Budget 2025: Who's worse off under new KiwiSaver changes?
Photo:
RNZ / REECE BAKER
An increase in contribution rates for KiwiSaver should make most savers better off - but it won't benefit everyone.
As part of the Budget, the Government announced it was increasing the default KiwiSaver contribution rate to 4 percent from employees and 4 percent from employers.
Over a saver's lifetime, including a first home withdrawal, it estimated this could make a high earner 28 percent better off at retirement and a low income or part-time worker 21 percent better off.
But some people won't be better off at all.
Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson said about 20 percent of KiwiSaver members would be worse off due to the Budget changes, The changes also included a reduction in the member tax credit to $260.72 (from $521.43 previously) when someone contributed at least $1042, and the removal of the credit entirely for people earning over $180,000.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis revealed the KiwiSaver changes in this year's Budget.
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
People who are paid on a "total remuneration" basis will not benefit when contribution rates increase.
"Total remuneration" refers to the practice of employers offering a salary package, from which an employee can choose to make KiwiSaver contributions, rather than setting aside a separate contribution on top of an employee's salary.
Some KiwiSaver providers, such as Kōura founder Rupert Carlyon, have expressed concern that more employers might shift to the total remuneration model, to avoid the higher rates.
Wrightson said it would be important that did not happen. She has been calling for it to be banned for some time.
Earlier Retirement Commission research showed just under half of employers used total remuneration for some employees.
"It goes completely against the sprit of KiwiSaver whereby retirement savings are meant to be contributed by the employer, the employee and the Government contribution," Wrightson said.
"That's the model. People will get no benefit from the changes on a total remuneration contract. This system needs to be changed so that total remuneration is abolished.
"It's the old story - money in your hand versus money salted away. It becomes very tempting, so total remuneration was not permitted in the original KiwiSaver settings, it was changed a few years ago and I think it should change back."
Wrightson said lower-income workers were more affected by the drop in the member tax credit because it was responsible for a greater portion of their retirement savings.
She said, for people earning less than $30,000 a year, the member tax credit was expected to add up to 15 percent or 20 percent of their total balance at 65.
With the reduction, it would be 6 percent to 11 percent.
Wrightson said there was a divide forming between people who could afford to make KiwiSaver contributions at all and those who could not.
Self-employed people do not have access to an employer contribution in many cases and many providers say it is common for them to opt to contribute only the $1042 required to get the member tax credit.
In 2024, about 200,000 only received the government contribution, including 125,000 self-employed people, Wrightson said.
She said the commission would conduct some more investigation into the impact of the changes on self-employed people and gig workers.
"We're doing some work with Hnry to look at some of their data… We need to find out who's doing what, who's not doing what, where the gaps are and what the response by Government could be."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
41 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Your money might be invested in Gaza weapons, investment platform says
Smoke billows from Israeli strikes in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip in May, 2024. Photo: AFP The amount of KiwiSaver money invested in weapons companies has increased 40.9 percent this year, a responsible investment platform says. Mindful Money founder Barry Coates said many New Zealanders might be unpleasantly surprised that their money was being invested in companies producing weapons that could be used in conflicts such as that in Gaza or the Ukraine. Mindful Money calculated that KiwiSaver investments in weapons companies are now worth $392.4 million. It said New Zealand investment in the production of weapons used in Gaza, through KiwiSaver and retail investment funds, totalled $71.9 m. Coates said the increase reflected a broader increase in activity in the defence industry around the world. "I think most of the increase is the chase for short-term profits - wars are good for business if you're a weapons company. "There's been an increase in investment in many of these companies that stand to benefit from sales to Gaza or via the US or into the Ukraine conflict." Koura founder Rupert Carlyon said the increase was probably because of weapons' companies strong performance. "They are strong performers with global conflicts and increased defence spending in Europe." He said while the dollar value of the investments was now much larger, funds' allocations might not have moved. "The increased size is a function of larger market capitalisations and larger KiwiSaver balances." The S&P Aerospace and Defense Select Industry index had increased 16.5 percent in the past year and 307 percent in the past decade. Coates said research had shown 80 percent of New Zealanders wanted to avoid investing in weapons companies but it continued. He said there had been a fall in investments in companies linked to social harm such as gambling or alcohol and tobacco. "But not enough and not so much in weapons particularly … it does look to us as though we're seeing the same thing happening in fossil fuels - that something happens in the world and investment funds see greater opportunity and they're increasing their investments … even though many of their clients may may be deeply worried about that." He said KiwiSaver investment in companies producing and selling firearms had also more than doubled. "There's a big increase in hand guns investments … maybe something to do with the Trump administration." The most dramatic individual company increase involved Walmart, where New Zealand KiwiSaver investment reached $115.8 million - representing a 144 percent increase over the year and 40 percent growth in just six months. Although it is best known as a general retailer, Mindful Money called it out because Walmart sells shotguns, rifles, ammunition, and firearm components. Coates said there were 36 weapons-free funds at 13 different providers. He said many people would get a "huge surprise" if they found their KiwiSaver investment was exposed to the Gaza conflict. "I think it's kind of one of the things that people can abstract a bit about weapons and so on but when they've seen the effects on people in Gaza and the complete levelling of the country, then you know, suddenly I think it comes home to them, that they don't want their funds to be invested in that." Earlier in the year, activists put pressure on ASB to divest its KiwiSaver investments from Motorola, which they said was supplying the Israeli military with smart phones and radios. But Carlyon said there should be a conversation about whether it was appropriate for weapons to remain in exclusion categories, "given the volatile world we are living in and the need for most countries to be increasing defence spending". Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
41 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Beef and Lamb NZ on proposed Emissions Trading Scheme changes
environment 43 minutes ago Proposed changes to the Emissions Trading Scheme were reported back to the House last night. Beef and Lamb New Zealand chairperson Kate Acland spoke to Corin Dann.
