The Herald reports:

A shirtless man, wielding a garden tool, chased a bloodied woman and her crying baby down a Wellington street and assaulted her before police tasered him, causing a fall that left him with a serious head injury. 

He fell to the ground, knocked his head, and suffered a brain injury and memory loss. The police watchdog has found the three officers acted appropriately. …

She was reportedly bleeding and screaming as he was hacking at the wooden shelter with half of a hedge-trimming scissor.

When police arrived, the man was standing at a bus shelter, where the woman and baby were sitting, and he was holding the blade.

Police distracted him and the woman escaped from the bus shelter behind him, but when he noticed her running away, things escalated.

Amid the chaos, with the man shouting at police to “f*** off”, he began moving towards her.

In an effort to protect the woman, an officer shot their Taser at the man.

But that shot did not work properly, and he began ripping out the Taser cords.

He turned to face police, only 3-4 metres away, with the blade still in hand.

Two other officers at the scene both fired their Tasers at him.

His body went stiff, and he fell to the ground, hitting his head on the road, causing a brain injury.

In many countries that man would have been shot dead. He was armed with a blade, had been assaulting a woman, and refused to back down. He is lucky he only was tasered.

Haeata Community Campus’ Principal Peggy Burrows is indeed a media frequent flyer attacking the Government over everything from school meals to curriculum reforms.

It made me think that Haeata must be doing very well for the principal to have so much time to focus on school meals and the like. So I looked up their data on the Education Counts website. Here’s what it revealed:

• The school roll has dropped a massive 38% since 2017, from 908 to 566. That is an astonishing decline considering school zoning.
• Their stand down rate per 1000 students is 120, compared to an average of 32 for other composite schools. So a stand down rate 275% higher than the average.
• Their suspension rate per 1000 students is 45, compared to an average of 4.5 for other composite schools. So a stand down rate 900% higher than the average.
• Their exclusion rate per 1000 students is 23, compared to an average of 1.8 for other composite schools. So a stand down rate 1178% higher than the average.
• Only 67% of their students say until 17, compared to 84% for other schools
• Their UE pass rate is 9% vs an average 40% for other schools
• Only 4% of school leavers go on to university

It might just be me, but maybe the principal should be focusing more on student retention, discipline and achievement than school lunches?

Nicola Willis announced:

The Christchurch City Council has been selected to serve as a one-stop consenting authority for large-scale supermarket developments.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis says the new service is the latest step in the Government’s plans to make New Zealand a more attractive destination for new supermarkets.

“More supermarkets equals more competition equals lower prices. 

“Until now, new supermarket developers have faced having to deal with up to 66 different councils, 66 different processes and 66 different responses. That’s a disincentive to setting up shop here. 

“The establishment of a one-stop shop means a developer looking to build in multiple locations now only has to deal with one authority.

What I find interesting is that the Council chosen is Christchurch.

Just 11 years ago the Council was so incompetent, it actually got stripped of its consenting power. And today it is so good at consenting, it got the job to deal with nationwide consenting for supermarkets.

I’m not sure who is responsible for this change – former Crown Manager Doug Martin, or Council CEOs since then. But it impressive to go from unable to be trusted to even issue its own consents, to doing them for all of New Zealand for one sector.

A must read article by Ani O’Brien where she details all the vicious posts made by Jordan Rivers against government MPs, all while he was employed by Chris Hipkins – something he never ever disclosed.

He regularly praises Chris Hipkins, while never ever revealing he is paid by Chris Hipkins, and works for him!

By Lucy Rogers

As readers may recall, I laid a complaint into my arrest in November 2023. The Police conducted an investigation involving errors so numerous that to list them would derail this post (I’ve reached a list of 25 so far), the most serious was that the investigator misspelt Jonathan Ayling’s email address when he invited me to be interviewed and took my non-reply as an admission of guilt, which coloured his perception of all of the evidence after that. He did not make a single further effort to contact me even though the Police had my phone number and personal email address in their database. Even when footage came to light of the entire incident sans a couple of seconds at the start, the investigator was unable to see the stark contradictions with police evidence because of his biases.

