A fair go
Ruth is one of very few individuals in the country to have actually received a reply from a New Zealand Prime Minister after appealing the unfair manner in which she has been treated.
Instead of a sympathetic, apologetic response, Helen Clark insisted:
“I am confident that the government is not ‘defaulting on a commitment’ as you assert. Issues of equity are at the heart of all social security matters.”
Had Ms Clark read the 2004 Report delivered in the course of her government’s Review of New Zealand Superannuation, she would have known that:
"New Zealand's international social security policies are inequitable."
The alternative recommended by Ministry of Social Development officials, involving abolishing the direct deduction policy,
“achieves equity between those who live overseas and those who have remained in
A mere 18 months after learning that
By the time the 2005 Report was delivered, the government had developed what it called its “direct deduction rationale” - essentially an elaborate attempt to justify policy which was increasingly coming to be seen as unjust:
“The rationale behind the direct deduction policy is to ensure that all
From 2005 onward, Ministers would habitually use the phrase “less equitable” when referring to alternatives to the direct deduction status quo.
The 2005 Report did acknowledge two areas in which the treatment of overseas pensions is inequitable.
o “In 1978, the
o “A person can contribute to the civil service scheme in The Netherlands, thereby gaining entitlement to a second-tier civil service pension. The
No solutions were provided, however. None of the issues of equity raised in 2004 had been resolved by the time the review was completed. In the Overview paper submitted to Cabinet in 2007, Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment Steve Maharey implies that inequity is merely a matter of perception:
“The interface between the
In the paper, the Acting Minister twice expresses his concern that “if a person were to receive a partial overseas pension entitlement as well as their NZ Super, they would be financially advantaged in comparison with a person who has lived all their life in
The reasoning is as incongruous as the syntax.
The need to prevent pensioners enjoying this “advantage” appears to lie at the very heart of the former government’s decision not to pursue policy changes advocated by the Ministry of Social Development.
Just who are these advantage-prone persons whose rights must be so severely curtailed? The Acting Minister acknowledges later in the paper that “overseas pensioners typically belong to low-income households” and that “over 60% of overseas pensioners are entitled to a Community Services Card.”
How is it that overseas pensioners’ rights can be curtailed with impunity? The Acting Minister makes it clear that these persons just don’t count:
“In my view there is insufficient evidence to suggest that we should improve the international interface of NZ Super, when this interface affects only 10% of superannuitants.”
There is no respect lost here. The
“The basis of the treatment of overseas pensions policy is sound. The effect of the policy is broadly equitable.”
Broadly equitable is a sick joke. As residents with overseas pensions know to their cost, anything less than universally equitable is inequitable.
Cabinet cynically tried to pit New Zealander against New Zealander in yet another bid to quash the objections of those denied their NZ Super entitlement.
It is deceitful to suggest that New Zealanders who have lived and worked in New Zealand all their lives are getting a raw deal - that New Zealanders who worked overseas stand to gain an unfair advantage. The reality is that New Zealanders who have lived and worked in
In June 2008, Social Development Minister Ruth Dyson released a Question and Answer paper about the Review. A section of one of the Minister’s Answers was particularly telling:
Q. What were the objectives of the Review?
A ... to ensure that the treatment of overseas pensions paid to New Zealanders is equitable for New Zealanders who have lived and worked in New Zealand all their lives.
The answer begs the questions: Why did the review not aim to ensure that the treatment of overseas pensions paid to New Zealanders is equitable for all New Zealanders? Surely that’s what equitable means?
With respect to the treatment of overseas pensions, none of the issues of equity - issues the former Prime Minister considered to be at the heart of all social security matters - was adequately addressed by her government.