We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Robert Newcombe please sign in and let everyone know.

Have Chinese pensions ever been subject to Section 70, Social Security Act?

Robert Newcombe made this Official Information request to Ministry of Social Development

This request has an unknown status. We're waiting for Robert Newcombe to read a recent response and update the status.

From: Robert Newcombe

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.

Link to this

Jan McKeogh left an annotation ()

MSD have a lot to answer for in its interpretation of what constitutes a Chinese pension.
It is very clear an understanding of these pensions is very minimal and soft power politics are involved.
A very discriminatory and uneven playing field with pensioners from most other countries being in the losing team.

Link to this

From: 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

Link to this

Jan McKeogh left an annotation ()

The new Government has been now in power for several months. Given understanding of the challenging period a government has in establishing itself after an election, the public is patient.
Impatience, frustration, anger and despair at the lack of any movement regards Section 70 and the deductionof overseas pensions is to be expected. And it is happening amongst the 89,000 people affected.
The true definition of Chinese pensions and their origin continue to be swept under the radar of our current Givernment and so one of the most unfair aspects of Section 70 is highlighted. Certain Chinese migrants continue to collect a pension from China and then NZS. NZ Residents from other countries howevercontinue to have their NZS deduction. Almost a third of a billion NZ dollars is easy pickings and hard to give up.

Link to this

From: OIA_Requests (MSD)
Ministry of Social Development


Attachment R 20160511 Newcombe Robert Response alias.pdf
1.5M Download View as HTML


Dear Mr Newcombe

Thank you for your message.

Please note that a response was sent to your personal email address on 22 December 2017. The response was as follows, and included the attached document. Your email address has been removed to protect your privacy:

Dear Mr Newcombe
On 8 December 2017, you emailed the Ministry requesting, under the Official Information Act 1982, the following information:
• 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?
On 11 May 2016, the Ministry provided you with information about the Chinese pension and whether or not they are subject to section 70, please find attached the copy of this response.
It is important to note that Chinese pensions prior to 1997 were and are not considered state pensions and as such do not meet the criteria under section 70 of the Social Security Act 1964.
Please also note that the Ministry has previously provided you with all official information it holds regarding this topic.

If you wish to discuss this response with us, please feel free to contact [MSD request email].

If you are not satisfied with this response, you have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman. Information about how to make a complaint is available at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or 0800 802 602.

Yours sincerely

Official and Parliamentary Information team | Ministerial and Executive Services
Ministry of Social Development

Our Purpose:
We help New Zealanders to help themselves to be safe, strong and independent
Ko ta mātou he whakamana tangata kia tū haumaru, kia tū kaha, kia tū motuhake

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: 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

Link to this

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Robert Newcombe please sign in and let everyone know.

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Ministry of Social Development only: