September 8, 2025 • 7 mins
New Zealand First is backing major changes to KiwiSaver ahead of the election and it's sparked discussion about what this could mean going forward.
The party's announced it will campaign on compulsory employee and employer contributions rising to 10 percent, to be offset with tax cuts.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis says this will likely be a significant issue ahead of the election, but she's voiced concerns about the tax cuts.
"For context, our tax package that we delivered after the election was $3.7 billion - so that is a heck of a lot of tax cuts. So the question then becomes - how do we fund that?"
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
With us right now we have Nikola Willis the Finance Minister.
High Nikoler. Hi, Heather, you've been watching the Tom Phillip
stuff like everybody else.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Ah, yeah, it's just been so harrowing to watch, just
thinking of those poor kids in the bush and what
they've gone through. I'm so glad they've been found.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Yeah, but a men's relief. Ammense relief that they've been.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Found, immense relief and just terrible to think of what
they will have been through and the recovery from here.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
Now, listen, what do you think of New Zealand First's
Key we Save idea?
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Well, look, every serious political party between now and the
next election, I think will have to come up with
a policy on superannuation because superannuation costs in New Zealand
are rising dramatically. Is a share of our economy twenty
five billion now rising to twenty nine billion in just
three years. So I can understand why New Zealand First
(00:50):
is contemplating the role of Key we Saver. I guess
the curious bit was that they said the contributions would
be offset by tax cuts. Back at the envelope, that
would be around fifteen billion dollars worth of tax cuts
a year. So for context, our tax package that we
delivered after the election was three point seven billion, so
(01:11):
that is a hair give a lot of tax cut.
So the question then becomes, how do you fund that?
And if you're adding that onto the cost of consult
compulsory super, how does it all add up?
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Yeah, you probably don't Joe that. I mean, it sounds
like it might be a bit wild, the tax cut idea.
But what about the idea of making it compulsory. Are
you into that?
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Well? I think every New Zealander does make a compulsory
contribution to their SUPER right now, because we have a
universal pension scheme which means that when you hit sixty five,
you get SUPER and we all fund that through our taxes.
And so the point that you're making Key we Save
a compulsory as well. I think the next question you
(01:52):
have to ask is is this intended as an addition
to super and offset to Super? Because quite legit, there
are some families right now who choose not to contribute
to Key We Savor because they're choosing to pay down
their mortgage or they have really pressing concerns in their
household budget. So you're also making them pay tax. They're
(02:13):
saying I can't afford these compulsory contributions, and why should
I when I'm already going to get super when I'm
sixty five? So I think you have to work through
all of those questions.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
See point What about the idea of getting it to
ten percent? Given that over in AUSEO it's twelve.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Well, I understand that what New Zealand First are proposing
is actually ten plus ten, so ten from the employee
and ten from the employer, so that's twenty compared to
Australia's twelve. Look. I obviously support increasing contributions to key
we saver wheen New Zealanders want to make them, which
is why I'm the budget We set out a path
(02:48):
to increase contributions from three to four, matched by employers,
and I think that that is positive for helping key
We's build up their savings. But at twenty percent, look,
I'd have to talk to once Inn about why he
thinks New Zealander should be saving almost twice as much
as Ossie's when Ossies, of course, do not have a
universal pension scheme at all. Only a small number of
(03:10):
Australians get state funded pension support.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Listen. I was talking to Simon Watt's about this ree Paris,
and I really don't have an answer to this yet,
so I'm hoping you might. Have you guys done the
numbers on how much it would cost us as an
economy to pull out of Paris?
Speaker 2 (03:24):
No, not that I understand specifically. What we do know
is that a number of our trading partners view our
participation in Paris is really important. So if they saw
that we weren't taking action as good global citizens on
climate change, that could put some of our free trade
and danger and that.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Said to us, it's not going to happen. He was like, look,
it's a possibility, but it's probably not going to happen,
as the vibe I got from him. But so we
don't know how much it's going to cost us to
pull out. Have we done the numbers on how much
it's costing the economy to state.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
In Well, obviously we've set out a five year reduction
plan that gets us closer to our net zero target,
and that's partly funded through the emissions Trading Scheme and
some other initiatives. That's affordable within our current budget settings.
The problem with the National Development contribution, which is the
(04:16):
Paris I'm.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
Not referring to. I'm not referring to that. I'm talking
about the economic cost of being part of Paris. Right,
So things like, for example, we are planting trees instead
of you know, doing sheep and beef, and we're fullgoing
economic returns as a result of that. Have you guys
quantified the burden that we're taking on by being part
of Paris? And the reason I'm asking Okay, so the
reason I'm asking you this question is because we keep
(04:38):
getting told, oh, it's going to cost us more if
we pull out than if we stay in. But maybe
it actually costs us more to stay in.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Well, the reality is that we are an agricultural nation
for whom one and four jobs depend on our exports.
