In simple terms, there are fewer workers supporting more pensioners, and for much longer. As life expectancies increase, the cost of funding the state pension is only going one way: up.

Retirement is now expected to last close to three decades for many people. It’s no surprise that younger and middle-aged workers worry about whether the system will still work by the time they get there, while older workers wonder whether the rules will change just as they reach the finish line with fear.

When it comes up, the reaction from people approaching retirement is immediate and emotional. “No. I’ve paid in all my life. It’s my right. I was promised this.”

So means-testing the state pension feels like having the rug pulled out from under you. But despite how unpopular the idea is, it refuses to go away. And that’s because the pressure on the system really is building.

With fewer working-age people supporting more pensioners, governments are left with three choices. They can raise taxes to fund 25 to 30-year retirements for everyone. They can reduce the real value of the state pension by moving away from the triple lock. Or they can adjust the system more fundamentally, encouraging higher levels of private saving while focusing state support on those who genuinely need it.

Means-testing sits firmly in that third camp.

But if we’re going to talk seriously about it, we also have to talk about how people save, what incentives are offered, and what the government wants people to do over a working lifetime to prepare for retirement.

In Australia, how much the state pays you in retirement is based on the value of your assets, your homeownership status and if you’re in a relationship.

Having seen the system in action, I don’t think the idea of means-testing should be dismissed. But it only works if it’s part of a long-term vision.

Here are three lessons from Australia that the UK should take seriously.

Means-testing only works if people can build their savings

You can’t means-test the state pension unless you incentivise people to save more for their retirement. Let’s face it, under any sensible test today, most people in the UK would still qualify anyway. Most private pension pots are simply too small to fund a comfortable retirement on their own.

But if the state pension becomes more of a “last resort” safety net, people have to be helped to build enough private savings to stand on their own two feet.

Anews is the UK is already part-way there. Defined contribution pensions (where you build up a pot based on what you and your employer pay in, plus investment growth) are now the norm, and auto-enrolment is doing what it was designed to do. Unless they opt out, most workers now contribute a minimum of 5 per cent of their salary and their employers 3 per cent. People are saving something. That “something” isn’t enough, however.

In Australia, when compulsory employer pension contributions, (superannuation), were introduced in 1992, about 80 per cent of people of pension age were relying on the Age Pension, despite it being means-tested. The response wasn’t to cut support, but to increase national saving gradually. Minimum contributions started small and were increased over time. They’re now 12 per cent, and tax breaks are given to incentivise employees to pay in extra.

Some people will ‘game’ the system, so what?

Whenever means-testing comes up, someone says to me, “People will just game the system.” Of course they will. In Australia, it’s practically a national sport.

I spend a lot of my time teaching people how to use the system well. Australia’s means-tested Age Pension and superannuation system are designed to work together. For people with an ordinary savings pot, understanding how they interact can make the difference between scraping by and something close to a comfortable retirement.

Yes, people with more wealth can spend more early and then qualify for a higher state pension later. That happens. But for people who’ve saved reasonably well, deliberately twisting your finances just to qualify for a bit more usually isn’t worth it. The same money, sensibly invested, delivers far more flexibility and comfort than a slightly higher government payment.

The design matters too. Australia’s system works because the pension tapers gradually. You don’t lose everything for doing the right thing. You’re still better off overall. And as people spend their savings in later life, many see their pension income rise.

Saving needs to be safe and worthwhile

We need to believe that saving will benefit them in the long term, and won’t be punished by making your worse off later on. They also need confidence that the rules won’t suddenly shift just as they get there.

Australia’s system works because the expectations are clear. The Age Pension is means-tested and if you have more you will get less government support. Saving is encouraged, expected, tax-effective and mandatory. And changes are usually signalled well in advance and “grandfathered” — meaning they do not affect those close to or already in retirement, only those who get plenty of warning.

If the UK ever moves towards means-testing, this is non-negotiable. It would need a long-term approach, clear and apolitical communication, and robust grandfathering. A few more tax concessions that encourage more people to save would help too.

None of this is easy. Means-testing the state pension would be a hard sell, and few politicians have the appetite for long-term reform.

But politicians who take the long view do get rewarded.

Bec Wilson is Times Money’s retirement columnist and the author of How to Have an Epic Retirement, out in the UK on December 11