Does your translation of impoverishment only apply to children but not the elderly?
Robert Newcombe made this Official Information request to Jacinda Ardern
Response to this request is long overdue. By law Jacinda Ardern should have responded by now (details and exceptions). The requester can complain to the Ombudsman.
From: Robert Newcombe
Dear Prime Minister Ardern,
Firstly congratulations on doing something for the benefit of impoverished children and their families but you seem to have forgotten that there are over 90,000 elderly impoverished by the imposition of the wrongly applied 1938 pension legislation that is Section 70, Social Security Act 1964.
The act is supposed to ensure that anyone who has worked overseas and is entitled to receive that country's Tier 1 govt funded pension and that pension is deducted from their separate entitlement to govt funded NZ Superannuation and which is correct, its like receiving two unemployment benefits from two countries.
The misuse of the legislation also means that our overseas Tier 2 self funded social insurance govt pensions are also subject to deduction from our separate entitlement to NZ Superannuation.
These contributory pensions are denied the same recognition as private contributory pensions and as such successive govts have in fact been guilty of state theft of our property as this is what they are in fact, recognised by the UN Convention on Human Rights.
In 2005 your much vaunted mentor Helen Clark came to power and formed a coalition with NZ1st which then forced a Ministry of Social Development review on the unfair treatment of overseas Tier 2 pensions.
The review concluded that the legislation was "outdated and ad hoc, unfair, discriminatory and inequitable".
In the previous year the MSD and Treasury also did a review of the treatment of these pensions and it too concluded Section 70 unfair and discriminatory.
Both the reviews and their recommendations for fair treatment were ignored.
Winston Peters became Foreign Secretary and Helen Clark also went onto ignore a petition by the British Pensioners Association and this state imposed impoverishment of so many tens of thousands of elderly continued.
In 2004 in the Auckland High Court Judge Doogue in the MSD v Social Security Appeal Authority ruled in part that the the Fijian National Provident Fund, much like the UK National Insurance Fund, that also receives social Insurance contributions from employers and employees, results in its pension NOT being subjected to Section 70 because his ruling said that the pension, even though administered by the Fijian govt was not by and on behalf of the govt, a stipulation of Section 70 but by and on behalf of the contributors.
I have checked and the ruling still stands in law yet all other such overseas pensions are subject to Section 70.
In 2014 sixteen of us Section 70 victims took the govt to the UN Council of Human Rights with over whelming evidence including the govt's own reviews plus HRC reviews plus much more in a challenge to end this human rights abuse.
The govt response, signed off by Anne Tolley and obtained under the OIA showed that the govt was forced to lie by stating all evidence was "unsupporting information and made it difficult for the govt to understand the nature of the complaints" and the UK pensions of my wife and I were quoted wrongly and misleadingly in an effort to nullify our challenges.
We all lost but next time if this crime continues our experience will mean a more robust challenge.
I have an audio recording of admittances by Grant Robertson and David Cunliffe in a Labour meeting leadership bid in Nelson that these stolen overseas pensions were the subject of many complaints from their constituents and needed sorting out.
Grant Robertson has chosen to ignore his words.
So I am asking, you will your govt continue to impoverish what is now over 90,000 elderly and will your working knowledge gained through working with Ruth Dyson on the subject, plus Labour's pledge to end the rort be consigned to the dustbin of political lies and empty promises?
It seems very likely as Labour and NZ1st are again in coalition, Winston Peters is Foreign Secretary and the continuing impoverishment of us elderly has continued and not even been mentioned in your so called magnificent first 100 days in office.
Yours faithfully,
Robert Newcombe
From: Rt. Hon Jacinda Ardern
Kia ora,
Thanks very much for taking the time to get in touch with Prime Minister
Jacinda Ardern.
We appreciate your email. Because of the large number of emails we
receive each day, you may not receive a response immediately.
While you are waiting for a reply, here's a list of links that may help
you find what you’re looking for:
[1]Beehive website
[2]The Prime Minister’s Facebook page
[3]The Prime Minister’s Twitter page
[4]Full list of Ministers
We hope one of the above links helps answer your question! In any case,
we'll get back to you as soon as possible.
Thanks again.
Authorised by Jacinda Ardern MP, Parliament Buildings, Wellington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/
2. https://www.facebook.com/jacindaardern/
3. https://twitter.com/jacindaardern
4. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/ministers
From: Rt. Hon Jacinda Ardern
Dear Mr Newcombe
I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, to acknowledge receipt of your OIA.
