Is it a deft or a daft move, to begin raising the pension age in 20 years time?

Politically you could say it's a bit of both.

The new, higher pension age of 67, which is fully implemented in 2040 will only affect anyone who next year will be 43 or younger - that's when the law bringing it in will be passed, but there's no guarantee about that. Most people of that age probably haven't given a thought to their retirement.

They'll live around four years longer than someone who turns 65 next year so chances are they'll end up being paid the pension for longer. And if you talk to someone of that age and younger today, most would never have contemplated getting the pension anyway in the dim, distant future. Now if this policy's enacted, at least they're assured of getting something.

So from that aspect if could be seen as a deft move.

It's daft though because it's given Labour a platform and even though, up until Andrew Little took over the helm, they too would have raised the age, they're now holding firm at the current age of 65. It's also daft because 20 years in politics is a generation, and between now and when the age eligibility starts rising, anything could happen.

Winston Peters doesn't like a rise in the age and when it comes to laying cards on the table in the days following the election, Little will be on his side and there's every change English will play ball as well.

So the new PM's been quite shrewd by not legislating on his proposed changes until next year - he's left the door ajar for the Winston factor.

At least he'll be able to say he tried to increase the eligibility age that most other, similar countries are also doing.

Six years before the pension age begins creeping towards 67, it's estimated there'll be 1.1 million people aged 65 and older and the cost to the taxpayer will be around twenty billion dollars. Forget about paying for the pension, with an aging population, the cost of health care will also increase significantly.

So in reality it's a deft move, to do nothing would be daft.