PENSIONS AND POLITICS II

The first report on “Pensions and Politics” generated several interesting replies from Members of Parliament.

One particularly important reply (May 27, 2002) came from the Attorney General of New Zealand, the Hon Margaret Wilson. In her reply she defended her government’s performance and denied that the government had been dragging its feet on the issue claiming that it was doing all it could to find a solution. She expressed the opinion that any major ad hoc change to the system would not be acceptable. She went on to say that New Zealand Superannuation (NZS) had never been designed to be portable but designed to cater for NZ residents only, and that the portability provisions subsequently bolted onto the system had never sat comfortably with the fundamental principles of NZS. It is clearly apparent from Ms Wilson’s reply that any proposition to end the pension problem with the United States would be dismissed by the government on the grounds it would not support any change affecting only one country and (in her own words) “merely replace one injustice with another”.

The Social Services Minister, the Hon Steve Maharey, has likewise dismissed the proposition to end the pension problem on the grounds that he does not condone a solution that would “simply replace on injustice with another”. These comments signal a major concession from high ranking members of government, that is, recognition that the payment to eligible Americans (and other nationalities) of only half their entitlement to NZS if they retire outside NZ is an injustice. With this official recognition, some progress might now be possible.

A disturbing feature of the correspondence from the two Ministers was the level of misunderstanding of the original proposal in the 1^st report, namely, to implement a fully equitable system. Accordingly, this second report intends to:

In her reply to the 1^st report the Attorney General made reference to fundamental principles, whereas the 1^st report submitted to Parliament in April 2002 focused on fundamental issues. The difference is important. In the sections “Who Pays the Piper” and “Who has Responsibility” (pages 14 – 16) it was asserted that every NZ resident pays for their retirement pension through the form of general taxation and that it cannot, under any circumstances, be construed as “pro bono”, i.e. a gift from the government. Bearing in mind this fundamental issue, it is difficult to understand how any democratically elected government can arbitrarily determine that some people will be paid their full entitlements, some only half, and others nothing at all. Despite the report’s wide readership it is worth noting that no one (including Parliamentarians) has come forth to openly dispute or contradict these assertions.

Based on the widely accepted constitutional principle that all have the inalienable and democratic right to be treated equally under the law, the original report put forward proposals to remedy the injustices arising from the current retirement policies. Succinctly, the 1^st report asserted that:

(i) All who qualify for full NZ Supernannuation should be paid their full entitlement, irrespective of where they choose to live in their retirement.

(ii) The arbitrary and capricious restrictions governing the application of NZS be removed, and

(iii) The unethical appropriation of beneficiaries’ overseas pension funds to be discontinued forthwith.

It is unfortunate that readers who merely scanned the document were misled by the recommendation that, as a first step towards breaking the impasse with the US, eligible Americans should be allowed to return home with NZS at the full rate. Consequently these readers misinterpreted the report to be aimed solely at the NZ/US pension issues. On the contrary, the emphasis in the report was on a fully equitable system (particularly in the area where the incremental cost is negated); unfortunately some readers failed to realize that this proposition was intended to be available to everyone who was eligible, everywhere.

There has never been any disagreement with the general consensus that NZ Super was not designed to be portable. When NZ first introduced a pension scheme in 1898 (subsequently upgraded by Michael Joseph Savage’s dual pension program in 1938) the nation’s isolation and poor communications meant that portability was an issue that did not need consideration. However, in the latter half of the 20^th century, in a much-changed world, the government belatedly recognized that some form of portability was necessary to satisfy the pressures created by international obligations. Regrettably, politicians both past and present have opted to take the line of least resistance and settle for bilateral arrangements with complete disregard for the difficulties being left for future generations. As a consequence portability arrangements “bolted” onto the system have never sat comfortably with the original framework of NZS, as the government is now conceding.

