I've always noticed how National has undermined KiwiSaver from the beginning. I remember, as a child, one of my parents biggest annoyances of Robert Muldoon was him canning the Superannuation Scheme in 1975. Nicola Willis is absolutely clueless. She is nothing as a Finance Minister compared to Sir Michael Cullen or Grant Robertson, not even equal to one of their little toe nails clippings. She isn't even comparable to Sir Bill English's little finger as a Finance Minister, and I don't rate him highly either.
Totally agree with you - I too was 'gob-smacked' when I heard Jessie trot out that clap-trap straight from the National play-book. Unbelievable - I assumed that staff had received the hard word from management to not 'bag' the Government. I was really disappointed to hear it. Sounded like Mary was too.
I had to re-listen to it, Joanna, to make sure I had heard it correctly. Indeed I had.
And the thing - as Sally Hughes pointed out below - if it had been OPINION, his response might hav e been fair. But Ms Holm's analysis wasn't opinion, it was well researched facts, figures, dates, and context.
I'm not sure if I'm sorry I didn't hear Mulligan's content or not. I usually have RNZ on all day but missed that one. If I had heard his feeble reckons/balance whatever I'd have been apoplectic. He is a lightweight anyway but I see now he's also a plonker. My take is that he'd have had his producer in his ear telling him to make some sort of counter argument. With half a brain he'd know that Mary Holm's comments were historically accurate. The Muldoon act back in 1975 was economic vandalism of the highest order. Thanks for informing me of this FM.
"Mary Holm's comments were historically accurate" - Yup, it takes about ten or fifteen minutes to find the relevant info on the internet. It's easy stuff to find.
I am dismayed that @jessiemulligan would let himself down so badly and resort to right wing spin in such an egregious way. If Mary’s piece had been opinion it may have needed ‘balancing’ but it was facts, plain and simple.
And of course, he could easily have invited the relevant Minister to appear on his show either at the same time, or the following day. That's normal protocol, as far as I'm aware.
Sorry Melanie, I don't think Nicola Willis is clueless. I also don't think the government is clueless. I think all of these things are very deliberate, and calculated to achieve a particular end.
I think theres an implicit assumption that governments are trying to make NZ a better place, with ideological differences. I think this government is most definitely not trying to make NZ a better place, and are very calculated and deliberate about it.
jesse@rnz.co.nz perhaps everyone else would like to do the same. Flood the market. Just heard them snearing about Jacindas new book, and the fact that it is a best seller, over 10k in NZ alone. Well done her.
Apart from governments tinkering with contributions and taxes, I'm also interested in where my Kiwisaver contributions actually go. And it seems mainly to these gargantuan funds that invest in all sorts of nefarious activities. When I first returned to full-time work in the early 2000s, I started with Fisher Fund, who were the default provider for where I worked. After a change of location and job and a bit of detail on what Fisher invested in, I made the change to the Kiwibank fund, which had acquired Gareth Morgan's fund. Bless him and his views sometimes, but he at least took steps to invest ethically, and not in military and petrochemical industries, which put me slightly more at ease. A few years on, and I find myself getting statements from Fisher Fund again (and showing that the investment is going backwards I might add) with them having swallowed up the Kiwibank fund. So am I back to what I would consider unethical investing on my behalf? To be honest, because I have had to get by on casual or part-time work few years, most of it only at living wage, my Kiwisaver has not swelled to a massive amount, but I'd like to take the opportunity in the last few years before I can hopefully retire to swap to a more ethical fund, or one that at least contributes to well-being in this country, rather than the military-industrial complex in other countries (and used for attacking other countries). Anyone with experience of a good, ethical and environmentally friendly Kiwisaver fund?
There is (and has been for at least 5 years) something rotten going on at RNZ. Or maybe even further back - remember the Claire Curran crucifixion when she went nosing about…
I couldn't figure out what all the fuss was about. This govt has done as much, and worse, interfering with ministry and agency affairs.
