Crown Ministers betrayed their contempt for the law and the public

Ministers proposed to “clarify” legislation that is already “clearly stated”.

One of the Proposals released by Social Development Minister Ruth Dyson in June 2008 was that the government:

"clarify the wording of section 70 of the Social Security Act 1964 so that it is in plain English".

By the time of its release, this recommendation had already been accepted by the government, the Minister asserting that, “It is likely that the legislation will (change) in the first half of 2009.”

NZ Pension Abuse believes the wording of section 70 should be clarified to specifically exclude partial (employment-based) overseas pensions as not comparable to New Zealand Superannuation.  But the previous government had something entirely different in mind.  As former Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment Steve Maharey explained:

"The current wording of section 70 has a negative connotation because it clearly states that the amount of overseas pensions reduce (or are deducted from) the rate of NZS."

The explanation continued:

"Under this proposal the principles of section 70 would not change, in that a person would still receive an amount of NZ Super that took into account the amount of their overseas pension, but a more positive message about the policy being a top-up rather than a deduction could be conveyed."

In glossing their deduction into a top-up, government ministers were spiking plain English with Orwellian doublespeak.  Not content with pushing its “generous” superannuation line in correspondence and reports in order to cover up the consequences of section 70, the previous government was proposing to write its mythology into law - to write legislation in such a way that its true purpose is deliberately obscured.

The dishonesty inherent in this proposal is truly sinister.

The Proposals include "a publicity strategy".

Acting Social Development Minister Steve Maharey proposed a strategy which is breathtaking in its duplicity:

"During the Review there has been much interest on this issue from stakeholders.  Therefore, regardless of which policy proposals are adopted, the Government needs to put out clear and robust messages on this issue.

"A communications strategy detailing comprehensive stakeholder engagement will be developed.  This will be built around the following key messages:

o     the current system provides very good protection for most New Zealanders and therefore the Government is maintaining the wider policy largely in its current form

o    in terms of treatment of overseas pensions, most countries apply a principle that people receive the equivalent of one state pension - New Zealand achieves this through section 70 of the Social Security Act.

"The key audiences are non-governmental organizations such as Grey Power and Age Concern, migrant community groups, Pacific governments, other governments, in particular social security agreement partners and potential agreement partners, the New Zealand public and the media."

The proposed messages could not be more misleading.

• To detail “comprehensive stakeholder engagement” would be fraudulent.  In spite of its awareness of the degree of stakeholder interest over the course of its review, the previous government had done nothing whatsoever to invite stakeholder participation.  For the past nine years, Cabinet had shown nothing but contempt for the views of concerned pensioners.

• The reform desired by people receiving overseas pensions poses no threat to the security of other New Zealanders; in maintaining the wider policy largely in its current form the government is failing to act in the interests of individual superannuitants, other New Zealanders and the country as a whole.

• No other country applies “a principle that people receive the equivalent of one state pension”.  This notion is pure fiction.  The principle other countries apply is that each partial pension is an individual right.  Cabinet Ministers continued to perpetrate this lie even though they have repeatedly been informed that European laws expressly prohibit deducting one pension from another.

• To insist that “people (should) receive (no more than) the equivalent of one state pension” without distinguishing between pensions funded by the state and employment-based pensions administered or merely mandated by the state is to ignore the closest example of two state pensions: KiwiSaver is a state pension - and it receives state funding - yet it does not appear to threaten superannuitants’ right to NZ Super.

In October 2007, Steve Maharey produced the former government's most despicable excuse for refusing meaningful reform:

"The direct deduction policy affects only 10% of all superannuitants."

In June 2008, Ruth Dyson published the former government's biggest overseas pensions lie: