I have always subscribed to the 80/20 rule in politics. Your Party is never going to get it 100% right and you need to accept there will be decisions made or not made that you disagree with. As long as they get it about 80% right then I am comfortable with that.
And so it is that I disagree strongly with the decision of my Party (supported by Labour) not to move on raising the qualifying age for NZ Superannuation to age 67 as recommended by the Retirement Commissioner. Her suggestion that it be implemented over 12 years starting in 2020 in two monthly tranches each year seems eminently sensible.
The 2020 start point is generous in its lead time, allowing those effected the opportunity to plan ahead. The phase in is more user friendly than the formula used last time when the qualifying age was raised from 60 to 65.
Yes, such a move could give Winston First a boost and might see him him over the 5%. That is an issue but I for one would be prepared to take the short term risk for the long term gain.
And yes, I am well aware of the Maori and Pacific Island mortality statistics. Pakeha too die before age 65. Every Vietnam veteran is well aware of that. That's life (or death).
New Zealand Superannuation at age 65 is an unnecessary luxury the country can't afford.
Will this be the death of UK Labour?
1 hour ago