By Webfit News | 9 October 2026 | Politics and Analysis ACT leader David Seymour has renewed his argument for raising the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation...
By Webfit News | 9 October 2026 | Politics and Analysis
ACT leader David Seymour has renewed his argument for raising the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation, signalling that the proposal could feature in the party’s upcoming election fiscal plan.
Seymour says the rising cost of Super requires a gradual response, rather than leaving a future government to make sudden changes during a financial crisis.
However, the eligibility age remains 65 today. His comments do not announce a law change, and any increase would require parliamentary support.
The proposal also exposes a significant disagreement between ACT and New Zealand First, which is campaigning to retain the existing age.
In a speech to Gravity Credit Management on Thursday, Seymour argued that longer lives and fewer children were putting increasing pressure on retirement funding.
ACT had previously outlined a gradual increase in the Super eligibility age to 67 over eight years, in a June policy statement.
His latest speech reiterated three conditions:
The speech did not provide a commencement date or a complete implementation timetable. Those details will matter when assessing the fiscal plan ACT is scheduled to release on Sunday, 11 October.
Although the debate is frequently described as raising the “retirement age”, the proposal concerns when people become eligible for the government pension.
It would not, by itself, require everyone to work until 67.
Someone could still stop working earlier if they had sufficient savings or another source of income. Others might continue working beyond the eligibility age.
The practical concern is the income gap. A person stopping work at 65 could face up to two years without NZ Super once an increase was fully implemented, unless an exemption applied.
| Issue | Current position | ACT’s stated direction |
|---|---|---|
| NZ Super eligibility age | 65, subject to other eligibility requirements | Gradually increase to 67 |
| KiwiSaver retirement withdrawals | Generally available at 65 | Retain access at 65 |
| Physical workers | Eligible for Super under existing rules | Compassionate early access for qualifying workers |
| KiwiSaver investment returns | Subject to applicable tax rules | Remove tax on returns |
| Implementation | Existing law remains in force | Timing and detailed rules still to be established |
The effects would differ considerably between households.
For someone with substantial savings and a flexible job, working longer or funding an earlier retirement may be manageable.
For someone whose income depends on physically demanding work, another two years could be harder to accommodate.
ACT’s proposed compassionate access recognises that distinction. But “physical work” needs a workable definition.
A final policy would need to explain which occupations qualify, how a person proves their work history, whether health assessments are required and how mixed careers are treated.
People with interrupted employment, unpaid caring responsibilities or limited KiwiSaver savings would also need clarity about available support.
Keeping KiwiSaver accessible at 65 would provide an option, but not everyone has enough savings to replace two years of pension income.
Seymour claimed that the Superannuation bill was increasing by nearly $2 billion a year.
He also said a three-month adjustment could save about $400 million, while a two-year increase could save more than $3 billion annually.
These are ACT’s stated estimates. They should not be presented as independently established savings from a fully specified policy.
The eventual financial effect would depend on the transition, exemptions and whether some people instead needed other income support.
Removing tax on KiwiSaver returns would also have a fiscal cost that must be considered alongside any savings.
The speech was not directed only at Labour.
Seymour criticised Finance Minister Nicola Willis’s budgets and argued that the government had not reduced expenditure sufficiently.
He said a spending-baseline exercise ACT had sought when entering government had not been implemented by most of its partners.
That makes his argument politically awkward as well as economically significant: ACT is campaigning for deeper changes after spending three years inside the government responsible for the current settings.
Seymour’s explanation is that ACT lacked sufficient support. Voters will have to assess that claim against the compromises involved in coalition government.
According to RNZ’s reporting, National supports an eventual move towards 67, although Christopher Luxon has acknowledged the absence of political consensus.
New Zealand First, Labour and the Greens are campaigning to keep the age at 65.
A National-led coalition including ACT and NZ First would therefore face a substantive negotiation, not a minor disagreement over timing.
The parties could agree on a modified proposal, commission further work, or leave the eligibility age unchanged. None of those outcomes is confirmed.
An ACT election result would not automatically make the Super age 67. The party would need enough parliamentary support to enact its preferred changes.
For workers planning retirement, the immediate position is unchanged. The important questions are who would be affected, how much notice they would receive, and what protection would exist for people unable to keep working.
Source: RNZ political reporter Giles Dexter’s report published on 8 October 2026; ACT’s published speech and June 2026 policy statement; Work and Income; Inland Revenue.
Verification: ACT’s June statement sets out the eight-year transition, while its October speech describes the conditions and savings claims. Current official guidance retains NZ Super eligibility and general KiwiSaver retirement access at 65. act.org.nz
