Breaching my rights under the United Nations Global Compact for Migration.
Robert Newcombe made this Official Information request to Jacinda Ardern
This request has been reported as needing administrator attention (perhaps because it is vexatious, or a request for personal information)
From: Robert Newcombe
Dear Jacinda Ardern,
After many complaints to the Human Rights Commission, in 2004/5 the MSD reviewed the treatment of overseas contributory govt pensions, which in reality are no different from private retirement schemes, paid for out of earnings, property in law but are confiscated merely for being administered by a govt.
The reports condemned the practice as unfair, discriminatory, inequitable, outdated and out of sync with other countries social security systems.
The conclusions and recommendations were ignored and we all know it was government greed regardless of the awful consequences on us elderly affected.
You worked for Tony Blair so you paid National Insurance contributions towards your UK State pensions as my wife and I did, you understand the system, the National Insurance Fund runs the whole system not the govt.
In 2012 the Coalition parties at the Select Committee on Social Welfare called for change to the 1938 Section 70, Social Security Act1964 which means tests our overseas govt pensions against Super and lost.
At the rewrite of the Social Security Act in 2015 you acknowledged the unfairness, here you are https://youtu.be/mLKOIjsCKhg
In 2014 change was promised in the Labour Manifesto and it was also in the NZ1st's.
In December 2018 the govt signed up to the UN Global Compact For Migration which has 23 objectives to aid migrants throughout the world.
Objective 22 calls for the portabilty of social security entitlements and earned benefits which your Govt breaches.
Why is it that with all the govt's own reviews, the Human Rights Commission's damning reviews via the Retirment Policy and Research Centre, Auckland University, the promises made in manifestos, the signing of the UNGCM, are my wife and I plus 100,000 other elderly still being impoverished by the govt confiscation of our Social Insurance Pensions?
The Spousal provision/crime where if a person's overseas contributory govt pension affects their partner's Super and which in the video you called a human rights violation ends in July, subtle govt recognition of the unfairness of the system.
Also voluntary SI pensions are being allowed as well which is basic human rights but what about my other SI pension which is compulsary, who ever made this decision to continue the confiscation doesn't understand the UNGCM covers these as well.
It's typical govt unconscionable behavior to allow one SI pension that is voluntary and not a compulsary one, come on Jacinda where's the fairness in that?
In 2014 fifteen of us took the National Govt to the UN Human Rights Council over this unfair impoverishment of us which is not imposed on the rest of Superannuants and lost because the Council is run by political appointees, some from 3rd world countries and the govt lied when it called its and other reviews as "unsupporting information".
Why has Objective 22 not being fully implemented and whilst the Compact is not legally binding, it is morally binding and in 2022 NZ will be reviewed on its performance and the breaching of Objective 22 will have to be answered.
Chinese SI pensions which I might add can also contain govt funding which Section 70 should target are allowed to be kept.
I have been a citizen since 1974 yet a Chinese immigrant can come here aged 55, never need work could even be on a benefit yet gets to keep their SI pension whilst I lose mine, all because of the excuse they are not administered by or on behalf of the Chinese govt which I have proof they are, I have obtained a Chinese Ministry of Finance report on the history of the State Pension from1952, but now that excuse no longer applies, Objectice 22 should allow all, its positive racism against us Section 70 victims.
All this evidence makes for a strong case at the UN Committee for Human Rights run by 18 human rights experts.
So If your govt continues to snatch our compulsary SI pensions we have been advised by a Wellington Barrister to take a complaint to the UN Committee where he successfully won 2 cases against the govt, we may even employ him.
In the end you will have to end this last violation against us and in election year you may well go the same way as NZ1st as the truth about ths state crime is made more aware of.
My wife and I voted for you believing you a breath of fresh air but sadly you are no different from any other non caring ageist politician.
Our activist group have all agreed that a vote for Labour or NZ1st is a vote for the continued violation of our human rights.
If we can convince David Seymour to support our cause we will switch our votes to Act which will go with National if the election is close.
A quick and full explanation would appreciated .
Yours faithfully,
Robert Newcombe
From: Rt. Hon Jacinda Ardern
Kia ora,
Thanks very much for taking the time to get in touch with Prime Minister
Jacinda Ardern.
We appreciate your email. Because of the large number of emails we
receive each day, you may not receive a response immediately.
