The long and short of it: The case for changing NZ Super eligibility

Thursday, 11 June 2026

On the face of it, there is a case for raising the age of eligibility for NZ Super from the current age of 65. It’s well past time we had a mature conversation about this as a country – but to do so we need to gather the data first, says Amova’s Stuart Williams.

Stuart Williams is managing director at Amova Asset Management.

ANALYSIS: Those of us in the fund management sector are closely scrutinising the Minister of Finance’s use of Budget commentary to put the age of eligibility for NZ Super back on the table in an election year, while pressing coalition partner NZ First and opposition Labour to engage.

The Minister has signalled an increase in Government contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to a forecast total of $3.1 billion over the next four years, $2.2 billion more than expected at the Half Year Update in December.

And Budget forecasts show the cost of New Zealand Super payments growing rapidly as more of us become eligible, from $24.7 billion in the current financial year to $31.2 billion in 2029/30.

On the face of it, there is a case for raising the age of eligibility for NZ Super from the current age of 65. This is not a new question; it’s been on the table for years and was part of National’s election policy in 2017 and 2023.

It is well past time we had a mature conversation about this as a country – but to do so we need to gather the data first. We should approach the discussion calmly, with all the evidence in front of us, and with a sensible time horizon in mind. Here is how I would frame the conversation.

Why is funding NZ Super getting harder?

Simply, Kiwis are living longer. In the early 1980s, many people didn’t live that long past retirement – a New Zealand male’s life expectancy was 70.4 years then. But by the late 2010s it was 80 for males and 83.5 for females, and it’s higher today. Every additional year of life expectancy adds to the bill the country has to carry, as the Minister explained, and the cost is rising week on week. This is the context that makes the discussion unavoidable, and any responsible manager of the public purse has to lead the conversation.

How much do we know about who relies on NZ Super?

Surprisingly little, with any precision. A 2019 Retirement Commission study found 24% of 65+ Kiwis are still in paid work, compared to 12% of Australians in the same age group, and one third of the Kiwi workforce is 55+. The Commission projects that by 2038, the 65+ population will have grown to 21% of the total population, and one in three will still be working. New Zealand has gone from eight working-age people under 65 for every person over 65 to now four to one, and it’s heading to two to one within 20 years.

But we can only guess at some essential questions: how many of our retirement-age folk live solely on NZ Super, how many have supplementary income from passive investments or other sources, and of those who are still in paid work, is it because they want to be or they have to be?

What would good data look like?

We should jump on the opportunity presented by changes to the direction of Statistics New Zealand, as the large five-yearly census is phased out and replaced with an annual census combined model which relies heavily on administrative data already collected by Government, supported by survey data and AI.

Then, if raising the age of eligibility is on the table, go straight to the people who will be directly affected. Survey a meaningful sample of this cohort – say, 50,000 of those aged 40 to 65, across ethnicities, socioeconomic levels, and regions – and ask the key questions: What do people expect from NZ Super, what financial assets do they hold now, where do they expect to be financially at 65, and what changes to NZ Super would they endorse, if any? Getting a reliable read on the nation’s attitude should not take long.

How much warning would people need before any change?

In theory, if it were announced today that the age of eligibility would move to 67 by 2040, that is the best part of two full market cycles. It is enough time for someone in their 50s to adjust their plans, and for younger savers to simply factor it in. Crucially, KiwiSaver keeps running, and there would still be 14 years of contributions and compounding to play out before anything took effect.

Where does this leave KiwiSaver and personal saving?

Whatever happens with NZ Super, stage of life should drive approach: someone saving to buy their first home within three years will invest differently (inside or outside KiwiSaver) from someone with a mortgage and 30 years to run until 65 or 67. The detail of what any overseas market is doing this week matters far less than getting that basic shape right.

What can we agree on now?

That any change needs broad political support across the house not simple bipartisan footing. Whoever is in government has to front this change so they may as well share the evidence base and the decision. A change like this should be lifted out of the three-yearly tug of war and settled on facts, with enough lead time that no one is treated punitively.

Ups and downs

This week, all eyes are on three events – with ups and downs to be determined. On Wednesday (US time), the May 2026 CPI report will come out before the June Federal Open Market Committee meeting, where there will be an interest rate decision. New Fed Chair Kevin Warsh is in the hot seat.

On Thursday (CEST) the governing council of the European Central Bank is meeting in Frankfurt, and the ECB is expected to raise key interest rates. Chief Christine Lagarde has signalled that the longer the Iran war continues and energy prices are elevated, the stronger the likely impact on broader inflation and the economy.

The biggest event is the IPO of SpaceX on Friday (US time), which poses big questions for investment managers around index inclusion and historical precedent for how these kinds of companies trade in the aftermath. Many will recall that Facebook traded poorly post listing, roughly halving in value in the four months post public trading before recovering its IPO price 16 months post listing. So there is a question about what history suggests for passive investors to own a stake in SpaceX after it's had a magnificent run-up which they probably haven't participated in. If you buy the S&P 500 or the Nasdaq 15 or 20 days from listing, are you paying peak price for SpaceX? Perhaps the question is, when is the price right for you, to own SpaceX if at all?

Disclaimer:

This information is of a general nature only and does not take into account your individual objectives, financial situation or needs. It should not be relied on as financial advice. Before making any investment decision, you should seek professional advice suited to your personal circumstances. Past returns are no indication of future performance.