Should it be raised or should it be lowered? The suitability of New Zealand’s retirement age has come into question as the Government continues to cut away at the welfare state that has underpinned our socio-economic wellbeing.
I personally support keeping it at 65, but with a few caveats to allow flexibility in certain respects. I am also aware that unless the major political parties be bold and ignore the astroturf organizations such as Taxpayers Union, which wants as little taxpayer money as possible to be spent on anything – including the fields such as defence, justice, law enforcement which conservative governments around the world normally embrace – that the minimum age for retirement is probably going to increase.
I support the age of 65 for the following reasons:
- If one went straight into work after leaving high school, that would assume about 47 years in employment, which is 57% of the average life expectancy for a New Zealander – 82.76 years
- For people with some conditions such as Down Syndrome, natural bodily aging happens faster than ones biological age – a 40 year old with D.S. might have a body age of 45; which can blow out to over 70 years by the time they reach 60
- Many disciplines such as medicine, teaching and the judiciary have restrictions that come into play past a certain age – General Practitioners retire at 72, but can continue in private practice if the Medical Council finds them fit to continue; judges retire at 70 unless they meet the Governor Generals discretion to continue in an acting position; Pilots have no mandatory age, but cannot be Pilot-in-Command once they reach 65
- Whilst no restriction on when an elected official must retire currently exists, I am fine with 75 or no more than 8 terms of office
Before I mention how New Zealand can fund 65 as the retirement age, I need to examine in greater detail the reasons aforementioned.
Maori have a lower life expectancy – a result of the institutionalised discrimination that has occurred over the decades where tamariki have been taken from their whanau and held by the state; from fewer Maori nurses, doctors and other medical professionals with an understanding from a Maori socio-economic standpoint. Before I consider lowering the retirement age for them, believe it in our national interest to attempt to lift their life expectancy further.
I am fine with teachers continuing to teach past age 65, as long as they pass a test each year confirming their fitness. Given the problems with teacher/pupil ratios and the attrition throughout the sector, those that are fit and willing to continue should be given that option. With that said, I think 70 is a good age to consider compulsory retirement or being transferred to lower risk duties.
Down Syndrome is not the only reason for natural premature aging; there are other progeroid syndromes (genetic conditions causing accelerated aging). If the body reaches the age of a retired person before their biological age, and it is no longer capable of working, or can but at a significantly reduced level, then the person should be considered eligible for full/semi-retirement. This needs to be amended in relevant legislation.
Some might view this as ageist, but I believe there should be a mandatory retirement age for elected officials. Rather than setting it in age though, it can be enforced by term limits that require an elected official to retire after 8 terms/24 years – assuming we do not move to a four year election term – or age 75 (whichever comes first). It is based on observations of the American political system, where 20 Congress people and Senators are over the age of 80 and many view their jobs as being literally for life, which has resulted in a number of them dying in office.
There are several ways in which New Zealand can – and should – be testing to determine how to sustainably fund pensioners in the coming years and decades. But the bottom line is for me that New Zealand needs to get rid of its entire neoliberal market economic model. It actively discourages investment, building up and maintaining assets that provide a return on what is invested – privatizing the electricity sector is one such example. We need to invest more in higher education and research/science/technology instead of seeing it as an expenditure item on the budget sheet. New Zealand needs to introduce either a comprehensive Capital Gains Tax, or a Land Value Tax to fund these – most of the countries that National and A.C.T. tout as role models for New Zealand have these taxes in place and do significantly better on economic performance measures than we do as a result.
It is important that we attempt as a country to address this matter now. New Zealand has a growing population that has reached 5.3 million people, but has not tried to seriously tackle the structural socio-economic challenges that are evolving. These are matters that will impact the country if the retirement age is left to continue being a political football for the politicians to score points with.
Leftist Kiwi Writes 