While you are waiting for a reply, here's a list of links that may help
you find what you’re looking for:
[1]Beehive website
[2]The Prime Minister’s Facebook page
[3]The Prime Minister’s Twitter page
[4]Full list of Ministers
We hope one of the above links helps answer your question! In any case,
we'll get back to you as soon as possible.
Thanks again.
Authorised by Jacinda Ardern MP, Parliament Buildings, Wellington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/
2. https://www.facebook.com/jacindaardern/
3. https://twitter.com/jacindaardern
4. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/ministers
From: Rt. Hon Jacinda Ardern
I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, to acknowledge receipt of your Official Information Act request.
Your request will be responded to under the provisions of the Official Information Act 1982.
Yours sincerely
Dinah Okeby
Office of the Prime Minister
Authorised by Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern MP, Parliament Buildings Wellington 6012
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Newcombe [mailto:[FYI request #12090 email]]
Sent: Monday, 27 January 2020 10:18 AM
To: J Ardern (MIN) <[Jacinda Ardern request email]>
Subject: Official Information request - Breaching my rights under the United Nations Global Compact for Migration.
Dear Jacinda Ardern,
After many complaints to the Human Rights Commission, in 2004/5 the MSD reviewed the treatment of overseas contributory govt pensions, which in reality are no different from private retirement schemes, paid for out of earnings, property in law but are confiscated merely for being administered by a govt.
The reports condemned the practice as unfair, discriminatory, inequitable, outdated and out of sync with other countries social security systems.
The conclusions and recommendations were ignored and we all know it was government greed regardless of the awful consequences on us elderly affected.
You worked for Tony Blair so you paid National Insurance contributions towards your UK State pensions as my wife and I did, you understand the system, the National Insurance Fund runs the whole system not the govt.
In 2012 the Coalition parties at the Select Committee on Social Welfare called for change to the 1938 Section 70, Social Security Act1964 which means tests our overseas govt pensions against Super and lost.
At the rewrite of the Social Security Act in 2015 you acknowledged the unfairness, here you are https://youtu.be/mLKOIjsCKhg
In 2014 change was promised in the Labour Manifesto and it was also in the NZ1st's.
In December 2018 the govt signed up to the UN Global Compact For Migration which has 23 objectives to aid migrants throughout the world.
Objective 22 calls for the portabilty of social security entitlements and earned benefits which your Govt breaches.
Why is it that with all the govt's own reviews, the Human Rights Commission's damning reviews via the Retirment Policy and Research Centre, Auckland University, the promises made in manifestos, the signing of the UNGCM, are my wife and I plus 100,000 other elderly still being impoverished by the govt confiscation of our Social Insurance Pensions?
The Spousal provision/crime where if a person's overseas contributory govt pension affects their partner's Super and which in the video you called a human rights violation ends in July, subtle govt recognition of the unfairness of the system.
Also voluntary SI pensions are being allowed as well which is basic human rights but what about my other SI pension which is compulsary, who ever made this decision to continue the confiscation doesn't understand the UNGCM covers these as well.
It's typical govt unconscionable behavior to allow one SI pension that is voluntary and not a compulsary one, come on Jacinda where's the fairness in that?
In 2014 fifteen of us took the National Govt to the UN Human Rights Council over this unfair impoverishment of us which is not imposed on the rest of Superannuants and lost because the Council is run by political appointees, some from 3rd world countries and the govt lied when it called its and other reviews as "unsupporting information".
Why has Objective 22 not being fully implemented and whilst the Compact is not legally binding, it is morally binding and in 2022 NZ will be reviewed on its performance and the breaching of Objective 22 will have to be answered.
Chinese SI pensions which I might add can also contain govt funding which Section 70 should target are allowed to be kept.
I have been a citizen since 1974 yet a Chinese immigrant can come here aged 55, never need work could even be on a benefit yet gets to keep their SI pension whilst I lose mine, all because of the excuse they are not administered by or on behalf of the Chinese govt which I have proof they are, I have obtained a Chinese Ministry of Finance report on the history of the State Pension from1952, but now that excuse no longer applies, Objectice 22 should allow all, its positive racism against us Section 70 victims.
All this evidence makes for a strong case at the UN Committee for Human Rights run by 18 human rights experts.
So If your govt continues to snatch our compulsary SI pensions we have been advised by a Wellington Barrister to take a complaint to the UN Committee where he successfully won 2 cases against the govt, we may even employ him.
In the end you will have to end this last violation against us and in election year you may well go the same way as NZ1st as the truth about ths state crime is made more aware of.
