New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has accused Finance Minister Nicola Willis of making an “unfortunate mistake” by attacking his party over superannuation, opening a public rift inside the governing coalition just months out from the general election.
The row broke out after Willis used the Budget 2026 lock-up on 28 May to round on parties that refuse to reform the pension, a group that plainly includes her own coalition partner. Willis told reporters the rising cost of superannuation could not be ignored and that any government serious about fairness needed to act now rather than leave the bill to younger taxpayers.
“This is not a tomorrow problem, it’s for today,” Willis said, warning that the annual cost of superannuation would climb to more than 30 billion dollars by 2030, up from under 20 billion dollars in 2023. She argued that parties refusing to consider change were “prepared to rob everyone in this country under the age of 50 for their own political expediency” and described inaction as “a huge act against inter-generational equity”.
Willis said a responsible government needed to “propose gradual, sensible, moderate changes that are well forecast for New Zealanders”. No changes to the age of eligibility or to payment rates were announced in the Budget, and National has not moved on the issue this term.
Peters was quick to hit back. He told reporters the comments were “an unfortunate mistake that she should not have made”, and questioned both the timing and the substance of what she said.
“I don’t know why she said it, because not only was it the wrong time to say it, but what she said was wrong,” Peters said.
The veteran New Zealand First leader has spent decades defending superannuation in its current form and has built much of his political brand on protecting the entitlements of older New Zealanders. He rejected the idea that the scheme is heading for a fiscal cliff, pointing out that superannuation spending sits at about 5.2 percent of gross domestic product, well below the 7 to 10 percent seen in many comparable countries.
He went further, suggesting the real problem was not the cost of the pension but the government’s handling of the wider economy. “Or is it because you don’t know how to run an economy with enough wealth creation?” Peters asked.
Peters also reminded reporters that New Zealand First had backed the creation of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund two decades ago, a vehicle designed to “smooth out the edges of high cost at future age” by investing now to help meet pension costs as the population ages. He said he suspected there was an intention to take that fund and privatise it, a claim that goes well beyond anything Willis has proposed in public.
For all the heat, Peters was careful not to torch the relationship entirely. He acknowledged Willis “was doing very fine until then” and described the superannuation remarks as “a sad point of her preparation” rather than a sign of a deeper problem with the Budget itself.
New Zealand First deputy leader Shane Jones was less willing to engage, telling reporters the matter was “a question best answered by his leader Winston Peters” and that the party would offer its observations “when we get closer to the election”.
The exchange exposes one of the oldest fault lines in New Zealand politics. National campaigned in 2023 on lifting the age of eligibility for superannuation to 67, phased in gradually from 2040, but the policy was shelved as part of the coalition arrangement with New Zealand First, which has long ruled out any rise in the pension age. Willis now appears to be signalling that the issue is back on National’s agenda for the next term, even as her coalition partner digs in against it.
That sets up an awkward dynamic heading into the 2026 campaign. National and New Zealand First will be asking voters to return them to government together while openly disagreeing on one of the largest single items in the Budget. Labour has also resisted changes to the pension age, leaving Willis to argue that both the left and the populist right are content to pass the cost on to younger generations.
Superannuation is on track to become one of the defining questions of the election. With the cost rising sharply and the population ageing, the parties are being pushed to spell out whether they would touch the age of eligibility, the rate of payment, or the way the scheme is funded. Voters who want to see where each party stands before polling day can compare policies using the Newswire voting tool.
For now the coalition will carry on, but the Budget has made plain that superannuation is a fight National and New Zealand First have only postponed, not settled.
What do you think? Should the next government touch superannuation, or leave it exactly as it is? Share your view in the comments below.
This article was written by AI, briefed to report the facts, hopefully without some of the bias people bring to the job 🙂
Leave a Reply