Dear Jacinda Ardern,

After many complaints to the Human Rights Commission, in 2004/5 the MSD reviewed the treatment of overseas contributory govt pensions, which in reality are no different from private retirement schemes, paid for out of earnings, property in law but are confiscated merely for being administered by a govt.
The reports condemned the practice as unfair, discriminatory, inequitable, outdated and out of sync with other countries social security systems.
The conclusions and recommendations were ignored and we all know it was government greed regardless of the awful consequences on us elderly affected.
You worked for Tony Blair so you paid National Insurance contributions towards your UK State pensions as my wife and I did, you understand the system, the National Insurance Fund runs the whole system not the govt.

In 2012 the Coalition parties at the Select Committee on Social Welfare called for change to the 1938 Section 70, Social Security Act1964 which means tests our overseas govt pensions against Super and lost.

At the rewrite of the Social Security Act in 2015 you acknowledged the unfairness, here you are https://youtu.be/mLKOIjsCKhg
In 2014 change was promised in the Labour Manifesto and it was also in the NZ1st's.

In December 2018 the govt signed up to the UN Global Compact For Migration which has 23 objectives to aid migrants throughout the world.
Objective 22 calls for the portabilty of social security entitlements and earned benefits which your Govt breaches.

Why is it that with all the govt's own reviews, the Human Rights Commission's damning reviews via the Retirment Policy and Research Centre, Auckland University, the promises made in manifestos, the signing of the UNGCM, are my wife and I plus 100,000 other elderly still being impoverished by the govt confiscation of our Social Insurance Pensions?

The Spousal provision/crime where if a person's overseas contributory govt pension affects their partner's Super and which in the video you called a human rights violation ends in July, subtle govt recognition of the unfairness of the system.

Also voluntary SI pensions are being allowed as well which is basic human rights but what about my other SI pension which is compulsary, who ever made this decision to continue the confiscation doesn't understand the UNGCM covers these as well.
It's typical govt unconscionable behavior to allow one SI pension that is voluntary and not a compulsary one, come on Jacinda where's the fairness in that?

In 2014 fifteen of us took the National Govt to the UN Human Rights Council over this unfair impoverishment of us which is not imposed on the rest of Superannuants and lost because the Council is run by political appointees, some from 3rd world countries and the govt lied when it called its and other reviews as "unsupporting information".

Why has Objective 22 not being fully implemented and whilst the Compact is not legally binding, it is morally binding and in 2022 NZ will be reviewed on its performance and the breaching of Objective 22 will have to be answered.

Chinese SI pensions which I might add can also contain govt funding which Section 70 should target are allowed to be kept.
I have been a citizen since 1974 yet a Chinese immigrant can come here aged 55, never need work could even be on a benefit yet gets to keep their SI pension whilst I lose mine, all because of the excuse they are not administered by or on behalf of the Chinese govt which I have proof they are, I have obtained a Chinese Ministry of Finance report on the history of the State Pension from1952, but now that excuse no longer applies, Objectice 22 should allow all, its positive racism against us Section 70 victims.
All this evidence makes for a strong case at the UN Committee for Human Rights run by 18 human rights experts.
So If your govt continues to snatch our compulsary SI pensions we have been advised by a Wellington Barrister to take a complaint to the UN Committee where he successfully won 2 cases against the govt, we may even employ him.

In the end you will have to end this last violation against us and in election year you may well go the same way as NZ1st as the truth about ths state crime is made more aware of.

My wife and I voted for you believing you a breath of fresh air but sadly you are no different from any other non caring ageist politician.
Our activist group have all agreed that a vote for Labour or NZ1st is a vote for the continued violation of our human rights.
If we can convince David Seymour to support our cause we will switch our votes to Act which will go with National if the election is close.

A quick and full explanation would appreciated .

Yours faithfully,

Robert Newcombe

Dear Rt. Hon Jacinda Ardern,
Just so that you understand the enormity of what you slyly push under the carpet, here is proof of the human rights abuse that has been going on for 15 years.
The fact that the MSD has the discretionary power to release "voluntary" overseas govt pensions from means testing, it is theft under a blanket of silence.
This voluntary pension release is not a show of conscience by your govt, it is merely an administrative compulsion on behalf of the MSD and whilst is is to be thanked, it is in fact a perfect example of how you operate.
Your promises along with Peters's have not been nothing but untrue.
Your govt could have implemented this so called release as soon as gaining power but as we all know politics is not about truth, human rights and caring for us citizens, it's all about politicians and their grasp on self serving power.
The fact that it comes on stream in July shows just how low you have stopped Jacinda for it is pre election, 3 years of continuing theft ending with an election bribe.
My electoral vote went to Labour, my party vote to NZ1st, I have made many mistakes in my life but voting for any Coalition party will not be one made again.
In fact I refuse to vote for any party, there is not one worth voting for and consequently I will possibly be punished but so be it, my conscience is clear Jacinda, is yours?