In view of this ad hoc approach it is not difficult to see why NZ has been unable to secure arrangements with larger nations such as Germany and Japan but has settled instead for agreements with the likes of Guernsey and Jersey. Currently there is an arrangement with Greece affecting some 150 people, a figure expected to decline in the future. Negotiations are advanced with a ninth nation, Cyprus, a development that will undoubtedly please the miniscule Cypriot community in NZ who may have thoughts of returning home. It should not be overlooked that this particular arrangement would also benefit any New Zealander who might be tempted to retire in that troubled island in the Mediterranean. In stark contrast to places of minor significance, NZ has been unable to secure portability with the US, according to the 1990 census home to 15,000 NZ citizens. Figures from the 2000 census are still not available (August 2002), but since 1990 the number of Kiwis in the US has increased notably.

Arrangements do exist with some countries that have strong historical ties with NZ. The current arrangements with the UK are barely satisfactory (though the blame is partly due to Whitehall’s lack of indexing pensions for Britons living in former “colonies”). But the example that best illustrates how uncomfortably portability sits with NZS is the Netherlands. Irate Dutch residents living in NZ have taken their grievances over pension anomalies to the office of the Ombudsmen who has had to decline jurisdiction as their grievances relate to matters of government policy. An appeal to the High Court resulted in a referral to a future revision of the bilateral agreement, and the present Social Services Minister did in fact sign a new agreement with officials in The Hague. However, the Dutch Parliament (noting that it has never experienced any major pension difficulties with any other world nation) has still not ratified the agreement due to the problematic nature of NZS, and unacceptable changes that NZ bureaucrats wanted to implement.

A much-criticized section of the NZ system is Section 70 (S.70) of the NZ Social Security Act. Section 70 has its genesis in the Michael Joseph Savage pension package of 1938 - in other words it has been around for a very long time (it was formerly known as Section 65 until the various Sections of the Act were renumbered in 1964). S.70 establishes the right of NZ government agencies to offset the pension funds from another country against the cost of the NZS entitlement. Strictly speaking the NZ government doesn’t “physically seize” the funds a retiree may have paid into any overseas State pension plan but it does the next best thing – it forcibly deducts those funds from the amount of Super the pensioner is entitled to receive.

Work and Income NZ (WINZ) requires all NZ Superannuation applicants to declare if they are eligible to receive any form of pension from outside NZ. Foreign-born retirees are bullied into applying to their country of origin for any retirement benefits that may be due them. Then, under Section 70 WINZ deducts any overseas State retirement income from a pensioner’s NZS payments. Furthermore, any foreign born person who fails to apply to his/her native country for any possible pension entitlement, through Section 81 of the NZ SS Act, WINZ ruthlessly stops all NZS payments.

An example that clearly illustrates how Section 70 operates relates to the case of a retired German lady resident in NZ. Having lived as an adult in Germany for 23 years she is entitled to a German pension of NZ$13,200 gross annually. She has since lived 30 years in NZ (27 years up to the age of 65) and more than adequately fulfills the eligibility requirements for NZS. Now widowed, she is entitled to a NZS gross payment of NZ$14,992 a year (the amount currently paid to singles living alone), however through the application of S.70 the full amount of her German pension is deducted leaving her with an annual gross Super payment of just $1,792. Next, NZ income tax not only wipes out her small NZS payments but also takes a chunk out of her pension from Germany. There is no debate that general taxation affords this person the right to benefit from the nation’s amenities such as roads, public health and so on. But after 27 years of contributing to the nation she is literally given nothing in return, which is grossly unfair. Under a more equitable and just system she should at least be entitled to a payment proportional or representative of her years of contribution to the NZ economy, e.g. 27/40^th. The German lady has appealed this case but failed because S.70 is statute law; for the same reason appeals have failed for countless other persons in similar circumstances.

