Collective Action

Considering the words and actions of Cabinet Ministers throughout the past six years, no one should trust this government to advance responsible, meaningful, desperately needed changes to the state retirement program.

Given that all other political parties have signaled an awareness of major injustices associated with NZ Super, their elected representatives working collectively could vastly improve any merely cosmetic reform legislation Cabinet might introduce.  It would be most unfortunate if these MPs, unfamiliar with superannuation complexities, were fooled into believing that superficial changes proposed by the Minister for Social Development would indeed solve all the problems.

Outwardly, there is the appearance that New Zealand has reliable democratic institutions in place to ensure that everyone who lives in this country has the right to justice and equality.  The institutions of democracy may be effective in some conditions; where pension abuse is concerned, however, New Zealand is not the fair and democratic society we had assumed.

How many other pensioners who have been wrongly treated have case-files tucked away in the depths of MSD/WINZ classified, “HIDE HISTORY”?

Thousands of pensioners have had their right to a degree of dignity in retirement taken away from them, an injustice that we have been given every reason to believe the government has no real intention of adequately addressing.  Over and over again, we come up against an elaborate structure that is designed to obstruct, confuse and deter.  However, the structure is not the impenetrable fortress it may seem: it is built on a lie - and cracks are beginning to appear.

If the government fails to honor our petition, the only way left to fight injustice is to take matters into our own hands.  We can do so by joining together to file a massive class action suit against the government.

An important feature of the February 2003 Review is the warning to the government that it is at serious risk of being challenged under the Bill of Rights Act 1990, due to the discriminatory nature of the direct deduction policy.  The government remains extremely vulnerable despite having blocked every avenue of appeal.  Our success cannot be guaranteed, but the possession of so much damaging evidence places us in a very strong position to seriously threaten the government in the High Court.

It still remains possible for a pensioner to “go it alone” and challenge the government in the Courts (as has been attempted before), but the costs to any pensioner would be astronomical.  However, if large numbers of disaffected pensioners joined together, each person contributing a share of the cost, then a Class Action Suit becomes a real possibility.

In our initial website, we mentioned that if thousands of people joined forces to share the costs, those costs might be no more than $10 per person.  A year after the website was launched, the number of persons registering interest in a Class Action Suit is not yet running into the thousands - meaning that we may have to dig deeper into our pockets.

Nonetheless, the figure of several hundred who have registered interest in joining forces to challenge their government is unprecedented.  With the evidence in our possession, it may very well be possible to arouse the interest of a major law firm prepared to consider representing us on a contingency basis.

A suit filed against the government would not be with the intent of winning huge damages.  Should that happen, the government would probably react by cutting funds to needy services in order to meet the pay-outs, and we would alienate mainstream New Zealanders in the process.  All the same, the damages sought should be substantial enough to establish a lasting reminder that dishonesty in government is unacceptable in New Zealand.

Although the prospect of successfully challenging the government in the High Court looks promising, the chance of success must not be overplayed.  Even if we were to fail, however, the stories of injustice being exposed as hundreds of angry superannuitants join forces to sue their government would be a major embarrassment.  The attention alone would likely leave the government with little choice but to make changes.

As a last resort, we could - and should - file a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Council.  The lone appellant from Jersey - a 76 year old migrant - was poorly equipped to properly frame the issues.  We are far better prepared and in a much stronger position to present a wealth of material that is both damaging and convincing.

To subject New Zealand to international embarrassment is not a preferred option, but when every avenue of appeal has been systematically blocked by our own systems of government, we should have no misgivings over airing New Zealand’s dirty linen at the United Nations for all the world to see.

We have a choice.

We can continue to put up with abuse and insult from politicians like Harry Duynhoven - when all we are asking for is a fair go.

We can sit back and say nothing while MSD Senior Policy Analysts continue to send out soothing, deceitful letters - when all the public is asking for is the truth.

We can turn the other cheek as Retirement Commissioner Diana Crossan continues to fraudulently claim that NZ Super is a “Universal Pension” subject to neither income nor asset testing - when the public needs to know the facts.

We can continue to allow senior civil servants to confiscate our overseas pensions to subsidize their superannuation nest eggs - so that they can retire in dignity, at our expense.

Or we can join together and fight back - not only for ourselves, but to make New Zealand a better place for our children and our grandchildren. 

Last modified: February 21, 2007