The Superannuation issue is just one example of a Government continually pushing problems out into the future for others to deal with

No long term vision or plan. Not worthy to be in office.

Need leaders with visions.

The big question is whether the majority of voters want to think beyond the immediate measures of prosperity: GDP, their own house prices, investment property values, what you or others can make by 'flipping' property, the WMP price etc; or, on the other hand, the costs of day-to-day living: the rates bill. the cost of petrol, etc.

One thing that Bill English, and maybe all parties, learned from John Key's overwhelming popularity is that the majority of voters don't appear to want to think about anything difficult, anything out in the future. For John Key was a master at persuading people that there were no big issues to think about, even no problems in forgetting things, and it certainly did him no harm.

So for Bill English, the lesson learned is to follow that line. Immigration for instance, he says is 'about right', the rivers will be 'swimmable' in a few decades, etc. The wonder is that the government would even raise the issue of superannuation. An inquiry into petrol prices is much easier going.

The future? Whose problem is that? The next generation's presumably - the same lot of people from whom we're happily stealing the opportunity, the independence and security, of owning their own homes. Who cares what the next generation's inheritance is? We're doing just fine.

The long-ignored future is starting to arrive in the forms of housing crisis, household debt, maybe even climate change. This year's election could be a good one to lose but National now have the odd problem of possibly getting a fourth term. Bill English needs to do more unpopular things, fast. Then the train-wreck can be blamed on Labour.

I'm really confused by people under 40 that vote National.

There are NO politicians who are honest and tell it like it is because most are career politicians. Their personal interests and those of the greater population are diametrically opposed. Super is only part of the problem. Govt as a whole is a giant Ponzi scheme. The only way it can continue is to keep consuming (i.e. Taxing) a greater proportion of the economy until the economy eventually stalls completely. I disagree with the govt making super contributions...with borrowed money??!! Get real. Auckland Council's rates income will come nowhere close to covering the interest on its debt within 10yrs. Central govts financial position won't be far behind.

Excellent article David. Political parties take note: many voters want the government of the day to fix problems, not leave it to another generation.

Thanks David for calling it as it is. The war generations were courageous enough to make hard decisions at great personal cost for the betterment of future generations yet the current government seems to hold such low expectations of baby boomers that they deny them the opportunity to make sacrifices for their children and grandchildren. Come on Mr English (or anyone else) man up and give all kiwis something to vote for! Cut immigration to a sustainable level, make the necessary changes to make superannuation sustainable now, sort out the tourism mess which is making us all poorer etc etc.

fairly obvious that some significant change needed to be made - no possibility that the country can afford to pay a non means tested superannuation to all at 65 at a level that provides any quality of living - so something has to change - something that the Labour Party strongly advocated for many years - and only dropped after it realised that it was a total vote loser - not that it was a poor policy just a vote loser

Some Options ? - raise the age of entitlement to superannuation - ( entitlement not retirement age)

- accept that future generations will have to pay a significantly higher level of tax to fund not only superannuation but the increase in related services to a far larger ageing populations

Means test superannuation for all recipients -

- increase taxes now in order to pay into the Cullen fund -

Ultimately - no matter what decision is reached - the costs have to be paid for - there is no magic answer and that includes the Cullen fund - whatever contributions that are made still need to come from government income - so either more taxes or less public services -

Of course - if National do lose - and this does not go through - there is no way that any left coalition can raise the age - and of course National will have to drop it for the election after - so the can that you so elegantly say National is kicking down the road - wont even be on the road for kicking for another 10 years!

as at least put it on the table prior to the election - so its both up for debate and we can vote on it - not doing anything until after the people have a chance to speak on the issue - that's democracy in action if you don't like it - vote Winnie - who is the ONLY person who has always said no to raising it - the others have all proposed it as a good idea and policy !

So here's a question ..... How is the NZ Super fund actually performing ?

Bloomberg has this evening reported that the Worlds largest Pension fund the Japanese Government Pension fund has grown by its larget quarterly amount EVER , thats 8% in just 90 days

How are we doing in comparison ?

Here's what the savings Working Group said

The Government’s role
Clearly, there are serious questions to be asked about New Zealand’s economic policy and how we got into this mess. Why was it not better designed and managed, and more focussed, coordinated and strategic? Did the electorate simply get what it voted for, without realising what was really happening, or have New Zealanders not been well served over the years?
Underlining the current difficult situation, the government is spending at an unsustainable level and running large deficits (the opposite of saving). As a result, it is borrowing a hefty $300 million a week. It needs to return the Budget to a surplus of no less than 2% of GDP as soon as possible.
Looking ahead over the next 20 years or so, the government will face increasing costs from the effects of an ageing population. If the government is to keep its borrowing within a sustainable level (as it must) over this period, its options are to: substantially increase tax revenue, reduce government spending, or increase government sector productivity and performance. The first two options are clearly unpalatable. However, modelling shows that if the government can lift its performance and increase productivity by 2% a year for five years and 1% thereafter, there would be no need to raise taxes or cut government services. The SWG strongly recommends this.
On other government policy issues, SWG recommendations include:
- A much more strategic and integrated approach to policy generally.
- Serious consideration of the impact of the level and variability of immigration on national saving, and the impact that this might have on the living standards of New Zealanders. There are indications that our high immigration rate has pushed up government spending, house prices and business borrowing.
- Improving data on household and business saving.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/reviews-consultation/savingswo…

Local Government NZ say

Equality and social cohesion On some measures inequality has worsened over the last 40 years
• The shift. Inequality is difficult to measure, but looking at income levels and the concentration of wealth, inequality has worsened over the past 40 years. Research suggests that inequality reduces social cohesion—and moving from an area of high social cohesion to an area of low social cohesion is as bad for personal health outcomes as taking up smoking.

wow!
however

New Zealand’s ethnic composition is changing • The shift. From a mix of natural population increase and net migration to New Zealand, the European population is expected to decrease by 12 per cent while all other ethnicities are expected to increase (the Māori population by 25 per cent, the Asian population by 71 per cent, and the Pasifika population by 40 per cent).
• Enduring questions. How can we best embrace the changing face of New Zealand? How might we empower and enable communities to express and celebrate their diverse cultural heritages, and respect the particular cultural significance of Māori as tangata whenua of New Zealand?

http://www.lgnz.co.nz/assets/42597-LGNZ-2050-Challenge-Final-WEB-small…

In line with evolutionary psychology

Parr (2000) writes “[T]he views of New Zealanders are not conducive to the population of New Zealanders becoming more diversified globally.”

From localism to globalism? New Zealand Sociology, 15(2), 304-. 335

IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.
But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

"The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.

http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_down…
So how are the elderly supposed to thrive in diverse communities?

I agree with you David, unfortunately, we have an opposition that thinks the age still stay the same. Labour/Green are still just opposing what the Government says/does rather than providing a credible alternative for the electorate to consider. If they provided a credible alternative then maybe they would get votes.
For me however, the bigger question is "what is the purpose of Super"? If we can answer that then maybe we can work out policies to achieve that. I suspect that the original purpose no longer stands.

Yesterday I was cold called by someone from the National Party asking why I hadn't renewed my membership. I explained that I had voted National in every election since I was eligible, but have become disillusioned with what I believe is the party's 'head-in-the-sand approach' over the last few years. What ever could I be referring to, they asked?

I told them I disagreed strongly with National's approach to immigration and to housing. The woman on the other end of the phone tried every trick in the book to change the subject away from the issues I wanted to talk about. "But isn't New Zealand a wonderful country to live in", she said going for the feel-good way out of what had become a difficult conversation. And then that oldy but a goody, "the young ones today don't know how lucky they've got it, my father used to wear sacks tied around his feet". This was designed to make me pull my head in and stop complaining. She didn't even want to talk about the recent IMF report on New Zealand, probably because she wasn't aware they had been here.

I suggested to her that if the Govt was not careful they may find themselves ousted by a Brexit/Trump style movement as there was a high level of discontent and anger in New Zealand at present. She replied that she didn't think we would see a "Nazi" style movement in this country, going for the obvious negative connotation that such an alignment presents. I tried to reason with her saying listen I am a high income earner, my friends are high income earners, the top 1%, we are your traditional core supporters but even we are estranged from the National Party, I'm trying to help you, just listen to me and take on board what I say.

She wouldn't have it. She even had a crack at Winston Peters which I will not go into here as it was verging on slanderous.

Just a spin doctor armed with a telephone.

@JH
On ethnic diversity - we moved from a suburb with limited ethnic diversity to one where there is a strong concentration of recent migrants. Both high decile. Previously it was common to be invited to people's places for social events and routinely greeted when out walking. People looked after the vulnerable and were deeply invested in the local infrastructure. In the new suburb it's all self contained insularity. Head down, keep to yourself. But not just the new Kiwis - our own ethnic demographic is the same. The contrast in social cohesion is startling.

People all have vision, but all living in the now. So nothing will change, just carry on living.

Isn't Norway the only fossil fuel powerhouse? What of Denmark, Sweden and Finland eh?

Nice Wah Wah piece, the problem is most people are happy with their lot and they are not going to give it up to easy to those that sat around so to speak...governments job is not to change your nappies...