One thing I just dont get is, if we are moving the age from 65-67 in 20 years time, why not just phase it in now? Of course it would have negative voting impacts, but so would have John Key not creating a lending bubble on top of the US lending bubble during the GFC. At some point some politician in NZ has to be the one to take one for the team?
I think it is drawing a mighty long bow to blame John Key for creating a lending bubble. This is has been going on all round the world, principally as a consequence of central banks (the Fed, the BoE, the ECB, the BoJ and, to a lesser extent, the PBoC), forcing interest rates to near zero and flooding financial systems with liquidity. It's not clear to me why you think John Key did any of this, or indeed could have done anything to stop it even if he wanted to? Given what these central banks were doing the Reserve Bank pretty much had to drop rates here, or our currency would have gone through the roof. But the Reserve Bank made this decision independently, not John Key.
As I recall it, the rational for phasing it in was stated by the Govt to be not to change things abruptly for people just about to retire, and unable to change their circumstances to manage, and to give those who would be impacted enough warning so that they could alter their circumstances (savings etc) in response. While personally I think 20 years warning was way to long (I would have gone for 10 personally), the basic idea seems sensible.