KiwiSaver providing poor value for money, needs rewrite - Treasury

Treasury financial markets manager James Beard

0:00 0:10

What do you think of the cutting of KiwiSaver’s $1000 kick-start?

It was a subsidy, so had to go
It was a useful mechanism and is a sad loss
It was past its use-by date – most adults are already enrolled
Total votes: 79

The Treasury recommended a wider review of the KiwiSaver scheme than just axing the $1000 kick-start payment, arguing it represents poor value for money for the government and has vague aims, according to its regulatory impact statement on the post-budget law change needed to drop the incentive.

The change was passed into law during an extended parliamentary sitting late Saturday evening, following Thursday's budget announcement, amid opposition party claims the government was robbing future generations to pay for increased income support for families on benefits and low incomes. But the Treasury says dropping the kick-start will improve value for money from the scheme.

Reducing incentives would improve the scheme's value for money as wage and salary earners were likely to join anyway because of employer-subsidised schemes and didn't need the kick-start to join, said the Treasury's financial markets manager, James Beard.

The RIS shows the $1000 kick-start payment is by far the less costly part of the two incentives that operate to encourage KiwiSaver membership.

Removing it will cut the scheme's cost by $175 million in the 2015/16 fiscal year, falling to $107 million by 2018/19, whereas removing the member tax credit contribution, worth $521 a year a KiwiSaver member, would save the Crown $709 million in the first year, rising to $832 million four years later.

The Treasury's preferred option would have been a fundamental review of the KiwiSaver legislation's purpose to deal with the "imprecise definition of a target population" for the scheme, which is meant to be help Kiwis prepare for retirement. That option was out of scope for the advice the government sought from the Treasury on identifying measures to "improve KiwiSaver effectiveness ... and reduce the fiscal cost."

Axing the kick-start incentive effectively pays for the budget's $240 million-per-year initiatives to raise benefits for people with children and Working for Families tax credits for low and middle income working families. The government had pruned KiwiSaver subsidies already, delaying plans for automatic enrolment and halving the Crown's contributions to member accounts.

"The removal of the kick-start would reduce the attractiveness and enrolment rate into KiwiSaver by the self-employed," who didn't really fall into the target market, and "may marginally improve the target effectiveness," the Treasury report said. Wage earners were less attracted by the kick-start because of the employer contribution, "therefore removal or reduction of the kick-start would reduce fiscal costs without reducing savings rates, thus increasing value for money."

The latest changes to the savings scheme come after a seven-year, joint agency evaluation study into KiwiSaver, completed in February and published on Inland Revenue’s website the day before the budget.

The evaluation said there were concerns about the amount individuals are saving, with only one-third of KiwiSaver contributions representing new savings and the rest substituting other forms of savings and debt reduction.

"While the KiwiSaver scheme has promoted KiwiSaver membership, evidence reported subsequently suggests it has been less effective in promoting additional savings," the evaluation report said.

A Treasury working paper in 2011 found that just 7% of members fell into the target if it was defined as those who didn't expect to be able to meet their basic needs in retirement, or 22% if that definition was loosened to include those expecting insufficient income to live comfortably in retirement. Identifying the target "has always been problematic" as no explicit demographic was provided at the beginning of the evaluation, it said.

Introducing the KiwiSaver enabling legislation in 2006, then-finance minister Michael Cullen said the scheme was an important factor in providing a vehicle to top up the nation's universal pension to avoid a significant drop in income at retirement.

The affordability of New Zealand's superannuation has been a contentious issue, with Prime Minister John Key pledging to resign rather than raise the pension entitlement age.

The KiwiSaver evaluation report found for every $1 the government spent on administering the scheme and topping up members' accounts, it only got an extra 20c of additional savings by its target group in 2008/09, rising to 38c in 2012/13, as the level of incentives dropped.

"It is too soon to tell whether this slight improvement in value for money will be sustained over time," the evaluation report said. Things that would weigh on the cost-benefit analysis were whether membership growth would slow and, if the first-home deposit subsidy becomes a significant cost in the future.

The evaluation also found KiwiSaver hadn't been successful in improving the accumulation of net wealth, although that judgment had been made over a short timeframe.

"Based on the evidence collected across the first seven years of KiwiSaver, and in particular the first 3.5 years, the success of KiwiSaver in achieving these (goals) is marginal at best," the evaluation report said.

Other limitations of the evaluation were some data coincided with the global financial crisis, the first retirees drawing on the funds weren't representative of the target, and there was a reliance on self-reported data.


8 · Got a question about this story? Leave it in Comments & Questions below.

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags

Post Comment

8 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

Scheme tax incentives only way to go. ie no tax during investment period but payment of tax on withdrawals.

