Well, that's how it is presented anyway.

What it actually means is Kiwisaver members get higher remuneration that non-Kiwisaver members.

Person A and Person B both do the same job at Acme Trading Company, are equally skilled and produce equal quality.  In theory, they should be paid the same.

Not so say Mr Mallard.  Person B happens to be in Kiwisaver (their choice), but under the new law, the take home pay of both must be the same.

Huh?

Person A and Person B both get paid $50,000 a year.

Person B is obviouslly going to take home LESS than person A because they are putting it into Kiwisaver.

In addition to this, after the $1043 subsidy paid to the employer, any employer contribution is PART OF their total rumaeration, isn't it?

No says Mr Mallard.  Employer's who do this are now breaking the law.

So the person on Kiwisaver actually has remuneration of $957 than the person who is not. (excluding the subsidies)

How is that fair?  Person A is certainly going to be grumpy.  Employment lawyer are probably rubbing their hands with glee as the number of personal grievancies from non-Kiwisaver employee is likely to sky rocket.

As with all of Kiwisaver, this is simply another poorly thought out component that is going to see blood spilt in employment court.