Democratic participation
Over the three terms of the former government, there was nothing democratic about the overseas pensions review.
In June 2008, then Social Development Minister Ruth Dyson released a Question and Answer paper about the Review of the Treatment of Overseas Pensions. It is an artificial document in the sense that none of the questions had come from the public. Two sets of Questions and Answers, however, were particularly telling:
Q. Who was involved in the Review?
A. The Review was undertaken by the Ministry of Social Development and the Treasury. Government agencies such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, Inland Revenue and the Department of Labour were consulted and provided advice throughout the Review.
Q. Did any other people have input into the Review?
A. The Review took into account the views expressed in correspondence to the Ministry of Social Development and to various Ministers on the treatment of overseas pensions.
What the Minister did not mention is that the vast majority of these correspondents would have strenuously opposed Cabinet’s decision to retain the direct deduction policy. The government’s conclusions suggest that it took very few of their ideas into account.
During a meeting hosted by Auckland Grey Power in July 2008, the Minister was asked:
“In view of your claim on World Elder Abuse Awareness Day last month that, ‘We want older people to exercise their rights and advocate for their own interests’, can you explain why not one of the 50,000 stakeholders directly affected by the direct deduction policy was ever invited to participate in the review of the treatment of overseas pensions?”
Again the Minister’s reply is telling:
“No, I can’t actually. I presume it was an internal, officials-driven review.”
The government’s failure to follow its own policy was blamed on anonymous oficials. In fact the review was requested by the Deputy Prime Minister Hon Michael Cullen.
Every effort was made to suppress democracy and withhold vital information.
Over the seven-year course of the review, not only were stakeholders denied participation in a process affecting their personal financial security, but key reports delivered to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Social Development Minister were withheld from the public. The 2003 Report was inadvertently released in 2005; the 2004 Report was released in 2008 only through the intervention of the Ombudsman and in spite of prolonged resistance by a series of Social Development Ministers. Both reports contain explicit advice that the government’s direct deduction policy runs foul of its own Positive Ageing Principles.
The Ministry lauding New Zealand as a world leader in championing the participation of older people had for four years done its utmost to conceal from the world internal advice that a major portion of its superannuation policy is “unfair”, “inequitable”, “unsustainable”, “out of date” and “out of step” with that of other countries. Neither of the key reports containing that advice is available to view on the Ministry’s website.