My wife and I voted for you believing you a breath of fresh air but sadly you are no different from any other non caring ageist politician.
Our activist group have all agreed that a vote for Labour or NZ1st is a vote for the continued violation of our human rights.
If we can convince David Seymour to support our cause we will switch our votes to Act which will go with National if the election is close.
A quick and full explanation would appreciated .
Yours faithfully,
Robert Newcombe
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FYI request #12090 email]
Is [Jacinda Ardern request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests to Jacinda Ardern? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________
hide quoted sections
NZ Pension Protest left an annotation ()
It is high time that the Prime Minister gives an explanation why the New Zealand government signs international agreements without any intention to follow them. We also want to know why the NZ government is refusing to stop the direct deduction of employer/employee-funded overseas pensions (which were earned before the affected individuals moved to New Zealand) from the tax-funded NZ Super (which they are entitled to after ten years of residence in NZ). And we want to know why Jacinda Ardern labelled this policy unfair and in breach of Human Rights while in Opposition (2015) and isn't doing anything to address the injustice now that she is our Prime Minister. While she wants to run a positive election campaign, we can't see anything positive in this government's attitude towards pensioners in general and the victims of the Direct Deduction Policy in particular. Intending to discontinue the Spousal Provision is nothing but a token gesture, as it affects only between 400 and 600 people, while more than 100,000 pensioners are continuously ripped off. I see no chance of anyone of these pensioners voting for Labour and their two supporting parties, as they have broken all the promises they made before the last election. Why all this dishonesty?
P McLean left an annotation ()
I endorse the comments here and confirm my displeasure at the NZ govt stealing my personal savings from my CPP (Canada Pension Plan) which contains solely my/my employers contributions and zero Canada govt funds. My CPP account is akin to Kiwisaver except with no govt contributions - just my own personal savings.
Labour, the Greens and NZF have lied by not reintroducing the legislation they happily fought to introduce into parliament in 2015 when in opposition, but now remain silent when in power. At least National have not lied - they (sadly) simply don't support the desired changes - we have more work to do there - but the current govt have actually lied and reneged.
100,000 affected pensioners should rise up and demand action to remove the draconian impact of the Superannuation theft policy.
Johann Robert Koller left an annotation ()
We have worked more than 30 years in New Zealand and employed many people. Our entitlement to a NZ pension is clear as anybody receives it who works for 10 years minimum.
But we also worked in Switzerland and England for a time during which we paid from our salaries a percantage into a pension fund which was matched by the employer exactly the same.
It would seem that we are entitled to that pension on top of our full New Zealand pension.
Robert Koller
Ken Eugene Camel left an annotation ()
I find this entire system appalling. To institute a process that systematically denies earned income to selected individuals is both unfair and inherently discriminatory. The archaic practice of denying earned retirements based upon a flawed concept of double-dipping is illicit in itself. It is a fact that every individual can have three to four 20-year careers within their lifetime based upon current longevity. The ability to earn retirement incomes within these careers does not and should not affect an individual’s retirement income upon their retirement.
It is prudent to accumulate multiple retirement plans in today’s world. Retirement is not sustainable based solely upon one government’s largesse. Especially when it portends to be a liberal government who then uses a dictatorial bureaucratic process to deny earned benefits.
The question I would like to have answered is whether New Zealand superannuation is truly earned as well as “not means tested.” If both are true, then once an individual meets the minimum requirements of the programme and has been awarded superannuation then the government should have no right to refuse or deduct any outside income from an individual’s superannuation. Any action to do so is a breech of legal contract and is dealing in bad faith with their citizenry.
This is especially egregious to retired individuals as retirement decisions are based upon income and savings earned through individuals work life. By denying or reducing earned benefits at a time in one’s life when earning potential and work capability is diminished is both immoral and inherently unfair.
To extend this to spouses of individuals is even more distasteful.
Ultimately to reduce one’s superannuation based upon an individual’s overseas income provides no incentive to reside in New Zealand. In fact, it encourages the dissolution of marriages and/or the emigration to another country who does not penalise you for earning multiple retirement incomes.
This scenario hurts the New Zealand economy and reputation immensely. By having their well provided retirees emigrating outside the country New Zealand loses a tremendous sum of economic expenditure within the country. New Zealand should be encouraging well off retirees to retire in New Zealand not forcing them to leave. Bringing in the buying power of overseas immigrants who have the economic capability to invest and support local economies should be encouraged.
