligible for NZ Super at 67 in 2040 can still expect to receive it for a quarter of their life on average.” 

Mr Joyce says the Government’s previous position of not changing the age of eligibility was appropriate in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis, when New Zealanders were looking for certainty at a time when the Government’s finances were under pressure. 

The Government is also proposing to double the residency requirements for NZ Super so that applicants must have lived in New Zealand for 20 years, with five of those after the age of 50. People who are already citizens or residents will remain eligible under the existing rules. 

The Government intends to introduce legislation to make these changes early in 2018. The residency changes will cover people who arrive in New Zealand after the legislation is passed. 

"These changes are important and need to be politically durable,” Mr Joyce says. "Scheduling the legislation in this way gives all political parties the opportunity to discuss their position with the public before it comes before Parliament." 

The proposed changes to the age of eligibility and the residency requirements are estimated to save the Government in excess of 0.6 per cent of GDP or $4.0 billion annually once the changes are fully in place. 

Included in the legislation will be provision for parliamentary consideration of any need for any temporary transition requirements in 2030. 

"It is not possible yet to determine what, if any, temporary support will be needed for people who are unable to continue working beyond the age of 65,” Mr Joyce says. 

“Considering any requirements in 2030 will give a future parliament the opportunity to consider current information on health and labour market trends of different groups as the age change approaches."

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.


20 years ?

Well English just hit that one for a six ...............out of the stadium .

Its certainly not going to be an election issue just yet

Fresh thinking and new ideas go further than recycling bs from other geopolitical locales. Lift and shift is a lazy copy and paste approach to policy making and does not reflect leadership.

what a fabulous tactic... the generation after Gen Y don't vote in NZ... clever, clever, clever!

Well, perhaps we now all know the reason our populist John Key suddenly retired as PM.

Changing the residency for Nz citizen from 10 years to 20 years will certainly be a huge incentive for many of my generation 1970's never to return, plus we have the double taxation shenigans with German Super being taken off your Nz benefit even though you paid for it like kiwisaver, did not mind it going up to 67 but the residency change with screw a lot of kiwis out of their retirement


If you have been overseas that long you shouldn't have to rely on the Government for your retirement.
Indeed, if it's the major influencer for some to come back to NZ then I'd rather those people stayed abroad.

20 years is totally reasonable, if not light. And it should have been changed yesterday.

10 years is a joke - we have no international peers with such low residency hurdles.

the US is only 10 years for social security and Germany is 5 so not sure what your quoting?

I put more money into the NZ economy than the average Kiwi living in NZ, is bullshit xenophobic crap like this that annoys other OECD country would turn their back on their own citizens like this drongo English has just done

keywest, your comment has made my evening... nasdarovia!

If you're such a baller and putting so much money into the economy then why are you going ape-shit about losing your "right" to $300/wk after tax?

No bottles of Pinot on the taxpayer in retirement? Boo hoo.

Come back earlier if it means so much to you.

Quoting none other than our Retirement Commissioner.
"Currently the lowest in the OECD."
"The average residence requirement was 26 years across the OECD."

Turn his back on our own citizens?
What is your deal - you currently only have to be resident for 10 years after you turn 20.
Did you leave at 20 and plan to swan back in at 55 to pick up your "pay-cheque"?

how is the 20 years calculated, is it before super is collected or from birth.
if from birth and you are born here and leave for your OE after university then you would still qualify

The current 10 years is tested from the time you are 20 years old (not from birth) - basically a proxy for when you start paying tax.

I'm assuming the proposed 20 years is on the same terms. Totally reasonable.

why are you working overseas for so long that a 10 year difference matters, and how in the world is it of benefit to NZ, unless you're an ambassador or something... And if you live overseas for most of your working life, why would you assume to bludge off other kiwi's who have actually supported the previous (very heavy boomer) generation?



i) Defer the hit until your voter base is long past the hurdle; and
ii) Slip another knife into Gen-Y.


So by 2037 all the baby boomers and a goodly amount of generation X will already be over 65 years old so this doesn't solve the problem of how to fund baby boomers retirement.

Bill English tax cuts which he funded by stopping the contributions to the Cullen Fund means the baby boomers will not contribute as much as they should for the burden they will put on NZ society.

But as they as they are such a big demographic -they are untouchable...... cynical political move by Bill.

And there are a hell of a lot of good Kiwi boomers...but they're getting tarred with the brush of selfishness with which Bill and his investor-voters are painting this financial ponzi-house.

