The problem is not hard to understand, the NZ Ministry of Social Development
(MSD) misuses a piece of 1938 Social Security Act, Section 70, to reclassify
overseas Tier 2, contributory govt social insurance pensions paid for out
of earnings into state funded govt pensions to enable them to be deducted
from that persons entitlement to NZ Superannuation (NZS), a NZ govt funded
pension the only requirement for which is only 10 years residency 5 from age
20, 5 from age 50, no contributions.
Put simply. NZ uses these pensions fund its social security system and affects around 89,000 elderly, it is a crime against us elderly.
Section 70 rules that if an overseas govt pension is
by and on behalf of the overseas govt issuing the pension then that pension
is deducted from their entitlement to NZS.
"By" means administered by that govt and "on behalf" means govt funded by that govt, it's this last part that the NZ govt misapplies in order to snatch any overseas govt pension, the reason given, its a state pension the funding of which is immaterial.
There have been several court cases challenging this ruling including three British expats all as individuals with no legal representation up against the might of crown law and judges who rule only on how the MSD interprets the law.
One went as far as the Supreme Court and again unrepresented lost to this misinterpretation of the law.
The legal ruling on how these Tier 2 pensions should
In 2004 there was a case in the Auckland High Court in which a Fijian immigrant had his Fijian civil service pension deducted from his entitlement to NZS.
The MSD had changed the law in 2002 in order for it to capture civil service pensions from overseas, which are in fact private pensions because they are paid for out of earnings and not subject to Section 70.
The case was the MSD v The Social Security Appeals Authority to which the complainant Mr. Sant Raj Rai complained of this unfair practice, the SSAA agreed and the MSD took the case to the High Court.
Judge Doogue ruled in favour of the SSAA, Mr. Rai, but in a side ruling the Judge also ruled against the MSD when it tried to say that Mr. Rai's civil service pension could be equated to the Fijian National Provident Fund Pension (FNPF state pension) and should be deducted under Section 70.
The judge ruled that Section 70 was dependent on the overseas pension being both by and on behalf but in the case of the FNPF he ruled that it could not be ruled on behalf of the Fijian govt because it was financed by employer/employee contributions, (like the UK National Insurance Contributory UK state pension) and therefore whilst administered by the govt was in fact on behalf of the contributors. The RAI High court case is here
 The only scheme to which the appellant points
is the FNPF, but that is not a Government funded scheme, it is a contributory
The funds for a non government employee's pension come from the contributions of the employee and the employer and not from the Government.
The Government does not contribute to the FNPF except as an employer or lender. (Similar the the UK National Insurance fund)
In no sense can payments from the FNPF be said to be by or on behalf of the Government.
The payments from the FNPF are exactly that. They are not payments by the Government. If they are paid on anyone's behalf, other than the FNPF, it is on behalf of the contributing employers and employees, not the Government as such.
The NZ/UK Social Security agreement's treatment of UK State pensions in NZ is illegal according to this ruling.
This is how all employer/employee contributions based govt state pensions should treated but are not, the MSD desperate to get this ruling changed or dismissed submitted an addendum a few moths later and Judge Doogue dismissed the request stuck by his ruling and then refused an appeal.
How the UK colludes
The CEO.MSD Peter Hughes in a letter letter to me states that the state funding is immaterial, proved wrong in the Rai case and that the UK govt gives its approval for its state pensions to be captured. Click here to download the letter.
The UK and NZ in 1983 signed a Social Security Agreement in which Article 15 gives NZ the approval to keep nearly 60,000 UK State pensions with the result many are impoverished resulting in financial hardship, health and mental problems. Click here to download the NZ/UK SS Agreement.
In 2004 the MSD in cooperation with the Treasury reviewed the legislation
after many complaints to the Human Rights Commission.
Conclusion, unfair and discriminatory, the govt of the day under Helen Clark, number 4 at the UN now ignored the findings.
Click here to download the MSD/Treasury review..
In 2005 the present Foreign Secretary Winston Peters forced his New Zealand
first coalition party Labour to review Section 70 again.
Conclusions: legislation ad hoc, out of date, discriminatory and inequitable. Click here to download the 2005 MSD review.
The CEO MSD Mr. Peter Hughes also submitted a warning to the panel reviewing this 2005 review stating that Section 70 was deducting pensions not similar (govt funded) to NZ Superannuation, analogous the regulations say.
Section 70 was designed correctly to stop people receiving two govt funded pensions. Click here to see the submission.
The complete review was ignored by Winston Peters who walked away from it and his promises ever since for justice and once again in power refuses to implement his promises for change.
The present Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who also fought for and promised change whilst in opposition and now in power has like her deputy ignored this injustice on so many.
In 2014 fifteen of us Section 70 victims took the NZ govt to the United
Nations Human Rights Council armed with all the evidence we thought
would convince the Council of the injustice, we were not experienced enough
for such a submission, had no legal help in drawing up the challenge and never
stated which articles in the UN Declaration of Human Rights NZ govt breaches.
The Minister of Social Development at that time signed off the govt's response which lied when it called all the evidence including its own reviews, Raj court case, Human Rights Commission's own reviews "unsupporting information making it difficult to understand the nature of the complaints against it." We lost.
Click here to download the Govt Response note part 3 page 3.
Letter to me from Judith Collins, Opposition National Minister for Social Development in 2006 when back in power 2008-2017 did nothing here
Reply from David Cameron's office in 2015 heard nothing more afterwards as expected here
The present Minister of Finance Grant Robinson in this audio recording taken
in 2014 during which he was in opposition agreed in a leadership contest to
a question from me about the unfair treatment of overseas contributory pensions.
He with the other two MPs in the recording admits the unfairness of Section 70 has on his constituents and promises to have it sorted out.
Now in power total silence Grant Robertson MP goes first, David Cunnliffe MP second, Shane Jones MP last. Click here to listen to the recording.
There is so much more evidence, not really needed, the proof already presented proves our case but if you would like more I can provide it.