Is the treatment of overseas contributory pensions illegal?

Robert Newcombe made this Official Information request to Andrew Little

Response to this request is long overdue. By law Andrew Little should have responded by now (details and exceptions). You can complain to the Ombudsman.

From: Robert Newcombe

Dear Andrew Little,
I like another 90,000 elderly lose the right to keep my UK State pension which is a social insurance employer/employee contributions based pension not govt funded like NZ Superannuation.
I met you for dinner at the Honest Lawyer in Nelson, a Labour Party meeting and I asked you the question why do we have to suffer the loss of all such funded overseas govt pensions by being treated as govt funded and deducted from our Superannuation you replied it was something the Labour Party had to address.
I also attended the Labour Party leadership meeting in Nelson where Grant Robertson, David Cunliffe and Shane Jones were inviting questions as to why they should be chosen.
I asked the question "if you were elected leader what would you do about the unfair treatment of overseas pensions" means testing against Super which is lauded as unaffected by assets or income.
Robertson and Cunliffe agreed they had been approached by constituents and it needed addressing, Jones gave a garbled reply showing he had no knowledge at all, I recorded them.
The MSD reviews of 2004 and 2005 also concluded that Section 70, Social Security Act, the piece allowing the means testing was out of date, ad hoc, unfair and discriminatory, nothing was acted upon even recommendation 5 of the 2005 review that only govt funded pensions should be means tested.
Both Jacinda Ardern and Winston Peters have both fought for change, Ardern at the 212 select committee and Peters who forced the 2005 review and have continually over the years promised change but they uturned and turned their backs on us victims now they are in power.
The point of this request is not about all the false promises and ignoring of all the evidence or even the lies the govt produced at our 2014 challenge at the UN Human Rights Council to defeat us but this to you as Minister for Justice as I seek a legal opinion to this following question.
In 20004 in the Auckland High Court there was a case where the MSD v The Social Security Appeals Authority over the deduction of a Mr. Sant Raj Rai’s Fijian civil service pension.
Part of the MSD's evidence was that his pension could be equated to the Fijian Nation Provident Fund pension, again like my National Insurance Fund pension contributory based.
Judge Doogue ruled that the pension was not in fact "by and on behalf of the govt" because even though administered by the govt was not govt funded and in law was "by and on behalf of the contributors" and therefore not subject to Section 70.
My question is I would like to know why such a ruling is not applied to my UK State pension by the MSD because to my untrained mind this is illegal.
So could you please as Minister of Justice please explain why it is not, does the ruling only apply to the Fijian pension or should it be applied to all such funded pensions, you have the power to give the correct interpretation of the law.

Regards

Robert Newcombe

Link to this

From: A Little Office (MIN)
Andrew Little

Tçnâ koe

 

Thank you for contacting the office of Hon Andrew Little MP, Minister of
Justice, Minister for Courts, Minister for Treaty of Waitangi
Negotiations, Minister Responsible for the NZSIS, Minister Responsible for
the GCSB and Minister Responsible for Pike River Re-entry.

 

Minister Little receives a significant volume of correspondence:

 

·         If your message is for Minister Little’s advice, or if you have
copied your email to another Minister and/or Member of Parliament with
more appropriate portfolio responsibilities, then this will be noted,

·         If you have invited Minister Little to an event then a member of
staff may contact you for more information if the Minister’s attendance
might be possible,

·         If you have made a request for official information then this
will be manged in accordance with the provisions of the Official
Information Act 1982, which may include transfer to a more relevant
Minister or agency,

·         If you have made a request under the Privacy Act then this will
be managed in accordance with the principles of the Privacy Act 1993,
which may include transfer to a more relevant Minister or agency,

·         If you are a journalist then your request will be triaged by a
press secretary,

·         To find out more about Minister Little read his [1]biography or
recent [2]statements.

 

Ngâ mihi

 

Office of Hon Andrew Little MP

Reception +64 4 817 8707 | Ministerial Email
[3][Andrew Little request email] | Web [4]beehive.govt.nz | Postal Freepost
Parliament, Private Bag 18 041, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160, New
Zealand

 

Authorised by Hon Andrew Little MP, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160,
New Zealand

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
1. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/minister/bio...
2. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/minister/hon...
3. mailto:[Andrew Little request email]
4. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/minister/hon...

Link to this

Jan McKeogh left an annotation ()

This question needs to be answered instead of being ignored.
The current government has a lot to answer for, namely not following through their pre election policy promises.
With the sweep of a pen, issues regarding overseas pensions can be rectified but the unequal playing field prevails.

Link to this

Susanne Demuth left an annotation ()

The wording of Section 70 amounts to legalised discrimination, means-testing (and denying to call it means-testing) migrants and returning Kiwis who have contributed and paid for their employer/employee-funded overseas pensions. As these schemes are compulsory - set up by governments that are more responsible than the NZ government which applies a law set up in 1938 in a world of mobility and globalisation -, in most cases these pensions are in the broadest sense "administered by or on behalf of a government", because the government needs to make sure that the pension providers act responsibly. But in reality the pensions are administered on behalf of each individual, receiving annual statements about their pension entitlements and the state of their individual pension accounts, as everyone receives a different amount, depending on the amount of contributions made.

