Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, May 1st, 2026 - 46 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
There was nothing on The Standard about this…so here. In Solidarity !
https://substack.com/@tstopford/note/c-248306581?r=ryrbu
From Tadagh Stopford. Substack.
On the absurdity that is the reserve Bank ACT.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/health/593902/cancer-society-calls-on-politicians-for-fully-funded-cervical-screening-ahead-of-election
It seems a missed opportunity for Labour or poor reporting because even though Labour hasn’t released many policies yet Free Cervical Screening happens to be one of them – the spelling mistake might give us a clue.
https://www.labour.org.nz/cervicalscreening
Why was this not communicated clearer and more unequivocally?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/labour-leader-chris-hipkins-open-to-conversation-about-means-testing-superannuation/LSGQKEHECRHWTCMGFKI52VVSB4/
"Labour leader Chris Hipkins says he is open to discussing whether New Zealand’s superannuation should be means-tested.".
Hipkins is crazy if he really intends to go ahead with this foolish idea. The only people who will gain from it is the thousands of public servants who will be required to administer the scheme.
The current system is simple to administer and there really is very little waste or overheads in its operation. People will change their retirement plans so that the means testing doesn't apply to them.
Australia both means tests and asset tests their scheme. It means that you have to, by law, notify them if there is any change in either your income or your assets if you are receiving a part or full payment. It leads to behavior like buying a bigger house, and undertaking long overseas trips as you approach retirement so that you get your assets down to the figure at which you will receive a full pension. (Your house is excluded from the test). It is absolutely ridiculous. You might think I am exaggerating but I know a number of people there who did exactly that. Even applying for the Super requires filling in an enormous questionnaire when you reach the qualifying age. I had to do it when I reached 65 in New Zealand, by order of the NZ Government. It was, from memory 46 pages long.
Don't go there Chris! Don't even think about it any longer.
The degree of cognitive dissonance, from both Labour and National, is frightening.
On the one hand both support privatising super savings, Kiwisaver, but want to discourage people from saving by threatening means testing. FFS.
Noting; that whether pensions are paid from individual private accounts or State pensions, they still are buying goods and services from the same current resources.
If supporting pensioners with State pensions is "unaffordable" then it follows that allocating pensioners the same resources, when they pay for them from their own savings, is equally "unaffordable". As I said cognitive dissonance!
Do they both really want 90 year Olds working in Mcdonalds, like the USA.
FFS! Labour has ruled out means-testing of super and lifting the age for super if it wins the election. Please stop falling into RW narrative traps.
The National Party does want to increase the age for super to 67.
"Labour has ruled out means-testing of super ".
Did anyone tell Hipkins? When a leader starts discussing doing something like means testing of Super, which he is clearly doing in the article I linked to, it is difficult to see that they have ruled it out?
When Hipkins brings the topic up it is also very hard to see that it is a "RW narrative trap". He is still the Labour Party Leader isn't he?
Stop with your nonsense! Raising a topic for discussion, an important one, is feeling out other parties & stakeholders to see if they’re willing & prepared to hold such conversations. That’s clearly what Hipkins did, as he has done previously. You’re twisting it into some dystopian scenario and you want to shut down any conversation from the outset – you’re on par with that National attack chihuahua Simenon Brown.
Show us that Hipkins/Labour wants to emulate your ‘nightmare’ scenario of the Australian means-testing – you pulled it from your arse aka a RW narrative.
PS when you quote me, don’t leave out the pertinent bits.
What were the pertinent bits I left out? Please don't tell me it was the diversion where you talked about National's proposal to increase the age of getting Super. I seem to remember being chastised if I brought things other than the topic being discussed into my comments. When you mentioned the proposal to increase the age, albeit not until 2044, I thought that it wasn't what I been discussing and that it was an extraneous matter even if quite an interesting one. It is one I approve of incidentally and have done so from right back when Labour itself proposed it when Little was the leader.
“… if it wins the election.”
You’re infamous for diversion trolling here with an archived track record. Find an example of where you were being ‘chastised’ for diverting and show the equivalence.
