When a RNZ Host gets it "terribly wrong" - Re-visited

Or, Even bloggers sometimes miss the mark

.

.

On 9 July, I posted a story which referred to Afternoons’ host, Jesse Mulligan and one of his regular guests, Mary Holm. Most of the story is re-printed below, for context.

However, what followed was a short exchange of emails between myelf and Mr Mulligan. He also referred to my blogpost on his own Substack column.

His response gave me food-for-thought and I re-evaluated what I had written.

There were were questions I asked myself:

Had I been fair in my criticism of Mr Mulligan? Was it overly-critical?

Did I give enough weight to his opening counter-remarks to Ms Holm?

Was I, in fact, taking my frustrations over National’s constant undermining of Kiwisaver (and the Superannuation Fund), out on a RNZ Host who was not as invested in the issue as I was?

I leave it to Readers to make up their minds. Whilst 80% of the original blogpost remains intact here, in this Re-visitation (the Original has been “shelved”), I have changed my text after the para:

It was a forensic examination of National's less-than-stirling track record of gradual undermining and whittling away Kiwisaver's appeal. Ms Holm presented facts, figures, dates, and context - all of which are readily available on the internet to confirm.

I will also explain why, at the end.

Bear with me, please. This is the rarest-of-rarity, a Blogger’s ‘mea culpa’.

---

Original Text

With perhaps one (or maybe two) exception(s), the journalists, producers, technicians, and hosts at RNZ are folks I hold in high regard.

They have tough jobs to do - especially when trying to elicit some semblance of comprehensible answers from our robotic Prime Minister, programmed to give automated responses to warm-blooded, living humans asking some pretty basic questions.

Or from one minor party leader who has a very, very short, blue touch-paper fuse and becomes testy at the most timidly proferred question.

Or another minor party leader who is fast developing a reputation for a thin-skin, and resorting to childishly petulant retaliation when his ideas are criticised.

Jesse Mulligan is the current host of Afternoons, a magazine-style programme following the mid-day news. His mix of lifestyle, current affairs, and social issues makes for an interesting couple of hours.

One of Mr Mulligan’s regular guests is financial columnist and author, Mary Holm. Ms Holm specialises in financial literacy, giving general explanations to esoteric issues in a clear, down-to-earth manner. She is an author with several books to her name.

On 3 July, Ms Holm appeared on the Afternoons segment as usual. Her topic was Kiwisaver - a topic she has covered many times before.

What was unusual was her coverage of Kiwisaver recent history. From its inception in July 2007 - brainchild of the Fifth Labour government’s Finance Minister, Michael Cullen - to present day.

As at March last year, the total amount invested had reached a staggering NZ$111.8 billion, with 3,334,654 members.

Michael Cullen’s grand plan was to encourage New Zealanders to save for their retirement. It was obvious that superannuation alone would not only be insufficient to live on - but would be difficult to sustain as the number of retirees increased, whilst workers paying tax to fund superannuation, decreased.

Ms Holm is an enthusiastic proponent of Kiwisaver.

Getting back to her 3 July interview, Ms Holm opened with this statement*:

“I noticed, you know, around the time of the budget and all, you know, quite radical changes to KiwiSaver. And it made me just start thinking about how it's changed since it started. And then I noticed a sort of pattern coming through that the changes that have tended to make KiwiSaver less attractive to ordinary people have all happened under National-led governments.

And the ones that have tended to improve KiwiSaver have tended to happen under Labour-led governments. And I thought, gosh, I hadn't realised that before. And I think it's kind of interesting.”

“Kind of interesting” is an understatement.

“And then I noticed a sort of pattern coming through that the changes that have tended to make KiwiSaver less attractive to ordinary people have all happened under National-led governments” - even more of an understatement.

For political ‘wonks' like me, having kept a jaundiced eye on National's machinations surrounding Kiwisaver and the superannuation investment fund, “changes that have tended to make KiwiSaver less attractive to ordinary people have all happened under National-led governments” has been common knowledge.

In fact, National's tendency to erode and undermine Kiwisaver and the superannuation investment fund started way back in 1975 when then-Prime Minister, the late Rob Muldoon, scrapped a nascent, proto Kiwisaver-type superannuation investment scheme.

According to ‘Simplicity' Kiwisaver Fund founder, Sam Stubbs;

“If I was to ask the public for the worst decision ever by a New Zealand politician, I would get a wide range of answers.

And if I said the worst decision was made on December 15, 1975, few would know what I was referring to.

But few economists would disagree that Robert Muldoon’s decision to cancel the fledgling New Zealand Superannuation Scheme on that day was probably the worst financial decision ever made.

Why? Because had it continued, New Zealand would now be one of the richest countries in the world.”

Mr Stubbs said the Superannuation Scheme would now be conservatively worth an estimated, sobering NZ$500 billion.

Our future was sabotaged and it was the National Party that was responsible for that economic vandalism.

Closer to our present, in the RNZ interview, Ms Holm laid out National's track record when it came to Kiwisaver:

“And there was a government fee subsidy that was just $4...$40 a year. But, you know, that all helped. That only lasted until 2009.

[…]

Employer contributions started at 1%.

And then what Labour proposed was that they'd increase to 2% the next year, 3% the year after that, and 4% the year after that. So that was what we started with. And then came a new government in 2008, the Key government.

And so under them, the employer contributions were at 1%, and then they did go up to 2% as planned. But there was a delay until they came to 3%. It wasn't as quickly as previously planned.

And they cancelled the move to 4%.

[…]

And then we had, in 2012, under a National-led government, the employer contribution started to be taxed. Before that, it wasn't.

[…]

And then the government contribution halved in 2012 [from $1,042 to $521]. And then in 2015, the $1,000 kickstart was removed. And at the end of the KiwiSaver Home Grant in 2024, they were all under National-led governments.

[…]

Because I suspect those who aren't in it tend to be lower income people and worse off people in general. So that was a real pity. And the end of the KiwiSaver First Home Grant, which was up to $5,000 or $10,000 on a new build.

[…]

And then looking at the good changes before this year, in 2018, these are under Labour-led government. Now, they're not, they don't tend to be major things, but they're all good things.

In 2018, annual statements were required so that everyone in KiwiSaver round about this time of the year actually gets a statement from their KiwiSaver provider, telling them various information about how well they've done. And in 2020, that was improved so that now everybody gets an estimate of how much they're likely to have at 65 and how many dollars per week they're likely to be in retirement. And I think those are really good changes because they give people a realistic idea of where they're heading.

And then there were a few other changes that aren't as significant, but one that is very significant to some people. 2021, people with life-shortening congenital conditions were allowed to withdraw KiwiSaver before 65, which would be a big deal for them. And in 2021, default funds were changed from conservative to balanced.

[…]

And then along comes the 2025 budget. And I won't go into this in detail, but the government contribution has been halved again.

So it started at $1,042 and now it's down to just $261 for every dollar you put in up to $1,042, you get 25 cents now.”

Any changes by National which could be viewed as ‘positive' were minor, as Ms Holm demonstrated;

“There was a good change in getting 16 and 17-year-olds, giving them more breaks in KiwiSaver, getting the government contribution, et cetera, and employer contributions from next April. Employee contributions have increased under the budget changes, but that's not something the government's doing.

That's something they're pushing ordinary people to do, rising from three and a half to three and a half and then 4%.

[…]

And your employer will be putting more money in. But...And so that's a plus, if the employer's going to be putting more money in, but the government acknowledged that employers are most likely, most of them will probably just not give people such big pay rises to make up for the fact that they have to put more into KiwiSaver. So that was even acknowledged by the government.”

Ms Holm concluded her assessment of National's ‘tinkering' with Kiwisaver as part of the 2025 Budget;

“And self-employed people and non-employees were just sort of straight losers in the 2025 budget. So when the Retirement Commission had a look at these 2025 changes, I thought there were a couple of interesting conclusions. They said the changes should increase retirement savings for 80% of contributing members.

