Opinion: Super age a tricky issue

Prime Minister Bill English, left, and Finance Minister Steven Joyce, announcing the Government is to raise the age for national superannuation to 67.

I'm one of those who will be affected by Prime Minister Bill English's desire to raise the age of eligibility for NZ Superannuation to 67.

On a personal level, the prospect is troubling, but I accept the Government needs to raise the question given concerns about the long-term affordability of NZ Super as the population ages.

The cost of the scheme is expected to triple in the next 20 years from $11 billion to $36b as more people reach the over-65 age-group and live longer.

Indeed, some commentators believe the proposed changes don't go far enough and point to the fact that NZ Super's costs are forecast to "head north" to unaffordable levels - 7.9 per cent of GDP by 2060.

Mr English deserves credit for announcing the policy, which is already proving unpopular, during an election year. Labour has already indicated it favours no change, so it promises to be a major election issue.

However, given the pressing nature of the problem, you have to question why he plans to put off the introduction of the policy until 2037.

Such a move ensures the baby boomers, those born between 1946 and 1964, who are now moving into retirement, will not be affected.

That seems unfair given their sheer number and the amount of money required to fund their Super payments in the future.

It is also at odds with Mr English's statement that gradually increasing the retirement age from 2037 will more equitably spread the cost and benefits of NZ Super between generations.

If fairness is one of the primary objectives of the policy then shouldn't baby boomers also be asked to make some sacrifices?