you are thinking of emigrating or returning to New Zealand then you
need to be aware that the New Zealand government uses outdated (1938)
law to perform a politicized crime that will deny you the right to keep
any overseas government pensions you have worked and paid for.
and Kiwis who have worked overseas and have paid into an overseas government
pension scheme such as in Australia, America, Belgium, Canada, Denmark,
Germany, Ireland the Netherlands and the UK and others and retire here,
but who also have an entitlement to New Zealand Superannuation (NZS), they
find themselves subjected to outdated government legislation which deducts
these overseas (Tier2) government pensions from their entitlement to NZS
(Tier1). Tier 1 = non contributory benefit. Tier 2
= contributory benefit.
As many people do not understand these different types of government pensions
it is accepted as normal practice here yet it is government abuse to deny
them the right to keep these contributory pensions which are different to
NZS and which in law are property.
The government cleverly uses Section 70 of the Social Security Act 1964
which is deliberately kept in its 1938 wording.
Entitlement to NZS is not by contributions as in the case of these overseas
pensions but by 10 years of residency, 5 from age 20, 5 from 50.
Under the 1938 legislation overseas pensions pensions were all the same
as NZS and correctly deducted from it, it's a bit like having the unemployment
benefit from both New Zealand and overseas and the legislation is still
correct today by deducting such similar pensions.
However as time went by many other countries including the UK adopted a
new pay as you earn scheme which in many cases also included employer's
contributions and so Section 70 became obsolete but has never been updated
to recognise these new type of pensions.
The government's lame excuse that it is a complex situation is to fool everyone
and hope the public accept it as such.
It is simple enough to understand and by simply changing the deduction wording
from "any pension managed by an overseas government"
to "only pensions that are Tier 1 tax payer funded
and similar to New Zealand Superannuation" it becomes updated.
NZS is lauded as "unaffected by assets or income"
which is correct with regards to private incomes and private pensions but
incorrect when overseas government pensions are deducted meaning we are
the only group in society forced to pay for our NZS.
The government ignores its own Ministry's warnings
and the Human Rights Commission's (HRC) own findings.
Because of the growing numbers of complaints involving Section
70, the Labour Party under Helen Clark commissioned the Ministry of Social
Development to review the legislation in 2004 and 2005 and the then Finance
Minister was warned of its unfairness and discrimination and that Section
70 was so out of touch with other countries pension schemes that it was
preventing social security agreements with some of these countries for example
2004 Ministry of Social Development full review
Page11stating Section 70 inequitable dictionary: unfair unjust discriminatory.
1: amend the wording and specify each countries' pensions
This change would amend the wording of Section 70 so that it is worded in
"plain English" and would set out the treatment of each country's
pension in regulations.
The wording has not been significantly altered since its introduction in
Rewording the section would help officials to administer the policy and
would assist the public to understand how the policy operates and what pensions
government intends to deduct from New Zealand entitlements.
Determination of deductible and non deductible foreign pensions is somewhat
haphazard as decision makers have only the obscure wording of Section 70
of the Social Security Act 1964 as a guide.
2005 Ministry of Social
Development full review here.
Statement on Page 2, No: 9 proving discrimination and unfairness.
The direct deduction and the payment overseas
rules are an increasing source of dissatisfaction amongst superannuitants
Many of the overseas pensions that are deducted are not similar to NZS
because they are contributory pensions under which workers contribute
to their pensions often through a social security tax. The government
has chosen to ignore these reviews and recommendations.
The non independent Human Rights Commission
(HRC) (run by government appointees), stepped away from any confrontation
with the government but did commission a revue by the Retirement Policy
and Research Commission (RPRC) at Auckland University called "Passing
the buck" Full review
Conclusion: In 2012 section 70 remains in place
Despite the possible human rights implications, the reforms proposed
by MSD itself, the Human Rights Commission, the Retirement Commission
and the RPRC have not been adopted.
Yet few of the immediate recommendations require legislative amendments,
or entail significant costs.
The recommended administrative changes could be implemented promptly,
as they involve modest cost while providing great improvements in human
rights and in the equity of New Zealandís overseas pensions policy.
In 2012 the RPRC produced another document called
'Enduring anomalies and inequities" here
again highlighting the unfairness of Section 70.
One of it's conclusions:
The recommended administrative changes could be implemented promptly,
as they involve modest cost whilst providing great improvements in human
rights and in the equity of New Zealand's overseas policy.
This involves as a priority, removing the marital discrimination.
The government can also over ride the Bill of
Rights a toothless piece of law which does not recognise the right to
Chief Executive of the
Ministry of Social Development answers. Admits
Section 70 deducts the wrong pensions: here.
2016 Government figures
for each country affected and growing yearly.
There have been many challenges to the law but
all avenues are blocked by government controlled entities that uphold
the legality of the law and refuse to recognise the immorality it invokes.