Chris Hipkins brought it up in his interview that you linked to in the NZH because it’s key part of any wider future conversation that Hipkins was talking about. You know, around superannuation in NZ and its affordability. You left it out and went off on a rant about means-testing in Australia, which shows your biased cherry-picking and distorting reality. And you ignored that Labour has ruled out both means-testing and lifting the retirement age. You even tried to sow doubt & confusion asking if anybody had told Hipkins (@ 4.1.1.1). Did you even read your linked NZH article? If you did, it begs the question why you’re spouting misleading crap here.
Except Andrew Little never did, which is another falsehood from you. Andrew Little dropped that particular policy when he became Leader.
Another reason to bring up National’s commitment to raising the retirement age is to contrast it with Hipkins & Labour’s position to have a conversation first and only when there’s bi-partisan support there could be changes (TBD). In other words, National is proposing something in this context and Labour is not, which is contrary to your insistence that Hipkins is proposing means-testing of NZ Super.
“… if it wins the election.”
I didn't think this was particularly significant. Apart from the occasional Private Members Bill I've never seen anything siggnificant go through when it is put up by the Opposition.
" I thought that it wasn't what I been discussing"
Hipkins said lots of things. The one I wanted to object to was the idea of means-testing. That therefore was what I talked about.
"Except Andrew Little never did..". You are quite right. I realised I had got it wrong and corrected in my comment 4.6.1 at 4.12 pm when I said.
"I approved of the age increase when Labour proposed it. I did say Little proposed the change. I shouldn't have, it was actually David Cunliffe who campaigned for it in 2014. Little then abandoned what was a good idea when he became leader. Little shouldn't have. It was an excellent idea."
Was that a suitable correction? I'm sorry you didn't see it. It could have saved you a lot of typing.
Then why did I add that temporal condition? You’ve spanned 12 years of relevant Labour policy and 3 different Leaders; Labour has made a pledge for this election.
That’s partly because you’re limiting your view (here’s one for you that you may have missed: https://thestandard.nz/daily-review-30-04-2026-2/#comment-2061385) and partly because you think the Oppositions is powerless, performative, and mostly irrelevant, don’t you?
Indeed, he did and those things were cohesive, which you ignored.
You want to cancel the debate, which is never a strong starter here on TS, and remove relevant context aka mislead.
I did what had to be done, which is to call you out on your disingenuous nonsense and falsehoods.
Your comment is a brilliant example of scare-mongering because of blatant self-interest and conflict. You insist that we don’t even think, let alone talk about the elephant in the room and just dump [it] on the next generations.
It would be a large political gift to NZFirst with 6 months to the election.
I have a sneaky feeling that both Labour and National are working behind the scenes to generate a shot at bipartisan agreement on means testing to enable NZSuper to not sink the national accounts even faster than the Health budget.
Personally I would wait until after the election to start this kind of discussion off.
But as you point to, I would want to see very close alignment between the Australian Federal treatment of this benefit to ours.
It must have improved. I remember it as being a mildly annoying online form, where the hardest part was figuring out what tax code I would use. No paper at all.
Mind you I had RealMe, a login to MyIRD, MyMSD, and to my bank…
Mind you, I was born across the gully from where my apartment was, had only really travelled for work, mostly in 2-6 week stints apart from the odd holiday. 5 months in total for one year in Singapore, in three stints in 2018.
Completely agree. The overhead costs on superannuation are about 0.3% of the current 16-17% of the tax take that goes on superannuation. In any case, the rounds of taxation on the velocity of money as super is spent and goods and services are provided largely result in most of the gross super paid being collected as tax over time.
I think you are talking about applying for the New Zealand Super. The form I was talking about was the one for Australian National Super. I had lived and worked in Australia for about 7 years and was therefore, possibly, eligible for a part payment from there.
The New Zealand required that you have to apply for any foreign scheme that you might be eligible for. You can then take it, in which case you have it deducted from your NZ payment, or sign it over to the New Zealand Government and just take the whole NZ entitlement.
Your comment about the ease of filling in the NZ application compared to the vast form for the Aussie one where you have to list all your sources of income, and every thing you own simply confirms why means tests are such a burden.
Luckily my assets were over the upper limit of assets which, excluding your house, was only about $900 K so the Oz Govt said I wouldn't get anything and I could just continue as if I had never worked there.
