May 27, 2025 • 7 mins
The 2025 Budget has come and gone, but the Finance Minister has confirmed raising the superannuation age was still on National’s radar after they campaigned on it in the last election.
She's explained it was not on their mandates or the coalition agreement - but changes need to be phased in.
Infometrics principal economist Brad Olsen weighed in on the ongoing debate.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
This parents fights music. Yeah, that's a bit more fighty
all right, Brad, that's for you. Brad Olson, Infmetric's principal economist.
Because Brad, you're gonna have a fight with me about superannuation,
aren't you.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
I don't think it'll be a fight. I think it'll
be a good ration debate. You know, we'll have some
good information coming through and we'll see what principal points
win at the end.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
Right, what is your problem with my position?
Speaker 2 (00:28):
My problem is that you want to You're defending your
trying to keep the pension, and I get that. Your
point is also that you want to see some of
the welfare support that's being provided out there trend back
as well. But let's get real on the New Zealand
Super conversation. At the moment, New Zealand is spending twenty
three point two billion dollars on SUPER. That's more than
(00:48):
the entire education budget. It's far more than any other
benefit we've got coming forward. It is increasingly expensive and
I think the challenge that I've got on SUPER and
maintaining it at its current rate is that people are
living longer. We've got more older people coming through. At
some point we as a country are already having to
start deciding what we're spending on or not. And at
(01:08):
the moment we're paying for people to be old over
other stuff.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Okay, what is the total welfare budget in New Zealand?
How much do we allocate to it?
Speaker 2 (01:17):
It's a round about forty billion dollars in the last
year again, twenty three billion of that being New Zealand
Super alone.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
Okay, so there is a huge amount. And in that
we will be counting I mean, that's not even everything
that I have a problem with, but in that we're
counting the winter energy money, we're counting the assistance for
working for families. Everything's in there, right.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
That's that. Yep, you've got everything from job seeker about
four point six billion through to working at winter energy payment.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Okay, brilliant. So we've got we've got a lot of
money that we can peel back here. Now, why would
you not start by pick because I don't mind moving
the pension. My only argument is prioritizing, right, why would
you not start by taking money off people who actually
can pay for things themselves, for example, students.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Like like older people. And again you've got.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Let me finish. I'm talking about students right, students who
are in the third year of university who up to
now we're paying for it themselves. Why are we not?
Why are we suddenly paying for it? Why don't we
take that away from them first?
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Well, because in terms of being for back, it's New
Zealand super where you'll get the biggest change there. I mean, look,
you talk about people who can pay for it themselves.
At the moment, fifty percent of sixty five to sixty
nine year olds currently still work and we are giving
them money every single week for just being over the
age of sixty five. There's no means testing that goes
on at all. So in terms of I mean put
(02:37):
it this way, at the moment, New Zealand Souper is
the biggest welfare line. The second largest is Job Secret
for PA.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Hold, we're not going to take all of it away, Brad,
how much are we going to save If we shift
the goalpost from sixty five to sixty seven.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
You'd shift you'd be earning a lot more back than
you would be by making some changes to the likes
of the student allowance, student loans and fees free that
came through.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
I haven't for watched there, I would be doing a
lot more than that. I'd be taking away that third
year free quickly. That should be an easy hit. I
don't even understand why they're not doing that fast. I
do that, then I'd take away the winter energy payment,
because then at least you're peeling a little bit a
bit of something away from the pensioners. But also then
I'd start having a really good look at that working
for families, which is just basically blown out, hasn't it?
(03:22):
And in there do you not think that you could
save as much as if you take away those two
years off pensioners.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Well, I think of you if you took the two
years off pension if you changed that age. And that's
more specifically, because we know that people are spending an
extra nearly five years on SUPER than they were before. Yes,
put it this way, if I was telling you that
people were spending five extra years on jobs seeking benefits,
you'll be absolutely beside yourself with the level of benefit
dependency there. And that's what we're doing with SUPER. So
(03:50):
I guess my proposal here is if you're wanting to
sort of figure out where you can claw back some
of the money that isn't currently sort of targeted to
the people that need it the most. New Zealand Super
is far and away the area that you need to
address first. Yes, you might be willing to address those
other areas too, but you're talking since on the dollar
compared to what you're doing. If you change New Zealand Super,
(04:11):
we literally are getting to the point heither where we
will be spending one in five dollars that government spends
will be on New Zealand Souper in about a decade's time.
So all the other stuff is pipsqueaks.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
Ay you means testing it or are you just going
sixty five to sixty seven for everybody?
Speaker 2 (04:25):
I would probably look at doing both. I mean, the
sixty five to sixty seven shift is purely because life
expectancy has increased from where it was in the nineteen
nineties when we last change give a brand.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
I'm going to come back to you on this, and
I'm say it's very easy for you to say this
because you sit on your butt all day doing economics. Right,
you try telling this to a builder who's carrying gigantic
pieces of timber since he was seventeen eighteen years old.
