After yesterday’s half-year fiscal update from the Government, the canary in the mine is gasping for air and the elephant in the room is walking all over everything.

And economist Cameron Bagrie is saying that we can’t ignore either of them - particularly in relation to the long-term outlook and what it means for superannuation and retirement planning.

He says, with Government debt forecast to blow-out long-term, we need to accept the fact that the universal pension scheme is unsustainable.

Government debt is forecast to increase to 180 percent of GDP in 30 to 40 years because of the ageing population and Cameron Bagrie says if we think tinkering around the edges with KiwiSaver is the solution, then we’re dreaming.

And I couldn’t agree more.

He says a conversation about the sustainability of superannuation can’t be avoided forever. I would disagree with him slightly on that one. I think that conversation about the sustainability of our NZ Super scheme needs to happen now.

My view on NZ Super is that it’s crazy people who work beyond 65 get the pension. Even though it’s taxed at a higher rate - I get that. But I still think it’s wrong.

I've also been a fan of some form of means testing.

But, if I’m honest, do I really think the scale of the problem we’ve got - especially long-term - would be sorted out by not paying the pension to people who continue to work beyond 65 and means testing people before they get the pension?

Probably not.

So, if we’re really going to think long-term, I reckon we need to make the call that people of a certain age are told that the NZ Super pension won’t be available to them by the time they reach retirement age.

This would have to be long-term. So, for arguments sake, let’s say we told people who are 35 and younger that they will have to provide for themselves completely when they retire.

That would give them at least 30 years to get themselves sorted. In fact, I would say that people in this age group probably assume now anyway that they won’t be getting a government pension by the time they reach retirement age.

So what I’m talking about is a very gradual phase-out of the government pension.

I’m in no doubt that something like this is needed. Because we are dreaming if we think we can keep doing what we’re doing.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You would think that, having had a major terror attack here, we’d be the last people that needed to be told after what happened in Bondi on Sunday night that we’re too complacent.

But that’s what security experts are saying. That New Zealand remains complacent and naive, despite 51 people being killed in the mosque attacks in Christchurch in March 2019.

And I think we are getting to the point where we need to have armed police at all major events in this country.

These security experts are saying that what happened at Bondi should be something of a wake-up call for us. With one of them putting it this way in the NZ Herald: “We’re only a small millimetre away from that occurring in our own backyard again.”

That’s a quote from Chris Kumeroa, who is a director of Global Risk Consulting and principal security adviser to the Government’s Crowded Places Security Advisory Group.

He says, even though there are significant differences between New Zealand and Australia in terms of international relationships and migrant communities, there is still growing political, religious and social polarisation here. And he says we could be doing more to deal with the risk of another mass casualty event happening.

But what more could we do? How could we be more vigilant?

Armed police at major events would be one way.

Anyone who went to the public gatherings after the 2019 mosque attacks will remember the police being heavily armed.

And I know that what I’m suggesting would definitely be confronting, but I think it would be comforting, as well.

Because the clincher for me is this: in Bondi on Sunday night, one of the alleged attackers was a licensed firearms owner. The father, who was still allowed to keep his weapons despite his son apparently having an interest or a connection to ISIS.

Nevertheless, the guns weren’t illegal. Which shows how gun laws aren’t enough on their own.

So what I’m talking about is armed police at big sporting events, big concerts and gatherings of particular communities that might be considered at-risk.

As former SIS agent and now Massey University senior lecturer Rhys Ball is saying today: “We still don’t have conversations within New Zealand society that is thinking about security and safety in any way other than this kneejerk response. Security is usually down the pecking order of issues.”

Armed police at major gatherings and events would be a definite way of putting it up the pecking order, don’t you think?

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I’m glad I’m not a volunteer firefighter. Because, if I was, I would be brassed-off that an attempt to get volunteer firefighters the same ACC cover as full-time firefighters has gone nowhere.

A petition calling for the change has been rejected by a parliamentary select committee because it doesn’t want to set a precedent. The committee is trotting out all the usual platitudes but the fact remains that volunteer firefighters have just had another kick in the guts.

A bit of background: Katherine Lamont from the Queenstown volunteer brigade started the petition after another volunteer developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, but couldn't get any help because he’s a volunteer.

That’s because volunteer firefighters don’t get the same ACC cover and benefits as full-time firefighters. Which means if they suffer from any mental health issues because of their firefighting work, or if they get some kind of gradual injury from their firefighting work, or develop cancer because of their firefighting work, they can forget about any ACC entitlements.

Whereas, full-time firefighters get all of that covered.

Which is so wrong. Especially when you consider that volunteers make up 86 percent of the front-line Fire and Emergency New Zealand workforce and are often first responders in emergencies.

In 2023, volunteer firefighters responded to callouts for 70 percent of all motor vehicle crashes, 71 percent of all medical emergencies and 81 percent of vegetation fires.

That’s according to Katherine Lamont from the Queenstown brigade who saw how much of a rort this is and started the petition to try and get a better deal for the volunteers.

But Parliament’s education and workforce committee has said no. Because it doesn’t want to set a precedent - because it doesn’t think it’s practical for all volunteers to get ACC workplace coverage.

The committee says: "While we are sympathetic to the petitioner's arguments, we are concerned about the precedent that extending ACC cover to volunteer firefighters might set.”

I don’t buy that for a minute. Because is the committee saying that, if volunteer firefighters got full ACC cover, then we’d have people doing meals on wheels demanding the same?

So that’s what the committee says about its reason for rejecting the petition. Then the weasel words start: “We would like to take the opportunity to express our heartfelt gratitude to all those who volunteer for this important and challenging work."

Do me a favour!

Heartfelt gratitude would be recognising these people properly. Telling them that, if their “important and challenging work” means one day they find themselves suffering from PTSD, or some other serious injury or cancer because of that "important and challenging work”, then they will be looked after.

That would be “heartfelt gratitude”.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.