Contradictions and inconsistencies
Not only are New Zealand's international social security practices inconsistent with other government policy, but
The government’s efforts to manage the discrepancy between its behaviour and its rhetoric tied it into ever-more-embarrassing knots:
o Government assurances that current policies “operate well” and are “sound” blatantly contradicted a 2004 Report finding them “unsustainable”, “out of date” and “out of step” with that of other countries.
o The number of people prosecuted for benefit fraud - in the order of 1000 people per year - is a tiny percentage of the number of superannuation beneficiaries defrauded of their retirement savings each year.
o The former government refused to admit the closeness of the similarity between targeted overseas pensions and its own untargeted KiwiSaver scheme.
o New Zealand Superannuation is used to support a generosity myth reiterated constantly by the former government to disguise its determination to slash payments wherever possible.
o The Retirement Commission is loth to acknowledge that NZ Super is hardly a universal pension.
o The former government refused to concede that in spite of its professed abhorrence of “double dipping”, the government itself is often paid twice to fund one person’s NZ Super.
o Ministry of Social Development officials pointed out as long ago as 2003 that the direct deduction policy entails restrictions on superannuitants which are not consistent with Positive Ageing principles.
o Programs training Work and Income New
o Despite acknowledging that “voluntary pensions are essentially private savings”, the former government did not remove from the scope of section 70 foreign state pensions built up by voluntary contributions.
o Though the former government accepted that the policy of deducting a person’s overseas pension from a spouse’s entitlement to NZ Super should be discontinued, the deductions continue unabated.
o As soon as it learnt that its international social security policies were "unfair" and "inequitable", the former government did its utmost to convince the public that the recommended alternative to existing policy would be inequitable.
The discrepancy between the ideals to which it paid lip service and the actual drivers of its decisions demolished the former government’s credibility for people who identify in any way with New Zealand residents who work or have worked overseas.