"As the 2025 Taskforce also said in its report last month, changes to NZ Super are `vital and are already well overdue'.
"New Zealand simply cannot hope to achieve the growth rates needed to catch up to Australian income levels with the present share of government spending in the economy, let alone higher ratios with the increased spending on superannuation and health associated with an ageing population," he said.
Prime Minister John Key was straight out of the blocks following the release of Ms Crossan's report. Barely had the alert come across the wires that the report was recommending the age of entitlement increase from 65 to 67 than the Prime Minister was ruling it out.
Given that Ms Crossan was recommending the changes start in 2020 and end in 2033, it was hardly a major issue. The age of eligibility would rise by two months per year.
Mr Key had pledged that Super would not be changed while he was in office. It is hard to believe he will be in office in 2020, four elections away.
Ms Crossan said the changes were critical to preserve New Zealand Super for the next generation.
"Something will have to change to keep New Zealand Super affordable for the long term. We know that there's a huge number of baby-boomer superannuitants coming and we can't keep ignoring this issue until it's too late. New Zealand Super is essentially a great scheme and is vital for the wellbeing of older New Zealanders," she said.
Kepler Group principal Peter Smith was critical that the age rise, as recommended by Ms Crossan, would take so long - 13 years when it could be done in four. When the age was moved from 60 to 65 it was done in five years, he said.
He believed the commission had purposely proposed a slow movement, several years into the future, to try to avoid political repercussions, such as happened with Mr Key saying the pension was sustainable at the current age of 65.
Labour leader Phil Goff said his party was not prepared to increase the age or reduce the payment. Labour would restore pre-funding of the Cullen Fund and further develop KiwiSaver.
Mr Smith said having the target so far out would mean people would not take much notice of it apart from some increasing their KiwiSaver savings by $1 a week.
"It won't make much difference to anyone under 40," Mr Smith said.
Forsyth Barr KiwiSaver specialist Damian Foster, who is under 30, said the main concern for people his age was seeing the KiwiSaver eligibility "goal posts" being shifted every time someone talked about lifting the age of entitlement.
KiwiSaver savings could be released only once the saver had reached entitlement for New Zealand Super. Mr Foster would prefer a finite time for KiwiSaver so younger people could look at a date and know when they could uplift their savings.
Moving the "goal posts" was not the way to encourage young people to save.
Someone 25 now would still only be 48 in 2033.
Everyone understood the tax burden New Zealand super was creating with an ageing population but when they were saving through their workplace, they did not understand why there could not be a definite time when they could withdraw those savings, Mr Foster said.
Business New Zealand chief executive Phil O'Reilly said increasing the pension entitlement age was sensible and likely to be accepted by most New Zealanders.
"Most would understand that the current arrangements are unaffordable and that some adjustment, with a reasonable lead-in time, is required."
Superannuation was an issue that was too often politicised and hopefully the commission's review would help get the issue debated widely so the country could reach a consensus for future retirement provision, he said.
New Zealand is not the only country facing retirement provision problems.
Reuters reported this week that the average American had saved less than 7% of his desired retirement nest egg and would likely have to keep working in retirement to supplement his income.
Middle-class Americans thought they needed $US300,000 ($NZ384,990) to fund their retirement, but on average have only saved $US20,000, according to a survey released by Wells Fargo & Co.
"Middle class" was defined as those aged 30 to 69 with $US40,000 to $US100,000 in household income or $US25,000 to $US100,000 in investable assets and those aged 25 to 29 with income or investable assets of $US25,000 to $US100,000.
"Too many Americans have their heads in the sand in the face of obvious savings deficits," Laurie Nordquist, director of Wells Fargo Institutional Retirement Trust, said. "Barring a miracle, a winning lottery ticket or a big inheritance, they're going to be forced to dramatically cut back their lifestyles after retirement."
Even those fast approaching retirement age were not well-funded. Respondents aged 50 to 59 have saved an average of only $US29,000 for retirement.
Consequently, more than a third of respondents believed they would have to work during retirement in order to afford the things they wanted or just to make ends meet.
Many were also still relying on Social Security to fill the gap.
Seventy-seven percent of respondents aged 50 to 59 believed Social Security would contribute to their retirement income, while only 22% of 30-somethings thought there would be enough left in the pot to fund their retirement.
The vast majority of respondents admitted they needed help figuring out how much money they needed to live on in retirement and picking investments. But in a negative twist for financial advisers, more than two-thirds said they were not willing to pay for such advice.