His body is broken by sixty never mind sixty five,
never mind sixty seven.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Then you address that in the right way through targeting,
not by providing it to everyone. Because while I might
agree with you there around the light of construction workers
and some of my father is one of them, you
look at the number of people there that are still
getting paid plus when they're over the age of sixty five,
that are also doing jobs just like mine.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
And I'm not another one for you, Okay, I'm.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Thinking here that you would argue I expect that looking
at that same example, if you had Brad age sixty
seven currently doing his economists role, are you wanting to
give him New Zealand Super? Can you really support that? Brad?
Speaker 1 (05:23):
I think that you've paid a lot in your taxes
and you deserve to be looked after, and if you
don't want to work at sixty five year entitled too.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
But that's a difference here because I haven't actually contributed
anything through to my future New Zealand Super payments. All
I'm doing at the moment as a taxpayer under thirty
is I'm currently paying for the Super for those who
are currently retired. There is no pre payment here of
New Zealand Super apart from a bit of an adjustment
in the color fund. But put it this way for you,
hither when you're not currently retired, you have not pre
(05:52):
paid anything for you, take it owes you nothing?
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Okay. I totally accept that argument. I mean emotionally they do.
But I understand what you're say. But what about this? Okay?
So if we were to adjust sixty five to sixty seven,
when are we doing it?
Speaker 2 (06:06):
I would start to increase it by anywhere from three
to six months almost immediately.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
No, but you're you, You don't get to call the shots.
Let's be realistic about this. When are the politicians going
to do it? When did Bill english Shake.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Still be alive? I don't know if I'll still be
alive when the politicians.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Okay, I mean what you're arguing about is something that
they will start signaling now for thirty years from now.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Okay?
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Can we wait that long?
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Well? No, I don't think we can start.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
With the tertiary stuff immediately and then we'll pencil that
and for later down the track.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
But here are you really saying though that you think
that the country is totally on board with changing things
up and making it harder for young people. But we
shouldn't be able to touch what older people. Yes, that
is wrong, That is absolutely wrong. And if that's the
country that we live in, I'm really sad and worried
for our future.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
No have you did you not learn to respect your elders?
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Can't we learn to respect my olders? But I also
learned that respect has to be earned, not just given.
And I think that even those who are over sixty
five must recognize at this point that just getting paid
money for every single over sixty five year old just
by simply existing is not the best way to spend
twenty three billion dollars, the largest single piece of spending
outside of the healthcare system.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
Brad, I love your enthusiasm. Thank you for talking me
through it. You've given me a lot to think about.
I'm going to go away and think about it, and
I hope you'll think about some of the stuff, maybe
some of the stuff I said to you. Brad Olson,
Principal economist, Adam for Metrics.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
news talks that'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
This parents fights music. Yeah, that's a bit more fighty
all right, Brad, that's for you. Brad Olson, Infmetric's principal economist.
Because Brad, you're gonna have a fight with me about superannuation,
aren't you.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
I don't think it'll be a fight. I think it'll
be a good ration debate. You know, we'll have some
good information coming through and we'll see what principal points
win at the end.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
Right, what is your problem with my position?
Speaker 2 (00:28):
My problem is that you want to You're defending your
trying to keep the pension, and I get that. Your
point is also that you want to see some of
the welfare support that's being provided out there trend back
as well. But let's get real on the New Zealand
Super conversation. At the moment, New Zealand is spending twenty
three point two billion dollars on SUPER. That's more than
(00:48):
the entire education budget. It's far more than any other
benefit we've got coming forward. It is increasingly expensive and
I think the challenge that I've got on SUPER and
maintaining it at its current rate is that people are
living longer. We've got more older people coming through. At
some point we as a country are already having to
start deciding what we're spending on or not. And at
(01:08):
the moment we're paying for people to be old over
other stuff.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Okay, what is the total welfare budget in New Zealand?
How much do we allocate to it?
Speaker 2 (01:17):
It's a round about forty billion dollars in the last
year again, twenty three billion of that being New Zealand
Super alone.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
Okay, so there is a huge amount. And in that
we will be counting I mean, that's not even everything
that I have a problem with, but in that we're
counting the winter energy money, we're counting the assistance for
working for families. Everything's in there, right.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
That's that. Yep, you've got everything from job seeker about
four point six billion through to working at winter energy payment.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Okay, brilliant. So we've got we've got a lot of
money that we can peel back here. Now, why would
you not start by pick because I don't mind moving
the pension. My only argument is prioritizing, right, why would
you not start by taking money off people who actually
can pay for things themselves, for example, students.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Like like older people. And again you've got.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Let me finish. I'm talking about students right, students who
are in the third year of university who up to
now we're paying for it themselves. Why are we not?
Why are we suddenly paying for it? Why don't we
take that away from them first?
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Well, because in terms of being for back, it's New
Zealand super where you'll get the biggest change there. I mean, look,
you talk about people who can pay for it themselves.
