# NZIER — Lessons from Across the Tasman: Comparing Retirement Income Systems (Working Paper 2024/01)

Document ID: doc-0074  
Publisher: NZIER  
Catalogue publication date: 2024-11-07  
Physical PDF pages: 32  
Original capture/access label: June 2026  
Source and original reviewed: 9 October 2026

Original local PDF: [Retained original](/pdfs/2024%20-%20NZIER%20-%20Lessons%20from%20Australian%20Retirement%20Income.pdf)

Primary publisher source: [Document or publication listing](https://www.nzier.org.nz/publications/lessons-from-across-the-tasman-comparing-the-australian-and-new-zealand-retirement-income-systems-nzier-working-paper-2024-01)

## What the document contributes

Adrian Katz’s NZIER public-good working paper compares Australia’s compulsory savings and means-tested Age Pension with New Zealand’s NZ Super and voluntary auto-enrolment KiwiSaver system as they stood in 2024. It assesses adequacy, equity, fiscal sustainability, savings/investment, and labour/wages, arguing that policy must be judged across the whole system. The authors identify trade-offs: New Zealand’s design supports more equal retirement incomes and older-worker participation, while Australia’s pre-funded savings reduce future public expenditure pressures. The seven lessons are research judgments rather than adopted policy or current rules for an individual pension applicant.

## Substantive findings

- NZIER’s publisher page dates Working Paper 2024/01 to 7 November 2024. The original has 32 physical pages, including a blank page and front matter; the numbered main text ends at page 28.
- The paper was prepared by Adrian Katz with support from Patrick Nolan at Te Ara Ahunga Ora Retirement Commission, funded through NZIER’s self-funded Public Good Programme and quality approved by John Yeabsley (physical p. 3).
- Its comparison covers five areas: adequacy, equity, sustainability, savings and investment, and labour and wages. These include trade-offs rather than a single ranking of the two systems (printed p. 23).
- The authors judge that New Zealand’s system provides higher average retirement income relative to the working-age population and reduces retirement income inequality, while greater reliance on Australian private savings carries working-life inequalities forward (printed p. 23).
- The paper contrasts Australia’s mainly pre-funded private saving with New Zealand’s mainly pay-as-you-go public pension, while recognising Australian tax-concession costs and the NZ Super Fund’s partial pre-funding role (printed pp. 15–17, 24).
- Its seven lessons include considering each system as a whole, adapting reform to local history, protecting equity and considering gradual KiwiSaver contribution changes. These are author recommendations, not evidence that any proposed settings were enacted (printed pp. 23–25).
- The paper cautions that retirement saving has no simple proven causal effect on economic growth. Rate, tax, age and scheme descriptions reflect 2024 settings and require current official checks before practical financial use.

## Identity, dates and provenance

The publisher supplies the exact 7 November 2024 release date, while the cover identifies November 2024 and working paper 2024/01. The PDF includes a cover, a blank physical page, publisher/authorship page and front matter before the main text; the physical page count is distinct from printed numbering. Te Ara Ahunga Ora supported the research, but NZIER publishes and funds the public-good paper.

The October 2026 review enriches the catalogue and this editorial companion; it does not replace the original publication date or the June 2026 access/capture label. The original PDF and filename remain unchanged.

## Where to check the original

Physical page 3: funding/authorship. Printed pages 2–8 (physical 6–12): system comparison. Printed pages 8–23: the five assessment areas. Printed pages 23–25 (physical 27–29): summary and seven lessons. Printed pages 26–28: references.

## Evidence limits and use

The adequacy and equity conclusions are the authors’ interpretation of the cited data, not guarantees for every household. They compare whole systems, which have different goals, maturity, tax concessions and histories. Future fiscal estimates depend on model settings. Employer-contribution wage incidence and labour-incentive claims derive from cited studies and are not a new experiment. This brief does not recycle 2024 KiwiSaver rates or Australian pension tests as current guidance, or treat their suggested changes as law.

## Additional primary sources

- [Publisher full working paper PDF](https://www.nzier.org.nz/hubfs/Lessons%20from%20the%20Australian%20retirement%20income%20system%20NZIER%20WP%202024-01.pdf)