It’s a clear step away from equal treatment under the law and a leap toward race-based entitlement that has no place in a modern, democratic society.
New Zealand Superannuation is built on the principle that everyone contributes and everyone benefits equally, regardless of background. Introducing race as a qualifier tears that social contract apart. It creates a two-tier welfare state where race, not need, determines support.
Yes, life expectancy differs across communities—but so does income, health, and education. Should we lower the age for smokers? For rural New Zealanders? For people in manual labour jobs? Of course not. Policies should be based on individual circumstances, not ethnicity.
Let’s call it what it is: Identity politics dressed up as justice. It's not about helping Māori—it's about driving a wedge between Kiwis.
Yes, life expectancy differs across communities—but so does income, health, and education. Should we lower the age for smokers? For rural New Zealanders? For people in manual labour jobs? Of course not. Policies should be based on individual circumstances, not ethnicity.
Let’s call it what it is: Identity politics dressed up as justice. It's not about helping Māori—it's about driving a wedge between Kiwis.
Rawiri Waititi’s ideology encourages separatism, not unity. this is not about fairness, it’s about power.
New Zealanders are generous and fair-minded, but they also value one law for all. This proposal is wrong because it abandons the idea that we are all equal under the system.
It’s not just unworkable—it’s deeply unjust.
Steven is an entrepreneur and an ex RNZN diver who likes travelling, renovating Houses, Swiss Watches, history, chocolate art and art deco.
New Zealanders are generous and fair-minded, but they also value one law for all. This proposal is wrong because it abandons the idea that we are all equal under the system.
It’s not just unworkable—it’s deeply unjust.
Steven is an entrepreneur and an ex RNZN diver who likes travelling, renovating Houses, Swiss Watches, history, chocolate art and art deco.
30 comments:
>"Policies should be based on individual circumstances, not ethnicity."
That would mean setting a different retirement/Super eligibility date for every individual. I don't think that's what the writer means.
I am of the opinion that NZ needs to look at a Super system that people buy into during their working lives, like the UK and Holland, to mention just two.
MSM should rip into this. Instead I expect Mi???ingi Forbes will promote on RNZ, and probably Julian Wilcox will interview someone as well.
But who exactly is a Māori?
Is it the white lady down the street from me her kids who are paler than mine yet I know are at least a little bit Māori because she told me. & she says she is Māori - even though her mother is part Māori and that’s about the size of it. She has also made the choice to not work so she can spend more time with her kids. So is she as well off as me - of course not because she refuses to work - she’s not incapable or even unqualified- it’s a lifestyle choice.
All because someone in her family tree is a Māori she is now Māori.
Stuff this crap!
If ''Maori'', including the very fit white- looking part-Maori I am related to, and others cannot work after 55 or 57 there are benefits available to them other than super.
Otherwise you work like the rest of us. Regardless of race.
This is quite demeaning to part-Maori and is pitched at the victim vote where TPM competes with the fake Greens and Labour to a degree.
If we have a super system that you pay into directly (other than through an unknown part of general taxes) OK...and when your means etc fall below a certain level you get a benefit pension.
In NZ's case I can see the envy coming in... especially if we had all private super schemes and someone retires with 1.6million and someone else with 120,00. ''It's not fair, he/she/it has more than me.'' Mmm, some govt comes along and says you have too much we will impose a penalty on your capital savings and give it to that guy over there.
I recall take of Michael Cullen wanting to use private Kiwisaver as such, whereby if you have too much bang goes a chunk of the state super. But not just that, actually taking part of your Kiwisaver, although that might be anecdotal untruth.
Also super contributions under such a programme must be compulsory, none of the attitude of a former journalist colleague in the late 80s who spends his life on dope on surfing....in front of the others he said to me one day when we were discussing super and the merits of contributing to the NZ News, later INL scheme....that he wouldn't join any super scheme, he'd just take the state pension...''You will pay me,'' he said, chuckling as he knew I was ''comfortable''.
His life now spent at the bottom of the pile.
In response to Barend Vlaardingerbroek. I DID buy into the NZ super scheme during my working life. ...!! I paid taxes that were specifically intended to fund my retirement. At the time, that was the social contract. Nowadays, people and employers contribute to Kiwisaver which is much the same thing but hopefully better managed.
Meanwhile: I think it was Peter Dunn who once suggested that NZ Super should be able to be voluntarily accessed at (say) 60 for a lesser rate and up to (say) 75 for a greater rate. That would resolve a lot of the angst around physical workers/others allegedly not living long enough to enjoy much, if any, of the pensioners retirement.
Right - today to expect a benefit ( for any reason and at any age) must relate to the circumstances of contribution or non- contribution. Anywhere and including NZ.
Automatic N Z Super should go. People must plan their retirement. Race -based Super is cloud -cuckoo land.
I notice the Labour Party is distancing itself from this.... caught "no comment".... by TPM.... pushing greeeed and bullying as far as they can!!!
It professional Maori and professional non-Maori were compared, I doubt if there would be much if any difference in lifespan.
And to counter Waititi’s proposal, all Te Pati Maori MP’s to have their salary and perks cut by 57% because they are wrong, divisive and racist.