What I did not know is that he is a former colleague of one of the police officers who was involved in my arrest (incidentally, one of the ones who told the most serious lies). I did not discover this until the officer in question mentioned in his statement for the civil proceedings that he had worked at one point for Police Professional Conduct i.e. the sub-department within the Police dealing with complaints about police misconduct. I made some OIA requests accordingly and discovered to my shock that the officer in question had worked for the same regional branch of PPC as the man who botched the investigation into my case, namely Waitematā PPC.

I was particularly unimpressed with the defensiveness of the OIA response, which said that the officer had not worked together on cases with the investigator but had primarily had an administrative role. Nevertheless, because two people have spoken highly to me of the investigator I reserved judgment and made a further OIA request about the size of Waitematā PPC. I was prepared to accept that if it was a large department that the investigator might simply have overlooked a conflict of interest. Accordingly in my last Kiwiblog post on my case I tried to be understanding of the investigator’s position and said in effect that I believed him to be a good man who had made mistakes in good faith.

However, two days ago I received a response to my OIA request clarifying that the Waitematā PPC team consists of four police officers at any given time, and that in the six month period during which the investigator’s employment overlapped with that of the officer who lied about me there were only nine employees in total. I was gobsmacked.

My sympathy for the investigator is now exhausted. I can overlook nearly any number of errors made in good faith, but the fact that (a) he was defensive in response to a query about a conflict of interest instead of acknowledging fault and apologising and (b) that he did not admit that the team consisted of four people (which instead I had to discover with further OIA requests) is unforgivable because it shows a lack of true remorse.

I laid a complaint to the regional superintendent about the investigation immediately following receipt of the OIA request on Thursday, and also in the same letter asked the Police to clarify whether they consider this a conflict of interest or not. I admit I’m not optimistic about them acknowledging fault, even though it’s a conflict of interest so glaring it could be seen from outer space.

Very pleased to see the Government commit to a law that will tie rates increases to a mixture of inflation and GDP. The era of local government being able to fund every pet project Councillors like is coming to an end. In future they will need to prioritise spending on core infrastructure and facilities.

But Labour and Greens are vowing to fight this law, and I am sure will get rid of it if they win the next election. This will mean Councils can go back to 20% annual rates increases. Here’s some of the increases over the last three years that Labour and Greens are vowing to allow to continue:

• Hastings 49%
• Wellington 47%
• Hutt 45%
• Napier 43%
• Hamilton 41%

So if Labour and Greens get in, expect your rates bills for the next three years to increase by 40% or more, while if National is re-elected the rates increase over three years should be no more than 12%. With households already struggling, who can afford your rates to go up by another $1,500 or more?

Labour’s policy to have taxpayers fund three GP visits a year to every NZer aged 15+ will be costly and will also make it much harder for people to see a GP.

The policy is not targeted towards low and middle income NZers. It will apply to everyone regardless of income or wealth. So every Labour MP will get taxpayer funded GP visits despite earning around $200,000 a year or more.

More concerning is that it will lead to even larger delays in actually being able to see a GP when you are sick. This is because when there is no charge for a service, people will use it more. Labour says (I have asked for independent data to verify this) that on average NZers see a GP 2.5 times a year. Well if taxpayers pay for three visits a year, you can be sure everyone will go three times a year at least, as almost no one is in perfect health and never has a concern or niggle.

With 3.6 million adults that is an extra 1.8 million visits a year. That would be a 13% increase in the number of GP visits a year. With 5,600 GPs, that would suggest an extra 720 GPs would be needed to just keep even.

So Labour’s policy will not only benefit the wealthy, rather than be targeted, it will cause people who are really sick to be unable to see a GP when they need one. This policy will make things worse, not better.