The last opportunity in a complaint lodged with WINZ against the unfairness
of Section 70 ends up at the Benefits Revue Committee which ensures
the complaint is finally defeated by its process in which a panel of
three, two WINZ employees and a "consultant" chosen by WINZ
ensures, as many of us have found out, the complaint is thrown out.
In 2009 the Green Party's MP Sue Bradford introduced a Social Security
Amendment Bill here
There are many problems with our current system
of administering social welfare.
The framework that governs the activities of Work and Income goes back
to the Social Security act 1964, an outdated piece of law that has been
amended so many times that is has become a ramshackle mosaic of flawed,
United Nations Human Rights Council
rejects our complaints about the human rights abuse of section 70.
In February 2014 a group of us affected by the injustice of Section
70 and unable to seek justice from the government or its agencies, submitted
a complaint to the Council which you would think is made up of human
rights advocates and lawyers but is in fact made up of up to 53 political
appointees many from countries that practice human rights abuses themselves
We had no acknowledgment of receipt at all until in six months later
when we had notice to say a decision would be made in early 2015.
We then received this curt and rude response in which no explanation
was given despite of all the evidence on our side here
The government response was a 49 page document of misinformation here
in which much was made of the fact none of us had exhausted the
complaints procedures available.
Very true, none of us had but we had individually tried different avenues
but together all of which lead to the same result, failure.
The fact that the government is a member of the UN Security Council
also played heavily against us the council needs NZ's support.
A government is judged
by its treatment of the vulnerable and the duplicity of the National
Party shows it cares little for anyone affected.
In 2008 Prime Minister John Key in opposition
and publicly campaigning for election in Nelson, when questioned by
a member of the public regarding the injustice of Section 70 replied
"if you have paid for them you should keep them".
This vote catching statement of common sense and reality was ignored
when National won the election.
That the Prime Minister places more importance on changing the flag
than the human rights abuse of over 65,000 elderly speaks volumes.
In 2006 Judith Collins MP in opposition
as the Party's spokesperson on Social Welfare and in answer to a letter
complaining of the injustice of Section 70 replied here
and like the Prime Minister, displayed perfectly the unconscionable
two faceness of her party and now supports it.
Nick Smith MP for Nelson, which has a high
proportion of Section 70 victims years ago when questioned at the Saturday
market admitted that the legislation does have an "anomalies"
but refused to stand up for those of his constituents affected and also
Despite stating in their manifestos that they support the updating of
Section 70 to end the injustice, Labour and United Future sit on their
hands and do nothing.
NZ1st's Denis O'Rourke has had his Private Members Bill
"Making New Zealand Super much fairer for Kiwis" accepted
June 2015 here
National cannot defend the continuing the use of outdated legislation
when the Human Rights Commission, the Retirement Policy and Research
Centre at Auckland University, two government reviews and the President
of Grey Power joining in here,
all support change.
In 2014, nineteen elderly victims laid
a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Council citing human
rights abuse against over 65,000 elderly.
For six months we heard nothing then we were told a decision would be
made in early 2015.
It came in the form of a curt off hand simple sentence here,
all the evidence, govt and human rights reviews were ignored.
The government, a social security member was protected and considering
the following allegations about the UNHRC it is not surprising.
British UK state pension holders
are the largest group affected by Section 70.
They number around 47,000 out of a total of over 65,000 victims and
lose over $183million each year out of the grand total of around $241million
and growing each year.
Considering the ever growing number of British migrants arriving each
year, the government displays a total disregard for their future retirement.
The government relies heavily on the 1983 Social Security reciprocal
agreement with the UK in that it mirrors Section 70 even though it has
been proved to be unfair and outdated. Agreement here.
Any recipient of a UK state pension who feel they have been denied the
right to receive it by the New Zealand government and would like to
request the British Prime Minister David Cameron to end the cooperation
in this injustice click here
to open an online email to the Prime Minister,10 Downing Street. Note
the postal address does not recognise NZ all numeral postal codes so
just add a letter.
No 10 will reply to your email address and send a confirmation code
which you then click on and the email is accepted.
If the British government refuses to help then a challenge in the European
Court of Human Rights will be pursued.
If you wish to be a part of that petition please email us at: email@example.com
Kiwis retiring in the UK.
To add insult to injury, when Kiwis retire in
the UK, their non contributory residency years here are transformed
into contributory years there and they receive the UK state pension
on the same basis as UK citizens, based on the number of converted contributory
What a lot of people don't know is that the New Zealand government pays
nothing towards these Kiwi's UK state pensions, that burden falls on
the UK tax payer.
As for those here entitled to both NZS and the UK pension, the NZ government
through section 70 uses their UK pensions to fund their NZS, double
dipping and unfair both ways for both British expats and the British
Latest crime figures here.