This Opinion peice was published in the Sunday Star Times on May 18. I have hard copy but cant find a free copy (pay wall) on line
.https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/361003808/luxon-plants-stake-super-peters-pulls-it-again
I sent this e-mail to Andrea
Strong words Andrea “todays cowardice and self-interest”, within your article Luxon plants a stake on Super-Peters pulls it up again
I would say your own ignorance and lack of research has led to a mis-information approach .Political journalism needs to begin from evidence based research and a wide perspective, you don’t provide that in your article. I suggest you are possibly captured by the popularist right wing approach, akin to the trolls of talk back radio.
NZ Super is intergenerational, wonderful policy, and if common sense prevails available for my children and theirs.
NZ is the smart Country , David Harris, Director of TOR Financial Consulting, praised New Zealand as the “smart country”. He described the NZ Superannuation scheme as one of the world’s most effective and fiscally sound retirement income models, or as Alex Malley, the former CEO of CPA Australia, described New Zealand as “the lucky country when it comes to Superannuation,” praising the system for being simple, equitable, and cost-effective. The Retirement Commission formal works and variety of press releases, supported by the Society of Actuaries published research, are great starting places to assess NZ Super and then minor tinkering can begin, when and where needed.
Sincerely Alec Waugh
Research Associate Pensions and Intergenerational Equity hub and Economic Policy Centre, Business School, University of Auckland, editor www.kaspanz.om
New Zealand Superannuation : An actuarial view on reform
Retirement Income Interest Group of the NZ Societies of Actuaries view on reforming New Zealand Superannuation (NZS)
- Today’s younger people may need NZS more than older generations. Although younger people will be able to be in KiwiSaver for longer, they may have less potential to both own a home and save.
- Retaining NZS at current settings is one way every generation can have similar financial security in later life, recognising there will be differences in work and savings potential over time.
- All proposed reforms to NZS are problematic, and none are simple enough to be “silver bullets” to any perceived problem with retirement income policy. We see means-testing and flexible age of eligibility as particular fails when assessed against RIIG’s principles for reform.
- If age of eligibility were to be increased, simply linking it to a longevity index is not a good option. It would not take politics out of the decision; it would ignore inequalities and it would not work as intended as it could be highly sensitive to assumptions which can change frequently. Instead, we favour a well-designed independent assessment of relevant factors including longevity trends.
- If age of eligibility were to be increased, we believe there should be a reasonable lead-in time and a phased approach, so people will have sufficient time to make changes to their financial situation. Putting information on NZS including age of eligibility, on KiwiSaver statements, would help to ensure people are not taken by surprise.
- Future mortality trends are not clearly positive. Independent review of the age of eligibility should be repeated at intervals with planned increases cancelled if trends turn out worse than expected. The significant visible differences in lifespans in New Zealand suggest at least not increasing the NZS age of eligibility until there is evidence of the gaps closing.
- We are still of the view that it is not necessary to reform NZS. Debate usually focuses on the “cost” of NZS, which is often portrayed wrongly as in crisis. Expenditure is a policy choice. Contrary arguments which stress the value and purpose of NZS are strong.
- Looking at KiwiSaver policy is more relevant than reforming NZS now. On current policy and settings, KiwiSaver accounts are not going to be high enough to allow any painless reform of NZS.