One example was when Mental Health Minister Doocey DIRECTED MoH to keep the Suicide Prevention Agency open:
""The closure of the Suicide Prevention Office has not been raised with me and I have spoken with the Director-General of Health to make my expectations clear that the office will remain open and that the suicide prevention work programme will continue."
Usually the Tories frame it with the nifty, legalese phrase "Letter of Expectations". (Note to Labour/Greens/Te Pāti Māori.)
I’m comfortable that in context most people listening will have taken my preface “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…” as an indicator that I was putting the devil’s advocate position rather than my own position to Mary, particularly as the previous few minutes could to many listeners have seemed like an unchallenged endorsement of the Labour Party.
I’m happy for you to disagree that I made that point clearly enough.
My own observation is that it’s better for a host to raise an objection like this and have it answered than to let people at home wonder about it to themselves. Again, happy for you to disagree with me on this point.
I also concede that a hastily formed argument in the middle of a live radio interview may result in a slightly clumsier construction than, say, a well-considered Substack analysis. Congrats on an interesting and largely well-researched post.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. It would be akin to "jumping into the Lion's Den", in some ways.
The relevant portion of your intro to respond to Ms Holm was:
“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.”
(Hopefully accurate, as it was transcribed by AI.)
I think my response to your comment (in the main body of text above, plus responses to various commentators) gives a fairly clear outline what my main "gripes" were to this segment of the Holm Interview. Having lived through the Muldoon years and then watched successive National administrations whittle away Kiwisaver - it gives me some long-term insights as to what's been going on. (Maybe I need a hobby...?)
In my 'umble opinion, National simply didn't deserve your fairness in trying to present "the other side". Not when Ms Holm's facts spoke for themselves. (Kinda like presenting the "other side" to Global Warming/Climate Change - we're way past that now.)
Having said that, you make a fair point: "that a hastily formed argument in the middle of a live radio interview may result in a slightly clumsier construction than, say, a well-considered Substack analysis".
Not worried about the Lion's Den! Any semi-public figure who survived 2010s Twitter will find Substack comments a warm bath by comparison. I just want to make sure you and I agree what we're disagreeing on. In my view if we assume National Party voters broadly agree with their party's actions in government (notwithstanding the apparent unpopularity of the most recent changes) we have to understand what their argument would be for "cutting" Kiwisaver. If it's not saving on govt expenses as per the centre-right self image and prioritising a different (individualistic) approach to retirement I'd be interested in what the steel man argument is. If I understand you right, you're saying that justifying (repeated) cuts to Kiwisaver is as indefensible as justifying climate change (perhaps not that bad but bad enough that it is a fool's errand). You may be right but 30 to 40% of (tax paying, RNZ funding) voters disagree with you. What is the best way of representing them on air, or should we judge them deluded and not worthy of having their views represented? This is a rhetorical question to explain my own thinking on the matter, but interested in your views.
I'm not sure if we can safely "assume National Party voters broadly agree with their party's actions in government" or "we have to understand what their argument would be for "cutting" Kiwisaver". I've yet to see polling stats on that issue.
But regardless of that assumption, it doesn't negate Mary Holm's assessment that National tends to cut Kiwisaver entitlements, whilst Labour-led administrations generally tend to make them more attractive.
How National Party supporters see those differences would, I assume, vary. Twenty Nat supporters in a room would profer 20 different views, with maybe some commonalities. (And that's not even factoring in "swing" voters.)
Suggesting that cutting Kiwisaver is "saving on govt expenses as per the centre-right self image and prioritising a different (individualistic) approach to retirement" ignores the multi-billion dollar elephant in the room: tax cuts.
It has not been a coincidence that slashing Kiwisaver - as Ms Holm described with unerring accuracy - has occurred at he same time as National's multi-billion dollar taxcuts in 2010 and last year:
Once may have been a coincidence. Twice is a pattern.