So at the point we lose market access and we
can't access consumers for our export products, that is an
economy change. I know that, I know far larger than
I think there are other markets.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
You know that, But all I'm saying is, let's me
rational about this. Right, we might be chasing five dollars
worth of returns, but paying fifteen dollars is an economy
to do it. And that's stupid, We don't.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Know and rationally, and rationally, what I'm saying to you
is the chances that the cost of participating in emission
reduction are larger than one in four jobs and the
economy is next to zero. And the point that I
was going to make earlier is the problem with the
Paris commitment is that James Shore committed us to far
larger commitments internationally than we have in our domestic law
(05:37):
here at home. So Zero Carbon Act, which is us
progressively slowly reducing emissions. That's all achievable, and we've actually
set out a plan to do it. The problem is
he went completely over the top with the undertakings we
then made through that NBC And that's the real that's
the real issue here.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
You surprised, Hey, listen on the Auckland densification debate. Are
you guys going to have all Are you guys going
to have to give Auckland Council a little bit more
time to be able to decide what to do here
because they're on a really tight time frame.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
I don't think so. They're actually at the start of
a process of consultation and we've given Auckland Council what
they wanted, which is they said they should make their
own choices about where and how they grow housing.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
They been telling me it's really bloody fast.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Well, they've still got choice and flexibility. They're still out
there consulting. It's the start of a process and you're
seeing that public consultation taking us.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
So are you guys prepared to give them a little
bit more flexibility? Allah what David Seymore was arguing.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Well, they already have huge flexibility. They've asked for flexibility
about medium density standards, they've completely changed those. They've asked
for flexibility about where intensification occurs, and they've made really
deliberate choices on a community by community basis. They've been
given flexibility about whether or not they allow for green
(06:59):
fees housing development or not, so they have huge amounts
of choice. This is the plan that Auckland wanted, which
was instead of central government saying here's where you should
allow for more housing, we've essentially said to Auckland you
do it where you think it makes sense, except that
where there are major public transport developments ie City rail loop,
(07:21):
you should be doing some intensification there. And they've agreed.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
So this is a pretty flexible approach, brilliant. Hey listen,
Thank you very much, Nichola. I appreciate it as always.
That's Nicola Willis, Finance Minister. For more from Heather Duplessy
Allen Drive, Listen live to News Talk sai'd be from
four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
With us right now we have Nikola Willis the Finance Minister.
High Nikoler. Hi, Heather, you've been watching the Tom Phillip
stuff like everybody else.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Ah, yeah, it's just been so harrowing to watch, just
thinking of those poor kids in the bush and what
they've gone through. I'm so glad they've been found.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Yeah, but a men's relief. Ammense relief that they've been.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Found, immense relief and just terrible to think of what
they will have been through and the recovery from here.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
Now, listen, what do you think of New Zealand First's
Key we Save idea?
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Well, look, every serious political party between now and the
next election, I think will have to come up with
a policy on superannuation because superannuation costs in New Zealand
are rising dramatically. Is a share of our economy twenty
five billion now rising to twenty nine billion in just
three years. So I can understand why New Zealand First
(00:50):
is contemplating the role of Key we Saver. I guess
the curious bit was that they said the contributions would
be offset by tax cuts. Back at the envelope, that
would be around fifteen billion dollars worth of tax cuts
a year. So for context, our tax package that we
delivered after the election was three point seven billion, so
(01:11):
that is a hair give a lot of tax cut.
So the question then becomes, how do you fund that?
And if you're adding that onto the cost of consult
compulsory super, how does it all add up?
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Yeah, you probably don't Joe that. I mean, it sounds
like it might be a bit wild, the tax cut idea.
But what about the idea of making it compulsory. Are
you into that?
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Well? I think every New Zealander does make a compulsory
contribution to their SUPER right now, because we have a
universal pension scheme which means that when you hit sixty five,
you get SUPER and we all fund that through our taxes.
