Borrowing to save

At first glance, it defies logic to borrow money in order to save, so those commentators now calling for payments to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to be suspended - either indefinitely or until the economy turns around and the country is once again able to run budget surpluses - are advocating from a position of some strength.

When the country is stretched, as it is likely to be in the coming months when the worst effects of the recession hit home, with businesses failing, unemployment figures rising and true hardship beginning to reveal itself on our urban street-corners, can the Government really afford to be putting $2 billion worth of liquidity away into a leaking piggy bank - and to be borrowing for the privilege? In such times of economic hardship, the answer would appear to be a firm "no", but then for some economists and politicians, the concept of a super fund was always undesirable and illogical.

Baldly, the main argument against such a fund is that $2 billion taken out of the Government accounts annually and put away into a savings fund is a potential $2 billion-worth of productivity stimulus and growth forfeited.

Classic neo-liberalism would argue that the potential economic growth from the additional $2 billion would ultimately make us all richer and better able to save for our own retirements; that economic growth now would enable society to meet the future costs of superannuation more easily.

Or, alternatively, that future generations and future governments should cut their cloth according to what they can afford.

Finance Minister Bill English last week said he could not rule out suspending contributions.

He said the idea of a contributions "holiday" had yet to be seriously considered, but emphasised that any debate about the fund was not related to current or future superannuation payments to those over 65.

"The national super entitlement is absolutely written in stone. There is no suggestion of changing national superannuation," he said.

The fund was started by his predecessor, Michael Cullen, to offset the cost of future pensions when an ageing population will make it less affordable.

The fund now stands at about $12 billion, but its investments have taken a $2.5 billion loss in the past 12 months.

The idea of a contributions "holiday" has arrived centre stage with the Government books now firmly in the red and debt set to rise steeply.

An important consideration - as the country competes with others to borrow money offshore - is the need to convince lenders and international credit rating agencies that the Government has a credible plan to manage rising debt levels.

Suspending contributions or redeploying the funds would give the Government greater flexibility in such debt-management.

Treasury first raised the notion of a contributions "holiday" last year, but not everyone agrees with the notion.

Labour opposes a suspension of payments, as do others who argue for a long-term investment view.

Just as many ordinary householders pay mortgages and at the same time save for their own superannuation through investments in bonds and equities - when economic orthodoxy suggests they would be better off ridding themselves of the mortgage first - it does not necessarily follow that governments should never borrow to save.

Much depends, of course, on the cost of the borrowing and the potential return.

If a government is able to borrow at a low interest rate, and with a reasonable degree of certainty predict a generous margin on the return, might this not make sense?

And, further, what degree of priority amid the overall spending plans of a government should the super fund command?

Given that Mr English has reaffirmed National's commitment to an untouchable national superannuation for the over-65s - which is smart politics given the party's past record on super - should the "Cullen Fund" be either suspended or redistributed into the economy, future governments might find themselves having to borrow at potentially much higher rates to meet concurrent national super payments.

The issue then becomes one of borrow now, or borrow later.

The logic of suspending contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund is not as clear-cut as it at first might appear.

It also carries not insubstantial political dangers, which Mr Key and Mr English would be well advised to consider.