So people will end up with more money because they and their employer are putting in more. But that was the 80%. But the other 20% who won't do well out of the changes, and this is an interesting list, they include low income earners, self-employed, many women, Maori and Pacific people.

So people that I would have thought we really want to encourage to get decent retirement savings built up, aren't going to benefit as much as the rest of society from these changes in the budget. So it's, Jane Wrightson, the Retirement Commissioner, said she would have liked to see some of the government savings go to that group of people.”

It was a forensic examination of National's less-than-stirling track record of gradual undermining and whittling away Kiwisaver's appeal. Ms Holm presented facts, figures, dates, and context - all of which are readily available on the internet to confirm.

Jesse Mulligan addressed her points with these counter-arguements

“Could I observe, Mary, perhaps on behalf of listeners who are keener on the National Party than the Labour Party, they might like to make the point that the National Party made these changes because they traditionally spend less in government. They're looking for ways to spend less. And maybe in the 2025 changes, they were forced to spend less because of mismanagement of the government before them.

[…]

And perhaps emphasise the personal responsibility of people to save themselves rather than being paternalistically encouraged by the government.”

---

Re-visited & Re-worked

Firstly, whilst Ms Holm presented her points factually - I took Mr Mulligan’s rebuttal as little more than ‘reckons’. Her factual assessment of figures, dates, context made her assessment hard to refute.

Secondly, suggesting that National “traditionally spend less in government” was - in my view - simplistic and ignored billions spent on tax cuts (often requiring massive borrowings).

There are also critics from the Right and corporate sector that Minister Willis has actually spent more than the previous Labour government.

On 22 May this year, just after Minister Willis’ 2025 Budget, Nick Stewart, Financial Adviser and CEO at Stewart Group, stated;

“Despite claims of "brutal cuts," the reality is government spending continues to rise. The perception that Nicola Willis is cutting spending is far from accurate - both as a percentage of the economy and in inflation-adjusted terms, spending is actually higher than when the previous government left office.”

From the Atlas Network-aligned, rightwing astroturf group, the so-called Taxpayers “Union”;

The “Growth Budget" is a fudge. It was supposed to do three things: tackle overspending, get on top of the deficit, and ‘go for growth’. It's failed all three.

Spending continues to explode

In opposition, Nicola Willis described Labour’s Grant Robertson as having an “addiction to spending”. But Budget 2025 continues to increase Core Crown spending compared to the current year both in nominal terms and as a percentage of the economy!

So while it benefits National to perpetuate a common-but-questionable narrative that they are a “prudent fiscal manager" - history (both recent and last century) shows this is arguable, at best. There are simply too many instances where National governments have prioritised tax cuts over infrastructure; roads over rotting/crumbling hospital buildings; under-funding front-line services, whether they be healthcare workers, police, et al.

The iReX Ferry debacle is simply the most recent in a long series.

Thirdly, Mr Mulligan's suggestion that National “emphasise[s] the personal responsibility of people to save themselves rather than being paternalistically encouraged by the government” is also contestable. National’s willingness to open up Kiwisaver to pay for rental bonds or farmers to buy farms, stock, and tractors speaks not of supporting “people to save for themselves”, but to bribing New Zealanders with their own money, at the expense of their future selves.

Allowing people to “raid” their Kiwisaver accounts is a form of “theft from your future self”. It's also an example of National “kicking the can down the road” for short-term electoral gain (votes).

---

Conclusion

When I wrote the very first draft of ‘When a RNZ Host gets it terribly wrong’, I waited for a response from RNZ. Having sent it to their Media Department would give them an opportunity to respond and offer their views. None was forthcoming.

In retrospect I should have emailed it directly to Jesse. First error.

However, the intervening 24 hours gave me an opportunity to perhaps ‘cool my jets’ and re-consider what I had originally written. I made a few changes.

I still had a feeling, which I mentioned in passing to a commentator, that for some unquantifiable reason I had niggly qualms about publishing my piece. Something just felt ‘off’ - but couldn’t quite pinpoint it.

So, to borrow a common phrase used in the media, I decided to Publish and be damned. Or is that Publish and damn the torpedoes?

