The generosity myth
The last government increasingly emphasized its generosity in providing NZ Super.
In June 2008, former Social Development Minister Ruth Dyson released a Question and Answer paper about the Review of the Treatment of Overseas Pensions. One set of Questions and Answers was particularly telling:
Q. How much money does the government spend on people with overseas pensions?
The question betrays a loaded agenda: how dare “people with overseas pensions” challenge a generous government?
A. The amount of overseas pensions that are paid into
Unspoken but implied in that “however” is the message that the government was returning far more to pensioners than it was taking from them: how could anyone possibly suggest it was being unfair?
On the contrary, New Zealand’s international social security policy is described in these reports as “unfair”, “unsustainable”, “inequitable”, “out of date” and “out of step” with that of other countries. In the 2005 Report and the 2007 Overview paper, the term’s appearance (“NZ Super is relatively generous”) is an indicator of how the former government’s commentary on the treatment of overseas pensions was swinging from rational analysis to propaganda.
By 2008, “relatively generous” had become “very generous”. Addressing a Grey Power meeting in
"New Zealand's superannuation is very generous compared to that of most other countries. It is paid in full after a person has lived in
Grey Power members endured the repetition of this message dozens of times in the course of the election year. Yet the Minister never once mentioned that the number of people receiving NZ Super in full after just 10 years’ residency is extremely low, nor that in many cases NZ Super is being substantially reduced or denied to people who have been resident thirty to forty years and who have paid a significant amount in taxation.
Generosity is a mask the former government wore to cover its curmudgeonly streak.