  • 0
  • 0

Yes, dramatically greater investment growth over time and hopefully a flat kind of tax rate at time of withdrawal. Surely the overall govt tax take will improve from the higher economic activity generated over a fund's lifetime to compensate for the tax losses at the investment end.

I'd like to see some comparative economic modelling to help inform debate on the options

  • 0
  • 0

Yes, two key issues with Kiwisaver:

1. Tax (as others above note, let's improve this aspect as an incentive for Kiwis to save for their retirement via Kiwisaver.)

2. Expensive Kiwisaver management fees / commissions. As it stands, Kiwis who are trying to save for their retirement are having massively greater chunks of their Kiwisaver lost to management fees than other managed funds such as Vanguard funds. We need to curb the greed of Kiwisaver fund managers.

  • 0
  • 0

There are 3 things that every country in the World needs in the form of a compulsory input, controlled and run by every Government, and that is a very good Accident Compensation Scheme [Ours must be the best in the World??} a Health System and a Superannuation Scheme it's just about how they go about running it and managing it on the populations behalf. When around 7% of the population doesn't!! want to work it brings about massive problem's.
I was a Kiwisaver member until last year, my contributions and returns were very successful, but mainly due to the Govt contributions.

  • 0
  • 0

The real problem with Kiwisaver is the lack of financial literacy. People are taking it up but then they just leave it. They do not sit down with their provider and discuss if their investments suit them. The simple rule of investing time frame 20+ years growth, 10+ years Balanced 0-10 years conservative would be a huge start for many. However most choose a default scheme and then don’t. touch it. As for Tax, the money is taxed on the way in and during, it should not be taxed coming out. In retirement you need all the money you can get.

  • 0
  • 0

You get a lot more out if it is not taxed going in due to compounding benefit over the term. You lose much less on being taxed coming out, assuming the compounding benefit is allowed to be real during the term

It would be good to have the arguments reviewed on tax and superannuation, I know it's not straightforward.There was no real discussion when the Cullen scheme was introduced, just a big PR and bribery job.

The National govt hasn't wanted to review super because they are boxed in on the age for Nat super. But now Treasury are muttering about Kiwisaver at a deeper level than National's removal of the bribery aspects...

  • 0
  • 0

One useful change would be the employee and employer contribution begin sent directly to the KiwiSaver provider.

It has taken up to 6 months for my contributions to be sent to my provider, and I cannot be certain that is has all been sent to the provider.

My salary is paid monthly in one lump sum, but my KiwiSaver contributions arrive in a number of lump sums. Some being my contribution less a variable amount, some my employer contribution less a variable amount, then the interest payments from IRD, then the missing variable amounts, these can be 10c, $10. It is extremely difficult to reconcile the amounts to confirm that the deductions have been put into my KiwiSaver

IRD has made a simple process into a complex process.

The deductions should straight from the employer to the KiwiSaver provider.

  • 0
  • 0

Come on, let's all be honest ......

Kiwisaver was a scheme to prop up the financial industry here in NZ.

And.... in my opinion....

The government is using this compulsory saving scheme (near compulsory) because it cannot afford superannuation for the aging demographic, at the moment everyone retired gets superannuation, how do you think it's going to go when retiree's are sitting on thousands of dollars of liquid securities, will there then be a needs assessment for super... you bet!!!

Kiwisaver is a waste of money, sure you get a % from the gov but what is that worth in nominal terms.... jack! Look at the real inflation in NZ, it's horrendous!

Best advice - don't do kiwisaver, take whatever contribution your company would have made (less tax benifits to them) in the form of an increased wage/salary (which is most often not the choice given to NZ'ers, how convenient yeah?) ... and invest it in a fund of your own choosing. Having that money locked up till your 65, there's a reason behind it and the reason is that the government will move to needs based testing for superannuation because they can't afford to pay super to the aging population, it's math, it's logic, it's politics, it's business ;)

Disclosure - I am an Equity Research Analyst.

  • 0
  • 0

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot


Sym Price Change
USD 0.6882 0.0036 0.53%
AUD 0.9036 0.0011 0.12%
EUR 0.5822 -0.0010 -0.17%
GBP 0.5165 -0.0003 -0.06%
HKD 5.3740 0.0265 0.50%
JPY 76.5590 -0.3540 -0.46%


Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1291.9 11.700 2017-11-22T00:
Oil Brent 63.3 0.770 2017-11-22T00:
Oil Nymex 58.0 1.170 2017-11-22T00:
Silver Index 17.1 0.150 2017-11-22T00:


Symbol Open High Last %
NASDAQ 6869.5 6874.2 6862.5 0.07%
DJI 23597.2 23605.8 23590.8 -0.27%