But, they paid for his surplus by redirecting contributions away from the Cullen Fund into his Surplus

Why do you blame the boomers for their retirement costs? They were always told by the government that they would get looked after in their retirement, at 60! They have been betrayed time and time again. First Piggy, found the Government Super fund an embarrassment after he had screwed the economy, so pillaged it. If he hadn't the cost of boomer retirement wouldn't be an issue. Blame the Government! Next retire at 60? Government ministers, after they had set up their own pay and conditions including their retirement package, after only 9 years in the job as well, decided that to pay for it the rest of the country had to work until 65! Blame the Government! Now the Government heeding the call of others whose retirement is already well looked after, has moved the threshold to 67 and looks set to move it further! BLAME THE GOVERNMENT! Slavery by another name! Can you hear the people sing? Singing the song of angry men....

Correct me if i'm wrong but, isn't this pretty much the EXACT plan that Dianne Maxwell has been advocating for?

And pretty much the one Labour took a caning for last election

I think Labour took a caning for a lot more than that at the last election.

And the Nats will take one on more than one issue as well, two I can think of off the top of my head, housing and water

I can't see them doing anything meaningful on housing, given their stripes.
They won't:
- Do anything about foreign property speculation
- Change tax settings
- Reduce immigration
- Support mass house building ala Kiwi build

I guarantee that all they will do is spout on about changes (small tweaks) to the RMA, and continue with their UDAs (which I think will only achieve minor gains)

BTW, has any effort been made to train young kiwis in construction? I would have thought a big push towards promoting this could help.

They're bought and paid for.

Training young kiwis in construction should be an absolute no-brainer, but instead we get a lot of destructive bullshit about them being on drugs, whilst the Irish and UK builders imported for the rebuild are creating a cocaine epidemic in Christhchurch.

This government may have a loyalty to somebody, but it isn't young New Zealanders. Guess if they wanted to be treated as valued citizens they should have put their lattes down and bribed an MP.

This government have betrayed young New Zealand

Absolutely. Question is, how do you make young New Zealand realise this fact?

You'll find most young people understand this but don't realise how important and powerful their vote is.

that's why, although I think Ardern lacks experience and I'm not totally convinced, if Labour play it right she could be a very powerful weapon

I understand how powerful my vote is.

The issue is that our opposition are like the muppet show on steroids.
We need a legitimate alternative in the centre - i.e. A party with people who aren't career student politicians or unionists. People who have lived in the real world and not just the petty BS of the beltway.

In fairness, how many of National have lived in the "real world"? Bill English is a career politician, as are many others. Slightly fewer than Labour, yes - but then John Key's "real world" (forex gambling) experience hasn't produced good results for NZ anyway.

Well the current Labour crop have again shown how low they are willing to stoop to get their hands on power - Little has flip-flopped on super reform and going to hold it at 65 indefinitely instead of going more aggressive on putting the age up earlier.

Tell me why I should vote Labour? They claim they are a party of principle but all they are interested in is petulant point scoring.

I won't tell you to vote Labour. I would instead ask everyone to look at them with intense scrutiny, the same that should be applied to National. What exactly is the difference between the two parties?

If voting was in the form of a Like button on Facebook you will find that many more young Kiwis will vote. It is frankly archaic to turn out to a voting booth to vote on one particular day; probably the reason why we don't have electronic voting yet, it would cause the Nats to lose.

As a young New Zealander (born in the 90s)I find your statement to be objectionable and likely colored by old people (70s / 80s) reasoning.

I'd much prefer a lower tax rate now which will permit me to decide how I invest my money and a later Super age than an earlier super age and higher taxes.

Additionally when you are young is when each dollar is worth the most to you due to the compound effect over your lifetime. Besides I highly doubt that the retirement age will be any less than 70 by the time I retire regardless of when it gets pushed up. People are living longer and are healthier at an older age.

Actually yeah I think hers was to start this from 2027, so yeah Bill has basically pushed it out enough to not affect boomers (voters).

Tinkering when we need an overhaul


[ Personal abuse - of anyone - is not acceptable here. You know better. Ed. ]

People born after 1972 have twenty years in which to adjust their savings plans; and can still be pretty confident, even with an eligibility age of 67, of receiving NZS for longer than Baby Boomers will. Not seeing how they can claim to be so very hard done by.

What data or projections support your contention that by 2040 the country will be going broke?


So, time this so it won't affect the boomers who are the problem, and will kick in just in time to screw over Gen X yet again. Must be nice to be a boomer, spoiled and pandered to.

They are the most entitled generation to ever live.

As was the one prior to that, and the one prior to that, and the one prior to that, and the.............of course this current one won' the last one claimed, and the one before that claimed, and the ......

But really, what made the post-war generation entitled? Most historians I've read suggest they worked damn hard to put the country together again, and this included post-war government housing builds that boomers ultimately benefited from.

I think what seems unique about the boomers is that they seem hell bent on making life as hard as possible for the coming generations. That as far as I am aware is unique.

they may as well be debating whether everyone should get a free trip to the moon in 2037...

