sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Kiwisaver governance lacks clarity, says Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson, as she calls for comprehensive reform and cabinet-level advocacy

Personal Finance / news
Kiwisaver governance lacks clarity, says Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson, as she calls for comprehensive reform and cabinet-level advocacy
The long road ahead
Photo: Free for Commercial Use. Licence: CC BY-SA 2.0

KiwiSaver governance isn't clear enough and nobody is pushing for KiwiSaver reform at a Cabinet level, Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson says.

Wrightson appeared alongside the Chief Executives of Smartshares, Fidelity Life and Partners Life at a panel during the Financial Services Council (FSC) conference on Wednesday morning.

The panel debated the main conference topic – consumer resilience and prosperity – and were asked the question of if New Zealanders were truly resilient.

Wrightson described it as people not having to worry about money on a daily basis and being able to survive financially.

“Resilience, of course, is incredibly important because none of us can do it on our own,” she told conference attendees.

The FSC released a new report on Wednesday examining financial trends across NZ in the short, medium, and long-term. It found New Zealanders are dipping into available savings and feeling the financial strain.

FSC Acting CEO Haydee Stroud said the report found one in five retirees had reported having less than a year’s worth of retirement savings to maintain their current lifestyle.

“Our research consistently shows that New Zealanders aren’t prepared for retirement, which is why we continue to call for a review of KiwiSaver settings. A review would future-proof the scheme and help New Zealanders in the long-term, no matter the economic climate,” she said.

Wrightson was asked if the Government was engaging with KiwiSaver and scheme change recommendations – or if they were simply kicking a can down the road.

Wrightson replied that one of the systemic problems around KiwiSaver is that governance isn’t clear. 

Wrightson herself reports to the Minister of Commerce Andrew Bayly who heads up the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), but MBIE only has a policy function when it comes to KiwiSaver. 

To add to the confusion, the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) regulates KiwiSaver – and releases the KiwiSaver annual report each year – while Government tax department Inland Revenue (IRD) administers KiwiSaver. 

Wrightson said IRD had views of “what can work” when it comes to KiwiSaver and then that information goes up the chain to Minister of Finance Nicola Willis.

“[Who} generally speaking, doesn't want to spend any more taxpayer money than she possibly can, because that's what MOFs [Ministers of Finances] do,” she said.

“So nobody is in Cabinet pushing for this at a unified level. And I think that’s a bit problematic.”

Wrightson doesn’t think tweaking KiwiSaver as it stands is the answer either and the retirement savings scheme needs proper reform.

“You won't hear us shutting up about it anytime soon,” she said.

The Commission published a paper in June with recommendations for the Government on how to improve KiwiSaver.

The recommendations range from extending KiwiSaver eligibility to include temporary visa holders to removing the practice of employers deducting their required KiwiSaver contributions from employees’ pay instead of contributing it on top of their pay.  

Wrightson said one of the paper’s key recommendations was that the default contribution “has to go up” – for employee and employer contributions.

The topic of raising employer contributions in KiwiSaver was discussed at a FSC pre-conference panel Tuesday. 

Wirghtson said on Wednesday that she had been keen to recommend a default contribution rate of 6%, but her staff had talked her down to recommending 4% instead.

“But nonetheless, the thing about defaults, as we know, is that they tend to be a kind of permission thing. People think, oh, if they sign three, five, three, that'll be enough, then I'll be happy in my retirement. And we all know that's not true,” she said on the panel.

Sensible settings

Financial Markets Authority (FMA) Chief Executive Samantha Barrass was asked in another conference discussion about the FMA’s view on KiwiSaver.

“It’s the role of the Government, we just regulate,” Barrass said, but added that the market watchdog was concerned about the drop off in people making KiwiSaver contributions.

“Some people are just not making any contributions into KiwiSaver at the moment,” she said. “So we’re really keen that that picks up.”

Later on, MinterEllisonRuddWatts Partner Lloyd Kavanagh also suggested it was very much time for a review of KiwiSaver.

When KiwiSaver was established in 2007, the Government planned to review the scheme every seven years which it did in 2014. When 2021 rolled around however the review got pushed out because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Kavanagh added that the Beehive needed to keep being pushed when it came to a KiwiSaver review.

“You've got a lot of ministers with a sort of a finger in the pie, no one really pushing to do this,” he said.

Willis was asked how KiwiSaver and our superannuation platforms can be improved in a Q&A after Willis gave a keynote speech at the beginning of the conference.

One example put to Willis was that KiwSaver’s contribution rates don’t compare to the Australian Super – Australia’s version of KiwiSaver – which currently has a compulsory default contribution rate of 11.5% for both employees and employers.

KiwiSaver’s default contribution rate for employers and employees is still 3% – the same rate it was when the scheme was established in 2007.

Willis dodged the question apart from saying the Government needed to make sure it had “sensible settings” for superannuation through the Super Fund and KiwiSaver. 

“But I don't believe that the main reason people leave [NZ] is for Australia's superannuation,” she said.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

40 Comments

“But I don't believe that the main reason people leave [NZ] is for Australia's superannuation,” she said.

"I believe.."  that's some great empirical evidence there, Nicola!  As I used to say when policy folks made such claims when I was a government servant.. so you took a poll of one: yourself?   

Up
4

Good point. But even if the Aussie super isn't the main reason people leave, it's certainly keeping them from coming back once they get a taste for financial momentum. 

That's only my anec-data from personal experience and that of friends.

Up
3

One example put to Willis was that KiwSaver’s contribution rates don’t compare to the Australian Super – Australia’s version of KiwiSaver – which currently has a compulsory default contribution rate of 11.5% for both employees and employers.

but Aussies can withdraw their Super from age of 60, not 65.  Kiwisaver is locked until 65, and the 5 year difference matters a lot.

I am all up for saving for retirement, but I seriously doubt the benefit locking one's retirement to kiwisaver as it does not provide any meaningful benefit comparing a normal investment scheme. 

 

Up
6

Kiwisaver likely doesn't provide any meaningful benefit for someone like yourself, but is it designed/needed for someone like yourself? More for young working folk to start them on their retirement fund journey, and the hundreds of thousands of other people  who aren't savvy or knowledgeable or motivated enough to sort out their own investment schemes.

Up
2

Pensioners who start collecting NZ Super in 2025 get the full allocation, thereafter drop the entitlement  by 2% of the entitlement received by those who started receiving it in 2025, every year. (The 2025 entitlement and the entitlement for everyone else on NZ super can of course continue to be indexed to wages). This should reflect the additional time that people have had to build a kiwisaver nest egg and remove new entitlements to NZ Super in 50 years (ie. those aged 14 now will not get any NZ Super), with the last of NZ’s Super liability winding up completely in about 80 years.

Up
0

Those aged 14 now will be paying tax for their parents and grandparents to retire while trying to save for their own. 

Up
3

Yes Jimbo.  But to get out of the screwup we have now it's reality.  We don't have a magic money tree.

Up
2

But we can asset test Super KH - you know all those leafy wealthy retirees living in CHCH who don't need Super.

Up
3

Does a mechanism exist that can transfer all the above CV or RV perceived equity of all retirees freehold properties into the NZ superfund or similar?

Like a mandatory national Govt. backed reverse mortgage scheme that drops property valuations across the nation back to rational levels and tops up a sovereign retirement fund at the same time?

Incoherent rambling I know but we are talking about magic hah.

Up
0

Like Estate Duty or an Inheritance Tax?

Up
0

Universal super but the amount recovered from your estate when you die (but can't go into debt). Like a means test but payable later. Would need some work to remove loopholes like trusts and gifting.

Up
0

Take take take. I see the silly ideas about taking peoples private property are rife again today. You will never get anywhere by planning to take other peoples stuff to counter poor planning. People will just shift it and all your complaining and attempted theft would have been for nothing (it's been tried before you see, so you really are wasting time flogging a dead horse so to speak). A much better alternative would be to educate people so that they do not end up in a position where they are blaming other people for their poor planning. It is very easy to vote left for your whole life and believe in the free hand outs for ever mantra, but, as we have seen time and time again, the left run out of other peoples money and then the blame game starts, like now.