Overseas income spent in New Zealand benefits New Zealand’s economy without New Zealand economic loss. Encouraging that income to leave the country hits the bottom line of local economies. It appears MSD is not developing society but encouraging emigration, unfairness and placing emotional stress on retirees by withholding the superannuation from those that have earned it.
Ken Camel
Erich Widmer left an annotation ()
We have worked and paid taxes for more than fourty years in new Zealand. Previously we also worked in Switzerland and paid together with our employers into a fund just like the Kiwisaver here in NZ. I am still working as a pensioner also paying taxes and still this Government is stealing our savings from overseas ( yes savings not a pension ) but unfortunately the Government has turned around the wording to make their Theft legal.
what a shame that Ms Ardern and Mr Peters lied to all of us pensioners and made false promises just to gain votes. I am certain that at the next election all the victims of this theft will turn against them rightfully ;)
To all younger Kiwis i advise them of what happens and that eventually their Kiwisaver will be deducted as well. We did not ask for a stupid APP for our mobile phones we did ask them to stop the theft of our savings
Erich Widmer
Rosanna Leman left an annotation ()
I agree to the all the sentiments and facts written here.
I am ashamed of my birth country for treating its elderly who paid through the nose to set this country on its feet and are still paying through theft of overseas pensions.
Really I have no words to describe the feeling of betrayal by my government and how worthless and unempowered it makes me feel.
Impossible to enjoy life when you are impoverished and doubley insulting when you have planned to retire by working hard and saving.
All my money put into my CPPand OAS overseas pension is confiscated.
Neither will get my vote . I will abstein.
From: Robert Newcombe
Dear Rt. Hon Jacinda Ardern,
Just so that you understand the enormity of what you slyly push under the carpet, here is proof of the human rights abuse that has been going on for 15 years.
The fact that the MSD has the discretionary power to release "voluntary" overseas govt pensions from means testing, it is theft under a blanket of silence.
This voluntary pension release is not a show of conscience by your govt, it is merely an administrative compulsion on behalf of the MSD and whilst is is to be thanked, it is in fact a perfect example of how you operate.
Your promises along with Peters's have not been nothing but untrue.
Your govt could have implemented this so called release as soon as gaining power but as we all know politics is not about truth, human rights and caring for us citizens, it's all about politicians and their grasp on self serving power.
The fact that it comes on stream in July shows just how low you have stopped Jacinda for it is pre election, 3 years of continuing theft ending with an election bribe.
My electoral vote went to Labour, my party vote to NZ1st, I have made many mistakes in my life but voting for any Coalition party will not be one made again.
In fact I refuse to vote for any party, there is not one worth voting for and consequently I will possibly be punished but so be it, my conscience is clear Jacinda, is yours?
Ex-gratia payment for superannuitant in receipt of overseas pension
Legislation Ombudsmen Act 1975
Agency Ministry of Social Development
Ombudsman Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier
Case number(s) 429683
Date August 2018
Request by superannuitant for ex-gratia payment for deduction of voluntary component of overseas pension from New Zealand superannuation – Ministry of Social Development failed to advise superannuitant of discretion to defer commencement of deduction of voluntary component of overseas pension – Ombudsman recommended ex-gratia payment in recognition of time and effort by complainant in seeking back-payment, and further delay by MSD in making back-payment
Background
The complainant was a New Zealand superannuitant who had lived in the United Kingdom (U.K.) and had made voluntary payments into the U.K.’s state pension system, which were over and above the compulsory contributions required by law in the U.K.
When the complainant started receiving New Zealand superannuation in 2009, the Ministry of Social Development deducted the full value of his U.K. pension from his New Zealand superannuation, including the portion that he had funded voluntarily. This was as required by New Zealand law. However, in 2014, the complainant heard through word of mouth that the Ministry was able to defer the deduction of the portion of his U.K. pension that had been funded by voluntary contributions. In other words, he could keep that part of his U.K. pension. The complainant therefore asked the Ministry to exercise this discretion. The Ministry stopped deducting the voluntary portion of his U.K. pension from that time. The Ministry also later paid him two lump sum payments, which totalled over $40,000, in recognition of the value of the voluntary portion of his U.K. pension which the Ministry had deducted over a number of years previously.
The complainant believed he had still been financially disadvantaged, and sought interest on the value of his back-payment. When he complained to the Ombudsman, an investigator sought to resolve the issue informally with the Ministry. This resulted in an additional offer by the Ministry of an ex-gratia payment of $3,000. The complainant was not satisfied that this was sufficient recognition of the loss he had suffered as a result of the deductions to his superannuation over a number of years.
Investigation
The Ombudsman notified an investigation into the adequacy of the ex-gratia payment offered to the complainant by the Ministry.
The Ombudsman considered the circumstances surrounding the back-payments to the complainant, and the extent to which the Ministry was responsible for the complainant’s loss of the voluntary portion of his U.K. pension. He noted that in 2005 in another case, the Social Security Appeal Authority had directed the Ministry to exercise its discretion to defer the commencement of the deduction of the voluntary portion of an overseas pension from the person’s New Zealand superannuation. The Ministry subsequently began exercising this discretion routinely when specifically requested by an applicant, but did not take active steps to make all applicants for superannuation aware of the existence of this discretion.
When the complainant applied for New Zealand superannuation in 2009, the Ombudsman observed that Ministry staff should have been aware of and trained in the Ministry’s discretion to defer deductions of the voluntary portions of an overseas pension, and should have advised the complainant accordingly. However, it did not. As such, the Ombudsman considered that the complainant’s loss was due to an administrative error by the Ministry, and warranted recognition via an ex-gratia payment. The Ombudsman also noted that the Ministry should have made a greater effort to identify and inform people in the same position as the complainant, of the existence of its discretion to defer deductions.
The Ombudsman considered that the time and effort required by the complainant in seeking the back-payment, and an unacceptable delay by the Ministry in processing the arrears payment, meant that the Ministry’s offer of a $3,000 ex-gratia payment was inadequate.
Outcome
The Chief Ombudsman formed the final opinion that the offer of a $3,000 ex-gratia payment was unreasonable because it did not sufficiently recognise the financial loss, stress and inconvenience suffered by the complainant and recommended an additional payment of $2,000. The Ministry accepted this recommendation.
This case note is published under the authority of the Ombudsmen Rules 1989. It sets out an Ombudsman’s view on the facts of a particular case. It should not be taken as establishing any legal precedent that would bind an Ombudsman in future.
Read it all Jacinda and try to understand the financial, physical and mental stress you personally have put on us elderly and reflect on the fact that in your time in power how many elderly S70 victims have died not knowing some relief was available.
It is my wish and goal to bring this to the attention of the over 100,000 elderly persecuted by politicians like you and that hopefully some legal entity will act on behalf of the families of those that have died can seek financial redress their departed loved ones lost the chance to take.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Newcombe
From: Rt. Hon Jacinda Ardern
Kia ora,
Thanks very much for taking the time to get in touch with Prime Minister
Jacinda Ardern.
We appreciate your email. Because of the large number of emails we
receive each day, you may not receive a response immediately.
While you are waiting for a reply, here's a list of links that may help
you find what you’re looking for:
[1]Beehive website
[2]The Prime Minister’s Facebook page
[3]The Prime Minister’s Twitter page
[4]Full list of Ministers
We hope one of the above links helps answer your question! In any case,
we'll get back to you as soon as possible.
Thanks again.
Authorised by Jacinda Ardern MP, Parliament Buildings, Wellington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/
2. https://www.facebook.com/jacindaardern/
3. https://twitter.com/jacindaardern
4. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/ministers
Cinnamon T left an annotation ()
The government is holding on to the direct deduction law so that those of us who saved overseas will finance those who doesn't. This is supported by the Minister for Social Development Sepuloni's admission during the first reading of the NEW ZEALAND SUPERANNUATION AND VETERAN'S PENSION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL on 17 Oct 2019:
"New Zealand has a system of direct deduction. Direct deduction supports the country's ability to pay a universal pension based on age and a minimum period of residence."
So the NZ government is not about fairness. All the arguments about double dipping is just an excuse to continue to confiscate our savings.The same savings purchased from a private pension provider would not have been subject to this direct deduction both overseas and in NZ.
After working and paying taxes for 33 years in NZ I will be entitled to a few dollars if not zero after the direct deductions. How is that fair and just?
From: Rt. Hon Jacinda Ardern
I am writing to acknowledge your email to the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern.
Thank you for writing
Yours sincerely
Dinah Okeby
Office of the Prime Minister
Authorised by Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern MP, Parliament Buildings Wellington 6012
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Newcombe [mailto:[FOI #12090 email]]
Sent: Saturday, 15 February 2020 8:49 AM
To: Rt. Hon Jacinda Ardern <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Official Information request - Breaching my rights under the United Nations Global Compact for Migration.
Dear Rt. Hon Jacinda Ardern,
Just so that you understand the enormity of what you slyly push under the carpet, here is proof of the human rights abuse that has been going on for 15 years.
The fact that the MSD has the discretionary power to release "voluntary" overseas govt pensions from means testing, it is theft under a blanket of silence.
This voluntary pension release is not a show of conscience by your govt, it is merely an administrative compulsion on behalf of the MSD and whilst is is to be thanked, it is in fact a perfect example of how you operate.
Your promises along with Peters's have not been nothing but untrue.
Your govt could have implemented this so called release as soon as gaining power but as we all know politics is not about truth, human rights and caring for us citizens, it's all about politicians and their grasp on self serving power.
The fact that it comes on stream in July shows just how low you have stopped Jacinda for it is pre election, 3 years of continuing theft ending with an election bribe.
My electoral vote went to Labour, my party vote to NZ1st, I have made many mistakes in my life but voting for any Coalition party will not be one made again.
In fact I refuse to vote for any party, there is not one worth voting for and consequently I will possibly be punished but so be it, my conscience is clear Jacinda, is yours?
Ex-gratia payment for superannuitant in receipt of overseas pension
Legislation Ombudsmen Act 1975
Agency Ministry of Social Development
Ombudsman Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier
Case number(s) 429683
Date August 2018
Request by superannuitant for ex-gratia payment for deduction of voluntary component of overseas pension from New Zealand superannuation – Ministry of Social Development failed to advise superannuitant of discretion to defer commencement of deduction of voluntary component of overseas pension – Ombudsman recommended ex-gratia payment in recognition of time and effort by complainant in seeking back-payment, and further delay by MSD in making back-payment Background The complainant was a New Zealand superannuitant who had lived in the United Kingdom (U.K.) and had made voluntary payments into the U.K.’s state pension system, which were over and above the compulsory contributions required by law in the U.K.
When the complainant started receiving New Zealand superannuation in 2009, the Ministry of Social Development deducted the full value of his U.K. pension from his New Zealand superannuation, including the portion that he had funded voluntarily. This was as required by New Zealand law. However, in 2014, the complainant heard through word of mouth that the Ministry was able to defer the deduction of the portion of his U.K. pension that had been funded by voluntary contributions. In other words, he could keep that part of his U.K. pension. The complainant therefore asked the Ministry to exercise this discretion. The Ministry stopped deducting the voluntary portion of his U.K. pension from that time. The Ministry also later paid him two lump sum payments, which totalled over $40,000, in recognition of the value of the voluntary portion of his U.K. pension which the Ministry had deducted over a number of years previously.
The complainant believed he had still been financially disadvantaged, and sought interest on the value of his back-payment. When he complained to the Ombudsman, an investigator sought to resolve the issue informally with the Ministry. This resulted in an additional offer by the Ministry of an ex-gratia payment of $3,000. The complainant was not satisfied that this was sufficient recognition of the loss he had suffered as a result of the deductions to his superannuation over a number of years.
Investigation
The Ombudsman notified an investigation into the adequacy of the ex-gratia payment offered to the complainant by the Ministry.
The Ombudsman considered the circumstances surrounding the back-payments to the complainant, and the extent to which the Ministry was responsible for the complainant’s loss of the voluntary portion of his U.K. pension. He noted that in 2005 in another case, the Social Security Appeal Authority had directed the Ministry to exercise its discretion to defer the commencement of the deduction of the voluntary portion of an overseas pension from the person’s New Zealand superannuation. The Ministry subsequently began exercising this discretion routinely when specifically requested by an applicant, but did not take active steps to make all applicants for superannuation aware of the existence of this discretion.
When the complainant applied for New Zealand superannuation in 2009, the Ombudsman observed that Ministry staff should have been aware of and trained in the Ministry’s discretion to defer deductions of the voluntary portions of an overseas pension, and should have advised the complainant accordingly. However, it did not. As such, the Ombudsman considered that the complainant’s loss was due to an administrative error by the Ministry, and warranted recognition via an ex-gratia payment. The Ombudsman also noted that the Ministry should have made a greater effort to identify and inform people in the same position as the complainant, of the existence of its discretion to defer deductions.
