Workers could wear cost of National’s proposed KiwiSaver changes

*This story has been updated to correct John Pask’s name

Business leaders say workers could end up wearing the cost of KiwiSaver changes the National Party plans to bring in if it’s re-elected in November.

The party want to make the savings scheme compulsory, automatically enrol babies, pay a contribution to people on parental leave, and extend employer contributions to include workers over 65 years old.

Watch: Christopher Luxon at post-Cabinet press conference

Simplicity chief economist Shamubeel Eaqub told RNZ the impact on businesses would be “very minor” because most working people are already contributing.

“Those who are not contributing, typically they’re in low income and, quite often, in precarious or part-time work. The impact on business is likely to be very minor and at the edge.”

“The cost of employing somebody includes the cost of KiwiSaver, whether the person has KiwiSaver or not, shouldn’t matter. It’s only whether that money goes into a KiwiSaver account or into the employee’s bank account.”

He said maintaining contributions for people over 65 would make the system fairer.

“We are seeing more and more older people continuing to work and I think it’s only fair that we don’t have ageist policies that stop people getting the most benefits that their job should entail.” Eaqub said.

New Zealand-based recruitment agency Tribe Recruitment Group’s chief executive Bruce Pilbrow told RNZ smaller businesses would likely struggle with the extra cost.

“It’s one of those things that’s tricky, isn’t it? Because in some ways you can see it’s great, potentially for the future of people in New Zealand, as people can now work a lot longer than 65.

“But the real push is that there is a real cost for businesses today, and how do they factor that in as they move forward, especially when they’re employing people.”

Pilbrow said more businesses may consider total remuneration packages instead – that is, making the contribution as part of someone’s overall salary, rather than a percentage on top.

Eaqub said those kind of contracts should be banned.

“Total remuneration packages are not consistent with the aims of Kiwisaver, and the way that the policy was designed. It was not meant to be a way to underpay workers.

“We don’t have good data on it, but we know that it’s a relatively minor practice, and it’s very much about making sure that just because you are in low income, that you don’t end up having even lower income because your KiwiSaver contribution is suddenly just missing,” he said.

National said it was open to considering phasing out the practice, and finance spokesperson Nicola Willis said it would consult widely with employers and employees about it.

“The question that we want to explore more broadly, is if you were to decide that you couldn’t take that approach in future, what would the transition arrangements be for those who have already struck an employment agreement on the basis that those kinds of arrangements are permitted.”

She said the policy would have implications for people who currently had total remuneration packages because those would not have taken into account compulsion or increased contribution rates.

Willis said that would need to be worked through in government, and could require a law change.

‘No such thing as a free lunch’

Advocacy group BusinessNZ’s top economist John Pask told RNZ the extra money to pay for an increase in employee and employer contributions will have to come from somewhere.

“There’s a lot of people that are already committed to KiwiSaver, and it’s improved over the years so the idea of encouraging more savings is generally considered to be positive, but I think we’ve got to realise here there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

“If it’s 12 percent – six percent funded by the employer, six percent by the employee – given that businesses in New Zealand have to face international pressures, this could be offset by other things, whether it’s increased training, reduced training, or actual wages and salaries to pay to employees,” he said.

Pask said the “broader” issues New Zealand was facing was the increasing “unsustainable” cost of superannuation.

“We’re currently spending around about $23 billion per annum on New Zealand superannuation … by the end of the decade, it’s going to be over $30 billion.

“The real difficult issue is addressing who actually gets NZ superannuation in the future. Are you going to asset test it? Are you going to income test it?

“Irrespective of changes made to KiwiSaver, it is, I think, imperative sooner rather than later that we have to address the whole issue of the sustainability of NZ superannuation and whether it should be a universal payment or targeted,” he said.

Former National Party leader and Auckland Business Chamber chief executive Simon Bridges told RNZ that while a strong collective nest egg would make the nation wealthier, pushing minimum contributions up would be steep for some.

“Twelve percent is high and that does create real issues that shouldn’t be underplayed for individuals, self-employed, small and medium businesses.

“Right at the moment – appreciating it’s not coming in today – [there are] a series of events where the cost of living is very difficult, where cash flow, a variety of other issues the self-employed, small and medium businesses make it really… at higher contributions, that’s even tougher, that’s less money they have to, as individuals, pay down their mortgages, as business people to keep their business going and potentially grow it.

“I do think, in the long term, it makes a lot of sense but 12 percent is high,” he said.

In 2011, the previous National government rejected compulsory KiwiSaver membership with Finance minister Bill English saying it would put too much pressure financial pressure on people.

Bridges said the party’s renewed stance was a recognition of an ageing population and superannuation affordability.

“The National Party is clearly seeking to tap into a zeitgeist led by the financial services sector, but also by those concerned around ageing demographics, affordability of superannuation, and very legitimate, in fact, strong issues for a major political party to be concerned about,” he said.

Director of the Salvation Army’s social policy and parliamentary unit, Bonnie Robinson, said while the idea of supporting more people to save for their retirement was a “noble” one, the reality for many low-income earners was that that they were already struggling to meet the basics.

She said about 55 percent of children who lived in material hardship were in households where people were in employment.

“So we’ve already got a lot of people on low incomes from employment struggling day-to-day.

“To ask them to effectively reduce their income by potentially 6 percent – even if that’s phased in – they’re just not going to be able to afford it without increased support.”

Robinson said what was needed was a policy that supported people on low incomes to be able to afford to save for their retirement.