Up
1

This is a reply to the "We don't have the funds to make this happen". We do have the funds but they are all tied up in property thanks to decades of bad leadership and poor policy (by both sides).

Also, it's no longer your house when you are dead.

Up
3

And what about beneficiaries who receive nothing towards KiwiSaver?

Its the haves and have nots.

A capitalist system requires unemployment and those unemployed due to physical or sickness issues are also unemployed through no fault of their own.

Up
4

Kiwi_overseas,  what is your solution to the beneficiary conundrum?

Up
1

Possibly worth looking into a job guarantee program. Picking fruit in season, cleaning up beaches etc.

Up
1

Easy fix...income test super, Not asset test as this could cause all sorts of reductions in living standards  Reducing a % of super for set income brackets all the way down to nil super for high income.

Up
3

Sounds like another reason to be less productive

Up
2

NZ Superannuation is not enough for those who need it, and too much for those who don't.
The net (after-tax) Super rate for a retired couple needs to be raised to the higher of 80% of the net average wage or 100% of the median wage, with other rates raised in proportion.
To temper the cost of that increase, a surtax needs to imposed on all other income received by people who enrol for NZ Super.
https://www.auckland.ac.nz/assets/business/about/our-research/research-…

Up
3

"Wrightson said one of the paper’s key recommendations was that the default contribution “has to go up” – for employee and employer contributions"

Terrible advice. Great for the Ponzi ticket clippers today but individually foolhardy.

Aim to not retire should be the advice. Do not bank on the debt ponzi holding.

I would guess retirement is not going to be a thing within 10-15 years, possibly sooner. As a concept it says that someone stacked some make believe tokens (deferred some consumption today) in the expectation that a similar level of consumption is redeemible way down the track for actual stuff.

It all relies on economic growth holding so that the economy can deliver enough surplus to honour the future free loading.

Its not a bet that should be assumed.

 

Up
5

Naturally, any fund manager who enjoys his or her salary and bonuses will argue for the default KiwiSaver contributions from both employee and employer to be raised. They should be ignored. KiwiSaver has been compromised by being able to be withdrawn early for a first-home deposit and for hardship.
It is a great vehicle for those whose income is high enough to be able to save surplus income; it is useless for those who need to spend every dollar now, simply to survive. Let those who can save do so, without being bossed around by governments.

We have NZ Superannuation. Tax land, capital gains, inheritances and gifts, and invest those taxes in the NZ Superannuation Fund to sustain NZ Super for future generations.

Up
3

So take everyone's inheritance and tax everything in sight so that those that don't plan can have a great retirement. Sounds fair...not.

Up
4

No, so that those who reach 65 without savings or other income can live the remainder of their lives in at least minimal dignity, provided for by NZ Superannuation, which is a universally available social welfare benefit. The alternative is agèd beggars dying in the streets.

Up
1

does one plan their inheritance? That's next level planning.

Up
0

"any fund manager who enjoys his or her salary and bonuses will argue for the default KiwiSaver contributions from both employee and employer to be raised. They should be ignored"

couldnt agree more

Up
4

NZ has had all those taxes before and they cost more to administrate than they collected.

They also contributed to a huge migration to QLD in the 1980's when there were death taxes, and the marginal tax rate was 66c in the dollar. 

People are very mobile, who would stick around in NZ to have their assets stripped away by socialists? 

Up
1

Emigration by the ageing wealthy to Australia can be addressed by exit tax.
What we have now is emigration of the young, who in Australia at least have hope of incomes high enough to buy a home without relying on the Bank of Mum'n'Dad, gifts, and inheritances.

Up
2

You don't have to rely on those things. They make life easier, but you don't have to rely on them.

If the government couldn't make a 70% increase in tax revenue result in better services over the last five years, then rejigging our tax system to tax the accumulated already-tax corpus of someone's estate for the crime of dying in a bid to find more revenue won't make them any better at spending it either. 

There has to be some given and take. It's funny how we only ever hear about the 'take' bit in this debate... which someone will then try and tell you is 'fair'. 

Up
2

It's not the Government's job to maximize your wellbeing in retirement.  Their responsibility, in a civilised society, is only to make sure you don't actually starve, and they do that with NZ Super.  If you aspire to do more than avoid starvation in your retirement, it's up to you to provide for that.

Up
13

Hear hear. Most commentators on here are making excuses for their lack of planning and claiming that the economy cannot support them in the future as their reason for those who planned to be locked out, while those that have not (them) claim your entitlement.

Up
2

FSC Acting CEO Haydee Stroud said the report found one in five retirees had reported having less than a year’s worth of retirement savings to maintain their current lifestyle.

So one report says 20% of pensioners are living beyond their means instead of making lifestyle changes  that would allow them still to have some comfort, and for a longer time? Sounds like 20% expect the govt to pick up the tab when the rates bill comes in, pick up the energy bill when the cold sets in each winter, and still makes use of all of the benefits of their gold cards all the while. 

Up
2

Not a time to be smug. This is coming to a town near you

NZ has a ongoing balance of payments deficit ... which means we are all living beyond our means... its all on the tab

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/526867/they-re-just-not-spending-mo…

So people arent spending money, and businesses are starting to go under.. ... Looks like the lifestyle change you are advocating comes with some serious fishhooks

Up
3

I wasn’t being smug, just a realist. If I had no income but the pension and interest on my savings, i’d be making changes to elongate the time my savings would last, or looking for a means of generating income to supplement this. The article however doesn’t specify if the standard of living which i’ll cede.

Up
1

Not only is the Australian super contribution rate set much higher than here, there are generous tax advantages for individuals contributing. It is compulsory for employers to pay the minimum rate (which has slowly been ratcheted up from when the Super Gaurantee began at about 4% back in the early 90's) to what it is now.  There are huge criticisms of the super industry and their huge fees (which are valid), but despite its faults, it is still a great system.  My recommendation is make superannuation compulsory for all wage earners, start increasing the rate and provide some tax incentives so people make saving for retirement a higher priority. 

 

Up
2

Again, not helpful for people who are living on the bones of their arse and trying to go paycheque to paycheque - locking up 4% of their earnings for forty five years isn't very helpful if you can't pay your bills in the here and now. 

Up
3

delete please

Up
0

Bit sad I don't see a discussion of moving to an EET rather than a TTE structure from the commissioner here like Andrew Coleman has been discussing. If I had a 401k I would max it out every year. With my kiwisaver I 'min' it out.

But that's not because I'm 'stupid or lazy and need my minimum contribution increased', it's because the scheme incentivizes me to act that way. Anyone who presides over a system that has both poor incentives and poor outcomes, who isn't interested in changing the incentives to get better outcomes, is not sufficiently qualified for the role.

If your approach is to increase the minimum contribution in spite of the poor incentives, rather than change the poor incentives, you're just an authoritarian.

Up
3

Exactly, why put in more than the higher of the tax rebate amount and the employer match amount? You can invest the extra this outside of Kiwisaver and it is taxed the same but has no restriction on when it can be used. Give me an incentive to put more in and I would.

Up
2

If the kiwisaver scheme is not incentive enough by its own, without lolly scrambles, then its not suitable and you are missing its purpose. Compare it to many other managed funds and it comes out worse far more often. If you were able to take employer contributions to put in a more diverse retirement investment plan you would be better off and more resilient if life events come knocking you and your home down. But sure some are eternally greedy for more unneeded money to their pot.

Up
1

Willis's last sentence says it all.

Leave Kiwi Saver and National Super alone.

 

People are looking for a problem to solve. then Start the ball rolling each week on a Monday.

People need to get proper financial advice if they cannot manage their own affairs.

Up
0