In retrospect I should have listened to my misgivings and taken more time to consider my words. Second error.

I also failed to consider that the trenchant criticism I meted out to Mr Mulligan (in my original piece) was usually of a critical style I reserve for National/Act/NZFirst politicians; religious quacks; autocrats/fascists like Trump, Putin, et al, and local rightwing, National-adjacent, media commentators like Mike Hosking and Heather du Plessis-Allan.

In no way can Mr Mulligan be considered part of that group. His Afternoons programme is more “magazine”-style, rather than hard current affairs like Q+A. His chatty, personable style is closer to, say, Jim Mora, than Kathryn Ryan, Jack Tame, or Kim Hill.

So his attempt at ‘balance' by pointing out;

“Could I observe, Mary, perhaps on behalf of listeners who are keener on the National Party than the Labour Party, they might like to make the point that the National Party made these changes because…”

-- could have been phrased better, or even a suggestion made that a Government minister would be invited at a later stage to offer their countering views. It simply hasn't been a scenario that has presented itself on his “lighter-style” show up until this moment.

The sole responsibility for Kiwisaver and NZ Super being continually pared-back can be sheeted home squarely to successive National governments - and perhaps those misguided New Zealanders who voted for them. National - the Party of personal responsibility - cannot escape it's track record. Ms Holm made that patently clear with her forensic examination of that record.

The frustration of decades of National's undermining of Kiwisaver (and NZ Super scheme) boiled to the surface and instead of “laser-focusing” on the Nats - I took it out on the Afternoons host. Third error.

Sorry, Jesse, my aim was way of the mark.

Memo to self: don't ignore my ‘inner voice’. Do better.

.

* POSTSCRIPT:

Transcripts from the Mulligan-Holm interview have been made using the ‘Turboscribe’ website. The initial transcription, using AI, was surprisingly mostly accurate, but with some minor flaws. Most of these flaws have been corrected, but readers are encouraged to listen to the interview directly.

* POSTSCRIPT2:

A copy of this version of my blogpost was emailed to Jesse Mulligan at about 2.15PM, 17 July, for comment. He replied about half an hour later, declining to comment further. Fair enough.

.

References

Website: Mary Holm

Mary Holm: Something About Mary

RNZ: Afternoons - Your Money with Mary Holm - Helping or Hindering Kiwisaver

Wikipedia: KiwiSaver

Financial Markets Authority: Kiwisaver Annual Report 2024

Stuff: The worst decision by a New Zealand politician, ever

Beehive: KiwiSaver contributions to increase from 1 April (2013)

Stewart Group: Budget 2025 - Rhetoric vs Reality - will "Going For Growth" deliver?

Taxpayers “Union”: From the Beehive Lock-up - National deliver another Labour Party Budget

Scoop: National Will Let KiwiSaver Be Used For Rent Bonds

Federated Farmers: Government must deliver on KiwiSaver promise for young farmers

Turboscribe: ymon-20250703-1510-your money with mary holm - helping or hindering kiwisaver-192

Additional

NZ Herald: How Muldoon threw away NZ's wealth (2007)

Stuff: Compulsory super 'would be worth $278b' (2014)

NZ Herald: The 'worst' economic decision New Zealand Government ever made (2022)

Interest.co.nz: Superannuation has several attractive features, it also has several serious downsides that disproportionately affect younger people (2024)

Other Blogs

Nick's Kōrero: The Red Flag

Previous related blogposts

Free Speech, done Newshub-style

The Virus, the Media, and John Key

When The Media Gets It Stunningly Bad

Media ramming crime down our throats?

The Votes That Media Dare Not Speak Its Name

Special Votes - the Media's Blindspot

BS, damned BS, and media reporting statistical BS

Untold back-stories: the little things media don't tell us but which are nevertheless pertinent

Has this country's media lost its collective mind?

.

Acknowledgement: Michael Moreu

.

Liked what you read? Feel free to share.

Have your own thoughts? Leave a comment. (Trolls and conspiracists need not bother.)

.

= fs =