Five political parties have now put forward KiwiSaver policies, and they're all different. National wants compulsion from 2028, a combined contribution rate of 12% by 2032, and $1,500 for every newborn. Labour would make employer contributions compulsory and ban total remuneration in new employment contracts. NZ First and Opportunity would also compel. ACT would scrap tax on KiwiSaver earnings.

I'll declare an interest upfront: Pie Funds is a KiwiSaver provider, so we have skin in this game. But that's exactly why I think getting the detail right matters more than winning the argument over compulsion itself.

So, here's where I stand on compulsion: I'm comfortable, in principle. The retirement systems the world points to as successes, usually Australia and Singapore, use some form of it and, if we're honest, voluntary savings alone was never going to get every New Zealander to a decent retirement. But it has to come with flexibility: sensible hardship settings and lower contribution options for people who can't afford the default rate. Which is why compulsion is actually the easy part of this debate. The harder question is what happens to people's money once the settings change. Getting that right beats arguing about compulsion for another three years.

The issue I feel most strongly about is the New Zealander contributing nothing. We can debate whether the right rate is 4, 5 or 6%, but that does nothing for someone putting in zero. We need to understand why people aren't contributing, whether it's affordability, employment status, long savings suspensions or plain disengagement, and design solutions for each group. There's also merit in decoupling employer and employee contributions. Today an employer only has to contribute if the employee does, so anyone who can't afford to, or takes a savings break, loses the employer money too. Separating the two would help the groups that tend to miss out. The self employed are the obvious gap, because KiwiSaver works best through payroll. ACT's tax free plan has compounding on its side, but it does nothing for someone contributing zero.

Then there's fairness. If employer contributions rise while employers can still fold KiwiSaver into "total remuneration" packages, the extra saving comes straight out of workers' pay rather than sitting on top of it. National has said it's open to considering an end to total remuneration. Good, but open to considering isn't the same as committing. Labour would ban it in all new employment contracts. I'd go further and end it for existing contracts too, with a sensible transition.

I'd also like government dollars pointed where they matter most. I like getting children started early, because 60 years of compounding is powerful. But if there's only so much to spend, I'd want to test whether $1,500 for every newborn beats supporting people who are falling behind today. That includes parents who step out of paid work to raise children, and it's the heart of the gender gap in retirement savings. National and Labour both want contributions to continue through paid parental leave, and I'd like to see that locked in whatever else changes.

Then there's staying power. New Zealanders want parties to agree on a plan that outlasts a change of government: 91% said so in recent polling commissioned by the Financial Services Council. A policy undone by the next government would do more damage than no change at all, because it costs the scheme the one thing it actually needs: trust. National and Labour already agree on more than the campaign suggests: higher employer contributions, contributions through parental leave, KiwiSaver for people working past 65. Start the framework there, signal every change early so employers, providers and savers can prepare, then leave it alone.

Where I'd urge some caution is complexity for its own sake. New decumulation products and "sidecar" savings vehicles are being talked up as the next big thing, but in my experience they're hard to execute well, and they risk distracting from the basics. New products will have their place as balances grow, but I'd rather see money and effort go into financial advice and literacy, from a young age, that people can actually get to.

None of this is about who wins in November. It's about treating retirement savings as long term infrastructure, not something to be refought every three years. The Financial Services Council's manifesto makes the same case: KiwiSaver, NZ Super, advice and capital markets are one connected system, and a trillion dollars in retirement savings by 2040 depends on all of it working. The real test, for every party, is what they do with the details and how they work together to commit to long term improvement. Get those right, agree to leave them alone, and I won't mind which government gets the credit, with bonus points for collaboration from here on in.

 

Information is current as at 27 October 2026. Pie Funds Management Limited ("Pie Funds") is the manager and issuer of the funds in the Pie Funds Management Scheme and Pie KiwiSaver Scheme (the “Schemes”), the product disclosure statements of which can be found at www.piefunds.co.nz. Any advice is given by Pie Funds and is general only. Our advice relates only to the specific financial products mentioned and does not account for personal circumstances or financial goals. Please see a financial adviser for tailored advice. You may have to pay product or other fees, like brokerage, if you act on any advice. As manager of the Schemes' investment funds, we receive fees determined by your balance and we benefit financially if you invest in our products. We manage this conflict of interest via an internal compliance framework designed to help us meet our duties to you. For information about how we can help you, our duties and complaint process and how disputes can be resolved, or to see our disclosure statement, please visit www.piefunds.co.nz. Please let us know if you would like a hard copy of this disclosure information. Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns. Returns can be negative as well as positive and returns over different periods may vary. The information is given in good faith and has been derived from sources believed to be reliable and accurate. However, neither Pie Funds nor any of its employees or directors gives any warranty of reliability or accuracy and shall not be liable for errors or omissions herein, or any loss or damage sustained by any person relying on such information, whatever the cause of loss or damage. No person, including the directors of Pie Funds, guarantees the repayment of units in the Schemes or any returns of units in the Schemes.