This example clearly highlights the hypocrisy of officialdom that lectures the public on the need to save for their retirement and not to place reliance on NZS as a sole means of support in old age. No mention is ever made of the fact that the government agency WINZ is technically and legally permitted to “rob” the aged of any earlier savings they have in the form of overseas pension entitlements. It is difficult to imagine what goes on in the minds of bureaucrats and politicians who sponsor and condone the State’s taking advantage of the elderly through the implementation of administrative red tape.

Much of the information contained in this and the 1st report has not been easy to obtain. The proposals made in the 1^st report were predicated on the belief that the incremental cost to the nation would not be significant. Data that has since come to hand shows that the deduction of overseas retirement funds actually reduces the cost of New Zealand’s pension payouts by an amount significantly greater than previously imagined. Section 70 enables the NZ government to reduce the cost of its pension program by hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Figures made available to Dr Michael Cullen (now Deputy Prime Minister) in 1998 revealed (in that year alone) that there was a deduction of NZ$6.7 million in pension payments to persons of Dutch origin. The equivalent sum for persons of British origin was NZ$101 million - and so the list of deductions continued. It is therefore hardly surprising any proposals that would spell an end to this source of revenue would not be openly welcomed. It obviously suits the authorities to keep the public uninformed on this sensitive issue.

In the first “Pensions and Politics” the US was accused of not doing enough to end the pension imbalance. However for its part NZ authorities have done nothing whatsoever to resolve the problem, and the ongoing retention of Section 70 is not only considered repugnant but also a major impediment to the resolution of pension problems with the US (and indeed other major countries).

No one can condone the US policy of compelling New Zealanders living in that nation to put money aside for their retirement, and then deny them what they have paid on the basis of their nationality. But there are compelling arguments underlying this action. Frankly, it is NOT unreasonable of American authorities to disapprove of arrangements that would permit Social Security payments to eligible New Zealanders who return home, when the primary objective of WINZ is to appropriate those payments from the United States wherever possible to help fund the New Zealand pension program.

Pension injustices are not confined to people born outside NZ. A retired NZ couple that has contributed an entire working lifetime to the nation recently decided to move to New Mexico to be close to an only child and their grandchildren. As a result of the move these elderly New Zealanders will be entitled to only half the going rate of NZS, a situation that is neither just nor equitable. To make matters even worse, if they do not have the presence of mind to apply for NZS prior to leaving NZ, they then completely lose their half entitlement and get nothing. This is simply unfair bureaucratic red tape.

In a defensive reaction to criticism the Attorney General and Cabinet Ministers have identified unfairness of a different nature, citing the unfairness associated with the payment of the full NZ pension to anyone after just 10 years residency (including, of course, 5 years after their 50^th year). Citing one injustice as the offset to another is both immoral and inexcusable. Two wrongs do not make a right. Although this complaint may have some merit it seems somewhat disingenuous when both the complaint and the remedy lie within the Ministers’ own hands. What seems ironic is that it was Members of Parliament who reduced the existing residency criteria from 20 years to 10 years in 1978 following a petition of a mere 3,000 signatures (predominantly elderly migrant workers) and a subsequent recommendation of a Royal Commission. This change further exemplifies the bolt-on nature of NZ Super, in this instance the exception being made the rule. It once again raises the twin issues of equity and justice in the administration of NZS. The Attorney General does have a point in that it is “overly generous” for any person to receive a full NZ pension after just 10 years residency. However the absurdity of this example pales in to insignificance when contrasted with a person who has worked in NZ all their life and who subsequently moves to the USA: that person is entitled to only half a pension. If Cabinet Ministers, who are responsible for management and change of the legislation are not prepared to act and rectify the illogical and haphazard approach to NZ Super, then they must expect their own complaints to fall on deaf ears.

