NZIER — Lessons from Across the Tasman: Comparing Retirement Income Systems (Working Paper 2024/01)
New Zealand Institute of Economic Research
Publisher: NZIER
Sector evidence
Market research
2026-10-09
Next review not yet scheduled
New Zealand
High confidence
verified
SNZ editorial review
Evidence boundary: Historical comparative working paper published 7 November 2024; 32 physical pages. Judgments, comparative statistics and projections use the cited 2024 and earlier sources. Whole-system policy analysis and suggested reforms are not current eligibility advice, enacted contribution/tax settings or causal proof of growth effects. Original PDF and June 2026 capture label preserved.
Short Answer
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.
Key Points
- •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).
Full Summary & Notes
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.
Read bundled source notes
The saved source file may include fuller notes and references than the indexed summary. Check its dates and evidence limits.
Loading saved source notes…
Document Details & Metadata
Related Resources
Bryan Perry’s MSD working paper examines older New Zealanders’ incomes, housing costs, accessible savings and material wellbeing, mainly through Household Economic Survey data.
MSD’s background paper for the Retirement Commissioner’s 2025 review describes public retirement-income provision, generally as at March 2025, and compares it with earlier reviews.
Tom Dunn’s NZIER update for the Office for Seniors models the contribution of people aged 65 and over through paid work, self-employment, tax, expenditure and unpaid activity.
Claire Matthews’s Annual Update 2024 reports observed spending by pension-receiving households using customised 2022/23 Household Economic Survey data, adjusted to June 2024 prices.
Elizabeth Knopf’s March 2022 desk review examines aged residential care as an input to the Productivity Commission’s immigration inquiry.
Claire Matthews’s 2025 annual update reports observed expenditure for eight pension-receiving household groups, using 2022/23 Household Economic Survey data adjusted to June 2025 prices.