The Ombudsman considered that the time and effort required by the complainant in seeking the back-payment, and an unacceptable delay by the Ministry in processing the arrears payment, meant that the Ministry’s offer of a $3,000 ex-gratia payment was inadequate.
Outcome
The Chief Ombudsman formed the final opinion that the offer of a $3,000 ex-gratia payment was unreasonable because it did not sufficiently recognise the financial loss, stress and inconvenience suffered by the complainant and recommended an additional payment of $2,000. The Ministry accepted this recommendation.
This case note is published under the authority of the Ombudsmen Rules 1989. It sets out an Ombudsman’s view on the facts of a particular case. It should not be taken as establishing any legal precedent that would bind an Ombudsman in future.
Read it all Jacinda and try to understand the financial, physical and mental stress you personally have put on us elderly and reflect on the fact that in your time in power how many elderly S70 victims have died not knowing some relief was available.
It is my wish and goal to bring this to the attention of the over 100,000 elderly persecuted by politicians like you and that hopefully some legal entity will act on behalf of the families of those that have died can seek financial redress their departed loved ones lost the chance to take.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Newcombe
-----Original Message-----
I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, to acknowledge receipt of your Official Information Act request.
Your request will be responded to under the provisions of the Official Information Act 1982.
Yours sincerely
Dinah Okeby
Office of the Prime Minister
Authorised by Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern MP, Parliament Buildings Wellington 6012
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #12090 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________
hide quoted sections
From: Tabitha Spicer
image001.png
30K
Download
image002.png
7K
Download
2020 02 21 Letter to Robert Newcombe.pdf
197K
Download
View as HTML
Dear Robert Newcombe
On behalf of Raj Nahna, I attach a letter in response to your
correspondence received on 27 January 2020.
Yours sincerely
Tabitha Spicer
Private Secretary (Administration) │Office of the Prime Minister
DDI : + 64 4 817 8700
Level 9 Executive Wing, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6011
The information contained in this email is intended for the named
recipient only. It may contain privileged material or information in
confidence and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy,
distribute or take any action in reliance on it.
If you have received this email in error please notify us immediately by
telephone (04 817-9732) or by return email.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
Authorised by Jacinda Ardern MP, Parliament Buildings, Wellington
Email disclaimer:
Please note information about meetings related to the Ministers’
portfolios will be proactively released (this does not include personal or
constituency matters). For each meeting in scope, the summary would list:
date, time (start and finish), brief description, location, who the
meeting was with, and the portfolio. If you attend a meeting with the
Minister on behalf of an organisation, the name of the organisation will
be released. If you are a senior staff member at an organisation, or meet
with the Minister in your personal capacity, your name may also be
released. The location of the meeting will be released, unless it is a
private residence. The proactive release will be consistent with the
provisions in the Official Information Act, including privacy
considerations. Under the Privacy Act 1993 you have the right to ask for a
copy of any personal information we hold about you, and to ask for it to
be corrected if you think it is wrong. If you’d like to ask for a copy of
your information, or to have it corrected, or are concerned about the
release of your information in the meeting disclosure, please contact the
sender. You can read more about the proactive release policy at
[1]https://www.dia.govt.nz/Proactive-Releas...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. https://www.dia.govt.nz/Proactive-Releas...
From: Robert Newcombe
Dear Rt. Hon Jacinda Ardern,
I consider it extremely rude and repugnant that you as Prime Minister did not have the courage to reply to me in person.
The reply from Raj Nahna was cleverly worded to avoid my question as to why your govt has not instigated Objective 22 of the UN Global Compact for Migration which would entitle immigrants and returned Kiwis to keep overseas govt pensions we have paid for via social insurance contributions into govt pension schemes.
May I remind you that these pensions are in law our properties not the property of the NZ govt to means test against our entitlement to govt funded NZ Superannuation.
In 2015 you stood up in Parliament and condemned the old Section 70 but rewrote it under your govt and whilst the spousal cruelty ends in July, the main basic crime continues.
I also call you a moral coward because under your strange Coalition govt that in opposition supported reform, your govt has continued the veil of silence over the MSD's discretionary right for us to keep our voluntary contributory govt pension for example the UK SERPS pension which no doubt many of the 63,000 UK Section 70 victims could have benefitted by.
This has to be fraudulent behavior by successive govts to keep what we should be entitled to and as such you have failed again to protect our rights.
