Everyone knows that, following John Key's departure from the throne National will, sooner rather than later, move to implement a raft of measures designed to ensure the long term sustainability of NZ Superannuation; one of the most generous non-contributory, universal and non-means tested pension schemes in the world.
This was confirmed by Prime Minister English who said his government was not bound by the Key pledge.
While Key stood by his promise not to tinker with the age of eligibility (in stark contrast to the Bolger/Richardson 1990 commitment to 'do away with the surcharge ... no if, buts or maybes) his intransigence was criticised from both the Right (ACT) and Left (Labour) side of the political divide as failing to accept the economic reality that the scheme, as presently structured, was unaffordable in the medium term against the backdrop of an aging population.
Indeed, if you access the Labour Party website and click on their policy platform you find the following statement in para 3.27 .... 'Labour is committed to a system of fair universal superannuation. Labour will ensure the future sustainability of the system and will consider options to achieve this'.
And so it was with some real surprise that the Little man came out with this 'little' pearlier on Tuesday "I have a very, very firm conviction coming from my 20 years experience of working with working people that lifting the age of eligibility from 65 to 67 is something I don't accept".
Clearly the 'flop' has flipped or perhaps he hasn't read his own policy document or is it a pragmatic dumping of policy in order to curry favor with Winston First who doesn't know economic reality if it bit him in the bum.
For the record I favor the lifting of the age of eligibility from 65 to 68 over twelve years in three month tranches. Additionally I support the lifting of the residential qualifying requirement prior to reaching 65 to ten years (an increase of five years from the current five years) to be implemented over ten years in six month tranches.