Yes, Minister

There have been numerous occasions when Cabinet Ministers have been misled and misinformed by their own Ministry officials - who have been found to be supplying "selective", questionable and even false information.  From the court records we know that the Ministry supplied incorrect information to the High Court in the Roe Case.  We also suspect the Ministry may have been responsible for Chief Justice Davison’s erroneous assessment of international social security principles.  On other occasions, MSD officials have resorted to subtle distortion and misrepresentation of fact - with the intent of creating a false, misleading impression.

In a letter to Grey Power dated November 4, 2005, Ms Maxine Fleming, Senior Policy Analyst, Older Peoples’ Policy Division at the Ministry, sets out the government’s rationale for the direct deduction policy, with the standard justifications.  Ms Fleming concludes:

“The direct deduction policy/legislation has been tested at various levels of the New Zealand justice system.  It has been found not to be discriminatory by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.  It is a robust and well tested section of New Zealand social security law.”

Considering her department has been supplying inaccurate information to the High Court, it is a bit rich for Ms Fleming to inform Grey Power that the policy is robust and well tested.  Ms Fleming scrupulously avoids mentioning the Raj Case; she also avoids saying anything about one of the departments in her Ministry warning the government that it is at serious risk of being challenged due to the discriminatory nature of the direct deduction policy.

More and more, members of the public are questioning and convincingly challenging the long standing arguments used to vindicate current retirement policies.  MSD officials and Cabinet Ministers invariably reply with a re-statement of the law; however there has been an increasing tendency to try and justify the law - even when not specifically asked to do so.  Are Ministry officials now becoming uneasy and, in looking around for new defenses, beginning to make careless mistakes - such as misquoting the recent OECD survey?

In writing to an influential institution, Grey Power, Ms Fleming needed only to clarify the government’s position towards overseas pensions and specify the particular legislation involved – she did not have to justify the government’s policies.  Ms Fleming was not being truthful when she claimed that New Zealand’s direct deduction policy had been approved by the UN Human Rights Committee.  There is a rather significant difference between failing to find discrimination and reaching a finding of no discrimination:  Ms Fleming has used a subtle change in word order to distort fact and create a false impression.

The United Nations Library at the University of Minnesota confirms that the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 1994 investigated a single complaint of pension discrimination (lodged in 1991) of a migrant to New Zealand from Jersey.  It is correct that the UN found the migrant failed to prove he was a victim of discrimination under New Zealand’s direct deduction policy - as presented by the NZ Government.  However the UN conferred neither sanction, approval nor its blessing on New Zealand’s retirement practices, dismissing the complaint on the grounds of inadmissible evidence.  For full details visit:

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/html/dec475.htm

Interights International Human Rights Law ( www.worldlii.org/int/cases/IIHRL/1994/25.html )  commenting on this case states that if the migrant had been able to establish with the United Nations Human Rights Committee that his overseas pension was not a social welfare benefit, but employment related - then he should have been treated differently.

In her letter to Grey Power, Ms Fleming is attempting to convince the public that her department's appropriation of overseas retirement savings has not only  legitimacy but the full approval of the United Nations to boot!  The overall impression resulting from this letter is that Ministry officials are running out of plausible excuses for defending unpopular policies and beginning to clutch at straws.  The letter to Grey Power was a single instance, but instances of this nature - multiplied a thousand-fold - point to an entrenched culture of duplicity within the Ministry of Social Development whenever overseas pensions are involved.  The same culture appears to have infected Cabinet Ministers.

Politicians enter Parliament with nothing more than a rudimentary knowledge of the New Zealand system of state superannuation.  Even after many years in office, most Members of Parliament fail to acquire a comprehensive understanding of NZ Super.  Two years into their first Parliamentary term as Cabinet Ministers, even experienced politicians such as Dr Cullen and Mr Maharey were still responding to searching questions on NZ Super by admitting that they needed to consult with their officials before formulating replies.

Ministers’ lack of experience and working knowledge in complex superannuation matters invariably compels them to rely on, and accept, advice and information supplied by officials of the Ministry of Social Development.  Correspondence is drafted by MSD’s Ministerial and Executive Services Department in liaison with Policy and Delivery staff, the Ministers’ own input usually limited to reading and signing the letters prepared for their consideration before they are sent.  There must be times when Ministers under pressure give little more than a cursory glance to the correspondence they are signing.

Over the past 6 years, a remarkable similarity has been observed in the correspondence of Cabinet Ministers on any issues involving superannuation.  No matter which Minister puts his/her signature to a letter, opinions never vary.  The same language is used: phrases and entire paragraphs are identical.  No matter how reasonable, how articulate, how logical and how factual any information or opinion put to Cabinet Ministers, the public comes up against an impenetrable brick wall.  The Ministers will not listen to reason.  The gist of the reply is always the same:

“Thank you for your letter of such and such.  The government’s position is the only way.  The government’s position is not to be questioned.  If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.  Yours, etc”

The brick wall factor was nowhere more evident than when Mr Benson-Pope replaced Mr Maharey as Minister for Social Development.  Even as Mr Benson-Pope faced a barrage of uncomfortable questions in the first days of the new Parliament, he was sending out authoritative, informed letters on complex social security matters.  For a man with absolutely no background or expertise in such matters it was seemingly impossible; nevertheless Mr Benson-Pope sounded no different than Mr Maharey: he was speaking with exactly the same voice.  If Helen Clark had appointed Joe Bloggs as the new Minister, it would have made no difference.

Even the limited amount of correspondence available from the years when Hon Roger Sowry was Minister of Social Development under the Shipley/Bolger National Government is enough to show that the standard government position on superannuation was no different then than it has been throughout the last 6 years.

Questions over the unvarying sameness of Ministers’ letters on superannuation issues were put to MSD/WINZ.  Replying in March 2006, Chief Executive Mr Peter Hughes leaves no room for doubt:

“You have remarked on the similarity between responses you have received from different Ministers on the same issue over the years.  The explanation for this is that, in relation to policy, there will only ever be one agreed government position.  Thus policy remains constant and will not change…”

The comments made by Mr Hughes confirm the opinion of a growing number of people: for many years the nation’s retirement policies have not been the preserve of our elected representatives but that of senior civil servants.

Are there high-ranking civil servants with so much stake in the status quo that they believe it permissible to misguide and even manipulate politicians to realize their objectives?  Could they have seriously compromised the integrity and credibility of Ministers of the Crown, confident that their “influence” would be neither noticed nor questioned?

They were civil servants who “advised” Parliament to introduce the Spousal Amendment Act in 1985 (ensnaring people like Ruth) as a means of reducing the operating costs of NZ Super for the taxpayer.  They were civil servants who, by including politicians in the proposal, “persuaded” Parliament in 1987 to approve the massive improvements to their superannuation.

Has there been a subtle, almost imperceptible, obstruction of the democratic process?  Has Parliament been rendered unable to rectify - or even understand - major injustices affecting many people?

At the merest suggestion of being under the influence of civil servants, the Cabinet Ministers in the present government would indignantly proclaim, “We are very much in charge!”  Are they?

The only way the present government can convincingly show that it is in charge and take back control is to initiate a full scale Parliamentary Inquiry into the pension abuse perpetrated by MSD/WINZ under the ever more powerful mantle of its Chief Executive.

Last modified: February 21, 2007