Whether "30 to 40% of (tax paying, RNZ funding) voters disagree with you" is hardly relevant when scrutinising the behaviour-patterns of a Party whilst in government. If we do that, we should also factor in parties like Greens, NZ First, and Act. (Though the latter is practically gorging itself on media coverage at present. That was David Seymour burping on media gluttony, in case anyone wondered.)
What matters are the facts that Ms Holm presented with deadly accuracy. Instead of media hosts trying to engage in "bothsidism", it's a refreshing change that we get this kind of scrutiny. As “Texas Spectator” journalist, Hubert Mewhinney, is reputed to have written (?):
"It was designed as a criticism of the then current attitude of Texas newspapers—that you quote what the man says, and that’s all.
“If Jimmy Allred says it’s raining, and W. Lee O’Daniel [two Texas politicians in 1940s] says it isn’t raining.” Mewhinney wrote. “Texas newspapermen quote them both, and don’t look out the window to see which is lying, and to tell the readers what the truth is at the moment”."
There are varying versions of that quote.
Jesse, you asked me "What is the best way of representing them on air, or should we judge them deluded and not worthy of having their views represented?"
"Deluded" is a subjective, emotive-laden term. But it could be argued that slashing government revenue whilst expecting the same levels of State services, is wishful thinking at best. The same could be said of Kiwisaver, and National's actions in this area are pretty clear for anyone to see.
If you wanted to represent their views, the traditional way to do it is invite the relevant Minister to appear on you show and interview them. Put Ms Holm's facts & figures to your government guest and let them respond. (Guyon Espiner does good work with his "30" format.)
I’m glad you didn’t decide to dump it - it’s very informative. It clearly illustrates via Mary’s analysis and your knowledge the positive track record of Labour implementing and enhancing Kiwi Saver verse National that has seen regression occur!
If there was ever an area to be concerned about its retirement and prudently if people can be encouraged to invest for their retirement eg through Kiwi Saver. I believe Government should be doing everything it can do to enhance Kiwi Saver so people can lead financially sustainable lives in retirement.
In many areas Govt is paternalist to develop overarching positions on our lives and things that impact on our lives that not only benefits the individual but benefits society.
In the absence of that paternalistic approach the individual is impacted upon and society is often burdened with the consequences.
I was appalled by Jessie’s comments - quite surprised really as I didn’t think he had a disposition to the ‘Right.’
Thanks for attempting to hold Jessie and RNZ to account!
My jaw dropped. Jesse Mulligan was not only factually wrong but in light of Mary’s succinct and correct summary completely fatuous and showed his true colours.
Thank you for another informative post Frank. Anyone, including partisan commentators like Mulligan, wanting facts on the financial state of the country could not do better than plug into Craig Renney and his detailed information and analysis. No wonder Willis didn't want him at the Budget lock up.
Jesse really tries to be Mr NiceGuy but his comments on this and in particular Cnutgate indicate that unless the subject is cooking or music he openly supports the Coalition Line - unless it's really impossible to do so - and then he's silent. It's hardly an interview if he uses his own airtime to rebut rather than probe or even add to the discussion.
Afternoons has become a couple of hours of sometimes interesting but never challenging blah blah - often difficult to continue to find him entertaining - or nice. I suppose Mary Holm will be receiving an Open Letter any day now.
Mulligan displays a typical privelaged up bringing, so I'm not terribly surprised.
I've always thought kiwisaver was a bit of a rort, because low income earners will have low savings, so when a govt deems everybody has savings and can reduce the pension the poor will still be seriously disadvantaged.
When it was first introduced the accountant I used, held a seminar held by ANZ bank. I nearly got tossed out when I questioned the fee structure, which is based on how much money you have saved, rather than how much money the manager earns for you. The real winners in this scheme are the money managers.
Mullion is the real criminal here. When I first started work I paid a compulsory, one and six in the pound (8%) into the universal pension fund. Mullion shifted all these funds into the govt coffers.
