Finance Minister Bill English has given an intriguing insight into what a different Government without John Key as Prime Minister might do about New Zealand's age of entitlement for New Zealand Superannuation, which is currently set in stone at 65.
Key has promised to resign if he ever changed his mind on keeping 65 as the retirement age for New Zealand Superannuation, effectively shutting down debate about the retirement age, despite calls from the Treasury and the Retirement Commissioner in previous years to consider an extension of the policy.
Labour has already promised to phase in a later retirement age. English was asked about an expected gap opening up between the retirement ages in Australia, where the Government is increasing it to 70, and New Zealand, where it is stuck at 65.
English was speaking at a joint luncheon function with Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey. English and Hockey were asked if the gap would encourage Australians to migrate to New Zealand to take advantage of the earlier retirement age.
"I've got nothing new to say about the pension age. We made a committment. It's now become a matter of trust, as much as policy. The Prime Minister said he would resign if the age changes. If the age changes and he doesn't resign, no one would trust him ever again, even if they support the policy," English said.
"We're not changing it. A future Government may well do that (increase the retirement age)," he said.
Key comments
Key was later asked before Parliamentary question time if "trust" was the only issue preventing a change.
"It's one factor. I have worked pretty hard over the course of the six years I have been Prime Minister to make sure I campaign on issues," Key said.
"I do what I say I am going to do, and I don't think you can find examples where I've broken that," he said. "But actually we've put it into our models and it's totally affordable in our models," Key said.
"The reality of Labour wanting to increase the age of super is not because they are doing something altruistic, it's because they want to spend the money somewhere else," he said.
"So they are saying as an elected choice they are wanting to make New Zealanders work longer so they can spend money in a different place."
(Updated with comments from Key)
10 Comments
I think this issue is like the year 2000 thing. ALL parties who have something to gain from people retiring later are repeatedly peddling their narrow views to whoever may print it/screen it, at every opportunity. The problem is that the public may start to believe that its actually true whereas if they stood back and viewed it with a clear open mind, the reality is that changing the retirement age is just not needed.
The media should be asking questions of the National Government about what the assumptions are in their models and compare that with what assumptions are in the models of those who would say that universal NZ super at 65 is not affordable. And to look at the models themselves as well.
Do you believe the things that those with a vested interest in delaying retirement, say?
Do you believe it that much that you will be willing to work for 2 or more years when your health is starting to fail and the unemployed youth are hanging around drinking in the park down the road?
Politicians make two types of promises: (A) if elected, I will do action xxx and (B) my doing xxx will lead to result yyy. Thus you and Key may well both be right, in that he has indeed done actions xxx but you aren't seeing result yyy. You're very welcome to refute or indeed confirm this by providing some examples.
I reckon, however, that voters must bear some of the responsibility for yyy - in decidding whether to vote for a candidate, we should look not at the wonderful results they promise but at whether we really think that what they propose to do will actually lead to those results.
Thus, hypothetically, if we elect a candidate who says he will ban women from working in the workforce and that this will lead to greater prosperity, he duly bans women from the workforce and it doesn't lead to greater prosperity, hasn't he kept his promise; and haven't we got what we deserve?
A 'trust issue'? i don't think many people under 40 expect there to still be a state pension when they retire. The state will have gone broke paying people of JKs era pension and healthcare.
If they want trust they would get realistic about it. Sure we can afford the state pension in 20 years time with retirement at 60, but only if we drastically cut back on spending elsewhere, or drastically increase the tax take, and what about looking further than 20 years? JK has stated that's as far forward as the "put it into our models" goes. If you look further forward, by the time todays students are retiring debt will be 200% of GDP due to superannuation and healthcase costs. Bill English also agrees that retirement at 60 is affordable "for the moment" only.
As for Bill English saying: "If the age changes and he doesn't resign, no one would trust him ever again". Why? He's been caught out lying to the public / brain fading before, and the public still love him, why would this be any different? The public know things have to change, it's only JK with his head in the sand, they would understand a well signalled change of policy in the face of overwhelming evidence. They changed their first term policy of no asset sales, to a second term policy of partial asset sales, why not change other policies?
Bill English is right up to date with current research , this is what he has been reading about TRUST & THE WELFARE STATE
Its a short , easy to follow "must read "
http://www.voxeu.org/article/trust-and-welfare-state-twin-peaked-curve
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.