Shayne Currie writes:

Somewhat of an introvert, Simon Dallow gave a rare insight into his character on the eve of his debut as TVNZ’s 6pm newsreader almost 20 years ago.

America’s greatest newsreader, Walter Cronkite, once said: “Our job is only to hold up the mirror – to tell and show the public what has happened.”

It is a mantra that Dallow has tried to live by.

“A number of years back, I reflected on the role of newsreader in the modern environment and made a couple of commitments around that,” he told me in 2023, in an articulate refusal to be interviewed.

“As a viewer, I want to see and hear unbiased, dispassionate information that is not influenced or coloured in any way by the presenter; leaving the viewer truly free to make up their own mind.

“A newsreader’s role is essentially functional and to me is fundamentally different from the role of a presenter in almost every other sense. Overlaying celebrity on to it changes the parasocial relationship from neutral to one influenced by preference – and thus plays a subconscious role in influencing the viewer’s perspective.

I’ve only met Simon a couple of times, but he has always been extremely friendly, down to earth and approachable.

His views on the role of a newsreader are ones we need more of. To this day I have no idea of Simon’s views on anythings. He could be an ardent Greenie, or a an ACTolyte. Or he could have no strong views at all. Whatever it is, he has kept them to himself as he is a professional.

Simon has not been alone in this. I recall Lindsay Perigo as a fearsome interviewer, and he never gave out any sense of his actual opinions until after he left TVNZ, when he expressed strong libertarian views. Likewise Peter Williams and Sean Plunket were inscrutable in their political views when they worked for TVNZ and RNZ, and only later did we learn they do have opinions on various issues.

Dallow’s approach to his job is one we need more of.

The first Stuff story:

Robert Purchase says he’s applied for almost 8000 jobs over the past two years.

He’s had five interviews, but no offers.

“I’m pretty much stuck on welfare,” he said. …

But there was one thing holding him back.

Almost three decades ago, in 1997, aged 20, he was sent to prison for a string of crimes ranging from shoplifting to unlawfully carrying a weapon and assault.

At the time, Purchase said, he was “young, dumb, drunk and hanging out with the wrong people”.

He served his time and said he had not committed a crime since.

Purchase provided Stuff with a copy of his New Zealand criminal record dated till September 2024. It supported his claim that he had not been convicted of a crime in New Zealand since he was jailed in 1997.

Purchase said he had turned his life around since leaving prison. He was committed to his church and volunteered there twice a week.

This was part of an ongoing campaign by Stuff to change the Clean Slate laws so not only non-prison crimes can be “cleaned” after seven years, but so can crimes that were serious enough to get you a term of imprisonment.

And their star story was how someone who hadn’t offended for 28 years had failed to get 8,000 jobs because of a youthful mistake. This was central to their campaign.

They failed to ask him for what jobs has been doing for the past 28 years, and any proof of employment during that time. This was a mistake as this second story reveals:

We would like to clarify that Purchase was convicted of crimes overseas after being released from jail in New Zealand. In 2003, he received 25-year jail sentences in Florida for kidnap, and for carjacking with a deadly weapon. He was released in 2023 and returned to New Zealand.

That’s some clarification!!

Radio NZ reports:

“I think Te Pāti Māori has got themselves into a world of difficulty. They’re not in any fit shape to play a constructive role in the current Parliament, much less a future government,” he told RNZ head of Labour’s annual meeting in Auckland on Friday night.

“And that’s one of the reasons that we’re going to be out there to win every one of those Māori seats back at the next election. I know Māori voters want a change of government at the next election, and my message to them is, voting Labour guarantees you a change of government.”

I’m all for Labour winning all seven Māori seats. It would be excellent for NZ to not have the party under its current leadership in Parliament. The way they treat their own MPs tells you a lot about them.

