Brian Gaynor's article headlined 'NZ badly behind times with age Pension' could equally have read 'NZ ahead of times with age Pension'.
Gaynor, with Fran O'Sullivan and self styled commentators like Matthew Hooten and Bernard Hickey, adopt a them and us mentality to their approach to retirement income issues, continuing the theme that Len Bayliss, a New Zealand economist, aptly described in 1996 as "the doomsday rhetoric".
New Zealand's National Superannuation scheme is envied by many countries, and we should be very cautious at accepting many of the alternative thoughts being projected. Roger Hurnard a New Zealand consultant on retirement issues succinctly reiterated, in an excellent recent paper entitled 'Mixed messages: the future direction of New Zealand's retirement Income policies', that New Zealand Superannuation has a number of attractive features:
• It is extremely low cost in an administrative sense because it is funded out of general revenue, requires no individual contribution records to be kept and places no compliance cost on employers. There is no cost in administering an income test or monitoring changes in financial or employment circumstances.
• The absence of any employment or income test mans that there are no built-in penalties from earning additional income beyond eligibility age. The present value of future pension wealth embodied in the scheme is unaffected by when a workers chooses to retire. This feature helps to explain why New Zealand has one of the highest rates of labour force participation of older people in the OECD.