Welcome to www.migrants-to-nz-beware.info highlighting the New Zealand government's human rights abuse of over 70,000 retired elderly by using outdated law to deny them the right to keep any overseas government pensions they have worked and paid for.
Other sites involved in the protest.

http://nzpensionabuse.org......http://www.nzpensionprotest.com A British expats battle against our political elite to end the discriminatory treatment of his UK State pension. Here.
The government lies at the United Nation Human Rights Council here.

E-mail us


The Americans..

The British.

The Canadians.

The Dutch..

Iona Holstead CEO of the Ministry of Social Development unwittingly confirms the problem

The infamous Roe case (American)

Work & Income New Zealand admits wrong.

MPs & their contact details.

E-mail all MPs in 2 simple clicks.

Newspaper articles

Interesting article from the Retirement Policy and research Centre

Labour Ministers admit wrong.

July 2015.
Petitions are to launched to the NZ, UK and American governments for help to put an end to this human rights abuse.
Links to these petitions will be provided as they are launched.

If 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are thinking of emigrating or returning to New Zealand then you need to be aware that the New Zealand government uses outdated (1938) law to perform a politicized crime that will deny you the right to keep any overseas government pensions you have worked and paid for.

When migrants 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retire here, but who also have an entitlement to New Zealand Superannuation (NZS), they find themselves subjected to outdated government legislation which deducts these overseas (Tier2) government pensions from their entitlement to NZS (Tier1).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 the USA.

2004 Ministry of Social Development full review
here. Page11stating Section 70 inequitable dictionary: unfair unjust discriminatory.
1: amend the wording and specify each countries' pensions in regulations.
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 1938.
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 here
Conclusion: In 2012 section 70 remains in place and intact.
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 property, here.

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. Statistics here

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 and says:
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, piecemeal legislation.

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 here.
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 ignored it.

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: nzpensionvictims@gmail.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 years.
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 people.

Latest crime figures here.