Media Apathy

Over the past decade, countless senior citizens (many of whom struggle with English as their second language) have appealed to their politicians to be treated in a fair and decent manner, only to be fobbed off at every turn.  The response to a German migrant, denied any form of NZ Super after working hard and paying taxes in New Zealand for more than 30 years, exemplifies the attitude of Cabinet Ministers in the present government.  Her appeal to her MP, Hon Harry Duynhoven, was dismissed as follows:

“I am concerned that you consider that you are being insulted and disadvantaged by this legislation and would ask you to consider the many advantages that New Zealand has given you over your fellow countrymen who did not emigrate, and who definitely have not had the opportunity to own farms and/or work for themselves in a climate and environment such as being in New Zealand has given you.  I hope you are able to put these issues which upset you behind you, and enjoy your retirement.”

In the US, the UK, Canada and Australia, the press would have seized upon such a letter from a senior politician and possibly forced him out of office.  Some of Mr Maharey’s statements would have made front-page headlines.  When a pensioner asked Mr Benson-Pope how many pension-related complaints his office had received, only to be told he would have to pay 5 years of his state pension for the information, it should have been reported in every newspaper in the country.

Government strategy in New Zealand has been heavily reliant on a state of journalism that is reluctant to conduct any in-depth investigation.  Journalists presumably shy away from superannuation issues as too dry and complex for general interest.  As a result, the public has remained oblivious to the extent of injustice in the nation’s retirement program.  Scant media coverage has meant any widespread protest has failed to ignite to date.

Some journalism has been shamefully misinformed.  In an article studded with ironies from the title on, columnist Mary Holm (“Surprising Confusion over NZ Super Entitlement”, The Press, March 28, 2006) set out to educate what she termed the “ignorant” public, claiming “Every New Zealander over 65 gets NZ Super, no matter how rich they are.  I thought everybody knew that…NZ Super is (neither) income (nor) asset tested.”  One of the sources of information Ms Holm cited was the Retirement Commissioner.

Freedom of the press is taken for granted in New Zealand but it comes under serious threat when the media is given false information by government officials or Cabinet Ministers, confident their authority will not be questioned.  Mr Maharey’s interpretation of the OECD survey for The New Zealand Herald exemplifies the danger.

Furthermore, when heads of government departments and Ministers of the Crown invent false reasons for denying access to information then the right of journalists and the public to obtain information under the Official Information Act becomes meaningless.  The Office of the Ombudsmen exists for the good of the people, but when obstructed it is rendered impotent.

If the government had been successful in its attempts to keep the February 2003 Review of Superannuation Portability concealed, none of us would have been any the wiser.  Its accidental release revealed to us how the nation’s most qualified authorities have indeed been telling the government that the state retirement program is seriously flawed, unstable and unsustainable – and how to remedy it.

The only interest in this document came from Television New Zealand who, after proclaiming that the subject “has been enthusiastically endorsed by our producers”, suddenly decided it was too complicated.  It may have been nothing more than coincidence that the Minister for Social Development at the time was also the Minister for Broadcasting.

The recommendations outlined in the review would not, as our Cabinet Ministers would have everyone believe, sacrifice the “advantages” of the current system, nor would they disadvantage large numbers of people presently receiving NZ Super.  When Ministers make such claims, we know they are not being truthful.  Yet the New Zealand media have largely shown that they are not interested.

The nation’s elected representatives are the only people with the power to change or amend unjust laws.  When Cabinet Ministers reject the advice of senior government officials to address a major injustice, they fail in their responsibility to the nation.  The proposals for changes to NZ Super that were to have been announced in November 2001 were canned.

For the next five years inquiries were met with, “The issue is under review and proposals will be made shortly” – with nothing forthcoming.  The current Minister for Social Development assured us that he “anticipated putting firm proposals to Cabinet by February 2006”, and when that date passed, “in the first half of 2006.”  He is now saying that he hopes to take proposals to Cabinet “in due course”; in fact Ministry officials have advised Grey Power that proposals will be presented “towards June 2007”.

The recent press release from New Zealand First – the most encouraging development to date in the ongoing struggle to obtain pension reform – was completely ignored by the country’s newspapers and radio and television networks.  Given the delaying tactics of the Labour Government in implementing superannuation reforms, New Zealand First may never be in a position to carry out its pledges.

The petition calling for a parliamentary inquiry into overseas pension deductions was delivered on 23 June 2006 with just under 7,000 signatures – more than double the number in any previous petition submitted to Parliament involving NZ Super.  This event too went unreported by the nation’s media.

The New Zealand Herald has proved an exception to the general media apathy over the past year.  On August 10 2006 it featured the latest of several articles highlighting the plight of victims of pension abuse with the headline, “BUREAUCRATS CUT MARINE RADIO LIFELINE”.

For the past 33 years Barry Groom in North Canterbury has been a comforting voice on the radio to sailors in distress, assisting in more than 300 marine rescues in the South Pacific and credited with personally saving the lives of several mariners.  Due to actions taken by MSD/WINZ, that week Mr Groom and his wife Lynette ran their Waikuku Beach Marine Radio 24 hour service for the last time.

Department heads at MSD/WINZ had reached the decision that a small English pension Mr Groom had been receiving on top of his NZ Super should have been treated as public money.

The Ministry had decided that the pension from the UK is not Mr Groom’s to keep and he must pay back to the NZ Government the pension he has been receiving over the years from the UK.  WINZ has now begun forcibly deducting the money from his NZ Super payments, informing him that his debt to the NZ Government will have been paid in full by December 2019 on his 89^th birthday.

Barry and Lynette Groom had been providing seafarers with daily weather forecasts for which they received no financial help from the government.  It cost the Grooms a minimum of NZ$5,000 a year to run Waikuku Beach Marine Radio on a 24 hour basis, but now that Mr Groom has to survive on NZ$107 a week he had no choice but to drastically reduce the service.

The matter has been referred to the office of the Minister for Social Development where a spokesperson has issued a statement to the effect that due to the issue’s complexity it will take some time to consider.  Given the track record of the present and the previous Ministers in handling superannuation complexities over the past 7 years, the outlook for Mr Groom is bleak. 

Last modified: February 21, 2007