Compulsory KiwiSaver: It's time NZ had a serious debate about it – Fran O'Sullivan
That council was set up by former Labour Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern and chaired in 2019 by current PM Luxon, who was at that stage chief executive of Air New Zealand, before he passed the baton to Whineray on leaving the airline.
Whineray says that after presenting KiwiSaver reform ideas to Ardern in late 2019 'she quipped that I was 'in danger of becoming a socialist'.'
'I replied that 'I was more of a caring capitalist' – and that the time had come to evolve KiwiSaver.' Call it KiwiSaver 2.0.'
The council had lofty goals.
It produced papers on the 'infrastructure crisis', the world of work, immigration and education and more.
However, the Covid pandemic resulted in the Ardern Government losing its focus on reform, at least as far as business was concerned.
The council's expertise was not harnessed in the way chief executives had expected when they took up Ardern's invitation to join the council.
With Luxon now PM, Whineray is having another shot.
As he puts it, the 2.5-page proposal was designed to evolve KiwiSaver into something fit for purpose by 2030: a 'serious economic engine and a foundation for personal dignity, resilience, and independence'.
In essence, the then council believed there was an opportunity to enhance the KiwiSaver framework to achieve more equitable outcomes via a transition over 10 years to a compulsory savings scheme, with the objective of achieving minimum annual contributions of 10% of personal income by 2030.
Six years on and Nicola Willis' second Budget has moved to increase KiwiSaver contributions to 4% of wages or salaries by 2028 by employers and employees – essentially 8% of personal income. It remains an 'opt-in' scheme – it is not compulsory.
In Australia, employer contributions, known as the Super Guarantee, are currently 11.5% of an employee's ordinary time earnings. From July 1 this year, that rate will increase to 12%.
A massive pool of savings has been built up in Australia since its compulsory superannuation scheme was introduced. Whineray's intervention is timely.
Both Luxon and Willis have reopened the discussion on superannuation – particularly on extending the age of eligibility for universal New Zealand Superannuation from 65 to 67 years beginning in 2044.
But their coalition partner New Zealand First baulks at that.
Whineray contends gaining political support for making KiwiSaver compulsory and increasing the contribution rate should not be too difficult.
He points to the fact that NZ First leader Winston Peters pushed for compulsory savings in the 1990s.
Former Labour Finance Minister Sir Michael Cullen launched KiwiSaver in 2007 and the New Zealand Super Fund in 2001. Both Luxon and Willis reopened debate in Budget 2025.
There is the ability to begin a cross-party dialogue to build wide support for compulsory super.
As a parting shot on LinkedIn, Whineray contended that universal NZ Super at 65 won't survive demographic gravity.
If people don't save, taxpayers still carry the cost. The freedom to opt out likely becomes a redistribution from those who opt in – 'even if total savings rates don't shift on average, they do shift for the people who don't currently save'.
Whineray's is a welcome contribution to the superannuation debate. It's become commonplace to blame the Boomers for the NZ Super iceberg coming taxpayers' way.
Superannuation is the largest and fastest-growing welfare expense, increasing from $13 billion in 2017 to a projected $29b in 2029.
That is a 25% increase from the projected $23.2b for 2025 in just five years.
In reality the first of the Generation X cohort will themselves be coming on to NZ Super in 2030. It is not simply a 'blame the Boomers' issue.
It is also reality that Boomers' expectations to have super at what was then the retirement age of 60 were shattered by the Bolger Government, which sensibly raised the age of eligibility to 65 within a decade.
Generation X is in a position to lead the debate now to ensure the age of eligibility for NZ Super is lifted again – this time to 67 or beyond.
It's getting tiresome to hear and read repeated arguments by media personalities that range from blaming Boomers for not having enough babies (ie future taxpayers to support the scheme), to 'Luxon won't be able to build support to raise the age' and finally and more irksome 'I've paid taxes all by life and hence I want my national super at 65″.