Well, that's the superannuation problem sorted then.Yeah right. Pass the tui's.

It will affect me but raising the superann to 67 is the right thing to do, otherwise we will be suffocating the working people to pay for our super

Just out of interest, so you were more supportive of Labours policy on Super than Nationals at the last election then?

There's going to be a big issue on how we pay for this with insufficient money being set aside to pay for the pensions. We risk ending up like Japan, where things are quite grim for the elderly there.

It's absolutely the right thing to do,

People are taking issue with the blatantly cynical timing of the change - 2040? Why not 2020?

If you change it as from 2020, somebody who is now 62 and has planned his savings and organised his finances in good faith in the expectation of NZS at 65 will have less than three years in which to make the necessary adjustments to those plans. That seems quite harsh and it's not necessary at the moment. A longer period gives people longer to adjust and enables an easier transition.

That said, 20 years does seem overly generous

It doesn't have to be a cliff.

Could increase the age by 2 months per year for 12 years.

So if you're 62 now then you would have to wait another 6 months - not exactly an eternity (which, BTW, neither is 2 years - 2 years is hardly a lifetime).

That will affect National's investor-voters, ergo off limits.

We are going to have all the Gen Xers returning after working their guts out overseas to receive no money, while the Long term bludgers just bludge it all the way to the bank until they die, disgraceful


Why is everyone poor labelled a bludger, while when those who are wealthy but haven't been paying taxes in New Zealand have their entitlement to a handout from the taxpayer questioned it's "disgraceful"?

Great comment brother... sing the truth.

Honestly, could you not survive without it ? If you have been doing as you say then you would likely have a nice nest egg to live off.
I have lived and paid taxes here the whole of my working life, and I really don't care if I get super or not.

By 2037 how much will employment be affected by automation. If it hasn't significantly reduced the demands on labour something will have gone significantly wrong. I suspect that by 2037 all this will be pretty much irrelevant. A claytons change if you ask me.

The funny thing about automation is that it has been taking over labour since about 1760 and yet somehow there always seems to be more work.

LOL unaha-closp. The automation bandwagon has all the "experts" climbing on board. It's like 2YK all over again. Indeed we are plagued with experts who are not experts.

Well, actually it is happening, as more and more people are finding themselves in precarious work situations,find themselves, although classed officially as employed not earning enough to live on. There is only so much in the way of work we will be able to create when so much of what we do today will be automated

The precariats you speak of will likely include generation rent and will have little to no accumulated wealth. Increased life expediency for them will be a double edged sword.

Until the revolution begins... seriously though, at some stage there needs to be a kick back. How can all the pressure of taxes be foisted onto the folk who can never afford to buy their own home,but be expected to support the boomers who own plenty?
Two words... "means tested!"

Another two "technology tax"

We should not see this as an announcement of change. It's really a statement of no change.

If generation X feels hard done by, simply change the age back to 65 again in 2039. After all the boomers will be lounging in the sky and the world will be ruled by generation X. Make up any new rule you like.

Stop moaning, get out and vote. Winston is waiting with open arms.

I can get behind this get out and vote message.

But isn't that the beauty of the date selected by National? It will give them the support of the largest demographic of society (boomers) to around about the date the majority are due to 'expire'. At which point National will have to actually come up with some policy that is good for NZ, opposed just pampering one demographic.

First the housing the superannuation ladder. Got to try and get on that one too before the lower rung gets raised higher. How do I speed up the aging process?

One of my mates realised he's too young by a matter of months. The move is so transparent it makes me wonder if National have any policies of relevance to the current working population?

My question on here a few weeks ago was what are National doing to increase wages to pay for the increased cost in living we're experiencing? If immigration settings are going to remain the same (Nationals decision), and house prices are going to stay high (again Nationals call with no changes to tax policy, foreign buyer policy etc), and chances are interest rates are going to rise. Where am I going to earn the extra money to pay the bills?

I don't see any vision to the policy. Just pampering to the largest part of the population. Is this just a shortfall of democracy or something more? It doesn't feel like leadership from our government. Just some form of management to benefit one part of society and nothing more.

The only thing people can do in the current environment is to do as the baby boomers say and that's to cut costs. The only large expense to cut for a lot of people is rent. Once you become homeless then you can easily save 30-40% of your income while smelling like a toilet.

There is no vision. What you find when you talk to most MPs is they are a bunch of drongos. There's a small number of savvy politicians but there's too few of them. One unfortunate flaw is that with neo liberalism the youth think it's hopeless trying to vote and change anything, whereas pensioners all get out and vote. Pensioners do know how to look after themselves politically and because they vote they are pandered to and receive a privileged status in society accordingly.

The shortfall is not so much the democratic system it's that the dominant political parties have marginalised the youth for so long they believe they have no power. What the youth should do is organise, protest and barricade the Parliament so that it closes down until their demands are met. Large scale protests and block voting seem to be lost in our current democracy.

Gen X/Y/Born after 1970/Boomers who aren't psychopaths voting bloc alliance, anyone?

I'd be up for it. Take the democractic power back.

I would be keen Kakapo, but would I have to agree with you?
I'm more keen for binding referenda to put some controls onto whoever is in power

Updated with more from the press conference

Well its not going to help the housing shortage over the next year or so.
Regarding residency: "People who are already citizens or residents will remain eligible under the existing rules."
Immigration will continue at an all time high over the next 12 months as expat-Kiwis and new immigrants scurry to get residency prior to legislation being enacted to qualify for this very generous 10 year qualifying provision.

Yes although I think that the govt has called a temporary halt to all the sick old parents coming here.


This is a similar time frame for clean rivers, maybe they should announce a solution to the housing crisis to be implemented in 2037, then we'll be all sorted :)

It's typical conservative party stuff isn't it. Don't change anything or just tweak around the edges

Pick a scapegoat, demonise them, then screw them over.

Waste of political capital for Bill.

I was born on 1st July 1973 (Gen-X I think). Can someone please let me know what is my retirement age??Thank you.
I'd be seriously considering ditching National if I can't retire at 65.

I reckon it will be 67 give or take six months.

Argh!! Bye bye National :-(

Just like today, you can retire whenever you want to. If you want to retire at 65, you have the best part of twenty years in which to adjust your savings so that you can fund it yourself.

You're only 44. How do you know what you will want and what your priorities will be when you are 65? Many people older than that stay in the workforce and derive many benefits from it - in social and health terms, as well as financial.

Even if you don't get NZS until you are 67, people of your age can still expect to receive it for a longer period - ie, they get more of it in total over their lifetimes - than the Baby Boomers.

And that extra two years will pass, very, very quickly when you are 65. When I was a young boomer the retirement age was 60 and they put it up to 65 which is an extra five years. Sigh, young people today.

Do you know if my partner is eligible for super at 65, am I also eligible even if I am not yet 65?

Subject to an income test, I think

Video in there now too.


Come on guys, this sounds like a very sound and reasonable policy.... for someone born in 1960!

Making policy on the hoof. It looks to me like he only "went there" because Lisa Owen hounded him and hounded him on weekend television - and it was evident he didn't really know what the plan was. Then there was total confusion on Monday morning telly interviews - so Steven picked up the Retirement. Commissioner's report - and bingo! Policy announcement.

These folks don't seem to have a plan (or any thinking) of their own... no wonder Key hoofed it to play golf instead.

Wonder how much he'll need to be hounded to admit there's a housing crisis in New Zealand?

So the Nat Party doesn't set policy anymore....this is now at the whim of whomever is leader. Hardly a sign or Party with a plan.

It's a wrong move by National. They have just lost my vote by screwing my generation left right and centre!

Shows quite remarkable short-sightedness on their part, in that they're happy to ratfeck their own natural future constituency. Guess the future National Party can go pound sand along with Gen Y.

Bill English has basically wiped off $50,000 from my pension money on my face today. So angry!!

You will be eligible for NZ Super at the age of 65 and 6 months.

You will be eligible for NZ Super on your 66th birthday.

You will be eligible for NZ Super at the age of 66 and 6 months.

You will be eligible for NZ Super on your 67th birthday.

Bill English and the entire National Party hate you and they hate me. They hate business and developers who build houses so that people can buy a home. They just hate New Zealand and its future. Anything right wing about them died long ago.

well there are a few people they love, starting with:
- property speculators
- big business

Foreign money-launderers.

Drug dealers.

dodgy overseas immigration swindlers

polluting farmers

slum landlords

pony tails (OK, maybe that one's a bit out of date...)

It's a very modest step in a very necessary direction.

You have twenty years in which to adjust your financial planning.

You are still likely to get a more generous pension, for more years, than people did when the age was first set at 65.

Don't you think you might be overreacting just a bit?

No I am not over-reacting. I do not support any initiative to remove entitlement from people. I have been working hard, paying my taxes for the past 20 years. Unless I get 2 years of my tax money I contributed to super refunded I don't think it is fair!

And some of us lost 5 years, am I bitter, is it unfair, No. When super came to be life expectancy was circa 70 years, the fact that I live longer makes me lucky as we have a universal scheme, have you calculated how much you will draw down in a pension to how much you have contributed?
Its not all about me.

Further up the thread, you said you were born 1st July 1973?
So you've had your NZS deferred by 6 months, according to the dates you've put in here.