Ex-gratia payment for superannuitant in receipt of overseas pension
Legislation Ombudsmen Act 1975
Agency Ministry of Social Development
Ombudsman Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier
Case number(s) 429683
Date August 2018

Request by superannuitant for ex-gratia payment for deduction of voluntary component of overseas pension from New Zealand superannuation – Ministry of Social Development failed to advise superannuitant of discretion to defer commencement of deduction of voluntary component of overseas pension – Ombudsman recommended ex-gratia payment in recognition of time and effort by complainant in seeking back-payment, and further delay by MSD in making back-payment
Background
The complainant was a New Zealand superannuitant who had lived in the United Kingdom (U.K.) and had made voluntary payments into the U.K.’s state pension system, which were over and above the compulsory contributions required by law in the U.K.
When the complainant started receiving New Zealand superannuation in 2009, the Ministry of Social Development deducted the full value of his U.K. pension from his New Zealand superannuation, including the portion that he had funded voluntarily. This was as required by New Zealand law. However, in 2014, the complainant heard through word of mouth that the Ministry was able to defer the deduction of the portion of his U.K. pension that had been funded by voluntary contributions. In other words, he could keep that part of his U.K. pension. The complainant therefore asked the Ministry to exercise this discretion. The Ministry stopped deducting the voluntary portion of his U.K. pension from that time. The Ministry also later paid him two lump sum payments, which totalled over $40,000, in recognition of the value of the voluntary portion of his U.K. pension which the Ministry had deducted over a number of years previously.
The complainant believed he had still been financially disadvantaged, and sought interest on the value of his back-payment. When he complained to the Ombudsman, an investigator sought to resolve the issue informally with the Ministry. This resulted in an additional offer by the Ministry of an ex-gratia payment of $3,000. The complainant was not satisfied that this was sufficient recognition of the loss he had suffered as a result of the deductions to his superannuation over a number of years.
Investigation
The Ombudsman notified an investigation into the adequacy of the ex-gratia payment offered to the complainant by the Ministry.
The Ombudsman considered the circumstances surrounding the back-payments to the complainant, and the extent to which the Ministry was responsible for the complainant’s loss of the voluntary portion of his U.K. pension. He noted that in 2005 in another case, the Social Security Appeal Authority had directed the Ministry to exercise its discretion to defer the commencement of the deduction of the voluntary portion of an overseas pension from the person’s New Zealand superannuation. The Ministry subsequently began exercising this discretion routinely when specifically requested by an applicant, but did not take active steps to make all applicants for superannuation aware of the existence of this discretion.
When the complainant applied for New Zealand superannuation in 2009, the Ombudsman observed that Ministry staff should have been aware of and trained in the Ministry’s discretion to defer deductions of the voluntary portions of an overseas pension, and should have advised the complainant accordingly. However, it did not. As such, the Ombudsman considered that the complainant’s loss was due to an administrative error by the Ministry, and warranted recognition via an ex-gratia payment. The Ombudsman also noted that the Ministry should have made a greater effort to identify and inform people in the same position as the complainant, of the existence of its discretion to defer deductions.
The Ombudsman considered that the time and effort required by the complainant in seeking the back-payment, and an unacceptable delay by the Ministry in processing the arrears payment, meant that the Ministry’s offer of a $3,000 ex-gratia payment was inadequate.
Outcome
The Chief Ombudsman formed the final opinion that the offer of a $3,000 ex-gratia payment was unreasonable because it did not sufficiently recognise the financial loss, stress and inconvenience suffered by the complainant and recommended an additional payment of $2,000. The Ministry accepted this recommendation.
This case note is published under the authority of the Ombudsmen Rules 1989. It sets out an Ombudsman’s view on the facts of a particular case. It should not be taken as establishing any legal precedent that would bind an Ombudsman in future.

Read it all Jacinda and try to understand the financial, physical and mental stress you personally have put on us elderly and reflect on the fact that in your time in power how many elderly S70 victims have died not knowing some relief was available.
It is my wish and goal to bring this to the attention of the over 100,000 elderly persecuted by politicians like you and that hopefully some legal entity will act on behalf of the families of those that have died can seek financial redress their departed loved ones lost the chance to take.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Newcombe

Dear Rt. Hon Jacinda Ardern,

I consider it extremely rude and repugnant that you as Prime Minister did not have the courage to reply to me in person.

The reply from Raj Nahna was cleverly worded to avoid my question as to why your govt has not instigated Objective 22 of the UN Global Compact for Migration which would entitle immigrants and returned Kiwis to keep overseas govt pensions we have paid for via social insurance contributions into govt pension schemes.
May I remind you that these pensions are in law our properties not the property of the NZ govt to means test against our entitlement to govt funded NZ Superannuation.

In 2015 you stood up in Parliament and condemned the old Section 70 but rewrote it under your govt and whilst the spousal cruelty ends in July, the main basic crime continues.

I also call you a moral coward because under your strange Coalition govt that in opposition supported reform, your govt has continued the veil of silence over the MSD's discretionary right for us to keep our voluntary contributory govt pension for example the UK SERPS pension which no doubt many of the 63,000 UK Section 70 victims could have benefitted by.
This has to be fraudulent behavior by successive govts to keep what we should be entitled to and as such you have failed again to protect our rights.

Like many elderly I was taken in by your righteous comments on fairness and human rights, you stand accused of false promises and lies along with Winston Peter's.

You will not be getting my vote in fact there is not one politician I can think of worthy of it, you are all scoundrels.

Your sincerely,

Robert Newcombe.