Dear Ministry of Social Development,

In November 2001 the MSD/Treasury formed a working group to review New Zealand’s international social security policies as a whole.
In 2004 an MSD review stated “New Zealand’ policies on payment of NZS and of overseas payments into New Zealand are out of date and inequitable”
Dictionary: Inequitable: unjust, unfair, unequal, discriminatory, biased, and prejudiced.
In 2005 the MSD again reviewed the direct deduction by Section 70 with recommendations to bring it into line with modern international pensions practice.
In December 2007 the Retirement Policy and Research Centre at Auckland University reviewed Section 70 concluding that it needed to be reformed to bring it into line with other governments and end the impoverishment of the tens of thousands affected by the imposition of this outdated and unfair legislation.
The Human Rights Commission, inundated with complaints about the unfairness of Section 70 agrees there needs to be a change in the legislation.

The MSD’s own figures for 2014/15 show that 81,261 seniors were deprived of the right to keep $322,778,017 worth of contributory overseas government pensions.

Despite all the MSD’s own and other evidence that the Social Security Act is both unfair and outdated but still legal, how does the MSD morally justify the continual use of this outdated discriminatory legislation?

This seems particularly unfair to those with pensions from the USA, Canada, Europe and other countries when NZS recipients with similar funded Chinese pensions are allowed to keep theirs.
The MSD excuse is that there is no agreement with China to abate these pensions yet the MSD has confirmed to me that agreements are not necessary for abatement of any overseas pension that forms part of a program.

An explanation clarifying both situations would be most appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

Robert Newcombe

Dear Ministry of Social Development,

As the MSD are unwilling/unable to answer my requests regarding the favourable treatment of those with Chinese pensions plus no explanation as to why, despite its own reviews stating Section 70 is inequitable yet is still in use, it will confirm to thousands of us that this human rights abuse/pension thefts of the elderly is politically motivated.
As I do not expect a reply it will ensure the complaints are chased even more vigorously and especially with all the evidence on our side including now the misleading at best/govt lies at worst document the MSD submitted to the UNHRC in order to defeat our human rights abuse complaint against the government.
Legal advice will be sort as to a class action against the government for the return of all pensions abated from entitlement to New Zealand Superannuation and according to the MDS's own figures, a total amount of nearly $2billion of overseas pensions has been snatched by the National government since coming to power and this at a time when all politicians receive $18,300 a year of tax payers money is added to their pension pots.
An amount of $2billion subject to a percentage claim by a clever litigation firm be it nationally or internationally would be most attractive.
There is still time to answer the request and though I do not expect one, the MSD has been warned!

Yours faithfully,

Robert Newcombe