Your last paragraph clarifies why you’re vehemently opposed to means-testing, and it’s not because of the alleged paperwork, and in favour of lifting the retirement age. But it doesn’t excuse making misleading comments here on TS.
I don't think much of means testing for any benefit. It just adds a massive amount of administration and has an nett negative fiscal effect for everyone apart from the administrators of those daft punitive systems..
Simply taxing income of any kind is a far better idea. If you want to be the most efficient, then tax the income transactions rather than profits.
I'm self-employed part time working from home at present and on superannuation. That means I can run Hnry to claim back anything that is a cost against revenue. I also don't like this government, so I am absolutely assiduous at the task of reducing profits and my tax – legitimately. Something tat I never seriously bothered with previously.
Of course as programmer, I claim computers, data, computer services, hardware, rent, power, phones, cars, petrol, depreciation on anything costing more than $1000, airfares, etc etc at varying percentages.
Most of which are expenses that'd I have anyway and did when I was working for a salary. Except then I'd have paid for them, and the GST, from my post tax income and had no way to claim back GST.
That means that my effective income even with super tacked in is quite a lot higher than it was when I was getting paid salary at almost twice what my gross income is now. That is because I pay a lot less GST, and have less profit to be taxed via income tax.
Effectively it is a boondoggle for me because my profession is also my main hobby and also a large part of my 'entertainment'. Self-employment allows me to maximise all of those things in terms of how much I am taxed.
Sure I have a MBA and the training/skills to do this kind of thing. But I have had them for 40 years and never bothered to use them for this task. It was always easier, more interesting, and less work to just get paid more. But systems like Hnry for self-employment, contract and gig jobs take all of the effort out of it. I just collect and push copies of receipts into the program. The hardest one is to get the land agent to send a statement of my rental payments every few months to tag against the payments.
Now I can see why Nicola Willis has a revenue problem.
Fewer people on easy to capture incomes, more people with no incomes, and probably a much higher percentage self-employed and even landlords. And National were foolish enough to do a hard-cost-save on expenses on the economy without thinking about what that would do to tax revenues – at time when anyone could become 'self-employed' and software was there to reduce their tax costs.
people keep saying that.
1. I'd like to see the evidence for that, and that means testing would blow out the budget.
2. All other core benefits are means tested. Why is that?
3. NZ can't have it both ways. If we can afford to pay wealthy people super, then we can afford to raise other core benefits above the poverty line. If we can't afford to do the latter, how come we can afford to do the former.
I'm not saying means test is a good idea. I am saying there is a double standard, and a fair amount of bullshit, that the affront doesn't take into account.
I think we have discussed that in the past.
The solution is to raise more tax from the wealthy. To make decent welfare affordable.
Not reduce or remove a part of welfare that is working.
that doesn't address the points.
If means testing is too complicated and expensive, then why do we means test all other beneficiaries?
There may be other reasons to not mess with super, but alwyn specifically raised the cost of means testing.
yes. How to do that politically? Is not means testing Super such a sacred cow that we will let others live in poverty?
working is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Other welfare should not be means tested either.
That would save a shit load of admin costs.
For example if you are unemployed you are unemployed. How much assets or savings you have should not affect getting the standard UB.
We discussed this at length when we talked about UBI, mincome.
In reality progressive marginal tax rates do the same job, with less hassle.
QFT.
"1. I'd like to see the evidence for that, and that means testing would blow out the budget."
It seems intuitively correct that a more complex process (more need to distinguish one person from another person across various characteristics) will take more time and hence be more expensive. It is probably only the magnitude of the cost increase that is in doubt.
"2. All other core benefits are means tested. Why is that?"
There is I suspect an historical assumption that older people can't work or shouldn't have to. It is partially true: some people can't physically do it anymore and (anecdotally) most people who have to find work after 60 struggle. However, if you manage to stay in work to 65 and can keep going, then you do rather well. Also, there is wealth that is not in the form of income from labour – cash savings, real estate, shares/investments, being a beneficiary of trusts and so on. If you have significant wealth of this sort, you also do rather well out of getting Super. Rather than means testing everyone, it may be better to address these two cases specifically. Estate taxes and CGT on asset liquidation (esp real estate) are appropriate for taxing accumulated wealth. The case of people continuing to work after 65 is more difficult, because income tax surcharges are unpopular. Maybe a better approach is to count income from all sources and have a more progressive income tax regime.