At the moment, fifty percent of sixty five to sixty
nine year olds currently still work and we are giving
them money every single week for just being over the
age of sixty five. There's no means testing that goes
on at all. So in terms of I mean put
(02:37):
it this way, at the moment, New Zealand Souper is
the biggest welfare line. The second largest is Job Secret
for PA.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Hold, we're not going to take all of it away, Brad,
how much are we going to save If we shift
the goalpost from sixty five to sixty seven.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
You'd shift you'd be earning a lot more back than
you would be by making some changes to the likes
of the student allowance, student loans and fees free that
came through.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
I haven't for watched there, I would be doing a
lot more than that. I'd be taking away that third
year free quickly. That should be an easy hit. I
don't even understand why they're not doing that fast. I
do that, then I'd take away the winter energy payment,
because then at least you're peeling a little bit a
bit of something away from the pensioners. But also then
I'd start having a really good look at that working
for families, which is just basically blown out, hasn't it?
(03:22):
And in there do you not think that you could
save as much as if you take away those two
years off pensioners.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Well, I think of you if you took the two
years off pension if you changed that age. And that's
more specifically, because we know that people are spending an
extra nearly five years on SUPER than they were before. Yes,
put it this way, if I was telling you that
people were spending five extra years on jobs seeking benefits,
you'll be absolutely beside yourself with the level of benefit
dependency there. And that's what we're doing with SUPER. So
(03:50):
I guess my proposal here is if you're wanting to
sort of figure out where you can claw back some
of the money that isn't currently sort of targeted to
the people that need it the most. New Zealand Super
is far and away the area that you need to
address first. Yes, you might be willing to address those
other areas too, but you're talking since on the dollar
compared to what you're doing. If you change New Zealand Super,
(04:11):
we literally are getting to the point heither where we
will be spending one in five dollars that government spends
will be on New Zealand Souper in about a decade's time.
So all the other stuff is pipsqueaks.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
Ay you means testing it or are you just going
sixty five to sixty seven for everybody?
Speaker 2 (04:25):
I would probably look at doing both. I mean, the
sixty five to sixty seven shift is purely because life
expectancy has increased from where it was in the nineteen
nineties when we last change give a brand.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
I'm going to come back to you on this, and
I'm say it's very easy for you to say this
because you sit on your butt all day doing economics. Right,
you try telling this to a builder who's carrying gigantic
pieces of timber since he was seventeen eighteen years old.
His body is broken by sixty never mind sixty five,
never mind sixty seven.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Then you address that in the right way through targeting,
not by providing it to everyone. Because while I might
agree with you there around the light of construction workers
and some of my father is one of them, you
look at the number of people there that are still
getting paid plus when they're over the age of sixty five,
that are also doing jobs just like mine.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
And I'm not another one for you, Okay, I'm.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Thinking here that you would argue I expect that looking
at that same example, if you had Brad age sixty
seven currently doing his economists role, are you wanting to
give him New Zealand Super? Can you really support that? Brad?
Speaker 1 (05:23):
I think that you've paid a lot in your taxes
and you deserve to be looked after, and if you
don't want to work at sixty five year entitled too.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
But that's a difference here because I haven't actually contributed
anything through to my future New Zealand Super payments. All
I'm doing at the moment as a taxpayer under thirty
is I'm currently paying for the Super for those who
are currently retired. There is no pre payment here of
New Zealand Super apart from a bit of an adjustment
in the color fund. But put it this way for you,
hither when you're not currently retired, you have not pre
(05:52):
paid anything for you, take it owes you nothing?
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Okay. I totally accept that argument. I mean emotionally they do.
But I understand what you're say. But what about this? Okay?
So if we were to adjust sixty five to sixty seven,
when are we doing it?
Speaker 2 (06:06):
I would start to increase it by anywhere from three
to six months almost immediately.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
No, but you're you, You don't get to call the shots.
Let's be realistic about this. When are the politicians going
to do it? When did Bill english Shake.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Still be alive? I don't know if I'll still be
alive when the politicians.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Okay, I mean what you're arguing about is something that
they will start signaling now for thirty years from now.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Okay?
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Can we wait that long?
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Well? No, I don't think we can start.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
With the tertiary stuff immediately and then we'll pencil that
and for later down the track.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
But here are you really saying though that you think
that the country is totally on board with changing things
up and making it harder for young people. But we
shouldn't be able to touch what older people. Yes, that
is wrong, That is absolutely wrong. And if that's the
country that we live in, I'm really sad and worried
for our future.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
No have you did you not learn to respect your elders?
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Can't we learn to respect my olders? But I also
learned that respect has to be earned, not just given.
And I think that even those who are over sixty
five must recognize at this point that just getting paid
money for every single over sixty five year old just
by simply existing is not the best way to spend
twenty three billion dollars, the largest single piece of spending
outside of the healthcare system.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
Brad, I love your enthusiasm. Thank you for talking me
through it. You've given me a lot to think about.
I'm going to go away and think about it, and
I hope you'll think about some of the stuff, maybe
some of the stuff I said to you. Brad Olson,
Principal economist, Adam for Metrics.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
news talks that'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com