However it is not right that voting Labour in the Maori seats guarantees you a change of government. If Labour wins all seven Maori seats, this will in fact help National considerably.

The October 2025 TU-Curia poll had the CL on 61 seats and CR on 59 seats. TPM had 4.4% party vote. If TPM did not win any electorate seats, that would be wasted vote and the outcome would be CL 57 seats and CR 63 seats. You would go from a Labour-led Government to a National-led Government.

Cam Slater reports on a complaint my Matt McCarten against Willie Jackson. The allegations include:

• Orchestrate the sacking of the long-serving chair of Manukau Urban Māori Authority (MUMA) after an independent review found serious bullying by the CEO – Jackson’s wife, Tania Rangiheuea.
• Personally threaten the chair with loss of his $70,000 stipend and then engineer his removal.
• Hand-pick three new board members who are either Labour Party activists or his own staff.
• Issue trespass notices against McCarten and every union representative to block collective bargaining.
• Coordinate intimidation of staff and deploy top-tier law firms to silence the sacked chair with High Court action.

What makes these allegations even more startling is that McCarten has been good mates with Willie Jackson for over 40 years. Something has gone terribly wrong if Jackson is trespassing McCarten’s union from his workplace.

If these allegations were made against a National MP, they would be a major story for days on end.

Readers will no doubt have seen the numerous stories about mouldy lunches served at Haeata Community Campus. There were multiple stories on all media platforms reporting that these mouldy meals were the result of Compass, the meal provider.

Radio NZ, and other media, failed to ask any questions at all, as it fit the narrative that the revised school lunch programme was bad that the left love. They didn’t ask:

• As many schools receive lunches from the same distributor, how is it possible that only one school received the bad lunches?
• As this particular school principal has appeared in the media with almost a dozen complaints about school lunches, why does her school seem to be so disproportionately affected by issues?
• As the principal had recently asked for an ‘exemption’ from the programme, should this claim be assessed in light of this?
• Is it possible that the meals were leftover at the school and then served?

That would have been proper journalism. But instead they did multiple stories based on this allegation, and now NZ Food Safety has advised the following:

“We have considered all possible causes.

“We think it is more than likely that the affected meals at the school had been delivered the previous Thursday, remained at the school without refrigeration, and then were accidentally re-served to students alongside fresh meals delivered on Monday. This would explain the deterioration of the meals.”

School Lunch Collective spokesperson Paul Harvey said the NZFA finding “aligns with our internal checks and with what our teams observed on the day”.

He said nine Cambro [food storage] boxes of the savoury mince and potatoes meal were delivered to Haeata Community Campus on Thursday, but records showed only eight were returned.

So it seems the school stored the meals without refrigeration for three days, served them up on Monday, and blamed Compass for their incompetence in potentially poisoning their own students. The principal did multiple media interviews saying it was the fault of Compass, rather than actually investigating what happened before blaming Compass.

I’m not sure who comes out of this looking worse – the school principal, or the media for failing to be at all sceptical of her claims.

This is not the first time it has happened. A few months ago 1 News reported the claim that a fly somehow survived being cooked in an oven and being transported for hours in a heat-contained container. As I noted they reported a literal fourth hand rumour as news.

Did they learn anything from that? No.

Most people in NZ will not have heard of Nathan Gill. Most people in the UK probably haven’t. But they should.

He was the Leader of UKIP and Reform in Wales. He was an MEP from 2014 to 2020 and also a member of the Welsh Assembly from 2016 to 2017.

He has just been sentenced to 10.5 years in prison for taking bribes, effectively on behalf of Russian interests. He took around 40,000 pounds in cash in exchange for statements that would “benefit Russia regarding events in Ukraine”.

It would be naive to think this Welsh MEP was the only person in Europe on the take from Putin.