The unfairness and the absurdity of the NZ system is further evidenced in the policy of terminating payments to resident pensioners who travel overseas for 6 months or more. In the case of the retired couple going to New Mexico, if they decide not to move permanently away from NZ but visit New Mexico for a year or so, after 6 months WINZ stops their entire Super payments. However, if they return to NZ every 6 months and submit to “re-testing” then payments may be continued, a situation equal to the plight of the Kiwis forced to travel to the US every 180 days to obtain their US Social Security per the 1^st report).

When it comes to unfairness, probably no other nation on earth has surpassed NZ in devising ways to take advantage of the elderly and deprive them of what they have earned.

Copies of the 1^st report “Pensions and Politics” were sent to prominent politicians in all the political parties. Aside from the on-going interest shown by Steve Maharey, Lianne Dalziel and Tim Barnett, it was disappointing that only two out of New Zealand’s 120 elected representatives were outspoken in their genuine concern and support for change to end the pension imbalance with the US. The two were United Future Leader Peter Dunne and Green Party MP Sue Bradford. Prior to the recent elections one party leader was asked at a media interview if he had read the report. He replied that he had not bothered to read beyond the first page as the subject matter was too complex, then added “but I’m passionate about rubbish”. It was encouraging that many Parliamentarians demonstrated interest in the report, but from their responses it was obvious they knew very little about how the nation’s pension program actually functions.

It is usual for Cabinet Ministers to rely on senior Ministry officials for information and advice and it would seem that top civil servants are the only persons who are completely au fait with NZ Super regulations. It is the responsibility of departmental heads to administer the legislation enacted by Parliament, irrespective of its inadequacies or shortcomings. It must be borne in mind that only Members of Parliament can create or amend laws - but this is not to say that senior officials do not have discretionary powers. S.70 of the NZ SS Act authorizes the deduction of any overseas State sponsored pensions from NZS payments, and contains a clause whereby any uncertainty concerning the deductibility of an overseas pension may be decided “in the Chief Executive’s opinion”.

There is cause for concern that in the case of NZ Super no official body has ever been appointed to monitor and review the Executive to ensure that it has not been excessively zealous in its intent to save the government money. There is also concern that Ministry officials may have not been providing proper information to Cabinet Ministers on the complaints over injustices that have arisen as a result of the current laws. The latter concern is amplified after re-examining the case of the German lady, mentioned previously. After unsatisfactory dealings with bureaucracy the German lady appealed to Parliament. The Minister of Social Services, Steve Maharey, in his response (June 6, 2001) relied on advice supplied by the Chief Executive, advice that can only be described as hypocritical, and information that is, at best, questionable.

In a quote from the Chief Executive, the Minister’s letter argues that where other countries do not provide full Social Security benefits until 40 to 50 years of contributions, NZ provides a full pension after only 10 years residency. But this smacks of hypocrisy: in this particular case New Zealand’s generosity is cited as a major benefit - whereas in other cases it has been cited as a major injustice. Thus S.70 becomes a Catch-22: it can be a convenient justification for the appropriation of overseas pensions or an excuse not to pay full pension rights to beneficiaries living overseas on retirement.

The Minister’s letter continues: “The deduction of overseas pensions from NZS therefore places NZ in a situation that approximates that of overseas countries, in that NZ will limit the extent to which they pay a pension by the amount of any overseas pension that is received”. In this instance the Minister has either been misinformed or he is ignorant of the fact that this statement is patently false. At the risk of being repetitious, it was clearly documented in the 1^st report (page 17) and reiterated in this report that NZ is the only country in the world that limits the extent to which a pension is paid by the amount of any overseas pension that is received.

Superannuation is not one of the portfolios of the Attorney General and it is assumed that her reply to “Pensions and Politics” reflected the views of the Chief Executive, and her party. In his own response to the report the Social Services Minister concedes that he was unable to reply “until officials at the Ministry of Social Development had considered the report”.

Serious questions are asked as to the nature of the brief provided by the Ministry regarding the 1^st report. It is natural to expect officials would be asked to check the veracity of the facts and figures and report back and comment on the civil administration of some of the issues raised. But they are not expected to provide opinions on the rights and wrongs of policy matters that are rightly the prerogative of Parliamentarians.