There is a role for the media in leading this debate, not simply fostering the thinking that leads to full-on fiscal crisis.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
Climate Change Coverage In A Changed Media Climate
Article – RNZ Media outlets were firing up new projects and joining alliances to cover climate change just a few years ago. Now there's just one mainstream NZ media reporter focused solely on it. Hayden Donnell, Mediawatch producer In 2021 climate change minister James Shaw talked up the government's commitment to the Paris Agreement on Facebook. 'We need to cut global emissions by 45 percent, below 2010 levels, by 2030,' he said. 'Now is the time we must decisively choose the future we want for our children.' The tenor of political discourse has changed a little since then. Our current crop of ministers are less bullish about the transition to a low-carbon economy. 'We're not going to be guilt-tripped by these fanciful accounts that the planet is boiling. We need NZ's natural resources!' Resources Minister Shane Jones said Facebook last year, in a post set against a backdrop of clipart flames. Jones is following in the footsteps of politicians overseas. Donald Trump came to office in the US with the catchy mantra 'Drill Baby Drill' in his inauguration and State of the Nation speeches. In some respects, the media environment has followed a similar trajectory to the political one. Back when James Shaw was issuing those optimistic pronouncements, several of our major media companies were making their own commitments to climate action. Stuff had launched two long-term climate coverage projects. Quick! Save The Planet was launched in 2018. The site's editor, Patrick Crewdson, said it wouldn't give space to what he called 'debunked denialism'. 'We just want to really pound away at climate change coverage on a regular basis. Increase the intensity of it. And to make the problems of climate change feel urgent and tangible and unignorable,' he told Mediawatch at the time. That morphed into The Forever Project, launched in March 2020 just as Covid-19 locked the country down. It was devoted to in-depth climate coverage from science journalists like Eloise Gibson and Olivia Wannan. The New Zealand Herald and other media organisations also got in on the act, signing up to the global Covering Climate Now initiative and creating their own climate projects. Fast forward to today, and the Forever Project still exists, but doesn't have any dedicated reporters. Gibson and Wannan have both left Stuff, the former for RNZ and the latter to do communications for the Carbon Removal Research project at the University of Canterbury. Jamie Morton, who did in-depth climate reporting as a science reporter at the Herald, is now freelancing. Climate change has dropped down the news agenda, and Gibson is now the only dedicated climate reporter at a mainstream news media outlet. This week's Framing the Emergency event at AUT came at a fraught time for the industry. A panel of Newsroom's Marc Daalder, TVNZ Marae presenter Miriama Kamo and Eloise Gibson told the gathering she got her hopes up when she saw other countries' media teams at the COP 15 Copenhagen climate summit back in 2009. 'They would have ten people in the media room working in shifts around the clock to cover different angles on this crisis. I was so jealous, and I thought: 'Is New Zealand ever going to do this?' 'Spoiler alert: it really did not,' she added. Why not? The panel pondered the parlous state of the media's finances and climate change being dragged into the culture wars. They also said despite the dearth of dedicated climate reporters, climate denial is now uncommon – and many journalists increasingly refer to the crisis in stories about subjects from weather to power prices. Climate in the culture war Marc Daalder – Newsroom's senior political reporter who covers health, energy and extremism as well as climate change – said climate change getting caught up in partisan battles between the right and left made it more challenging for journalists to state the 'very basic facts' at the heart of the issue. He pointed to outgoing deputy prime minister Winston Peters casting doubt on NIWA's data last year about carbon levels in the atmosphere. He made similar claims during the 2023 election campaign. 'When they're covering the statements of politicians, it gets really difficult,' Daalder told Mediawatch at the AUT this week. 'I don't think the media has figured out how to – while maintaining the trust of our audience – say 'that's culture war BS. That's just not a thing'.' Gibson pointed out that some media organisations did fact-check Peters' claim. But while doing so can prompt accusations of bias and sometimes online abuse, she saw them as bread and butter for news organisations. 'I don't think you can tailor your reporting to what a small group of people are going to say. You need to tailor your reporting to what you know to be accurate, what you know to be representative, and what you know most people in New Zealand want to know. They just want to know as close as you can get to the facts,' she said. 'I don't actually think that's a partisan or political thing to do. It's just doing your job.' Stating the facts about climate change may not be biased, but that doesn't mean it's not political, Gibson said. 'I don't think you can separate covering climate change from politics because policy and economic decisions are intrinsically tied up in climate change action,' she said. 'You can't not tackle politics in that. But that's not the same as being partisan.' Caught in the cutbacks Both Gibson and Daalder pointed to media cutbacks as the true existential threat to climate coverage. Gibson was worried that low salaries and a lack of opportunity were driving young reporters out of the industry. This wasn't just a hypothetical concern. One former young reporter who'd recently left the industry for a climate advocacy agency was in the crowd listening to the media panel. 'I would find it hard to look that person in the eye and say: 'My job is going to be here for you in 10 years'. I hope there'll be 10 of my jobs, 20 of my jobs – but it's hard.' Daalder said that as newsrooms have slimmed down, specialist climate coverage has been sacrificed in favour of what editorial leaders perceive to be 'core news' coverage. Rather than resisting that, Gibson saw a path forward for reporting that shows how climate change impacts immediate concerns like the cost of living. She cited the cost of gas, changes to the transport system, or the price of solar panels and batteries as matters where the slow-moving climate crisis intersects with the everyday. 'It's not that people are not concerned about climate change, it's that they have got immediate and pressing concerns that are pushing that out of their mind, and they don't have the bandwidth. And it's so obvious now that those two things are compatible and connected. So you don't have to make it relevant. It is relevant.'
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
Money In Transaction Accounts Costing New Zealanders Billions
Article – RNZ New Zealanders could be leaving their share of more than $1b a year on the table by keeping their cash in transaction accounts. , Money Correspondent New Zealanders may be leaving money on the table by keeping their cash in transaction accounts. David Cunningham, chief executive of mortgage broking firm Squirrel, said there was significantly more money in transaction accounts now than before Covid. Most banks do not pay interest on transaction accounts. Cunningham said transaction account balances had peaked at $53 billion when interest rates were close to zero, and people could see little reason to change. It had fallen to a recent low of $37b but had now lifted again to $39b. 'Almost all of this earns 0 percent [interest].' If that money was shifted into an account paying 3 percent, it would give savers just under $1.2 billion in interest a year. Cunningham said before Covid hit, there was about $28 billion in transaction accounts. 'You're always going to need some float in your transaction accounts but a lot of this is lazy money.' He said it was customer inertia that also delivered higher profits to the banks, because they could make money from the cash sitting in the accounts. But he said banks should be encouraging customers to check that they had their money in the right accounts. 'Every time you log in they could remind you that you've got say $20,000 in a transaction account earning nothing and if you moved it to savings you could earn x… that would be a way to make sure people were better off,' Cunningham said. Claire Matthews, a banking expert from Massey University, said some people kept their money in transaction accounts because of the ease of access. 'They may have concerns about fees to access it if it's in a savings account. Partly I think it's because they don't think the interest will be worth it – but they may not have actually looked at the numbers, because depending on the amount it may be very worthwhile over time. Partly, however, it is probably just not getting around to doing it.' Banks have been cutting rates for term deposits and some savings this week, after the official cash rate reduction. Westpac said on Thursday it was cutting the rate offered on a number of term deposits by 10 basis points. ASB said it was cutting the rate offered on its Savings On Call, ASB Cash Fund, Savings Plus and Headstart accounts by 20 basis points. That took the Headstart rate to 2.7 percent.
Scoop
14 hours ago
- Scoop
Money In Transaction Accounts Costing New Zealanders Billions
, Money Correspondent New Zealanders may be leaving money on the table by keeping their cash in transaction accounts. David Cunningham, chief executive of mortgage broking firm Squirrel, said there was significantly more money in transaction accounts now than before Covid. Most banks do not pay interest on transaction accounts. Cunningham said transaction account balances had peaked at $53 billion when interest rates were close to zero, and people could see little reason to change. It had fallen to a recent low of $37b but had now lifted again to $39b. "Almost all of this earns 0 percent [interest]." If that money was shifted into an account paying 3 percent, it would give savers just under $1.2 billion in interest a year. Cunningham said before Covid hit, there was about $28 billion in transaction accounts. "You're always going to need some float in your transaction accounts but a lot of this is lazy money." He said it was customer inertia that also delivered higher profits to the banks, because they could make money from the cash sitting in the accounts. But he said banks should be encouraging customers to check that they had their money in the right accounts. "Every time you log in they could remind you that you've got say $20,000 in a transaction account earning nothing and if you moved it to savings you could earn x… that would be a way to make sure people were better off," Cunningham said. Claire Matthews, a banking expert from Massey University, said some people kept their money in transaction accounts because of the ease of access. "They may have concerns about fees to access it if it's in a savings account. Partly I think it's because they don't think the interest will be worth it - but they may not have actually looked at the numbers, because depending on the amount it may be very worthwhile over time. Partly, however, it is probably just not getting around to doing it." Banks have been cutting rates for term deposits and some savings this week, after the official cash rate reduction. Westpac said on Thursday it was cutting the rate offered on a number of term deposits by 10 basis points. ASB said it was cutting the rate offered on its Savings On Call, ASB Cash Fund, Savings Plus and Headstart accounts by 20 basis points. That took the Headstart rate to 2.7 percent.
