Dr. Claire Matthews: Associate professor's new report says Kiwisaver can be great for retirement, if used correctly

A new report reveals the importance of contributing to Kiwisaver after buying a first home. 

The Retirement Expenditure Guidelines from Massey University and Fin-Ed Centre suggests Kiwisaver is great for funding retirement - if utilised correctly.

It finds a modest retirement goal can be reached by age 65 even after withdrawing funds for a first-home at 35. 

But report author Associate Professor Claire Matthews says there is an emphasis on using it for a home.

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Another look at key. We say that they are impact

(00:01):
of being able to pull money out for a first time.
So we've got a new report and they say the
average withdrawal of seventy five grand at thirty five years
of age should leave enough for a modest retirement by
sixty five. Clear Matthews, Doctor, Associate professor at MASSI, and
the report author is back with this clear Good morning,
morning mate. I suppose this is all ideological, isn't it?
Whether you see housing as a retirement tool, therefore pulling

(00:22):
it out of another retirement tool really doesn't matter.

Speaker 2 (00:25):
Does it. No, that's right. It tends to be a
little bit easier to manage your retirement if you're in
your own home. It gives you that stability, and therefore
it does make sense from that percept that's been about
able to use your key, we save it to a system.

Speaker 1 (00:40):
Getting to that point, is this emergency thing become an issue?
In other words, I'm skinned giving me my money back?
Is that a problem?

Speaker 2 (00:47):
I think it is. I know a lot of people
complain about how hard it is to get money out
for hardship, but given the volume of with ralls, either
it is too easy or as I sign that there
is really significant problems in the economy and therefore that
needs to be resolved. Because having large amounts of money
coming out of Key We Save it is not good

(01:07):
for everyone's retirement.

Speaker 1 (01:08):
What about the overarching thing that everyone keeps messing with it?
I mean the government messes with it. We mess with it,
you know, and the whole idea of retirement saving is
put away and forget about it. Don't mess with it.

Speaker 2 (01:20):
Oh, that's been an ongoing issue. Yes, it's needed some
improvements and I'm probably still not quite where we want it,
which and I hate saying that because the last thing
we really need is to have it fiddled with again,
because every time the government of whatever stripe do something,
do some kind of adjustment, it just makes people nervous about, well,

(01:40):
what are they going to do next time? And we
can't afford people to be nervous about their Key We Savior.
We want them to trust it, to know it's going
to be therefore their retirement and therefore to be able
to make good use of it.

Speaker 1 (01:51):
Why don't we, like Australia they seem to have solved it.

Speaker 2 (01:55):
I can't answer that question. You'd have to ask our politicians.

Speaker 1 (01:58):
No, But if you were looking at a model, clear, magic,
one time, clear, in charge of solving this problem once overall,
wouldn't you say, Australia or Singapore, make it compulsory, expercent,
get into it, stop moaning, and we'll see you in
twenty years.

Speaker 2 (02:10):
There are certy elements of that. I'm not sure i'd
want to follow the Australian model completely, but there are
certainly elements here. I'd like to see us with higher
contribution rates if I'd like to see it compulsory. So
there are certainly some things there. I just wouldn't take
the Australian role as a whole.

Speaker 1 (02:24):
Nice to talk to you, clear, Claire Matthews. The old
key we save a debate, it never stops it. For
more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to news Talks.
It'd be from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio