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

Labour promises compulsory KiwiSaver contributions from employers regardless of employee contribution, employer extension to over 65s and paid parental leave

Personal Finance / news
Labour promises compulsory KiwiSaver contributions from employers regardless of employee contribution, employer extension to over 65s and paid parental leave
Labour economic spokesperson Barbara Edmonds and Labour leader Chris Hipkins
Labour economic spokesperson Barbara Edmonds and Labour leader Chris Hipkins - Anna Whyte

Labour wants to make employer contributions to KiwiSaver compulsory, rising to 6%, extend employer contributions to workers over 65, make the default employee contribution rate at 4%, as well as removing the minimum contribution rate.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins is also promising to ban total remuneration contracts that factor in employer KiwiSaver contributions, and provide a KiwiSaver contribution to those on paid parental leave.

"KiwiSaver is one of Labour’s proudest legacies. We created it, and now we’re going to make it work better for people,” he said on Sunday. 

Finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds said, under Labour's plan, from July 1, 2028, employer contributions would become compulsory and the extension to those on paid parental leave and the employer contribution to workers over 65 would also kick in.

The employer contribution would lift to 6% by 2032, regardless if an employee reduced or paused their contribution. The default rate for workers would be at 4%.

The Government is already gradually increasing the default rate to 4% for both employers and employees, rising from 3.5% this year up to 4% in April, 2028.

Edmonds said they would also broaden who benefits from KiwiSaver and would be “working with self-employed New Zealanders on more flexible ways to build their savings in the scheme.”

Labour is the latest party to announce sweeping promises to change up KiwiSaver.

New Zealand First was the first party to announce its KiwiSaver election policy last year, proposing to increase employee and employer contributions to 10% and making KiwiSaver compulsory. At the time, NZ First leader Winston Peters said KiwiSavers and employers would receive tax cuts to cover the increases.

Peters also promised to make KiwiSaver compulsory from birth, with an automatic Crown contribution of $1000.

Then, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced that if re-elected in November's election, National would make KiwiSaver or an equivalent scheme compulsory for workers, automatically enrol every baby born in New Zealand along with a $1500 Baby Boost payment, and make a contribution into a parent’s KiwiSaver while they’re on paid parental leave. 

That followed a promise to increase contribution rates for employers and employees from April 2029, rising by 0.5% per year until April 2032 - to a 6% contribution rate for employers and employees each.

Labour's policy document is here.

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.

24 Comments

More cash off to feed the planet eating economic super organism. And forced also! If the coalition weren't so awful, voting for this lot would be out of the question. 

Up
4

We need new thinking.  Voting for any of the encumbants is a vote to continue the same failed policies.   

Clue:  expect better 

Up
3

Labour incompetent socialists driving state dependency to maintain their voter base, Greens & TOP rabid communists policies depending on thieving other people's money, TPM fundamental racists dedicated to an institutional extortion ethnostate, NZF dog whistles & pork barrels to ensure Winston First remains Minister of Overseas Travel, National "nothing to see here" born to rule entitlement & lazyness "but we're better than the alternatives", ACT "some of you may die but thats a price I'm willing to pay"

"Expect better"?: Yeah, nah.

Up
2

Thought uber capitalists would be drooling at the prospect of the proletariat being financially  strip mined to bloat their institutions further? Socialism funding capitalism, there's a union I bet Marx is wriggling in his grave about?

Up
3

Consumption bad. Deferring consumption with savings... also bad.

Up
2

My first work was with a trading bank in 1960. That bank ran its own superannuation scheme. It was not compulsory. There were other options. Life insurance endowment  policies. The National Provident Fund. Every employee had opportunity to participate in what suited them. It was not regarded as an employer’s absolute responsibility to set in store savings towards said employee’s retirement. The Labour Party under Norman Kirk foresaw that there was though not enough participation. Hence the short lived compulsory scheme his government implemented.  Muldoon replacing that with a universal guaranteed pension, then overturned the apple cart. Since then only the late Michael Cullen has introduced any significant initiatives. But it is not enough and now the emphasis, as demonstrated by this policy, is being increasingly positioned on an employer to subsidise an employee’s retirement more than that actual employee, himself ot herself, taking on that responsibility. Things have not moved in the right direction and that often maligned third Labour government has accordingly, been vindicated.

Up
1

That boat has been missed....there isnt another.

