Secrets and Lies

The Prime Minister has avoided being drawn into any comment on the contentious aspects of NZ Super, leaving the debate to her Cabinet Ministers to deal with.  Ruth is one of very few individuals in the country to have actually received a reply from the Prime Minister after appealing the unfair manner in which she has been treated.  Instead of a sympathetic, apologetic response, Ms Clark insisted, “I am confident that the government is not ‘defaulting on a commitment’ as you assert” and “Issues of equity are at the heart of all social security matters.”  

Has the Prime Minister ever been made aware that in New Zealand issues of equity are not at the heart of social security matters?  Is she ever tempted to admit "To be perfectly honest, at the heart of all social security matters is how to cut costs"?

The Deputy Prime Minister and his fellow Cabinet Ministers have frequently attempted to convince the public that New Zealand adheres to principles of international social security.  Namely, where a person has lived and worked in two countries (or more), both (or all) countries share the cost of that person’s retirement income.  The facts tell a very different story: as shown already on this website, New Zealand evades its pension obligations whenever possible.

In justifying existing retirement policy, Ministers continue to quote Judge Davison’s erroneous assessment of principles of international social security in the Roe Case: “Governments of countries do not consider it their obligation to pay retirement benefits when another government is already doing so”.  As shown in the section The Roe Case, New Zealand is going against international principles (European Convention 1408/71 Article 46) in not allowing people two pensions but actually deducting one pension from the other.

New tactics emerged in 2005.  In defending his inaction in implementing changes to NZ Super, Mr Maharey informed The New Zealand Herald, "The issue was raised four years ago, but not enough concern was raised to warrant policy changes."  It is unlikely anyone would question the word of a senior Cabinet Minister, and The New Zealand Herald published his comments verbatim. 

When The New Zealand Herald  investigated Ruth’s situation (“Superannuation shock for 65-year olds:  Taxing Times in Kohimarama”, August 1, 2005), Mr Maharey quoted an OECD survey rating New Zealand as having the finest state pension program in the developed world.

If the Minister had taken the trouble to read the OECD survey he would have discovered that the survey rated New Zealand (along with Ireland) as having the worst system in the developed world.

Misleading and incorrect information has been disseminated not only to the public and the press, but also to other Members of Parliament.  Politicians from other political parties often write to the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Social Development asking questions about NZ Super.  Their replies make it obvious that the Ministers, in many instances, have not been truthful with their Parliamentary colleagues over superannuation issues.  Under these circumstances it becomes almost impossible for the nation’s elected representatives to have a properly informed understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the state retirement program.

The secrecy surrounding the various Reviews of Superannuation and Portability is unacceptable: the contents of each of these reviews should have been made available for independent analysis, not kept concealed behind closed doors. 

Efforts have been ongoing through the Office of the Ombudsmen for more than a year to obtain copies of the May 2004 Review which the Minister for Social Development has acknowledged rejecting.  However, in what appears to be an intransigent flouting of the Official Information Act the Minister has refused requests to make available the contents of this document, citing various reasons:

The review remains “Under active consideration”.

Releasing the review could “jeopardize future negotiations”.

Releasing the review could “compromise the parties’ ability to work through the issues and could jeopardize the ability of the parties to reach agreement.”

Bollocks.

While the government clings to a policy of tolerating unfairness in NZ Super by denying its existence, Dr Cullen and his newly-appointed Social Services Minister, Mr Benson-Pope, repeatedly claim that the majority of New Zealanders cherish NZ Super in its current form and are opposed to any form of change.

Claims of majority support are only possible as long as the majority continues to remain uninformed about the true nature of NZ Super.  If New Zealanders learned the truth as to how many of our elderly people are being treated, support for the current system would decline dramatically.  If New Zealanders learned they could forfeit their right to NZ Super by living with the wrong person, support for the current system would cease altogether.

It is impossible for the Ministers to assert with any credibility that the majority of New Zealanders favor the current system when Mr Benson-Pope refuses to make public the number of complaints the government has received over the past 6 years - saying that the effort involved to obtain this information is unwarranted. 

If the actual number of complaints became public knowledge it could have the potential to cause major embarrassment.  The scant information available suggests that the office of the Minister for Social Development alone may have received complaints of pension inequity relating to 20,000 individuals over the past 6 years.

There is not one known instance where members of the public have had a satisfactory outcome when approaching the Office of the Ombudsmen over pension grievances.  Requests for information under the Official Information Act must be answered, in compliance with the law, within 20 working days. In this area, the Ombudsman appears to be impotent - as per the year of failed attempts to obtain a copy of the May 2004 Review of Superannuation Portability.  (The Ombudsman has also failed to respond to a request for information as to the appropriate legal proceedings that can be taken out against Members of Parliament when it can be established they are withholding information on false grounds.)

Following Mr Benson-Pope's refusal to make known the number of complaints involving retirement policies, the information was requested through the Office of the Ombudsmen under the terms of the Official Information Act.  The Minister recently informed Ombudsman Ms Beverly Wakem that he felt he was not obliged to comply with the terms of the Official Information Act - because the information requested does not exist!

Ms Wakem advises that Mr Benson-Pope has offered however, "to arrange for the creation of the information requested at a discounted price of $4, 522.00". 

It is deeply disturbing when Ministers of this government consider they have the right to charge fees for information, particularly information that should be in the public domain.  The individual who obtained this advice from the Ombudsman receives a pension subject to Section 70: the "discounted price" offered by the Minister represents the pensioner's entire NZ Super payments for the next five years.

Last modified: February 21, 2007