"Mullion"? Do you mean "Muldoon"? (I blame bl00dy spellchecker!! It will be the death of human civilisation!)
I recall the old PAYE forms given out by IRD. They had a line printed on it (going from memory) that "8% would go to New Zealand superannuation". (Not the Cullen scheme, to be clear.)
I too heard Jesse’s comments and was surprised. Gary Payinda’s comments re anticipatory compliance also came to mind with RNZ cuts in budgets and negative commentary from senior politicians. The lack of guts from successive governments to bite the bullet and make superannuation compulsory has been a tragedy of giant proportions. This is one issue that needs to have cross party agreement and be ring fenced in the future to prevent reactive and reactionary responses from right wing coalition governments.
This is what is meant when National is accused of undermining Kiwisaver.
"Robbing" Kiwisaver to pay for bonds, farming assets, and god knows what else is a sign of deep-rooted problems within our society. So deep that people are looking at reaching into their future retirement savings to pay for here-and-now necessities.
And it's all for short-term political gain: winning votes.
Yes, and as a person now in retirement I am very pleased to have a reasonable KiwiSaver balance. It is so important to save for the future and KiwiSaver could/should have been the answer. In Australia I think individual and employer contributions are up to 12% (or more) which is fantastic. We just haven’t had the guts to withstand the first few years of opposition and moaning before it just becomes accommodated and BAU prevails. Governments are short term and so are many people in Aotearoa, so the benefits can’t be seen and don’t accrue. So sad.
Our Australian cuzzies started their superannuation funds in 1991. More like our NZ Super Investment Fund than Kiwisaver, but still, this:
"There's $4.2 trillion (NZ$4.6 trillion) of members' money under management in superannuation," said Mary Delahunty, chief executive of peak body the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA).
"That makes Australia one of the top investors in the world."
ASFA's new study suggests compulsory super has boosted household savings by more than $500 billion (NZ$550b) and is reducing the government's need to pay for the age pension - the main income support for older people.
It means Australians are spending vastly less than many other countries to give people a better retirement."
This is what National, since Muldoon in 1975, have been consistantly undermining.
I call it economic vandalism. Or sabotage, take your pick.
I've always noticed how National has undermined KiwiSaver from the beginning. I remember, as a child, one of my parents biggest annoyances of Robert Muldoon was him canning the Superannuation Scheme in 1975. Nicola Willis is absolutely clueless. She is nothing as a Finance Minister compared to Sir Michael Cullen or Grant Robertson, not even equal to one of their little toe nails clippings. She isn't even comparable to Sir Bill English's little finger as a Finance Minister, and I don't rate him highly either.
Nailed it,Melanie. Nothing more I can add to your comment.
Totally agree with you - I too was 'gob-smacked' when I heard Jessie trot out that clap-trap straight from the National play-book. Unbelievable - I assumed that staff had received the hard word from management to not 'bag' the Government. I was really disappointed to hear it. Sounded like Mary was too.
I had to re-listen to it, Joanna, to make sure I had heard it correctly. Indeed I had.
And the thing - as Sally Hughes pointed out below - if it had been OPINION, his response might hav e been fair. But Ms Holm's analysis wasn't opinion, it was well researched facts, figures, dates, and context.
I do hope RNZ receives many complaints about Jessie’s comment.
Or at least clarification?
I presented a draft of this story to RNZ, in case Jesse Mulligan wanted to clarify his statements. But none was forthcoming.
I just sent it straight to Jessie. I mean wtaf.
I'm not sure if I'm sorry I didn't hear Mulligan's content or not. I usually have RNZ on all day but missed that one. If I had heard his feeble reckons/balance whatever I'd have been apoplectic. He is a lightweight anyway but I see now he's also a plonker. My take is that he'd have had his producer in his ear telling him to make some sort of counter argument. With half a brain he'd know that Mary Holm's comments were historically accurate. The Muldoon act back in 1975 was economic vandalism of the highest order. Thanks for informing me of this FM.
You're welcome, Robbo.
"Mary Holm's comments were historically accurate" - Yup, it takes about ten or fifteen minutes to find the relevant info on the internet. It's easy stuff to find.
I am dismayed that @jessiemulligan would let himself down so badly and resort to right wing spin in such an egregious way. If Mary’s piece had been opinion it may have needed ‘balancing’ but it was facts, plain and simple.
Precisely.
And of course, he could easily have invited the relevant Minister to appear on his show either at the same time, or the following day. That's normal protocol, as far as I'm aware.
Sorry Melanie, I don't think Nicola Willis is clueless. I also don't think the government is clueless. I think all of these things are very deliberate, and calculated to achieve a particular end.
I think theres an implicit assumption that governments are trying to make NZ a better place, with ideological differences. I think this government is most definitely not trying to make NZ a better place, and are very calculated and deliberate about it.
So ... much much worse than clueless :-(
Ye gods, if Ms 'Noboats' Willis isn't clueless, but is deliberately engaging in some kind of misguided agenda - I think that makes it even worse.
Either way, it's costing us dearly.
I've just forwarded your missive to.
jesse@rnz.co.nz perhaps everyone else would like to do the same. Flood the market. Just heard them snearing about Jacindas new book, and the fact that it is a best seller, over 10k in NZ alone. Well done her.
Thanks, John. *thumbs up*
Apart from governments tinkering with contributions and taxes, I'm also interested in where my Kiwisaver contributions actually go. And it seems mainly to these gargantuan funds that invest in all sorts of nefarious activities. When I first returned to full-time work in the early 2000s, I started with Fisher Fund, who were the default provider for where I worked. After a change of location and job and a bit of detail on what Fisher invested in, I made the change to the Kiwibank fund, which had acquired Gareth Morgan's fund. Bless him and his views sometimes, but he at least took steps to invest ethically, and not in military and petrochemical industries, which put me slightly more at ease. A few years on, and I find myself getting statements from Fisher Fund again (and showing that the investment is going backwards I might add) with them having swallowed up the Kiwibank fund. So am I back to what I would consider unethical investing on my behalf? To be honest, because I have had to get by on casual or part-time work few years, most of it only at living wage, my Kiwisaver has not swelled to a massive amount, but I'd like to take the opportunity in the last few years before I can hopefully retire to swap to a more ethical fund, or one that at least contributes to well-being in this country, rather than the military-industrial complex in other countries (and used for attacking other countries). Anyone with experience of a good, ethical and environmentally friendly Kiwisaver fund?
I’m in Boosted in a high risk ethical fund.
There is (and has been for at least 5 years) something rotten going on at RNZ. Or maybe even further back - remember the Claire Curran crucifixion when she went nosing about…
I couldn't figure out what all the fuss was about. This govt has done as much, and worse, interfering with ministry and agency affairs.
One example was when Mental Health Minister Doocey DIRECTED MoH to keep the Suicide Prevention Agency open:
""The closure of the Suicide Prevention Office has not been raised with me and I have spoken with the Director-General of Health to make my expectations clear that the office will remain open and that the suicide prevention work programme will continue."
Usually the Tories frame it with the nifty, legalese phrase "Letter of Expectations". (Note to Labour/Greens/Te Pāti Māori.)
Hi Frank thanks, I enjoyed your analysis!
I’m comfortable that in context most people listening will have taken my preface “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…” as an indicator that I was putting the devil’s advocate position rather than my own position to Mary, particularly as the previous few minutes could to many listeners have seemed like an unchallenged endorsement of the Labour Party.
I’m happy for you to disagree that I made that point clearly enough.
My own observation is that it’s better for a host to raise an objection like this and have it answered than to let people at home wonder about it to themselves. Again, happy for you to disagree with me on this point.
