ANZ CEO says NZ Super age and means testing should be on the table
Monday, 29 June 2026
New Zealand needs to “confront the elephants” in the room about the affordability of superannuation, says the head of New Zealand’s biggest bank.
And ANZ chief executive Antonia Watson said those elephants included means-testing the pension and the age of eligibility.
As it currently stands, our superannuation scheme will make the country broke at worst, at best it will limit the government’s ability to restore fiscal discipline, she said.
“It feels a little bit like a tidal wave is coming and we’re standing on the beach arguing who gets to play with the beach toys,” she told the audience.
Read more:
National deputy leader Nicola Willis agrees there are elephants which need to be stared in the eye, but said means-testing wasn’t one of them because it could create perverse outcomes, such as encouraging superannuitants to stop working at 65 when their skills and experience were still valuable.
Watson and Willis made the comments at Future Proofing NZ, the great retirement funding crunch - an event hosted on Monday by The Post alongside ANZ and Infrastructure NZ.
The Post revealed 35% of voters supported introducing means testing, under which higher-income retirees would receive reduced or no payments, according to the latest The Post/ Freshwater Strategy poll with Infrastructure New Zealand.
A further 25% of respondents favour lifting the eligibility age to 67, while 8% support funding changes through higher taxes on workers. Seven per cent remain unsure.
And a majority of voters think the total KiwiSaver contribution should be increased, compared with a third who want it kept the same.
The Post co-hosted the event as New Zealand’s superannuation scheme becomes a growing burden on the Government’s books.
In the 1970s, there were seven workers for each superannuitant, today there are four and by 2065 there will be just two.
Watson said New Zealand needed to have the hardest and most politically sensitive conversation of all - the future settings of national superannuation itself.
The pension had served the country well, but it was no longer appropriate for fiscal and demographic realities, she said, and changes needed to be made.
“We should be willing to discuss if some form of income or asset testing should play a role, whether the age of eligibility should be fixed indefinitely, whether the current indexation settings remain appropriate over the long term.”
Watson said reform was not easy, but avoiding reform was not cost-free - it simply narrowed the options and shifted more of the burden onto younger generations.
Willis said there were some parties “willing to stare the elephant in the eye” but there were fewer than she would like.
“Some in parliament have chosen a ‘see no evil, hear no evil’ approach.”
Willis said during the 2023 election, Labour paid for robocalls to retirees asking: are you aware that National wants to change the age of eligibility for superannuation.
Willis called it a “scare campaign” designed to make superannuitants think that the income they rely on was going to be “taken from them”.
“That type of mischievous campaigning is very unhelpful.”
Willis told the audience about the changes the Government had made to increase default contributions from employers and employees and National’s recently-announced policy to make Kiwisaver compulsory and from birth.
“While compulsion is a big step, it also creates a sense that every New Zealander is a KiwiSaver and every New Zealander benefits from the scheme.”
On universal entitlement, Willis said the challenge with means-testing was that it could encourage people to arrange their affairs to maximise their state pension.
But New Zealand had some of the highest levels of workforce participation beyond 65 in the OECD and the country would need the skills, knowledge and experience of those older workers as demographics changed.
“It is difficult to see a scheme which targets the superannuation payment without having those perverse effects.”
In the panel session after her speech with The Post’s associate editor, Luke Malpass, Willis was asked whether she was aspiring to make tax changes to supercharge the scheme, like Australia’s which is based on pre-tax income instead of New Zealand’s which is post-tax.
Willis said the issue with that was that it would mean a significant revenue drop in the immediate to medium term, which New Zealand couldn’t afford now and into the future while the super settings remained the same.
She was also asked whether National’s KiwiSaver policy would mean the eventual end to superannuation, in decades hence.
“I think that would be up to a future generation of decision makers.”
Malpass then asked whether National’s policy would afford those future decision makers the option to end superannuation.
“No,” replied Willis. “I’m setting it up so that every New Zealander now can look forward to a bigger step into their retirement.”
A question from the audience was whether the elephant in the room was NZ First, especially if the party was in a kingmaker position again after the election and opposed raising the age of eligibility.
Willis said while it was up to NZ First to speak about their policy, there was some common ground - like superannuation, universal eligibility and that every Kiwi gets a KiwiSaver account from birth.