The wording is nothing but a nasty trick by the NZ government to deduct almost every overseas pension. It does not change the facts if MSD insist that this is not means-testing because it is. This leads to the perverse situation that Kiwi millionaires who don't really need NZ Super receive the pension while people who had to pay for their overseas pension receive nothing or only a fraction of NZ Super.

The Labour Party has pointed out many times in the past that it considers Section 70 unfair, particularly the Spousal Provision element of the law. Cabinet even agreed to discontinue the Spousal Provision in 2007 but didn't find about NZ$ 1.5 million in the 2008 Budget to make the change. While in Opposition there was plenty of support for change, with Jacinda Ardern being most vocal. In addition to her 2012 support, she held a significant speech in Parliament in 2015; the highlights can be found here: http://www.nzpensionprotest.com/Home/let...
She called the policy unfair and the Spousal Provision a Human Rights violation.
There were also memorable quotes from Annette King and Ruth Dyson during the debate about the Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Act on 21 October 2009.
But sure, this was during Labour's time in Opposition.

It should be easy for the Minister of Justice to point out that the Direct Deduction Policy is a dishonest piece of legislation and used as a money-grab tool. It makes migrants and returning Kiwis pay twice for their retirement income, first making huge contributions overseas, then paying NZ Super for others and receiving nothing themselves, and while being robbed by the NZ government in retirement, they keep paying their taxes to again fund other people's NZ Super. And all this in a country that calls itself fair. Section 70 is what it is: legalised discrimination and misappropriation of personal property, legalised theft, abuse of other countries' retirement schemes to the advantage of the NZ government, means-testing of a minority, a piece of prehistoric legislation that should only allow the deduction of overseas pensions similar to NZ Super. You would expect something like this in countries like North Korea but not in a democracy. High time for the Minister of Justice to look into this law which is based on greed, xenophobia and envy (Tall Poppy Syndrome), not on fairness and justice for everyone.

Link to this

Colyboz left an annotation ()

For 53 yrs. The NZ Govt has been thieving pensions from UK Immigrants - $21.6Billion through a law that breaks a Law within itself. We’ve been fighting it for years and nobody takes any notice including the Ombudsman. NZ’s world class economic record supported over the last 54 years from the theft of $21.6 Billion ($400 Million pa+) from the pensions of the immigrant NZ elderly

Link to this

Factotum left an annotation ()

The means testing of some NZ resident seniors eligible to receive NZ Superannuation is clearly illegal.
The NZ Ministry of Social Development should face a legal challenge over it's continuing mis-application of the law.

Link to this

Jan McKeogh left an annotation ()

NZS is considered a benefit and to make things simple,MSD maintain our overseas pensions are benefits too. If one receives two benefits for the same purpose then one is means tested.
This is what we were told by MSD officials at the recent HRRT on Spousal Deductions.
Refusal to acknowledge the nature of the Tier 2 employee/employer contributions is the major deficit here. By applying legal interpretations is what has to be carried out independent of MSD and the QC.

Link to this

Colin left an annotation ()

Singaporeans in NZ are discriminated against by the New Zealand government which takes the monthly CPF savings refunds returned to Singaporeans by the Singapore CPF Board. The New Zealand government does not take the CPF savings of their citizens who worked in Singapore and had CPF savings accounts, like their ex-Premier John Key who received a knighthood for allowing the present Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development to discriminate against Singaporeans.
Read about discrimination made legal - https://discriminationnz.co.nz/
Section 70 will be used to seize the Kiwisaver accounts of everyone in future, as the Kiwisaver started in 2007 is a mirror of the Singapore CPF savings scheme started by the British in1955.
If you have a Kiwisaver account, read how the theft of private CPF savings can be easily applied to the future seizure of your Kiwisaver employee/employer contributions in the book "The Conscience of a 'Fair Go' nation" by Francis Done.
In other words, there is no conscience or fairness in a country that trumpets the slogan 100% Pure. Common criminals have the right to appeal right up to the Supreme Court but law-abiding retirees are stopped from going to the Court of Appeal.
Watch especially the two videos and you will understand - https://www.amazon.com/Francis-Done/e/B0...

Link to this

Robert Newcombe left an annotation ()

Dear Andrew Little,
What we want is for crown law to spell out why nearly 90,000 overseas contributory social insurance govt pensions are rightly or wrongly classed as by and behalf of the govt issuing the pension.
If it is correct in law that they are, does that mean Judge Doogue was wrong in the High Court but if they are as the Judge ruled why has this been allowed to continue for decades?
We also need the CEO/MSD Brendan Boyle to explain why his judgement of our pensions overides the High Courts legal ruling.
The time is fast approaching when this proven immoral and perhaps illegal impoverishment of so many elderly will if not corrected end up in an international court of law something we are investigating.

