Massey University has been accused of discriminating against older workers as it is proposing to stop contributions to superannuation schemes for staff aged over 65.

Massey has been battling a poor financial situation, including a year-to-date operating deficit of $33 million, and is looking for ways to cut costs.

Last week, Massey released a proposal to cease contributions to the KiwiSaver and UniSaver superannuation schemes for employees aged 65 and over.

The proposal, which has been seen by Stuff, said it was part of its “focus on the future” and the university went “above and beyond its statutory obligations as an employer” by continuing superannuation contributions for staff aged 65 and over.

“Given the significant potential cost savings of approximately $1.2m annually and the fact that most employees are also entitled to receive New Zealand Superannuation payments from the Government from age 65, the university is proposing to cease its current non-compulsory employer contributions.”

The feedback period for the proposal ends on October 22 and the change would happen later this year if it went through.

An employer is required to contribute to an employees’ KiwiSaver at 3% of their pay, for staff aged 18 to 65.

Associate professor Claire Matthews said she was concerned about the decision and believed it was discrimination when age determined how much someone was paid.

She was not commenting in her role as the chairperson of the university’s academic board, but in her role as a banking expert.

“If I’m still working at Massey when I’m 64 and 364 days [old], I’m being paid a certain amount, the next day I turn 65, I effectively get paid less. I don’t see any justification for that.”

She was supportive of the measures Massey was taking to save money, but believed this move was a step too far.

“They’re scrutinising everything, but in this case I think what the proposal does is unfair.”

Matthews encouraged anyone affected to take a case to the Human Rights Commission because it was discrimination.

She wasn’t sure how many people would be affected, but believed many staff aged over 65 would have already taken recent offers for voluntary redundancy.

Tertiary Education Union organiser Ben Schmidt said the proposal, which was based on age, was appalling.

“It shows a complete disregard and disrespect to long-serving, hard-working older employees of the university and it disadvantages employees solely because of their age, regardless of the fact they are continuing to be hard-working and committed workers at the university.”

He wanted the university to backtrack and continue contributions to staff regardless of age. He didn’t think staff super contributions was where the university should look to cut costs.

Union members were disgusted and unequivocally opposed, he said.

“It cuts across an established and reasonable expectation of long-term staff. This is not the trend of what good employers are or should be doing. It’s not what they do.

“It would create a place where no forward-thinking academic or researcher would want to work.”

Stuff asked Massey for comment and a university spokesperson provided a statement similar to the proposal.

“Given the significant operating deficit faced by the university, this is one of a number of cost-saving actions being considered.

“The proposed adjustment would furnish a potential cost saving of approximately $1.2m annually and the university is currently inviting feedback from staff on its proposal to cease its non-compulsory employer contributions.”

The spokesperson did not answer questions about the proposal being discriminatory because of age or how many people it would affect.