The interesting question is raised as to who is ultimately making the policy on the nation’s pension program?

The NZ government has recently taken steps to inform as many Kiwis in the US as possible that if they choose to remain NZ citizens they cannot bring their US Social Security entitlements with them if they return to NZ to retire. Considering that many of these persons would not meet the 10 year residency criteria for NZ Super, the government has essentially sent out a message to its citizens in North America stating “We don’t want you back – but if you decide to return, only come back as US citizens”.

Despite the supposedly “altruistic” motive this message has deplorable overtones. Other than this warning message, bureaucrats and politicians have done nothing to alleviate the unfortunate circumstances of NZ citizens who have returned to NZ only to discover they have lost their US pensions, and do not meet the NZ pension qualifications. For decades elderly New Zealanders have been coming home from North America to live out their retirement only to face the rude shock they have lost their pension from the US, through no fault of their own. For some, ineligibility for NZ Super has meant the cruel ordeal of returning to the US every 180 days to obtain a pension, as earlier reported.

In a recent public statement one political figure dismissed these persons saying that they had “abandoned their country” and “deserved what was coming to them”. These people did not abandon their country, nor did they renounce their allegiance to the Crown.

For many years bureaucrats and politicians alike have ignored the predicament of these people. It would not be difficult to enact legislation that would grant full NZ Super eligibility, regardless of residency criteria, for NZ citizens who have returned home and lost all or any right to US Social Security. These people forfeited their right to a US pension because of policies of the NZ government. To its discredit, the NZ government has refused to accept responsibility for its own actions.

This report asks the NZ government why has it done nothing to provide for its citizens caught in these unfortunate circumstances?

The Minister of Social Services announced in May 2001 the appointment of a committee to conduct a ‘Review of Portability’, at the time regarded as a timely and positive step by the Minister. Although the terms of reference were not made public it was hoped that the committee would include a serious review of not only the contentious Section 70 but also other aspects of NZS that hinder portability with major nations including the US.

It is disturbing to note that the review has still not made its debut and the long-standing status quo remains. The latest word on the review is that it is “nearing completion”. The length of time taken to complete this review could be a sign that it is not considered a matter of priority, or, hopefully, that an extremely thorough and comprehensive investigation is being undertaken. When the review is finally completed, there is no guarantee that the findings will be made public but kept, instead, behind closed doors, privy to a select few. (As the only member of the public to make a submission to the review committee, a copy of the final report has been requested under the Freedom of Information Act. To date it remains unclear if a copy will be provided).

The fate of the still unreleased Review of Portability may be complicated as a direct result of the recent elections, and the formation of a new MMP government. Political commentators have observed that the former Labor led coalition has emerged weaker, not stronger, from the July 27 elections, and the Green Party has openly vowed to bring down the government on a single issue if it doesn’t get its way. Co-leader Rod Donald has stated that his party does not favor portability of NZ Super and opposes any moves on the part of the NZ government to end the pension problem with the US (The Press, 7/16/02).

It is not inconceivable therefore that the government, regardless of any recommendations made by the review committee, will decide that changes to NZ Super at the present time are an unacceptable political risk. The request for the Review of Portability was internal, accordingly the Minister of Social Services is not bound to make any details public. If the decision is made not to act on any of the review’s recommendations, the review can be quietly filed away and forgotten – and the nation will be none the wiser.

In May 2002 copies of the 1^st report “Pensions and Politics” went out to Kiwi Associations in every major city in the US, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Hawaiian Islands. To facilitate wider readership requests were received from Sacramento to New York for the creation of web sites to give New Zealanders in North America the opportunity to read why they could not take their US SS home with them. The first web site was actually set up by Americans at Hastings College of the Law (University of California) then this was quickly followed with a web site set up in Salt Lake City by a group of New Zealanders. It is believed that other web-sites exist, but addresses for the first two have been given to the electorate offices of Lianne Dalziel, Tim Barnett and Sue Bradford.