Until we have a PM who will step up to the plate and make it absolutely clear that all New Zealanders (not flippin' Ow-tea-a-rowans) are equal and enjoy equal rights and moreover equal responsibilities, TPM will continue taking the pi$$ and dare one say walking all over our PM and his lacklustre party.
Wrong, divisive, and racist describes TPM to a key.
Its completely ridiculous is what it is. Already the system is in trouble because people are living longer and the solution of putting the age up to 67 is floating around. Imagine what it would do to the rest of us if TPM got this one through....us visitors would be retiring at 75 to pay for their early retirement. Im glad they just keep getting more ridiculous because hopefully it will mean 1/they will lose voters, and 2/ labour will rethink ever having an alliance with them. We now officially have 2 parties who are completely ridiculous. Hope someones keeping a list of it all to remind everyone of it over the next year or so.
Yes, I remember those days, Vic, I too was buying Super in the 1970s. But that was on top of the old age pension. It was neither universal nor compulsory. I should have used the term 'Universal Super' in my comment.
This speculative suggestion has been permitted by a cowardly PM who has ignored the festering division created by comrade Ardern.
I contributed to NZ super and taxes all my working life ie more than 40 years but can't access super because I don't live in NZ in large part because I am not maori - too ugly not to be part maori in NZ. Not fair.
I am starting to wonder if the maori party has a death wish. Every time one of their number open their mouth the seeds of political self-destruction are sown. The party must be both deaf and blind to be unaware how moronic their ideas are. If they get their wish and finish up on the general roll they will be royally stuffed (or at least, that is my devout wish).
TPM should be gone in any event. Race based seats should no longer be a part of our democracy and Maori do not need more representation than everyone else. As for the reduced age for Super nonsense, because Asians live longer, should theirs be delayed and for those with terminal cancer, should they get it early? There are always some justifiable reasons but affordability and consistency must rule if equity is to prevail. Basing things on race is just plain dumb, not to mention how much of being one qualifies?
Stop it now.
An advisor has warned them that they must " improve their image" to get results at the elections.
How about superannuation is calculated on the basis of the number of years that people were in employment and paid tax as an incentive...
On the reasoning of TPM men should get super at 60 and women at 65. Smokers (who are actually saving the country considerable money by dying earlier - apart from all the tax they pay) would get super at 40. Maori babies perhaps at 3 months.
And TPM have the nerve to call Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill divisive! This is exactly the type of thing Seymour wants to be rid of as do a majority of NZers.
Early Super for Maori has been on the Maori Party manifesto for years, as with the perpetual expectation of getting something for nothing.
I don't know what you are talking about. I am referring to the national superannuation scheme that we all compulsorily contribute to through income taxation. I have never voluntarily contributed to any scheme - although I understand public servants have that advantageous option.
Fine. (Although I don't know how I can properly manage that at age 84). What would be helpful is to follow the highly successful Singapore example, as was originally initiated and is currently promoted by Roger Douglas. To our ultimate detriment, it was 'canned' by Rob Muldoon.
It would be interesting to know where you got the information or how you can't access NZ superannuation because you "don't live in NZ"? Such would appear to contrary to what is on the MSD website.
>"I am referring to the national superannuation scheme that we all compulsorily contribute to through income taxation."
I am talking about superannuation schemes that one pays into directly. These may be voluntary or mandatory depending on which system you are looking at. Where they are mandatory, they ARE the 'old age pension', as in the UK and Holland. No pay in, no old age pension. Where they are voluntary, one collects both the proceeds of those PLUS universal Super (providing residency criteria are met) upon retirement. When I was teaching in NZ in the 1970s, that is the option we were offered. It involved contributing 6% of one's salary (this amount increased if one entered the scheme at a more mature age).
Clearly, our interpretation/terminology differs. The 'mandatory' contribution through taxation in New Zealand provides for retirement and is called superannuation, not 'old age pension'. I believe the 'option' you were offered was the state service pension which was voluntary, but only to government employees. Further, in New Zealand, the 'mandatory' superannuation contribution supports those who have contributed little to the system, hence the term 'universal'.
There is no mandatory contribution to your universal Super - you pay your taxes, it goes into govt coffers, and they then decide how much thereof to pay out in Super to the eligible population. And it isn't all that 'universal' - at least 10 years of residency after age 20 was the eligibility criterion of which at least 5 had to be after age 50 - it was raised to 20 years in 2021. All this differs markedly from systems where you pay into your individual Super fund which is run separately from general govt revenue raised through income tax.
When I started paying tax in1959, I was assured that a proportion of that tax was to fund my retirement. ('Cradle to the Grave' policy). Of course, like the tax on petrol, most of it was diverted to other perceived needs. The New Zealand superannuation is 'universal' with respect to those born here.The residence requirements apply to everyone including my Nephew (Who was born here but has spent most of his working life based in Hong Kong) and immigrants such as yourself. Meanwhile, I am planning on retirement overseas and my entitlement will be reduced by 23% - the proportion of the 540 months deemed to be my 'working' life that I worked and was paid overseas. Universal means everyone is entitled to it, not that everyone qualifies equally without appropriate adjustments. As I have suggested elsewhere, the Singapore model was initiated by Roger Douglas in the late 1980s (?) (and he still proposes it) but later canned by Robert Muldoon.
Post a Comment