A former colleague, Gawain Towler writes:

I remember vividly when Nathan first started raising questions about Ukraine in the European Parliament. This was around 2018, as tensions simmered between Kyiv and Moscow. In my role as UKIP’s comms chief, I gave him a proper rollicking, our party’s focus was Brexit and the UK, not meddling in Eastern European geopolitics. It was completely outside our purview, a distraction that could dilute our message and alienate supporters. 

But Nathan countered smoothly, framing it as a matter of freedom of speech, defending the right to question narratives about press freedom and political persecution in Ukraine. He argued passionately that MEPs should speak freely without fear of censorship. I accepted his explanation at face value; after all, we were the party of free expression, weren’t we? It seemed principled, even bold. Little did I know, those “questions” were the opening salvos in a far more sinister agenda.

How wrong I was. My trust in Nathan was not just misplaced, it was foolish, a betrayal that stings deeply even now. The truth, revealed in the cold light of his recent conviction, paints a picture of calculated deceit. Nathan wasn’t voicing genuine concerns; he was parroting scripts fed to him by pro-Russian handlers, pocketing bribes to undermine Ukraine and bolster Moscow’s narrative in the heart of Europe’s institutions. 

From December 2018 to July 2019, he accepted cash, thousands of euros, from figures linked to Viktor Medvedchuk, a Ukrainian oligarch and close ally of Vladimir Putin. In exchange, Nathan delivered speeches in the European Parliament criticising Ukraine’s democracy, defending Medvedchuk against treason charges, and even hosting events to promote pro-Russian “peace plans” for Donbass. He toured Ukrainian TV studios owned by Medvedchuk’s associates, and questioned Ukrainian rights to self protection. All while posing as an independent voice.

Again, it is very very unlikely Gill is the only one on the take.

1 News reports:

Speaking in Māori, former party president Dame Naida Glavish said Te Pāti Māori was not established to belittle people, but rather for the betterment of all Māori.

She said that had not been evident this year. 

Dame Naida, Sir Pita Sharples, Te Ururoa Flavell, Marama Fox, Hone Harawira, and Tukoroirangi Morgan were among those represented on a list of former party leaders who had penned a letter to the current leadership.

So those concerned about the Tamihere leadership (it is clear he is the de facto leader) are every living former co-leader, and at least two former Presidents.

This would be the equivalent of Helen Clark, Geoffrey Palmer, Jacinda Ardern, Mike Williams and Andrew Little all writing a letter to the Labour Party leadership saying they think they are stuffing the party up.

How many stories have you seen in the Media where some group is complaining about there being less of a focus on the Treaty of Waitangi in the education system? I’ve lost count, but it is scores and scores.

How many have you seen about the results of the maths acceleration trial?

The trial was for Year 7 and 8 students who needed extra support in maths. So it was about helping 1,500 students who were at risk of failing. They were a year behind where they should be. They received targeted, small-group tutoring up to four times a week over 12 weeks. The tutoring was in-person, hybrid or online.

The gain in maths ability was:

• In-person: Two years (yes, years!)
• Hybrid: 14 months
• Online: 12 months

Why is this not the lead story in every news medium? Where are the 30 minute TV specials interviewing parents of kids in the trials, talking about what a difference they have made?

Now you might say they we can’t afford to do small group tutoring for every pupil who is falling behind. Well the news is even better.

The biggest breakthrough was for the students who were working in their usual classes with their teacher. These students were not part of the first 12-week trial but were benefiting from hour-a-day maths, the new curriculum, and new workbooks. They made, on average, a full year’s progress in just 12 weeks. That shows the reforms are lifting achievement for all children, not just those receiving additional tutoring.”

What a change a new curriculum, new workbooks and a minimum time allocation can make.

I don’t think anything is more important to New Zealand than Erica Stanford getting the time to bed in and complete her education reforms. Our kids deserve nothing less.

Attended a breakfast meeting with Cardinal John Dew where he spoke about the recent Papal Conclave. I found aspects of it very interesting, and thought readers might also.