Copies of the 1^st report were also sent to the State Department, US Ambassador to Wellington, Charles Swindells, and the Commissioner for the Social Security Administration in Baltimore. Paul Butcher, the SSA Associate Commissioner for International Affairs, and successor to the late Barry Powell (mentioned in the first report), personally replied to the report and confirmed that US officials are continuing to closely monitor the NZ situation. By way of contrast, GREYPOWER, an ineffectual organization that purports to champion the rights of the aged in NZ, showed no interest whatsoever and did not even bother to acknowledge receiving the report.

The web sites in North America have been accessed from different parts of the world (including NZ) and there can be no doubt the report has generated interest. The same web sites proved effective in the run-up to the recent elections, informing ex-pats of how each political party responded to the report, as well as those politicians who showed concern for overseas New Zealanders and those who supported portability arrangements. The potential of using web sites in future elections to inform overseas New Zealanders as to which political parties best serve their interests is only just being realized.

Within 48 hours of this second report being sent to Parliament the various Kiwi Associations in the US will be alerted. This report will then be posted on the web for the interest of overseas New Zealanders who are now well informed and deeply concerned over their government’s responsibility for the pension situation with the United States.

In an effort to facilitate the resolution of this issue a second proposal is now put forward for discussion and approval by the present NZ government.

The proposal is designed to not only resolve portability issues between New Zealand and the United States of America but also put the NZ system on a similar footing with Social Security systems in Europe and Canada. Additionally the proposal paves the way for agreements with major nations such as Germany and Austria. The proposal is also based on the implementation of a uniform policy that would eliminate the most unjust aspects of the current policy. Moreover it would eliminate the need for the much-criticized Section 70 of the NZ SS Act except for certain humanitarian provisions. Finally, the proposal would not be difficult to implement nor would the cost involved be prohibitive.

Broadly it is proposed that a proportional system of pension payment be extended to everyone. The detailed proposal is as follows:

(ii) All persons who fulfil the residency criteria become eligible for NZS on reaching 65 years of age, regardless of where they live at the time.

(iii) The payment of NZS is to be calculated on a pro rata basis, either one 45^th of the full rate of NZS for every year of NZ residency between the ages of 20 and 65, or one 40^th of the full rate for every year of NZ residency, ages 25 to 65.*

(iv) With a proportional system of NZS payment based on the number of years of NZ residency Section 70 of the NZ Social Security Act is redundant.

(v) In lieu of the present Section 70, a new Section is to be created that provides anti-accumulation mechanisms for widows, invalids and sickness beneficiaries, plus guarantees for refugees, asylum seekers, and others deemed worthy of special protection. This section would be administered with discretionary powers given to the Minister or his appointees.

(vi) Restrictions on the application for NZS to be removed. Those eligible for NZS on reaching the age of 65 are to be permitted to apply for payments from anywhere and at any time

* With many young New Zealanders forced to work overseas, most often to repay student debt, the rate of one 40^th is suggested as more just, decreasing the chances of students being doubly penalized.

Objections to these proposals might be voiced by British migrants, disadvantaged by the UK policy of non-indexing its pensions to persons living in former colonies. Any objections could be avoided through the system of “grand-parenting”. Further, NZ could join Australia and break off its current agreements with the UK on the basis of the UK’s archaic and out-of-place policy in refusing to index pensions to beneficiaries living in other parts of the Commonwealth.

In her reply to the 1^st report the Attorney General, the Hon Margaret Wilson, claimed that the government has not been dragging its feet on the issue of portability with the United States. Although no criticism had been leveled at the current administration it was evident that the suggestion had touched a raw nerve. However heartening it is to be told that the appropriate authorities are actively engaged in the process of resolving this long standing issue, there was absolutely no evidence provided to support the veracity of this statement. It would take a great leap of faith to assume that the issue was now progressing to a resolution.

