As an investor, it is completely unacceptable to me that Total Remuneration continues if compulsion is brought in. It is simply wrong to continue putting downward pressure on salary and wages, particularly for people on minimum wage in a country that aspires to lift wages over time and raise the standard of living for NZers. National will lose my vote as a serious investor if they continue down the Total Remuneration path. No question...

This is just about the only online space outside of Newstalk ZB facebook comments where speaking out against blatant wage theft by multinationals is considered 'PC'. And yet still we wonder why those pesky younger generations of potential customers wholesale refuse to engage with traditional financial services. Couldn't be because our mindsets are stuck in the 1950s - no, it must be the kids who are wrong.

Murray, yup, agree with you. I see conflict of interests - the bigger the fund size, the more fees collected. Remuneration should be strictly a commercial decision because employers are the ones paying the wages. NOT for some "expert" preference. Well, an employer's budget permit a $100k package, he can pay either a) $88k salary + employer contribute $12k KS, or b) $94k salary of which $6k deducted for KS + employer contribute $6k. Depending how PC you guys want to be, and how much time and taxpayers' money you want to waste arguing about the structure.