RNZ News
41 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Wilson Parking locked in multi-million legal fight with ex-employee
Wilson Parking signage, Queen Street Photo: RNZ / Calvin Samuel Wilson Parking is locked in a $6 million legal fight with a former employee who now owns a company that is in competition with it. Wilson Parking told the Employment Relations Authority former employee Peter Turner breached his employment agreement, duty of good faith and various fiduciary duties, and ATE Property aided and abetted the breaches. It is seeking damages, an account of profits, and a declaration that receivables gained by Turner and ATE, during the operation of the ATE business, are held on trust for Wilson Parking and will be handed over. Turner and ATE denied liability. ATE was incorporated in 2024 with Turner as the sole shareholder and director. Wilson Parking also filed a claim in the High Court, with causes of action based on knowing receipt, knowing assistance and breach of the duty of confidence. ATE responded to the High Court claim by questioning the High Court's jurisdiction, raising an objection. It argued Wilson Parking's claims were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority, based on an earlier Supreme Court decision. Wilson Parking said the authority could not grant equitable remedies, so the claim was appropriately filed. In a decision on 1 August, Associate Judge Paulsen found that the authority had exclusive jurisdiction over Wilson Parking's equitable claims against ATE and he dismissed the High Court claim. Wilson Parking then applied to remove the employment relationship problem to the Employment Court. It said there was uncertainty about the authority's power to award some of the remedies it was seeking. It said that removal to the employment court would also mean all the claims would be heard in one place at the same time. Complex expert evidence would need to be analysed, Wilson Parking said, and there was a significant amount at stake, of more than $6 million. Authority member Peter van Keulen was unconvinced by some of Wilson Parking's arguments to move the case to the Employment Court - he said the authority had the necessary experience and skill to deal with complex disputes involving significant sums. But he said the employment relationship problem had serious questions of law regarding the authority's jurisdiction, and a move was appropriate. Alison Maelzer, a partner at Hesketh Henry, said it was not unheard of for an employer to bring claims against an employee or former employee, and also to add in the former employee's new employer, where it was alleged that the new employer had helped to breach the former employee's obligations. "This is usually in matters involving a breach of confidentiality or breaches of restraints of trade or non-solicitation obligations - where the former employee is alleged to have taken confidential information, given it to the new employer, and the new employer has known about this or encouraged it. " She said Wilson Parking's case was unusual because of the claims filed in both the High Court and the Employment Relations Authority. "The High Court essentially struck out the general civil claims on the basis that the Employment Relations Authority had exclusive jurisdiction over those claims. "This was relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in FMV v TZB which found that if a dispute arose out of an employment relationship, it belonged in the Employment Relations Authority. "This was the case even if the dispute had been framed or could have been framed as a tort and put before the general courts. In other words, if it could be framed as an employment claim, the Employment Relations Authority would have exclusive jurisdiction. This was a matter to be determined on the facts - i.e. figuring out whether the dispute arose out of the employment relationship, or whether the employment relationship was incidental to the dispute." She said the former employer was seeking equitable remedies and was likely to add in the claims/remedies in relation to the matters that had been kicked out of the High Court. "While the Supreme Court in FMZ v TZB found that the Employment Relations Authority had jurisdiction to award the necessary remedies to address employment relationship problems, it was not clear whether this included equitable remedies. The Employment Relations Authority therefore decided to remove the matter to the Employment Court to determine the whether the Authority had this jurisdiction, and if so, what remedies could be awarded. " She said because Wilson Parking was seeking about $6m in remedies, the claims would require extensive and complex expert evidence. "This is unusual for an employment matter." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