I also concede that a hastily formed argument in the middle of a live radio interview may result in a slightly clumsier construction than, say, a well-considered Substack analysis. Congrats on an interesting and largely well-researched post.
Hi Jesse,
Thank you for taking the time to respond. It would be akin to "jumping into the Lion's Den", in some ways.
The relevant portion of your intro to respond to Ms Holm was:
“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.”
(Hopefully accurate, as it was transcribed by AI.)
I think my response to your comment (in the main body of text above, plus responses to various commentators) gives a fairly clear outline what my main "gripes" were to this segment of the Holm Interview. Having lived through the Muldoon years and then watched successive National administrations whittle away Kiwisaver - it gives me some long-term insights as to what's been going on. (Maybe I need a hobby...?)
In my 'umble opinion, National simply didn't deserve your fairness in trying to present "the other side". Not when Ms Holm's facts spoke for themselves. (Kinda like presenting the "other side" to Global Warming/Climate Change - we're way past that now.)
Having said that, you make a fair point: "that a hastily formed argument in the middle of a live radio interview may result in a slightly clumsier construction than, say, a well-considered Substack analysis".
Not worried about the Lion's Den! Any semi-public figure who survived 2010s Twitter will find Substack comments a warm bath by comparison. I just want to make sure you and I agree what we're disagreeing on. In my view if we assume National Party voters broadly agree with their party's actions in government (notwithstanding the apparent unpopularity of the most recent changes) we have to understand what their argument would be for "cutting" Kiwisaver. If it's not saving on govt expenses as per the centre-right self image and prioritising a different (individualistic) approach to retirement I'd be interested in what the steel man argument is. If I understand you right, you're saying that justifying (repeated) cuts to Kiwisaver is as indefensible as justifying climate change (perhaps not that bad but bad enough that it is a fool's errand). You may be right but 30 to 40% of (tax paying, RNZ funding) voters disagree with you. What is the best way of representing them on air, or should we judge them deluded and not worthy of having their views represented? This is a rhetorical question to explain my own thinking on the matter, but interested in your views.
I'm not sure if we can safely "assume National Party voters broadly agree with their party's actions in government" or "we have to understand what their argument would be for "cutting" Kiwisaver". I've yet to see polling stats on that issue.
But regardless of that assumption, it doesn't negate Mary Holm's assessment that National tends to cut Kiwisaver entitlements, whilst Labour-led administrations generally tend to make them more attractive.
How National Party supporters see those differences would, I assume, vary. Twenty Nat supporters in a room would profer 20 different views, with maybe some commonalities. (And that's not even factoring in "swing" voters.)
Suggesting that cutting Kiwisaver is "saving on govt expenses as per the centre-right self image and prioritising a different (individualistic) approach to retirement" ignores the multi-billion dollar elephant in the room: tax cuts.
It has not been a coincidence that slashing Kiwisaver - as Ms Holm described with unerring accuracy - has occurred at he same time as National's multi-billion dollar taxcuts in 2010 and last year:
2010 - tax cuts
2011 - Government contribution $1042 cut to $521
REF: https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/fact-sheet-%E2%80%93-kiwisaver-changes
On top of which, the National government scrapped the KiwiSaver $1,000 kick-start payment in 2015.
Nearly a decade later;
2024/25 - tax cuts
May 2025 - $521 cut to $260.72
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/budget-2024-tax-calculator-see-how-tax-cuts-affect-you-and-whats-in-it-for-you/CTMRUYLIL5GPTAMUZVYDB7VJPA/
Once may have been a coincidence. Twice is a pattern.
Whether "30 to 40% of (tax paying, RNZ funding) voters disagree with you" is hardly relevant when scrutinising the behaviour-patterns of a Party whilst in government. If we do that, we should also factor in parties like Greens, NZ First, and Act. (Though the latter is practically gorging itself on media coverage at present. That was David Seymour burping on media gluttony, in case anyone wondered.)
What matters are the facts that Ms Holm presented with deadly accuracy. Instead of media hosts trying to engage in "bothsidism", it's a refreshing change that we get this kind of scrutiny. As “Texas Spectator” journalist, Hubert Mewhinney, is reputed to have written (?):
"It was designed as a criticism of the then current attitude of Texas newspapers—that you quote what the man says, and that’s all.
“If Jimmy Allred says it’s raining, and W. Lee O’Daniel [two Texas politicians in 1940s] says it isn’t raining.” Mewhinney wrote. “Texas newspapermen quote them both, and don’t look out the window to see which is lying, and to tell the readers what the truth is at the moment”."
There are varying versions of that quote.
Jesse, you asked me "What is the best way of representing them on air, or should we judge them deluded and not worthy of having their views represented?"
"Deluded" is a subjective, emotive-laden term. But it could be argued that slashing government revenue whilst expecting the same levels of State services, is wishful thinking at best. The same could be said of Kiwisaver, and National's actions in this area are pretty clear for anyone to see.
If you wanted to represent their views, the traditional way to do it is invite the relevant Minister to appear on you show and interview them. Put Ms Holm's facts & figures to your government guest and let them respond. (Guyon Espiner does good work with his "30" format.)
Reply in full later, Jesse. (Appreciate your commenting.)
Excellent commentary Frank! I hope you are going to send your article to RNZ and Jessie Mulligan? I do hope so!
Hi Paul,
Yes, I sent the full story to RNZ's media team for comment, yesterday. I heard nothing back - not even an acknowledgement.
As a point of interest, I very rarely send a blogpost off to be commented on prior to publication. I thought RNZ deserved first look at it.
It's not a story I wanted to write, and in the 24 hours I waited for a response I actually considered dumping it.
I’m glad you didn’t decide to dump it - it’s very informative. It clearly illustrates via Mary’s analysis and your knowledge the positive track record of Labour implementing and enhancing Kiwi Saver verse National that has seen regression occur!
If there was ever an area to be concerned about its retirement and prudently if people can be encouraged to invest for their retirement eg through Kiwi Saver. I believe Government should be doing everything it can do to enhance Kiwi Saver so people can lead financially sustainable lives in retirement.
In many areas Govt is paternalist to develop overarching positions on our lives and things that impact on our lives that not only benefits the individual but benefits society.
In the absence of that paternalistic approach the individual is impacted upon and society is often burdened with the consequences.
I was appalled by Jessie’s comments - quite surprised really as I didn’t think he had a disposition to the ‘Right.’
Thanks for attempting to hold Jessie and RNZ to account!
Jesse Mulligan is on social media incl Substack, I feel like sending this to him myself.
Indeed, Lena. Jesse Mulligan has seen my story and has kindly responded here, within the Comments section.
Yes I saw that once I continued scrolling down the comments section. Good on him.
Yup. Very much so! *thumbs up*
My jaw dropped. Jesse Mulligan was not only factually wrong but in light of Mary’s succinct and correct summary completely fatuous and showed his true colours.
It certainly raised my eyebows and prompted me to put together this critique...
Thank you for another informative post Frank. Anyone, including partisan commentators like Mulligan, wanting facts on the financial state of the country could not do better than plug into Craig Renney and his detailed information and analysis. No wonder Willis didn't want him at the Budget lock up.
Jesse really tries to be Mr NiceGuy but his comments on this and in particular Cnutgate indicate that unless the subject is cooking or music he openly supports the Coalition Line - unless it's really impossible to do so - and then he's silent. It's hardly an interview if he uses his own airtime to rebut rather than probe or even add to the discussion.
Afternoons has become a couple of hours of sometimes interesting but never challenging blah blah - often difficult to continue to find him entertaining - or nice. I suppose Mary Holm will be receiving an Open Letter any day now.
