Dear Ministry of Social Development,

As Chinese pensions will not be subject to Section 70 until 2022, 1997 govt Ministries unification + 15 years contributions period + 10 years residency for NZ Superannuation, have Chinese pensions ever been subject to Section 70 and if so when did they stop?
Chinese pensions before 1997 were and still are state pensions.
If not why not considering urban pensions are/have been social insurance contributory based and rural pensions have been govt funded social security benefit based?

Yours faithfully,

Robert Newcombe.

Dear Ministry of Social Development,

It would seem that by the MSD's lack of a reply it shows that it cannot supply a ready made legal answer.
Even taking in the Xmas holiday break there is no reason why this question cannot be answered.

The facts as proven by the Chinese Ministry of Finance is that China indeed had a state pension system predating the 1997 countdown for the supposed MSD's start of its State pension system.
My complaint is not a racist rant against Chinese pensioners but a political rant against the MSD's lack of equality in the different treatment of non Chinese state pensions.

In a perverse way Chinese pensions based on social insurance contributions plus contributions from enterprises and which are not subject to Section 70 are treated correctly.
MSD reviews which condemned the treatment of overseas similarly self funded state pensions as unfair, discriminatory and inequitable in its 2005 review stated in recommendation 5 that these self funded pensions not be subjected to Section 70.
Successive govt's have plundered these overseas govt incomes and are in fact state theft and abuse against us elderly.
The term by and on behalf of a govt was proven incorrect in the 2004 High Court Rai case, MSD v SSAA if applied to the Fijian National Provident Fund pension, Tier 2, (exactly the same set up as the UK National Insurance Fund pension) and which collected social insurance contributions from workers and managed the provision of that country's state pension.
Judge Doogue ruled the pension by and on behalf of the contributors and therefore not subject to Section 70.
The MSD lost, lost again in an addendum and was refused the right of appeal
Over the years Chinese state pensioners have been granted the right to keep their state pensions even those which the Chinese govt have funded, Tier 1, in some areas and which by being govt funded should have been subjected to Section 70.
New Zealand citizens who have paid for these kind of overseas govt pensions, Tier 2, out of earnings have not had the same considerations and rights, it is either MSD stupidity and greed or political interference that has allowed this inequitable situation to continue.
This injustice will not go away, in 2012, sixteen of us took the govt to the United Nations Human Rights Council where in its response to our complaints, crown law produced a reply which was signed off by Anne Tolley and which was nothing more than a collection of lies plus misrepresentation of my wife and I's complaints and many others in defence of its human rights abuse against us elderly citizens, we lost.
If this injustice is not ended by this govt another complaint will be lodged at the UNHRC but this time due to our experience will be handled better and made public.

Winston Peters promised change and so has Labour, the PM herself knows all about the injustice, she was the Labour representative on the 2012 Select Committee on Social Development and along with NZ1st and the Greens called for change.
The moral and legal evidence against the continuation of this govt snatch of our overseas self funded govt pensions (property) is overwhelming so please answer this OIA such that action can then be taken against the govt if nothing is done to end the abuse..

Yours faithfully,

Robert Newcombe

Dear OIA_Requests (MSD),

Dear anonymous,
You have not provided any name or title of an official that can substantiate the claim that there was no Chinese State pension system before 1997.
Neither have you provided any evidence to prove your statement..
There has been a state pension system since 1951 and the term enterprise pensions relates to the fact that the enterprises paid the Social insurance payments for it workers to cover social security benefits including old age.
Section 70 is silent on funding but if the overseas pension is part of a program, the program being for the same reason as NZ Superannuation and the pension is by and on e half of that government the pension meets all three conditions then Section 70 is applied.
The only difference between my UK State pension, born out of similar social insurance contributions is that it does not contain any govt funding, but the Chinese govt funds its State pension where social pooling, the combining of area enterprises social insurance contributions including workers contributions for state pension provision is insufficient to meet pensions costs.
In the 2004 Rai MSD v SSAA High Court case Judge Doogue ruled that the Fijian pension, although administered by the Fijian govt is not by and on behalf of its govt because it is not govt funded but funded by employer/employee social insurance contributions and therefore not by and on behalf of govt but contributors.
The MSD tried to get that ruling struck out in an addendum and failed so that ruling stands.
Therefore why is my UK State pension subject to direct deduction when ruled in law not by and on behalf of the UK govt?
Officially signed replies to my answer either via the CEO or a Minister would be welcomed, no more anonymous replies
My proof of statements about the Chinese State pension can be found here in an official history of it plus I can supply more if you are still not convinced.
http://www.migrants-to-nz-beware.info/Ch...

Yours sincerely,

Robert Newcombe

Dear OIA_Requests (MSD),

As the MSD is either unwilling or unable to provide any evidence contrary to official Chinese Ministry information on the history of its State Pension predating the 1997, a claim by the MSD as the start of China’s State Pension, I will now pass this FYI on to the Ombudsman's office and others for clarification.
If indeed the information I have submitted is proven to be correct and that China’s state pension predates 1997, a course of action against this positive discrimination will follow.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Newcombe

Dear OIA_Requests (MSD),

My patience is exhausted so I will hand this OIA over to the Ombudsman's office to clarify whether or not there has been Chinese state pensions pre 1997.
I will also request that the Chinese embassy be contacted to either agree or not with the Chinese Ministry of Finance report on the history of enterprise pensions and the Chinese state pension in which it stated that China has had a state pension system since the communist revolution.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Newcombe