Like many elderly I was taken in by your righteous comments on fairness and human rights, you stand accused of false promises and lies along with Winston Peter's.
You will not be getting my vote in fact there is not one politician I can think of worthy of it, you are all scoundrels.
Your sincerely,
Robert Newcombe.
From: Rt. Hon Jacinda Ardern
Kia ora,
Thanks very much for taking the time to get in touch with Prime Minister
Jacinda Ardern.
We appreciate your email. Because of the large number of emails we
receive each day, you may not receive a response immediately.
While you are waiting for a reply, here's a list of links that may help
you find what you’re looking for:
[1]Beehive website
[2]The Prime Minister’s Facebook page
[3]The Prime Minister’s Twitter page
[4]Full list of Ministers
We hope one of the above links helps answer your question! In any case,
we'll get back to you as soon as possible.
Thanks again.
Authorised by Jacinda Ardern MP, Parliament Buildings, Wellington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/
2. https://www.facebook.com/jacindaardern/
3. https://twitter.com/jacindaardern
4. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/ministers
Ross Bond left an annotation ()
Ms Adhern: I worked and paid taxes for 25 years in NZ and I am a natural born NZ citizen.
Because I now live in the US your government has effectively stolen my entitlement to a part pension under some BS pretext or another, all of which amount to cooking the books in order to avoid paying what your government owes me.
You have no pension agreements with any major countries and certainly no agreement with the US - in fact NZ is one of the very few Western countries not to have such an agreement with the US.
Why are you avoiding your obligations to your citizens and why are you hiding behind your public service minions and not addressing questions yourself?
Robert Newcombe left an annotation ()
Dear Prime Minister Ardern,
Your refusal to answer why all you promised in opposition you have reneged on in power shows far from being refreshing in opposition, you are no different from your deputy Winston Peters who too whilst in opposition promised justice and who ran away from the reality of the govt's own support for change as proven by the 2004 MSD review and indeed Peters's own instigated MSD review of 2005, has been forwarded to the Ombudsman's office for, hopefully a reprimand or who knows a push for you to examine your conscience as to the damage you do to our lives and uphold the UNGCM objective 22 and our human rights.
Regards,
Bob Newcombe
Colin Tan left an annotation ()
Dear Jacinda,
In your daily announcements on Covid-19, you always end with your slogan "Be kind", and said a few days ago that NZ obtained the Test Kits donated from Singapore - yet your MSD discriminates against Singaporeans - read the Memorandum filed in the High Court on 10th March 2020 and Submissions filed on 17th March 2020 and you will understand the hypocrisy of that phrase - Be kind? Yeah - right!
Ref: CIV-2020-404-000325 dated 10/3/20 and 17/3/20
Tan v Director of Human Rights Proceedings.
In your video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLKOIjsC...
you mentioned Human Rights and yet the NZ Human Rights Review Tribunal [HRRT] struck out the valid complaint of DISCRIMINATION BY NATIONALITY [HRRT 059/2015] after an engineered delay of SIX years whereas the HRRT settled Colin Craig's personal assistant's complaint in just ONE month.
Your former PM collected his CPF savings tax-free but the same CPF savings of Singaporeans are confiscated 100% via Direct Deduction by MSD. Be kind? Indeed.
Your Court of Appeal judges confirmed in their rulings that unless Singaporeans threw away their passports/citizenships, MSD will confiscate the CPF savings of Singaporeans. This is coercion by MSD to disadvantage Singaporeans by reducing the Super by Direct Deduction unless they "relinquish their Singaporean citizenship" - Ref: CA 235/2017 Paragraph [20] - and this coercion is also blatantly against Human Rights. So what is the NZ Human Rights Commission doing by supporting MSD? Be kind? Surely kind?
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this request
Factotum left an annotation ()
The practice of deducting the value of a spouses foreign pension from one's own has been addressed but that is only a very small part of the total reform needed. Our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern is evading this issue. Having previously acknowledged it as being a "Human Rights Violation," she has had nothing further to say on the subject. All inquiries to her are referred to Carmel Sepuloni, her Minister of Social Development (Inertia) and nothing happens there either. Pregnancy and the birth of her child can't be a reason, because Jacinda made this and other comments critical of the law back in March 2015. To raise false hopes is a always a shameful thing to do. The many who voted for her at the last election now feel absolutely let down and abandoned as a result.
This prevarication at the highest level of our government is reprehensible.
Link to this