That's not $50k wiped off. That's about $20k (in today's money)

That's one vote. Now you need to get your fellow Gen Y/Xs to vote en mass. Try get your Mum and Dad on board too.
But who you going to vote for? Winnie?

There's not enough policy out there to make a good decision, except National that don't seem to give a damn about the working age population.

Winston is a risk as he will strike a deal with whoever suits. The unfortunate thing is he could be Kingmaker and we could end up with another term of the current burnt out Government if they give him the best offer. Although you never know he might make a statement closer to the election.

I agree dictator. Pickings are pretty slim. Kinda makes ol' Aunty Helen a viable option, doesn't it?

I wasn't a big fan of hers but she looks a lot better after all this time. Under the Labour Government business was booming when she was PM.

I think in hindsight she was good overall, but she was poor on housing. Set us up for this crisis

Yeah, I agree. I didn't like her at the time, and voted Key twice. Only later realised that she at least had ambition for betterment of Kiwis - not just her own career - while Key's was basically just for his career, a childhood ambition to be PM.

Labour were guilty of negligence in setting up this crisis.

National were guilty of recognising the crisis existed, campaigning on the promise to address the crisis, then denying for the next three terms that there even was a crisis ("It's a sign of our success!").

Much more guilt can be ascribed to National, as their conduct wasn't just incompetent (as Labour's may have been), but much more cynical and exploitative.

That's brilliantly put - unintentional negligence from Labour - willful incompetence, lack of action and cllnging to tired and one dimensional dogma from National

Labour or Winnie.
I voted for Key first time round. Seriously let me and many others down.

Made the same mistake myself Fritz. I bought into his "house prices are rampant and I'll stop it at a median house price of 500k." Absolute tosh and now look where we are. Footing the bill for the people who have it all and who will be lushing their vino, bought with 'their pension' that you and I will never get, while they recite the old adage that gen x y and mills are so lazy. Slurp, slurp, guwph guwph, "we're oh so clever and hard working, don't you know?" As the sun sets over their multi million dollar baches!

Like yourself, I voted for Key. Twice. Slow learner.

Biggest disappointment of a PM ever. Built up all that political capital only to kick all the cans down the road for the younger generations to pick up, everything done in the meantime for the benefit of boomer investor-voters (as distinct from the generic rare spotted boomer).

I realise now he had ambition - but only for being Prime Minister, and not for the New Zealand that was to be developed and left to future generations. This being the case, he was good at becoming and staying PM, but not good at delivering a better New Zealand for upcoming Kiwis.

Interesting exercise to speculate on why Key failed so miserably on delivering on his housing promises:

1. Despite wider and long term damage, realised it was in short term political interest to see house prices rapidly escalating? (opiate of the people)
2. Believed that SHAs and a Unitary Plan would be the silver bullet?
3. Saw that sluggish economic growth, especially in the wake of the ChCh earthquakes, required 'cheap and nasty' economic growth in the way of house price escalation and low skilled, mass immigration?
4. Dogmatically believed that supply side measures rather than demand side measures would fix the problem?

all of the above?

Key is a traitor.
I had personal emails with him before he was elected as to how he would sort housing out.
We show that those who are prepared to vote for the centre right can turn to the centre left, if there is non performance.
I'm not sure I'll vote for National ever again. Despite what they say / promise, they only care for the elite.

Change the government is also must for good of NZ

Reena - it certainly would fix that problem that some people perceive, it would likely slash the net immigration numbers. Kiwi's resume leaving, none want to come back, and no on else wants to come here...success !

All it will take is for Australia's economy to pick up and people will leave again, driven out by the cost of living, especially housing. I reckon they will do some more gate shutting though. With all the nationalism around, hopping across the ditch and further seeking fame and fortune is going to become much harder, so we don't really need wholesale immigration any more.

People will begin leaving shortly anyway, anyone who can make a good income. Look at what you can rent or buy in Melbourne or Brisbane compared to Auckland, dollar for dollar. Auckland is stopping stacking up. Not to mention the 200,000 new apartments coming online in the next year or so in these centres.

I reckon unless they throw people after the threshold a bone in terms of a stamp duty on foreign purchases (20%) - or other limitations - and slanting property away from investors toward homeowners, they'll lose everyone they've continued to shaft in new and innovative ways.

Pension reform is needed, but you cannot also shaft the younger ones and continue stacking everything in favour of boomers.

So you happily voted for them while they financially destroyed the generation(s) that don't yet own a home, to but now you're upset they hit you in the pocket for a mere 50 grand?

Boo hoo.

I can't believe people get so wound up about this stuff. My whole life I planned financially around quite likely receiving NOTHING in the way of superannuation. Always considered anything I did receive would be a bonus, but I certainly wouldn't place my financial future at the mercy of a few politicians. And as for the people who say they now can't retire until 67 - ah, hello I have news for you, you can retire whenever you choose. Yes you might have to get organised first, but come on people, take control of your own destiny ffs.

