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.

@ Murray D Weatherston - well said. The climate related disclosure (CRD) requirement for the financial services industry is yet another example of the last Government adding unnecessary cost and complexity to business. Currently banks and insurers have to hire more staff specifically to meet their new climate disclosure requirements and these costs inevitably get past on to customers. The New Zealand consumer continues to be saddled with additional costs due to an avalanche of overregulation much of which has questionable benefit. The only people who seem to be winning from this additional regulation are Wellington bureaucrats and those climate enthusiasts’ who are positioned to make a buck or secure a job. None of New Zealand's biggest climate polluters are associated with the financial services industry. Stats published by the Environmental Protection Authority in 2022 showed the biggest emitters were for milk, petrol, fossil (or natural) gas and meat businesses, with electricity, and steel companies rounding out the top group because of their fossil fuel use. By contrast, many of New Zealand’s biggest employers and profit makers (including banks, vineyards, telcos, healthcare companies and renewable energy providers) didn’t appear in the top climate polluter ranks because their emissions weren’t even high enough to qualify for compulsory reporting. As another reader of Good Returns said last year "I suspect we’ll look back on this climate reporting in years to come, with confusion & questions. Whilst there is no doubt that climate controls are increasingly important, I’m unsure whether the energy, effort & expense in producing these reports are the best use of resources &/or going to make any difference…” I look forward to the Ministry of Regulation reviewing and ultimately deciding to remove climate related disclosures as a compliance requirement for all of the New Zealand financial services industry.

Wy would any mortgage or insurance adviser refer their client to a kiwi saver provider/scheme that the owners also own a competing mortgage advisor and insurance company, whom already has a history of growing group schemes and then marketing to those customers directly for their own business entities.