Up
3

May have got this wrong but it seems to be that under this policy the employer would be compulsorily hooked into a 6% contribution regardless of whether or not the employee is actually making any contribution? If there is compulsion on one side surely it should be reciprocated by compulsion on the other.

Up
1

Only works if there is 'growth'...in 1976 that possibility was there...50 years have passed and 'past performance is no guarantee of future results'

Up
4

You - & I - may very well think that however Labours socialist economics is rooted in archaic "Union & Employee good / Employer bad" perspectives on class warfare so unconcerned about extorting more of other people's money.

Up
1

How many times will you spout the term socialist before realising that public healthcare, pensions etc are socialist concepts you enjoy and rely on? And when you say 'other people's money' who do you think pays for these things but 'other people'?

Up
4

Socialist principles originated & were demonstrated by philanthropic capitalists before legislated in NZ Port Sunlight - Wikipedia . Because someone has to bake the pie before it can be shared.

At 70+, I continue to pay for private medical insurance & I paid for my own employer superannuation plus enough income taxes to fund mine + a several other peoples NZSuper. All govts waste taxpayers / other peoples money, some much more than others & there is no reason to giving them even more unless they can control themselves.

 

Up
2

But do you know how long you will be drawing this benefit? 

A reason to give more is that it would cost less than the presumably extortionate medical insurance you currently are happy to stump up 

Up
0

In Australia the employer compulsory conribution is 12%, with no contribution required from the worker. I don't hear much wailing about it from across the Tasman. Labour's proposal is timid: they could have said New Zealand should match Australia's 12% employer contribution, but phase it in over 20 years.

Up
4

Planning for retirement should be foremost the responsibility of any individual. Certainly governments have every reason to introduce measures and schemes to encourage that essentiality. However that should not go so far as absolving said individuals of any responsibility. Adults should be able to take care of themselves, family and future in normal circumstances and it is counterproductive to redirect and thereby diminish the importance of those basic functions. Admittedly instituting compulsory savings from income or whatever,  is in part along those same lines but surely that is more positive and preferable than sitting back and providing nothing.

Up
1

Wow Labour promises to unleash another wave of inflation. Not winning.

Up
2

And labour won't lift the retirement age too? Not sure if I see the point in massive kiwisaver balances if NZS remains as is. 

Up
1

There won't be massive KS balances for a while yet. 

Up
2

Too much faith in bubbles, tech oligarchs and the planets ability to fuel human rapaciousness.

Up
2

Of all the policies a government could come to the table with I like lifting Kiwisaver. I would like to see it gradually phased rather than a jolt, but aside from that, easing our retirement age burden is a net good. 

Paid parental leave is a hard one for SMEs. When we were hiring once overseas where there was paid leave I passed on a good candidate in her early 30's with a fiancee but "no plans for kids" because I knew I would have to do her job for half a year as well as my own if she had a baby, 4 months later she posted on FB that she was pregnant (friend of a friend). It sucks as an employer, you don't know if someone is keen to get back into a career in time, or is going to have 2-3 kids over 3 years, string it out, and then right at the end decide homeschooling is for them and you've lost a few years. So it forces you to assume the worst. 

Up
1

I think it will be yet more fuel to the inflation fire. Sure some businesses could absorb the cost within their massive profits (good luck with that), but others will have to pass it on. Woolworths are the biggest private employer in the country for example. 

The main issue I have is that we haven't been told the reason to increase contributions. Is it so we can be super rich at retirement receiving a universal benefit and kiwisaver. Or is it to replace that universal benefit? If it's the latter, please let us know in advance so we can plan for it. 

Up
1

OK, Labour is copying Nationals policy - they are a bit late to the party here.

Good to see a shift towards improving Kiwisaver though - much needed

Up
0

Labour promises compulsory KiwiSaver contributions from employers regardless of employee contribution

Take from those who create jobs and give to those who don't create jobs, again.  Then wonder why our economy is not doing well.  While we're at it, why don't we take more from people who work, and give it to people who don't work ?    Oh, right, we're is already doing that.

Up
2

I support improving retirement savings but what we really need is for housing to be obtainable and paid off well before retirement. At present we will have a growing number who will not be in that position and will be under more pressure. Im happy to have compulsion as most humans have poor discipline with money.

I would turn Kiwisaver into an anuity, if you have more funds than needed to fund a set amount you get the rest as a lumpsum. Then the taxpayer can just top up anuitys without enough fund base. Flip NZ super to a top up system. Still have compulsory inputs on all sides and start all new borns with a start payment. Phased in over time.

Self funded retirement.

Up
2