Government efforts to conceal and deny the truth

The Review of New Zealand Superannuation was strictly suppressed.

Requests under the Official Information Act for the first report (dated February 2003) of the former government’s Review of New Zealand Superannuation Portability, from the public and other political parties, had all been refused.  Details were withheld even from Labour backbenchers.

In March 2005, the office of Social Development Minister Steve Maharey inadvertently sent a copy of this report to a private citizen.
 

After the accidental release of the 2003 Report, subsequent reports were treated as closely-guarded state secrets.

For four years, NZ Pension Abuse attempted to obtain the release of these papers (in particular, the report dated May 2004) through the Office of the Ombudsmen.

Over those four years, the office of the Minister for Social Development and Employment did everything in its power to frustrate and embarrass the Ombudsman.  The legally-permissible time frame for replying to correspondence was invariably ignored, often forcing the Ombudsman to make the same request more than once.

Eventually, the Minister agreed to release sections of the 2004 Report, claiming that its contents had been unacceptable to his predecessor and therefore historical in nature and largely outdated.  Heavily censored, with whole passages blacked out and pages missing, they were virtually useless as sources of information.  Almost three quarters of the document’s content had been erased.

The Minister defended the censorship by contradicting his earlier comments:

“Areas remain under active consideration.  Disclosure would be likely to prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or the international relations of the Government of New Zealand.  Release of the information at issue will harm diplomatic relations as the countries potentially affected have not to date been consulted as part of this area of the review.”

The Minister’s office further argued that releasing more material would compromise the ability of the government to work through the issues and reach agreement with NZ First.  When NZ Pension Abuse provided irrefutable evidence that NZ First was being excluded from the decision-making process, the Ombudsman finally ordered the Minister to release the 2004 and 2005 reports.

Defying the Ombudsman, the Minister’s office did not release the papers but issued instead a 5-page summary of the two papers it had specially prepared “to avoid any confusion”.  When the summary was denounced as unacceptable, the Minister’s office had one last trick up its sleeve - the Convention of Budget Secrecy, under which the papers would not be released.

After the May 2008 Budget announcement, the entire request process had to be repeated but the Minister’s office had no remaining options.

The papers were finally released under the Official Information Act in June 2008.

Pensioners understandably concerned to know why the recommendations of the 2003 Report were not being implemented were fobbed off with claims by bureaucrats and politicians that their overseas pensions are deductible because they are similar to NZ Super, that the direct deduction policy has been well-tested in the Courts and that the policy ensures that no one is advantaged by receiving more in the way of a state pension than New Zealanders who have stayed home.

The following typify cabinet ministers' claims:

“The proposals would not advantage the majority, or even a significant minority.”

“New Zealanders cherish NZ Super in its present form and are opposed to change.”

“The proposals ignore the continuity of the present system’s evolution over nearly 70 years, and the clear preferences that have been expressed when the electorate has been consulted in the past.”

“None of the leaders of other political parties have made representations to the government in support of changes.”

“In the last referendum New Zealanders voted overwhelmingly against changes to NZ Super.” 

“The proposals fail to take care of the most vulnerable members of our society.”

“The most vulnerable members of our society, in particular, are not pressing for the repeal of section 70.”

“The proposals sacrifice the advantages of the current system.”

“The cost involved in administrative change would be too high.”

“The proposals are not financially viable.”

“The proposals fail to consider the in-built limitations necessary for New Zealand’s unique non-contributory, universal, flat-rate pension scheme to remain financially viable.”

The release in 2008 of the 2004 and 2005 reports confirmed pensioners’ suspicions that every one of these statements constitutes a serious misrepresentation of social security reform - that Mr Maharey and his successors have shortchanged New Zealand.

It is no wonder the former government was so anxious to keep this material concealed.

Its contents reveal that:

• the current policy’s “in-built limitations” are plainly in-built injustices

• it is the current policy - not the series of reform proposals - which is financially unsustainable: abolishing direct deduction would significantly reduce the cost of New Zealand Superannuation

• “the most vulnerable members of our society” are those who are or are about to be subject to NZ Super clawback: the reform proposals would vastly reduce the number of vulnerable superannuitants.

However, this is only the beginning.  The newly-released papers contain official admissions that:

• the direct deduction policy ensures that persons with overseas pensions receive less NZ Super than New Zealanders who have stayed home

• earnings-related pensions bear little resemblance to NZ Super

• the government's treatment of overseas pensions is “unfair”, “inequitable”, “unstable”, “unsustainable”, “out of date” and “out of step” with that of other countries. 

The enormity of the former government's cover-up, duplicity and irresponsibility can only now be fully realized.

What the government was told it needed to do
Home