Max Salmon wrote this article for The Press on June 10. Salmon is a right wing researcher. See https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350304048/young-stand-suffer-ageing-population-bites
I n response I wrote the following to the Press Editor
Max Salmon article, “The young stand to suffer as ageing population bites,” misses the point that no public policy alternative to the current model has emerged, nor likely to, despite regular reviews. New Zealand Superannuation has become a generational transfer entitlement wrapped around family, equity, and well-being principles, an excellent example of pragmatic public policy, available to future generations. The recent NZ Actuaries review of NZ Superannuation included “We therefore 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. Contrary arguments which stress the value and purpose of NZS are strong.” The Retirement Commissioner says Super is a taonga that protects New Zealanders from poverty in old age. “Claims that NZ Super is unaffordable are not supported by independent, publicly accessible analysis. The conclusions of the Retirement Commission NZ Super, Issues and Options 2024 refute many of Salmon’s concerns. New Zealand needs to champion the current model, its world class!
For readers note the 2024 Retirement Commission recommendatons
- NZ Super is the Government’s primary contribution to financial security for a person’s later life and ensures an adequate standard of living for older New Zealanders.
- The system needs to be fair, stable, and affordable.
- NZ Super is the eighth least expensive pension in the OECD, as a proportion of GDP.
- NZ expenditure would continue to be well below the OECD average in 40 years without any change to the age of eligibility.
- The current age of eligibility for NZ Super is not low relative to other OECD countries: 70% currently have a pension age of 65 or below, reducing to 53% by the 2060s.
- Any change to the age of eligibility would disproportionately disadvantage manual workers, carers, and those they care for, and those with poor health, due to differences in savings and wealth and ability to remain in paid work after the age of 65. Women, Māori, and Pacific Peoples are overrepresented in those groups.
- Extra benefits to support people through to a later age of eligibility would reduce fiscal savings from raising the age.