Mulligan displays a typical privelaged up bringing, so I'm not terribly surprised.
I've always thought kiwisaver was a bit of a rort, because low income earners will have low savings, so when a govt deems everybody has savings and can reduce the pension the poor will still be seriously disadvantaged.
When it was first introduced the accountant I used, held a seminar held by ANZ bank. I nearly got tossed out when I questioned the fee structure, which is based on how much money you have saved, rather than how much money the manager earns for you. The real winners in this scheme are the money managers.
Mullion is the real criminal here. When I first started work I paid a compulsory, one and six in the pound (8%) into the universal pension fund. Mullion shifted all these funds into the govt coffers.
"Mullion"? Do you mean "Muldoon"? (I blame bl00dy spellchecker!! It will be the death of human civilisation!)
I recall the old PAYE forms given out by IRD. They had a line printed on it (going from memory) that "8% would go to New Zealand superannuation". (Not the Cullen scheme, to be clear.)
Absolutely correct. On both counts. Muldoon the arsehole incorporated it into the consolidated fund. So then it disappeared as a separate entity.
Thanks for your erudite efforts Frank
I too heard Jesse’s comments and was surprised. Gary Payinda’s comments re anticipatory compliance also came to mind with RNZ cuts in budgets and negative commentary from senior politicians. The lack of guts from successive governments to bite the bullet and make superannuation compulsory has been a tragedy of giant proportions. This is one issue that needs to have cross party agreement and be ring fenced in the future to prevent reactive and reactionary responses from right wing coalition governments.
"...and be ring fenced in the future to prevent reactive and reactionary responses from right wing coalition governments".
And that, Meredith, is the multi-billion dollar problem.
National has considered opening up Kiwisaver to pay for flatting bonds (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/election-2023-national-announces-policy-to-allow-students-to-dip-into-kiwisaver-for-bond-payments/M2R7MOTNHRCIPHL7HMD6NEB27Q/ ) and they're currently looking at allowing farmers at access Kiwisaver to pay for tractors and livestock (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/personal-finance/kiwisaver/nicola-willis-considers-allowing-kiwisaver-withdrawals-for-farm-purchases-critic-says-shes-opening-a-can-of-worms/QXMDLPYA4BBYFIVC6EYLDZ5V4I/ )
This is what is meant when National is accused of undermining Kiwisaver.
"Robbing" Kiwisaver to pay for bonds, farming assets, and god knows what else is a sign of deep-rooted problems within our society. So deep that people are looking at reaching into their future retirement savings to pay for here-and-now necessities.
And it's all for short-term political gain: winning votes.
Yes, and as a person now in retirement I am very pleased to have a reasonable KiwiSaver balance. It is so important to save for the future and KiwiSaver could/should have been the answer. In Australia I think individual and employer contributions are up to 12% (or more) which is fantastic. We just haven’t had the guts to withstand the first few years of opposition and moaning before it just becomes accommodated and BAU prevails. Governments are short term and so are many people in Aotearoa, so the benefits can’t be seen and don’t accrue. So sad.
Our Australian cuzzies started their superannuation funds in 1991. More like our NZ Super Investment Fund than Kiwisaver, but still, this:
"There's $4.2 trillion (NZ$4.6 trillion) of members' money under management in superannuation," said Mary Delahunty, chief executive of peak body the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA).
"That makes Australia one of the top investors in the world."
ASFA's new study suggests compulsory super has boosted household savings by more than $500 billion (NZ$550b) and is reducing the government's need to pay for the age pension - the main income support for older people.
It means Australians are spending vastly less than many other countries to give people a better retirement."
This is what National, since Muldoon in 1975, have been consistantly undermining.
I call it economic vandalism. Or sabotage, take your pick.
Ref: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/556960/australia-soon-to-be-second-in-world-for-retirement-savings-as-superannuation-pool-soars (From an ABC story.)
Brilliant analysis. RNZ needs to respond.