I asked how well the Cardinal-Electors know the other Cardinals before the Conclave, and whether the pre-conclave meetings are very important for getting to know them. I assumed they wouldn’t know each other that well, but it turns out they do. Cardinal Dew said that he sits in three Curia committees or groups that meet several times a year and each one has around 20 cardinals on it, so that is regularly meeting around half the Cardinals through those.

Also when new Cardinals are inaugurated, existing Cardinals are encouraged to attend the ceremony in Rome, so that helps get to know them also.

I was interested that at the actual Conclave there is a book with profiles of all Cardinals, with their biographical details, where they have served etc etc. This reminded me of List Ranking Committees where you get profiles of all the candidates before voting on their List places.

Also there are unofficial publications put forward by certain groups which might only include profiles of their favoured candidates, which to keep with the political analogy was like the pamphlets at party conferences. We were told though these had little sway.

And unlike the Conclave film (which is excellent) there is no overt politicking. However Cardinal Dew did say that there was a consensus at the pre-conclave meetings that they were looking for someone to continue on the work of Pope Francis, rather than change course.

During the voting each cardinal has a tally sheet with the names of all cardinals, so they can record votes for them as the names are read out. These tally sheets are burnt after each vote, along with the actual ballot papers.

There is no official person reading out the vote tallies as they go, but when Cardinal Prevost got his 89th vote on the fourth ballot, there was spontaneous applause so all the Cardinals had obviously been keeping track of the votes as they were read out. And once Cardinal Prevost responded to Acceptasne electionem de te canonice factam in Summum Pontificem? with “Accepto”, he became the Bishop of Rome, and 266th Successor to Saint Peter.

A guest post by a reader:

Labour and Jordan Rivers are breaking the law as far as I see it. Based on https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/media-insider/popular-social-media-creative-jordan-rivers-employed-in-labour-party-leaders-office-private-post-falls-foul-of-speaker-gerry-brownlee/premium/ENVW6HTILVFTTK7EH7NKAOGYWQ/

If you work for a political party and you are pumping out political content on social media, you cannot pretend you are just an ordinary citizen sharing your thoughts. You are not neutral, independent, or unaligned. You are paid political staff producing political messaging.

That is the core issue with the Jordan Rivers situation. He was hired into the Labour Party leader’s office, a taxpayer-funded and politically sensitive environment, then continued using his large platform to comment on politics without disclosing that he was now financially tied to a political party. Labour hired him because he influences. He knows that and so do they.

The idea that the rules do not apply because he is on a salary instead of being paid per post is nonsense. A salary from a political party is payment for political advocacy. Whether it comes as $500 for a single post or $80,000 a year, the effect is the same. His commentary is not independent.

Under the Advertising Standards Code, if content is controlled directly or indirectly by the advertiser and intended to influence behaviour or opinion, it is an advertisement. The form of payment does not matter. If you work for a political party and post political content that aligns with its aims, it is not magically personal.

Under electoral law, social-media posts that encourage support for a party or candidate can qualify as election advertisements and must carry a promoter statement identifying who is behind the content. The law does not carve out a special exemption for creatives with ring lights and stage make up.

The fact that his posts were not individually commissioned does not create a loophole. The Electoral Commission is clear that the reasonable market value of services provided to a campaign, including staff time, counts toward campaign activity. If Labour hired an influencer knowing he would keep influencing, that value is part of their political machinery.

Covert political influence is corrosive. When someone with a large platform pushes a party line while hiding a financial relationship with that party, it is not clever comms. It is deception. If National pulled the same stunt with a TikTok comedian, Labour and most of the media would be screaming.

Jordan Rivers should have been upfront. He should have disclosed his employment with Labour every time he posted political content. Social-media creators do not get an honesty exemption just because they use emojis and fart noises instead of podiums and press conferences.

If Labour wants to hire influencers, fine. If they want to embed content creators into their comms strategy, also fine. But they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. They must disclose who is paying for the message.

