A few weeks ago, I proposed some guardrails that I think would be needed if a future National-led government removes the option to opt-out of KiwiSaver.
I don't think any guardrails are perfect, and I doubt that mine are even close to what is best-feasible, but they're a start.
If Kiwis have no opportunity to opt out of putting more of their retirement savings into this regulated vehicle, the risks inherent in KiwiSaver go up. Future governments could easily decide that funds eligible for KiwiSaver status must invest at least x% in domestic assets, of which at least y% must be in {whatever the Minister thinks is a good idea}, and no more than z% in {whatever the Minister doesn't like, where z can be zero}.
The proposed guardrails are here; I also had this piece in the Herald on it, ungated here.
I hope readers can suggest improved guardrails to accompany any removal of the option to opt-out.
Because Albanese in Australia is making it very clear that I'm not tilting at windmills.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wants to leverage the country’s sprawling $4.5 trillion superannuation pool as a national asset, but the proposal drew sharp pushback from Westpac chief executive Anthony Miller, who urged the government against dictating the investment strategies of major funds.
Albanese argued that billions of dollars in global investments from big super funds had already given the nation a leg-up in global diplomacy, furnishing “hard money to provide soft power”, and could also be used to further local ambitions.
“There is a real potential to see these funds as a national asset that can be used more appropriately and get better returns as well, not just for individuals and for retirees, but for the nation,” Albanese said.
No comments:
Post a Comment