I'll be able to retire long before I'm 67 but I am intentionally looking out for those who are not able to do this. About 30-40% of the workforce will be unable to invest enough in their lifetime to be able to pay for their entire retirement. They are at the mercy of the politicians and do not have a choice. If they get nothing by the time they reach a retirement age (whatever that might be) we will have a humanitarian disaster on our hands.

It's important to get wound up about this or we're going to have a homeless elderly population struggling to feed themselves and unable to purchase medication. That's a potential future we need to avoid.

The lady sitting next to me at work has just turned 65 in January and she is now getting $340/week for her pension on top of her normal working salary which also happens to be a lot more than mine! She also has a gold card and commutes to work for free everyday. When the news broke out today I was the first person she turned to and laughed at for having to wait 2 more years before I can get my pension. Where is JUSTICE???

So you've found one in the of those boomers for whom it's a great comedy that every policy has been stacked in their favour, first off the generosity of the preceding post-war generations, then by their elected kindred off the backs of following generations.

She has made me paid for her lunches 3 times last week and still has not given my money back! Apparently her pension money is being used by her daughter who is unemployed and partly used to pay her son's rent in Christchurch!! No more lending from me to this boomer!!

Ignoring her behaviour it's quite common for late boomers to be supporting their children. They are often spending away their retirement and don't realise that things aren't going to work out quite as well as they're planning.

The way she has no money to pay you for lunches it's likely she's completely stretched or is in debt. Not a great way to hit retirement age.

Jeez, way to make friends and be a decent human being who doesn't gloat over somebody else's misfortune whilst sucking up the goodies are their expense. Not.

What the hell is wrong with people like that? It's remarkably common in my circle of friends and acquaintances that our boomer parents are total narcissists who barely even pretend to take an interest in their kids, or anything at all really, except their own status. They'll take the credit and brag to their friends if you achieve something, but really they don't give a crap.

well I don't like to resort to stereotypes, but here I go....I think they are a particularly immoral, self interested and narcissistic generation. In general, of course. And judging by the 20 somethings I regularly come across, their kids are no better!

Not universally of course, and probably not even a majority. But certainly narcissistic and selfish at a higher rate than general population. Guess that's what happens to the privileged.

Justice in this respect would be means-testing. And the good thing about that is that it would start immediately. But means testing is costly to administer.

I thought to overcome that problem, one might set up an "I opted out" public register and all those 65+ folks who are still working and/or who don't need any more money for whatever reason, would be automatically registered on this public register as people NOT collecting super. Wealthy/well off individuals (and I suspect senior managers still working after 65) would want their name on that "I opted out" public register - as they would be doing NZ society a good service... otherwise they would look like 'mean spirited buggers' taking from the state what they truly don't need.

Peer pressure - retiree style.

That's a novel and interesting idea. I reckon it's a good one.

Yep. Give those who wish to take advantage of it a status symbol they can brag about.

Thanks! Yes, most of the boomers I know just don't need the money but will likely be collecting ... and why not collect - it's free money and your collection is "anonymous", so to speak! We are in many cases boosting the retirement savings of those who have already accumulated enough wealth. Seems just plain dumb.

I would much rather take the money I don't need and fund something worthwhile. I reckon my direct contribution would be more efficient than having the same amount of money filter through the government.

The Government is not is proposing that they should get nothing, or expecting that they should pay for their entire retirement.

If people are genuinely unable to work below the age of NZS eligibility, support is available to them, and if they are genuinely unable to feed and house themselves above the age of NZS eligibility, additional support over and above NZS is available to them.

Nothing in the Government's announcement changes any of that.

Ok smart guy Grumm. How? Student loan 60k. No mum or dad to foot the bill. Rent $550 bucks a week (below average, we're good tenants)... I've got a family to support, more than half my salary goes to rent. Salary after two jobs (one of them as a professional) a little over $90k, sitting in the highest tax bracket... I'm rich according to the IRD. $100k tied up in KiwiSaver (what a rort...) am taxed twice... at source and again as it makes its way into my KS account - John Key changed the rules on that don't you know? That'll buy us a home... oh okay a one bedroom flat for 500k in gangstas paradise... that'll be a good place for my little girls. Oh and their decile six school ain't free either... neither are their swimming lessons (fairly important I'd say, you'd probably disagree with me.) I wish I could tell you to get stuffed... but the moderator will delete my comment.

Government and those who support their current policies. Look at this. Just bloody look. And think. People like General HuHub are the working backbone of this country, pay the tax, work the jobs, raise the kids, obey the law. So why are we pushing them to the absolute brink and making it impossible for them to build security and independence? Just how the hell do you justify this?

Too bloody right.
We are the 'Nouveau Rich'. Ha ha ha ha ha!

Keep the angry sentiment going boys and girls - build the momentum for change

Thanks Kakapo...

Well hello there. I doubt you are genuinely that interested in the "how" from me. And you do seem to have painted yourself into a bit of a corner there, did you have a strong financial plan for spending $60k that you didn't have on yourself, and having (multiple) children? If so, what went wrong? I wouldn't presume to tell you what to do, but clearly you need to change something. Perhaps starting with your attitude, that doesn't cost anything.

The retirement commissioner made that point that there's a hell of a lot of people who won't make it to retiring at the current age. They emphasized that we need to be doing something for the people in their 50s right now, not just those down the line. People who have spent their lives doing physical labour, people who are have been deemed unemployable and being on a benefit less than what they would be getting with superannuation with no real justification on why (particularly if they meet every other requirement minus the age, because at this point they're already hardly paying taxes). I don't see any problem with retiring at 67, but there will be a lot of people who do.

It would be the case whatever the age was set at, that there will be some people who don't make it that far and some who live well beyond it.

The average lifespan is increasing. More people are getting to the age of 65 in good health.

Assistance is available for people, whatever their age, who are genuinely unable to support themselves.

What more did you expect younger people to pay for, exactly?

If you have done this via investment in residential real estate and have become a landlord then you have set yourself up on the backs of people like General Hubub who can now not afford to even buy a house for themselves because they are priced out by people needing to keep them priced out in order to create for themselves a guaranteed clientele. It is rare indeed that a person can earn enough from a profession that will both provide for their life now and later on when they do not have that money coming in via work, it almost always relies on somehow or other getting others to part with a hefty portion of their income to you.

So Labour tried this and lost the last two elections. It was not popular.

English now raises it in Election year - knowing full well it is not popular.

Is this just a disposable policy come the eventual coalition talks once the election results are in?
i.e. Put this on the table, NZ first will join us, but only if we get rid of it. Boom, everyone happy again. Carry on folks.

Bargaining chip by national for Winston Peter after election so that he does not go after immigration or any other policy that national is out to protect - come what may for ponzi to continue.

We couldn't have it all collapse now could we.

Couldn't have affordable homes for young and future Kiwis, if it's going to reduce the portfolios of investor-voters, no. That just won't do at all.

Not everyone, only the Boomers. National should also add the following, a rise in pension and unlimited bus and ferry tickets at all hours for Gold Card holders. To be phased out in 2037 or when last Boomer expires whichever comes first.

Regardless of party this can has been kicked down the road for most of my life. Demographical facts are...fact. Aging boomers, living longer, better healthcare, etc etc, less tax payers. Something has to give and if its another two years so be it.

Potentially the one big exception as the 1980s, when National and Labour swapped places on the spectrum and Labour oversaw the liberalisation of everything. Labour's actions arguably were picking up the can and dealing with it, with at times very ugly consequences.

Once again, National was the conservative status quo party, even if it meant running the country into the ground to keep their voting bloc happy.

All this bile and hatre talk about boomers. Much easier than thinking about a good system to ensure old age incomes.

there is a system... its called unlimited resources.
It doesnt exist.
The boomers have lived through the bounty, way way longer than any other generation thats been or to come... yet they still dont get it.

Agree with this policy announcement, or not, the revelation that Bill is willing to take a punt has made me sit up and take notice.

Breaking: Prime Minister Bill English promises affordable housing by 2525.

Houses to be submarine due to climate change, but Nick Smith promises water will be at least wade-able.

This may also have been done to divert attention from immigration, housing crisis and social welfare during election but announcing now will only add to the list of issues that they will have to respond as election comes.

Distraction is the game.

my thoughts when this announced, they were going backwards on those issues and now the focus is shifted

Yea but interesting though because the other problems are so large and widespread, that it cannot distract those people for long. But then this announcement is likely to affect a different demographic.

But notice how cynical this is, not to many people in here have accessed this as a meaningful attempt to solve the problem, of how to fund super. Seems like a massive blunder to me.

Seriously ? people are getting angry at this ? what a joke. You can retire at any age you want if you get your act together. This is so far away its irrelevant and National has done the same as any other party would have done, turn it into someone else problem in the future. Do you seriously think they would stuff their re-election hopes by bringing in big change in the short term ? its political suicide the second you start hitting peoples pockets and the reverse also applies, you can buy a vote for $20 a week.

Hi Carlos, I'm not sure when you were born or what part of the country you live in but those born into the new retirement age will be facing huge issues regarding being able to buy a house and now no super. While I think it does need to be done there needs to be plans in place to get FHB's an option of being able to buy vs rent without taking out a mortgage for $500K plus.