I would be reluctant to attack the universal Super entitlement directly and would prefer to tax away the wealth aggregation effects it might contribute to. If we attack it directly, then the Government response will always be to make it meaner and meaner and more niggardly over time, causing real hardship.
3. NZ can't have it both ways. If we can afford to pay wealthy people super, then we can afford to raise other core benefits above the poverty line. If we can't afford to do the latter, how come we can afford to do the former.
Agree totally, it's an appalling anomaly. The reason we treat beneficiaries of working age so badly is nothing to do with affordability. Decent benefits are affordable, because as others have noted, all money transferred to beneficiaries will be spent into the economy at high velocity and not hoarded as savings. It will generate tax revenue. The reason we treat them so badly is about disciplining people of working age so that they have to submit themselves (their minds and bodies) to the labour market. The unemployed will depress wages only if they are forced to enter the competitive labour market. If some of them find ways of getting by through forms of cooperation, mutual aid, community initiatives or whatever, that would be a form of economic subversion that needs to be prevented..
Alwyn
National is the party proposing to increase the age – do you have a problem with that?
Hipkins is talking about any action requiring a consensus, he is proposing to do nothing without one.
The alternative to reducing super cost (by age or means testing) is an agreed revenue method to afford it – such as an estate tax.
The most complex would involve all 3 (an increase in age, with a Transitional Benefit at super rate between age 60 and 67/70)(means testing for those working and with substantial assets)(an estate tax).
I commented on the age question at 1.09 pm. The comment was 4.1.1.1.1.1.
I approved of the age increase when Labour proposed it. I did say Little proposed the change. I shouldn't have, it was actually David Cunliffe who campaigned for it in 2014. Little then abandoned what was a good idea when he became leader. Little shouldn't have. It was an excellent idea.
We don't actually need any immediate change. Compared to other countries which are similar to us we actually don't spend that much on payments to the elderly. Thta is a whole different question of course and I don't really feel like opening the whole question of aged care income support here.
I just don't want to see us introduce means testing. You do realise I hope that once you have it you have to have to update your records with the State whenever your situation changes by more than $1,000? Win $1,100 in Lotto. You'll really have to tell the authorities within 14 days so they can adjust your pension. Nobody in Australia does of course. If they did the whole Government would collapse under the load.
You are right to note we are facing not just spending more on super
(because of the baby boomer numbers – 2030-2050) but
*1but also because of the aged care costs (workers and hospital cost) and aged care housing (fitted accordingly)
*2income related housing for the growing number who will retire without home ownership in the future
This places acute pressure on the budget.
*1 and 2 need planning and finance
One immediate change that works is an estate tax. It is fairer an easier than means testing.
A point that regularly rises and sinks again relating to longer lives, more complex disablements, high medical costs for the aged group, and concerns about 'affordable' superannuation which is just a form of economic distribution (if spent within the country) and helps the economy thrive by circulating money. But one thing that should be allowed for and that is the administration fees for those apply for the right to choose their demise. Life would be enjoyable if we knew we could have some chosen family ritual and have some well-defined, well considered legal stps to follow and then a choice of how one wouldgo. A big decision but with fair and clear steps to follow and a mediation process for problems, so that some personally chosen steps could be agreed to. Then no longer the state forcing people to go on or stressing people who had chosen to help family or friends and been vilified or tried in Court. How crass. That would be a good and intelligent move. Haven't checked this fully so hope it reads all right.
Good to see one regulator doing its job, looking at you electricity authority.
At the end of the article it does say that supermarkets were one of the main drivers for purchasing dumped fruits from South Africa
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/04/30/watties-wins-as-govt-hits-chinese-rival-with-duties/
Labour's foreign affairs spokesperson Vanushi Walters is impressive here on Midday Report. Clearly stating that anything NZ gets involved in in relation to Iran must be consistent with international law and that the UN should be involved.
Odd that Luxon can't say this clearly too.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/middayreport/audio/2019033207/vanushi-walters-responds-to-strait-of-hormuz-discussions
Yes, she did well.