Link to this

Robert Newcombe left an annotation ()

Dear Andrew Little,

Listen to Jacinda Ardern speak at the 2015 Social Security Ammendment bill where she openly agrees with the injustice of Section 70 which pirates overseas govt pensions 60,000 UK. Start at minute 3
https://youtu.be/mLKOIjsCKhg

How can it be that the Labour Party promised to end the injustice yet you as Minister of Justice still allows this rort to continue

Link to this

Factotum left an annotation ()

Back in March 2015, Jacinda Ardern when addressing the Speaker of the House, described some Section 70 impacts as "Unjust, Unfair and a Human Rights Violation."
It is now 2018, 3 years later and she is our Prime Minister, but she has had nothing further to say publicly on this subject since taking office. Is she an honourable politician or is she duplicitous?
You be the judge.

Link to this

Robert Newcombe left an annotation ()

To Factotum,
There is only one way I judge Ardern like I judge Winston Peters, who has forever promised change and who in 2005 forced the MSD to review Section 70, he ignored the damning conclusions unfair, discrimatory, out of date and inequitable because he became Foreign Secretary, his soul was bought.
Now these spineless unconscionable unfit for office politicians have carried on with what they have condemned for years.
I judge them both to be political crooks and liars and we shall see whether Little has a conscience and soul because the Labour Party is no different from National in this state human rights abuse and impoverishment of nearly 90,000 elderly.
There should be an international investigation into the misinterpretation and possibley illegal ruling placed upon our pensions.
This is what our now supposed Minister of Justice has to prove one way or another.

Link to this

Dan left an annotation ()

Andrew Little has a framed picture of the Magna Carta in his office. The Magna Carta states clearly what our private property is and no one has the right to steal from us. The Bill of Rights state everyone has to be treated equally. Why is this blatant theft allowed by the Courts agreeing with the Chief Executive of MSD, that he has the sole opinion to determine what "can be seen as a pension"? Why is he also allowed to contravene the Privacy Act?

Link to this

Robert Newcombe left an annotation ()

Andrew Little will not reply, he has no defence other than hide under the table.
Labour promised change but politics being the refuge of scoundrels means all the false promises of Ardern and Peters are hidden under the mat.
As for going to the Omudsman about this wrong classification of my UK state pension, I have already tried that.
There is no independent body worthy or capable of reigning in govt abuse, the Human Rights Commission, the Office of Human Rights Procedings and the Ombudsman's office are all run by govt appointees and anyway having been brushed off numerous times to me they are just covert govt lackees.
The Ombudsman's website says it is there to investigate govt administration procedures which Section 70 is but then in it's toothless reply to my complaint cannot investigate it.
Like the other two these govt agencies are just car parks for yes people.
Still one day this crime against the elderly will be defeated but by then 10s of thousands of elderly will have died, suffered financial, physical and mental problems and meanwhile the press will concentrate on a more important issue, Jacinda Ardern (the youngest PM to inflict all the mentioned problems on over 90,000 elderly) and her bump, excuse me whilst I reach for a bucket,

Link to this

Colin left an annotation ()

On the program "Newshub Nation", Ms Sepuloni said no one will be robbed of his or her entitlements. Yet, retirees are robbed of their private savings - e.g. more than 5,000 Kiwis work in Singapore and collect their tax-free CPF savings when they return to New Zealand (like John Key who worked in Merrill-Lynch Singapore) but the Chief Executive of MSD robs 24 Singaporeans resident in New Zealand of their CPF savings! AND my question to the Prime Minister and Ms Sepuloni was referred to the perpetrator of this DISCRIMINATION by NATIONALITY, Brendan Boyle, to reply? What do you think was his reply?

Link to this

Robert Newcombe left an annotation ()

By a refusal to answer something he knows is wrong, this is indisputable proof that Andrew Little like Ardern and Peters believe that democracy, fairness, human rights and decency have no place in their political lives.
They lack compassion, empathy and any form of conscience over the subjugation of the human rights of us Section 70 victims in the name of greed.
Having already been to the ombudsman over this issue and been given the usual brush off you expect from a yet another govt funded agency, it just goes to prove how under our political system truth and dissent are covertly silenced .
Not until the Bill of Rights is supreme over parliament will New Zealand take its place in the modern world.
Bob Newcombe.

Link to this

Dan left an annotation ()

In ancient culture, or belief in karma as some may say, there is a belief that when a child is born, one does not know who is coming into your family. Christianity also teaches, "as you sow, so shall you reap". When politicians are in the Opposition Party, they preach fairness, condemn injustice and theft. When they become the government and support the Section 70 statement from the Courts that the source of the funds deducted by the MSD are irrelevant and are therefore deductible (therefore theft is legal), then hypocrisy at its highest level is revealed. A wise man once said, be careful whom or what you wish for. NZ First had a website before the election pleading for donations from retirees affected by Section 70 - what now?

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Andrew Little only: