Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ)
Like many countries, New Zealand has an ageing population. Retirees are living longer while fertility rates have fallen. The number of workers relative to retirees will decline.
If nothing changes, NZ Super will consume an increasing share of GDP and government revenue.
The Treasury is therefore right to ask whether current arrangements are sustainable. And Finance Minister Nicola Willis is also right to want a “mature, grown-up conversation” about it.
But whether we can afford NZ Super – and whether the entitlement age should be raised – are the wrong questions. What we should be asking is: how can we provide New Zealanders with an adequate and dignified retirement at a sustainable cost for future generations?
That distinction matters because NZ Super is only one part of the retirement system. A simple way to think about it is as an equation: adequate retirement equals personal resources plus government support minus the cost of retirement.
Once we think about the problem this way, we suddenly have many more policy options.
Housing and KiwiSaver
Take the cost of retirement. Historically, most New Zealanders reached 65 owning their home, often mortgage free. That’s important because NZ Super goes much further when you don’t have to pay rent or a mortgage.
But that is changing. Rising house prices mean people are buying later, taking longer to repay mortgages, or not buying at all. Increasing numbers of future retirees are therefore likely to face significant housing costs.
Effectively, this means housing policy is also retirement policy. Fixing housing affordability today could substantially improve retirement affordability tomorrow.
Conversely, reducing NZ Super while retirees face rising housing costs may simply shift government expenditure into accommodation supplements, hardship assistance or other welfare support.
Then there is KiwiSaver.
The more resources people accumulate, the less dependent they are on the government to provide an adequate retirement. That explains election promises to increase contribution rates, change employer contributions or reduce tax on KiwiSaver earnings.
All could increase retirement savings. But none is free. Higher employee contributions squeeze household budgets. Higher employer contributions impose costs on businesses and may ultimately affect wages.
Tax concessions shift the burden onto other taxes. And those on low or unstable incomes may still reach retirement with inadequate savings.
But greater KiwiSaver balances would give future governments more room to change NZ Super without simply shifting costs from one government account to another. If retirees have more resources of their own, changes to government support are less likely to leave them needing assistance elsewhere.
KiwiSaver is therefore an important part of the solution, but it isn’t a silver bullet. Which brings us to perhaps the most overlooked part of the system: the NZ Super Fund.
The Super Fund and productivity
The Super Fund exists to help future taxpayers meet the rising cost of NZ Super. Current taxpayers contribute now, the money is invested, and future governments can draw on the accumulated assets.
If we are worried about the burden on future taxpayers, an obvious question is whether current taxpayers should pre-fund more of that burden.
There is also an interesting wrinkle. The NZ Super Fund pays tax on its investment returns. It paid around NZ$1.2 billion in tax in 2026, while planned Crown contributions to the fund are considerably smaller.
In other words, while taxpayers are putting money into the fund for tomorrow, it is simultaneously putting considerably more money back into the government’s coffers today.
The opportunity cost is substantial. If $1.2 billion remained invested and earned around 7.2% annually (the number Treasury uses for assumed long-run returns), after 30 years it would be worth approximately $9.66 billion.
Of course, removing that tax isn’t free either. The government would have $1.2 billion less to spend today.
But that is precisely the conversation we should be having: how much should current taxpayers contribute to retirement costs, and how much should we leave for future taxpayers?
Another option is better productivity. A more productive New Zealand would be wealthier and have more choices about how it supports an ageing population.
But productivity is no silver bullet either. Because NZ Super is linked to wages, higher productivity also increases the amount we pay retirees. Treasury’s modelling therefore suggests productivity growth alone does surprisingly little to solve the fiscal problem.
And productivity is perhaps the hardest lever for the government to pull. Productivity growth has averaged just 0.7% annually over the past 20 years. Future growth also faces big challenges: climate change, artificial intelligence and an uncertain global economy.
Relying on an unexpected productivity boom to solve our retirement problem is therefore a little like buying a Lotto ticket to pay the mortgage.
Substance not soundbites
There is no single, cost-free solution. But once we ask the right question, the options multiply.
We can change what taxpayers provide through NZ Super. We can help people accumulate more through KiwiSaver. We can reduce the costs they face in retirement, particularly housing.
We can pre-fund more of tomorrow’s costs today. And we can increase the capacity of future taxpayers to support retirees through productivity, employment and economic growth.
Together, these choices offer more than a one-dimensional debate about whether NZ Super should begin at 65, 67 or 68.
The challenge of building a retirement system that is both adequate and sustainable is a problem decades in the making. And it will take decades to solve.
The longer New Zealand puts off making choices, the fewer choices there will be – and the more painful they will become. A grown-up conversation about retirement must involve actual policy choices and their trade-offs, not another round of snappy soundbites.
Aaron Gilbert does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/10/07/we-need-to-stop-asking-if-nz-can-afford-its-superannuation-scheme-its-the-wrong-question/