And so the point that you're making Key we Save
a compulsory as well. I think the next question you
(01:52):
have to ask is is this intended as an addition
to super and offset to Super? Because quite legit, there
are some families right now who choose not to contribute
to Key We Savor because they're choosing to pay down
their mortgage or they have really pressing concerns in their
household budget. So you're also making them pay tax. They're
(02:13):
saying I can't afford these compulsory contributions, and why should
I when I'm already going to get super when I'm
sixty five? So I think you have to work through
all of those questions.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
See point What about the idea of getting it to
ten percent? Given that over in AUSEO it's twelve.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Well, I understand that what New Zealand First are proposing
is actually ten plus ten, so ten from the employee
and ten from the employer, so that's twenty compared to
Australia's twelve. Look. I obviously support increasing contributions to key
we saver wheen New Zealanders want to make them, which
is why I'm the budget We set out a path
(02:48):
to increase contributions from three to four, matched by employers,
and I think that that is positive for helping key
We's build up their savings. But at twenty percent, look,
I'd have to talk to once Inn about why he
thinks New Zealander should be saving almost twice as much
as Ossie's when Ossies, of course, do not have a
universal pension scheme at all. Only a small number of
(03:10):
Australians get state funded pension support.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Listen. I was talking to Simon Watt's about this ree Paris,
and I really don't have an answer to this yet,
so I'm hoping you might. Have you guys done the
numbers on how much it would cost us as an
economy to pull out of Paris?
Speaker 2 (03:24):
No, not that I understand specifically. What we do know
is that a number of our trading partners view our
participation in Paris is really important. So if they saw
that we weren't taking action as good global citizens on
climate change, that could put some of our free trade
and danger and that.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Said to us, it's not going to happen. He was like, look,
it's a possibility, but it's probably not going to happen,
as the vibe I got from him. But so we
don't know how much it's going to cost us to
pull out. Have we done the numbers on how much
it's costing the economy to state.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
In Well, obviously we've set out a five year reduction
plan that gets us closer to our net zero target,
and that's partly funded through the emissions Trading Scheme and
some other initiatives. That's affordable within our current budget settings.
The problem with the National Development contribution, which is the
(04:16):
Paris I'm.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
Not referring to. I'm not referring to that. I'm talking
about the economic cost of being part of Paris. Right,
So things like, for example, we are planting trees instead
of you know, doing sheep and beef, and we're fullgoing
economic returns as a result of that. Have you guys
quantified the burden that we're taking on by being part
of Paris? And the reason I'm asking Okay, so the
reason I'm asking you this question is because we keep
(04:38):
getting told, oh, it's going to cost us more if
we pull out than if we stay in. But maybe
it actually costs us more to stay in.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Well, the reality is that we are an agricultural nation
for whom one and four jobs depend on our exports.
So at the point we lose market access and we
can't access consumers for our export products, that is an
economy change. I know that, I know far larger than
I think there are other markets.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
You know that, But all I'm saying is, let's me
rational about this. Right, we might be chasing five dollars
worth of returns, but paying fifteen dollars is an economy
to do it. And that's stupid, We don't.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Know and rationally, and rationally, what I'm saying to you
is the chances that the cost of participating in emission
reduction are larger than one in four jobs and the
economy is next to zero. And the point that I
was going to make earlier is the problem with the
Paris commitment is that James Shore committed us to far
larger commitments internationally than we have in our domestic law
(05:37):
here at home. So Zero Carbon Act, which is us
progressively slowly reducing emissions. That's all achievable, and we've actually
set out a plan to do it. The problem is
he went completely over the top with the undertakings we
then made through that NBC And that's the real that's
the real issue here.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
You surprised, Hey, listen on the Auckland densification debate. Are
you guys going to have all Are you guys going
to have to give Auckland Council a little bit more
time to be able to decide what to do here
because they're on a really tight time frame.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
I don't think so. They're actually at the start of
a process of consultation and we've given Auckland Council what
they wanted, which is they said they should make their
own choices about where and how they grow housing.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
They been telling me it's really bloody fast.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Well, they've still got choice and flexibility. They're still out
there consulting. It's the start of a process and you're
seeing that public consultation taking us.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
So are you guys prepared to give them a little
bit more flexibility? Allah what David Seymore was arguing.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Well, they already have huge flexibility. They've asked for flexibility
about medium density standards, they've completely changed those. They've asked
for flexibility about where intensification occurs, and they've made really
deliberate choices on a community by community basis. They've been
given flexibility about whether or not they allow for green
(06:59):
fees housing development or not, so they have huge amounts
of choice. This is the plan that Auckland wanted, which
was instead of central government saying here's where you should
allow for more housing, we've essentially said to Auckland you
do it where you think it makes sense, except that
where there are major public transport developments ie City rail loop,
(07:21):
you should be doing some intensification there. And they've agreed.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
So this is a pretty flexible approach, brilliant. Hey listen,
Thank you very much, Nichola. I appreciate it as always.
That's Nicola Willis, Finance Minister. For more from Heather Duplessy
Allen Drive, Listen live to News Talk sai'd be from
four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.