Over the past 48 hours or so we've had numerous thoughtful contributions (even if we don't agree with all they say) on the Iran situation, from Walters, Helen Clark, Wayne Mapp, Phil Goff etc. Prominent in the media.
This is the direct result of the PM choosing to be silent. If Luxon was talking (and taking questions) on such an important issue, he would be leading the news coverage. But his astonishing decision to effectively withdraw from the debate means others fill the vacuum.
How on earth do he or his advisers think this is going to work? (Spoiler: it won't).
@ Ad and Alwyn above @ 4 regards Superannuation.
If Aussie is to be our example, go the whole hog and have employers pay a minimum of 12% as a Superannuation Guarantee.
It is misleading to only cite part of the trans Tasman example.
https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/super-for-employers/paying-super-contributions/how-much-super-to-pay
Yeah
Which is why reform here should be based on this
*Employee contributions voluntary
*employee zero, employer 3%
*3% employee, 6% employer
*4% employee 8% employer.
The New Zealand Super scheme we are talking about is the Universal scheme payable to anyone over the age of 65. That is the one that is proposed to be means tested.
The equivalent in Australia is the Age Pension. It is available to anyone over the age of 67. It is, however both income and asset tested.
Australia also has a compulsory superannuation contribution scheme for anyone working. It is more nearly equivalent to Kiwisaver. This is not the equivalent of the New Zealand Super scheme.
Thus I haven't considered it. Neither have I considered Kiwisaver. They aren't the same thing as the New Zealand Super payment that Hipkins is considering for possible means-testing.
[You’re taking too many liberties with the truth again – last time (see https://thestandard.nz/open-mike-16-04-2026/#comment-2060210) I was too slack and you got lucky and got away with it. Do you feel lucky?
Back up your claim with hard evidence, e.g., where’s Hipkins actually proposing it – Incognito]
Are you in support of an age 67 of eligibility as in Oz, but without their means testing?
One impacts on those without the occupational background to continue working as they age (the labouring classes) and the other on the dichotomy of how we pay taxpayer money (means test to those under 65 and not to those over 65).
Hipkins is not considering means testing, he is saying changes – whether an increase in age, or means testing, have to be bi-partisan.
Thus not politicised, as you are doing here.
Mod note
What I have actually said in the comment you have picked out is "the New Zealand Super payment that Hipkins is considering for possible means-testing".
"Considering for possible means-testing" is, I think, quite accurate and is not the same as proposing that it will happen.
[You actually said the same thing twice within the same comment, the first was unambiguous, the second was more subtle, but both were wrong and misleading, as has been pointed by others and me several times.
It’s cute that you think you were “quite accurate” the second time (you weren’t) but you’re as slippery as Winston Peters in avoiding being held to account.
I do have to thank you for introducing an important topic here. However, yet again you’ve been wasting much of our time with distorted truths. Your fear-mongering was targeted and deliberate.
I was tossing up between 2 weeks and 1 month but decided to give you a 2 week ban this time – Incognito]
The key point of what Hipkins said was that changes need to be bi-partisan.
The difference at the moment, National proposes an age increase to age 67
It does not propose any change from age 65 until after 2040.
The left will have to get around to reconciling itself to taxing through means testing superannuation, if they want to raise income for the government.
The people who hoard wealth in this country are the old people.
Hipkins being just "open to the conversation" isn't going to get us where our budget needs to be if our NZSuper at 65 – or even 67 – is going to stay viable.
NZSuper is 50% of our entire welfare budget or 18% of our entire tax revenue, and rising fast every year.
Given most other OECD nations have an estate tax – and this mitigates the boomer bulge and affordability both – we should too.
Oz, not having an estate tax, uses means testing and age 67.
….or they could introduce a Wealth Tax Ad. I prefer that option.
Susan St John (who I respect greatly)
St John is so solid.
I like the WT idea for several reasons, the most important being fairer distribution of wealth of course, but another important reason is that it would mean we can leave the superannuation system in its current simple form.
Yea I like her. Obviously been in amongst us. Would that Govt could listen..even engage her?
Mod note
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC2604/S00054/formidable-el-nino-expected-to-arrive-this-winter.htm
Is this of importance for NZ ? Have you any comments Lynn about this – like surprise at changes, or new findings?