The only real evidence that government has taken some tentative steps on this issue is the much-vaunted ‘Review of Portability’. Unfortunately comments made by the Attorney General and the Social Services Minister prior to the release of this report must be viewed as a portent that it is highly unlikely to address the current pension injustice. Skeptics will view these comments from Ministers of the Crown as unhelpful as they not only indicate that the outcome has been prejudged, but that they also look like an overt effort to exert high level influence over the review’s findings and recommendations. Despite the pessimism surrounding the review, when it is finally completed one can only hope that it will be subjected to critical analysis and public scrutiny.

The unfairness, inconsistencies and inequity of the NZ retirement program have existed far too long and cannot be ignored indefinitely. Changes to NZ Super are desperately overdue. But there appears to have been a complete lack of political will in past decades to make the changes needed. In the first report it was pointed out that cost is not an acceptable excuse to evade the correction of social injustice. Cost has not been an inhibiting factor in the correction of many past social injustices, and it should not be used – as it has been used – as an excuse to avoid rectifying any injustices that affect the elderly, particularly in the Superannuation arena.

In the past decade Task Forces have been appointed to monitor and make recommendations to the government on Superannuation and are supposed to be appointed every five years. Details of the 1992 Task Force are sketchy but it is known that changes were recommended – however there were no major legislative changes made in the aftermath of this Task Force. The Periodic Report Group on Super (also known as the Todd Task Force) of 1997 advocated the expansion of portability and advised that changes to NZS were needed. The recommendations were “shelved”.

About the same time the Department of Social Welfare was charged to examine (a) the direct deduction policy of S.70, and (b) the right to take NZS to countries with which NZ does not have social security agreements. To date the Department’s examinations have either not been made known, or not completed. The Super 2000 Task Force is understood to have been reaching similar conclusions to those of the 1997 Periodic Report Group, however it was abruptly disbanded, thrown out, by the present government. During the past decade the various political parties entered an agreement to prevent Super from becoming a political football, known as the Superannuation Accord. When the first major change was contemplated (Dr Cullen’s Super Fund) the Accord collapsed.

Despite all of these reviews, reports, accords and task forces the net effect is that nothing has changed and major injustices have been allowed to continue. There can be only one inevitable conclusion and that is the administration (politicians and bureaucrats alike) for many years have walked away from their responsibility towards Superannuation. This situation is untenable because only the administration has the power to rectify these injustices.

Pressure is beginning to grow. During the past decade countless distressed Kiwis have written to Members of Parliament on learning that they have lost the right to US Social Security. The standard reply, with minor variations, has been “Rest assured, we are doing everything possible to find a solution”. It is no longer acceptable for NZ citizens to be dismissed in this manner, and it is axiomatic that we can no longer REST ASSURED.

The first report “Pensions and Politics” highlighted, in language people could understand, the nation’s failure to secure portability arrangements with the US. The large numbers of New Zealanders who suffer as a result are now aware that their own government is responsible for this misfortune.

Reasoned and equitable proposals have been made to this government that would bring an end to the lack of portability with the US and benefit thousands of NZ citizens working in North America. These proposals would also open the way for portability arrangements with other major countries, they would provide an equitable system to the benefit of all New Zealanders, and it would end the despicable practice of seizing foreign earned pensions, a practice that stains the honor and integrity of the nation.

The time has arrived for the Minister of Social Services, the Hon Steve Maharey, to recognize and face up to the problems associated with New Zealand Superannuation, to assume the responsibility the Office demands, and to take the necessary remedial action to end the major injustices outlined in this report.

PENSIONS AND POLITICS II

THE PROBLEM WITH SUPER AND PORTABILITY

An Alternate Proposal to the Minister Of Social Services.

INITIAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE FIRST REPORT.