With people living longer the retirement age was always going to be raised. My life expectancy is now over 90. However, we shouldn't wait until 2037 we should start now and we need to means test the super.

And we can look at other ways at paying for super. One way would to pre-fund it. When a person is born an amount is deposited into their kiwisaver - 67 years of compound interest would mean it would only need to be around 30k to get to a level for the super now. Now that's long term planning.

People dont get it. There wont be pensions within 10 years. There'll be lucky to be a working financial system or Govts.
Pension schemes didn't exist before we ripped into cheap Oil and wont exist shortly again.
A pension reflects times of economic (read energy) surplus... when the energy surplus is gone, the ability to provide for people on permanent holiday disappears.
All that can be consumed in any year is a sum of what the economy can produce each year. Fictitious wealth in houses delivers squat to be consumed.

I hate to say it, but your doomsday fears are getting to be a bit of a drag.

Pensions did exist before cheap oil. All throughout history, in fact. Pretty much every coquetting army since (at least) Roman times have had them. Even peasant Saxons had pseudo pension schemes.
You making stuff up to suit this cheap oil rhetoric is just getting more and more painful to read.

I'd give you two thumbs-up if I could.

Some debate with an open mind, others to confirm their folies a deux.

Do you have any suggestions ham n eggs? I have watched Mad Max and 28 Days later so feel sufficiently psychologically prepared.

Zach is not just enough to prepare your mind. You need a milk tanker to survive.

Nobody wants to hear this mate, they all think the world is going to be a better place in 20 years not a scene out of Mad Max. Funny how the current generation thinks the boomers had it so great and this will not change when everyone looks back in 20 years they will realise how good they had it in 2017.

totally agree - noone wants to hear it. Everyone wants the story of more, not less.
People want to stick to the script that fairies will provide the upkeep of industrial society using fairy dust. There, that does feel better.

As for suggestions, there is no pleasant options left when worldwide
- we have borrowed from the future to use fossil fuels to create massive population overshoot
- everyone is currently totally dependent on BAU, supply chains & growth

So if NZ did have a plan it should be to learn to survive without fossil fuel inputs/supply chains ... a lot tougher transition than it sounds.

Nymad - i think the pension schemes you refer to back in history were courtesy of a different kind of energy surplus... slaves.

"Nymad - i think the pension schemes you refer to back in history were courtesy of a different kind of energy surplus... slaves."

How are slaves an energy surplus?
They magically defy the laws of thermodynamics, somehow?

"How are slaves an energy surplus" ...

Really? Why else would you keep slaves?
They provide more energy output than it costs in energy inputs to keep them...
If you were paid $100 worth of energy tokens a week and your commuting costs were $101 how long would you keep working for?
If the caveman burns off 1000 kj to hunt his 999kj wildebeest ,.. he starves.
If a barrel of Oil provides less energy surplus than the total system needs to keep on running, industrial society collapses.
Surplus is everything.

You confuse the notions of energy and economics...

"They provide more energy output than it costs in energy inputs to keep them..."
Like I said, how is this possible?

Sure, drilling for oil we expend less energy to recover it than it provides. But any living organism cannot provide more energy output than it consumes - As I said, your ideas transcend the understanding of thermodynamics.

You forget everything gets constant "external" energy from the sun at no cost. Without this, the system would collapse as you state.
The economy relies on us burning or way through past energy (fossil fuels = old sunlight), todays energy sources (sunlight/crops/grains/animals etc) & future energy sources (debt).

Re confusion... on the contrary, energy IS the economy. The confusion lies in thinking the basis of the economy is money. Money only represents a claim on a future energy output (in some form).

I'll entertain it. Give me one economic theorist. (Even better, one empirical economist) who prescribes to your ideas.

If economy = energy, our energy price curves would be very different.
You cannot escape this one fact.
Sure, as a result of all things being a substance of energy the economy is in essence energy. However, not in the way you describe it.

they are not my ideas ... there are plenty of far cleverer minds explaining this... all of these are well worth a read

Tim Morgan

Or David Korowicz

Or Gail Tverberg

dmitry orlov

Re energy price curves, i think what you are getting at is energy is underpriced? If you take the amount of joules in a tank of gas versus what you pay a human to push a car the same distance... then absolutely. The real value to us is completely understated. Fossil fuels are doing all the heavy lifting so that we can live like kings.

Mmmm, yea, they aren't really reliable sources...
I give them about as much credit as I give the lizard people believers.

This is actually why I'm not too worried about living in Auckland in the long term. I'm not so convinced it will continue to be a great place to live.

Re "how good they had it in 2017", well...that's the way the human mind works. There's nothing as good as the good old days.