This article caught my eye today. It tells the story of Peter and Kate McKenzie-Bridle - a couple that used a little-known provision within KiwiSaver to access money to pay for a medical procedure (in this case a cochlear implant) for their 6 year old daughter.
This family were not in financial hardship, but the $30,000 cost would have put them into debt and, quite rightly, they wanted to avoid debt.
What I particularly like about this story is that the McKenzie-Bridles used their legal expertise to successfully argue a case for the withdrawal. But they didn't stop there - they made the details of their case public in order to make future withdrawals easier for other people who may need this provision. They also raise awareness for cochlear implant funding.
This will have a real impact among KiwiSaver providers and the independent trustees that review and approve such applications.
It highlights an issue that I think needs addressing. While the family seem to have had a good experience with their provider, Fisher Funds (no relation) and Trustees Executors - it is entirely possible that another provider/another trustee may not have approved it because the provisions within the legislation for early withdrawal are open to interpretation. How many other similar cases are out there?
In theory, if the family hadn't received the decision they wanted, the KiwiSaver fund could be transferred to another provider, and an application then made to the new provider - and so on - until someone said yes. That process could take years.
This is not an ideal state of affairs, in my view.
I believe that the decision making on such matters should be centralised to avoid inconsistency among providers over interpretation of the legislation. Providers would then be providing the scheme - which is, literally, their role.
No comments:
Post a Comment