Labour leader Goff hints further at compulsory savings policy, points to 1975 Kirk scheme aborted by Muldoon, and Aussie savings scheme

Labour leader Goff hints further at compulsory savings policy, points to 1975 Kirk scheme aborted by Muldoon, and Aussie savings scheme

Labour leader Phil Goff is saying everything but the word 'compulsory' when asked about the party's pending savings policy, although he is giving strong hints that is the direction Labour will go down as it battles to be in a position to form a government after the November 26 general election.

Asked by media on Monday how Labour's savings policy was coming along, Goff pointed to both a compulsory savings scheme devised by former Labour Prime Minister Norman Kirk, but thrown out by National's Rob Muldoon in 1975, and the Australian compulsory saving scheme.

Goff has said previously that he would like to see a savings scheme in New Zealand that went further than KiwiSaver, which was universally available but not universally taken up by those in the workforce.

“I’d like to see the situation where you had a universal savings programme in New Zealand as soon as that could be achieved,” Goff told media at his weekly Monday afternoon press conference.

Asked whether the policy would call for a compulsory savings scheme, Goff replied:

“I’m not talking about details of policy until I announce it. I just think that if the Norman Kirk scheme hadn’t have been demolished by the Muldoon administration, this country would be in a much stronger position, as Australia is because of its policy.”

“I’m not talking about our policy until we release it, but what I am saying is I think what most New Zealanders would agree [with is], the destruction of the Kirk scheme proved to be hugely damaging to New Zealand, that’s the lasting legacy of the Muldoon administration,” Goff said.

(Updates with video of Goff)

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

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.


What is it with socialists...why do they think they have a right to decide what people do with their lives...with their property...with their savings if they have any...why can't Goofy et al get that!

Goofy has wet dreams about Kirk's pipe dreams...big deal...that was 36 years he seriously expecting to harvest votes on Kirk's promises.....utterly insane...oh no it's not...the Labour faithful will drool over it...

Oh maybe because those same ppl who dont save for retirement will come cap in hand to the Govn expecting handouts....?

What I dont like is I lose control and the system can be and will be hijecked by a Govn sooner or later, the bag of money when centralised is to tempting to leave the bigger it gets.  Right now I'd be lucky to see 4% (after tax) per annum on a private pension, were paying down my mortgage see's me saving 6%tax free...and of course you just know that at some stage it will be pillaged....and its most likely by Labour.....

Quite why he thinks its a voter winner I dont know.....Goffy is drooling over the tought of getting the money and spending it on "worthwhile" projects with the "promise" to pay it back later......



Can anybody explain please the difference between the Kirk scheme, the NZ Super Fund and the Winston Peters compulsory saving/superannuaiton proposal?  thanks




I can see how that's different from the Super Fund (savings privately rather than publicly held), but not how it differs from Winston Peters' proposal?

Norman it not interesting how history becomes a matter of convienice...

We are talking Rodger Douglas super scheme here , right?

Superannuation, as it is structured now, is simply taking money from one group to pay another group.

Whilst the amount going in equals the amount going out the idea is sustainable, but without that it's the description of a Ponzi scheme.

Every government wants to get some more money in or cut the money going out - because when more money goes out than money comes in - the Ponzi game is up.

Your access to our unique content is free - always has been. But ad revenues are diving so we need your direct support.

Become a supporter

Thanks, I'm already a supporter.