The Herald reports:

A jury deliberating whether a young couple committed murder in a bizarre case involving a festering tenancy dispute and a hired armed “muscle” man dressed as a soldier have found the defendants not guilty. …

The court heard the 40-year-old had been hired to evict the couple by his landlady, Rebecca Allcock, who told him they owed rent money and were dealing drugs.

He expected to earn “big money” for the job, telling Allcock he might need to “rough them up a bit” to get them out, to which she responded: “I’m fine with that.” 

Faatoia drove to the couple’s townhouse on a motorbike armed with two blades, a wire garrote and rope, smashed his way into their bedroom and threatened them with a Bear Grylls “survival knife”.

But his plan to intimidate the couple backfired with tragic consequences when the boyfriend grabbed his own orange-handled hunting knife and plunged it into Faatoia’s neck.

As Faatoia suffered heavy blood loss from the wound, the couple dragged him outside on to a patio where they stomped and kicked him about his body as he lay face-down on the ground.

If you break into someone’s places with blades, a knife and a garrote then they have every right to defend themselves. I actually think the landlady should face charges for her role in what happened.

Though fatally injured and bleeding heavily from his severed jugular, Faatoia continued to fight and the two men fell struggling to the bedroom floor, where Faatoia punched and bit the boyfriend, Hamlin said. The woman then tried to grab Faatoia’s knife from his hand, cutting her finger in the process.

“She says she’s terrified. She thinks she’s going to be killed.” 

Faatoia wouldn’t die for several minutes and was still talking, mumbling about calling the “troops”. 

Fearing he was still a danger to them, the couple pushed the intruder out the sliding ranch door, where they beat him until he was no longer a threat.

While you certainly can argue that the couple should have ceased once he was not a danger, the evidence suggests what they did on the balcony didn’t kill him. Also if he is a metre 1.90 tall and 115 kgs, you can understand you want to make sure he is no longer a threat.

It is very sad that the guy died. But the landlady should never have hired him to rough the couple up, and he should never have broken into their house armed and threatening them.

National announced that if re-elected they will increase the default KiwiSaver contribution rates from 3% to 4% (already announced as government policy) and then to 6%. The rates will be:

• April 2026 – 3.5%
• April 2028 – 4.0%
• April 2029 – 4.5%
• April 2030 – 5.0%
• April 2031 – 5.5%
• April 2032 – 6.0%

This will basically align us with Australia that also has 12% contributions.

I think this is a good move, for two reasons.

1. People will tend to save more when their contributions are taken out of their pay before they even reach their bank account. Expenses often rise to match income, so having the savings taken out at source helps save. I have my KiwiSaver set at the maximum 10% contribution rates, so that the money goes to my retirement savings before I even get a chance to spend it! This is also why PAYE tax is so effective. People would pay a lot less tax if they had to send a cheque into IRD every month.
2. I want private retirement savings to increase, so the burden on taxpayers of the public superannuation scheme can decrease. Once you have a generation of NZers who have been contributing 12% of their salary into KiwiSaver, they won’t need such a generous NZ superannuation scheme. These changes would see a new worker have $1.4 million in their KiwiSaver account at age 65. They then won’t need $414 a week from the taxpayer.

This will have an impact on employees and employers. They are:

• Net take home pay for employees will be 3% lower on a 6% contribution rate than a 3% contribution rate. But this is over seven years. Over seven years wage rates will increase by around 33% nominally, so take home pay will be 30% higher, rather than 33% higher. Also worth noting employees can stay on a lower rate than the default rate if they face hardship.
• The cost to employers of staff will increase 3% over seven years. Now again this will be on top of a probable 33% or so increase anyway.

If the future cost of NZ Superannuation isn’t reduced, then NZ faces massive tax hikes. Having more NZers with greater private savings will create a political environment where changes to NZ Super are more palatable in future.