Yours sincerely
Dinah Okeby
Office of the Prime Minister
Authorised by Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern MP, Parliament Buildings Wellington 6012
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Newcombe [mailto:[FOI #7027 email]]
Sent: Friday, 15 December 2017 9:23 AM
To: J Ardern (MIN)
Subject: Official Information request - Does your translation of impoverishment only apply to children but not the elderly?
Dear Prime Minister Ardern,
Firstly congratulations on doing something for the benefit of impoverished children and their families but you seem to have forgotten that there are over 90,000 elderly impoverished by the imposition of the wrongly applied 1938 pension legislation that is Section 70, Social Security Act 1964.
The act is supposed to ensure that anyone who has worked overseas and is entitled to receive that country's Tier 1 govt funded pension and that pension is deducted from their separate entitlement to govt funded NZ Superannuation and which is correct, its like receiving two unemployment benefits from two countries.
The misuse of the legislation also means that our overseas Tier 2 self funded social insurance govt pensions are also subject to deduction from our separate entitlement to NZ Superannuation.
These contributory pensions are denied the same recognition as private contributory pensions and as such successive govts have in fact been guilty of state theft of our property as this is what they are in fact, recognised by the UN Convention on Human Rights.
In 2005 your much vaunted mentor Helen Clark came to power and formed a coalition with NZ1st which then forced a Ministry of Social Development review on the unfair treatment of overseas Tier 2 pensions.
The review concluded that the legislation was "outdated and ad hoc, unfair, discriminatory and inequitable".
In the previous year the MSD and Treasury also did a review of the treatment of these pensions and it too concluded Section 70 unfair and discriminatory.
Both the reviews and their recommendations for fair treatment were ignored.
Winston Peters became Foreign Secretary and Helen Clark also went onto ignore a petition by the British Pensioners Association and this state imposed impoverishment of so many tens of thousands of elderly continued.
In 2004 in the Auckland High Court Judge Doogue in the MSD v Social Security Appeal Authority ruled in part that the the Fijian National Provident Fund, much like the UK National Insurance Fund, that also receives social Insurance contributions from employers and employees, results in its pension NOT being subjected to Section 70 because his ruling said that the pension, even though administered by the Fijian govt was not by and on behalf of the govt, a stipulation of Section 70 but by and on behalf of the contributors.
I have checked and the ruling still stands in law yet all other such overseas pensions are subject to Section 70.
In 2014 sixteen of us Section 70 victims took the govt to the UN Council of Human Rights with over whelming evidence including the govt's own reviews plus HRC reviews plus much more in a challenge to end this human rights abuse.
The govt response, signed off by Anne Tolley and obtained under the OIA showed that the govt was forced to lie by stating all evidence was "unsupporting information and made it difficult for the govt to understand the nature of the complaints" and the UK pensions of my wife and I were quoted wrongly and misleadingly in an effort to nullify our challenges.
We all lost but next time if this crime continues our experience will mean a more robust challenge.
I have an audio recording of admittances by Grant Robertson and David Cunliffe in a Labour meeting leadership bid in Nelson that these stolen overseas pensions were the subject of many complaints from their constituents and needed sorting out.
Grant Robertson has chosen to ignore his words.
So I am asking, you will your govt continue to impoverish what is now over 90,000 elderly and will your working knowledge gained through working with Ruth Dyson on the subject, plus Labour's pledge to end the rort be consigned to the dustbin of political lies and empty promises?
It seems very likely as Labour and NZ1st are again in coalition, Winston Peters is Foreign Secretary and the continuing impoverishment of us elderly has continued and not even been mentioned in your so called magnificent first 100 days in office.
Yours faithfully,
Robert Newcombe
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #7027 email]
Is [Jacinda Ardern request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests to Jacinda Ardern? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________
hide quoted sections
From: Clare-Louise Chapman
Dear Robert
Please find attached the response to your correspondence received on 15^th
December 2017.
Kind Regards
Clare-Louise
Clare-Louise Chapman
Office of the Prime Minister
DDI +64 4 817 9388 | Email:[email address]
Authorised by Rt. Hon Jacinda Ardern MP, Parliament Buildings, Wellington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Newcombe
Dear Clare-Louise Chapman,
My question was directed at Prime Minister Ardern, I do know she worked on the impoverishment that Section 70 has on around 90,000 ofvus elderly now.
Labour had reform on its agenda so it cannot ignore this injustice.
Jacinda Ardern was the Labour representative on the 2012 Select Committee on Social Welfare and along with NZ1ST and the Greens called for a Revue of Section 70.
For you or her to pass this on to Carmel Sepuloni is a breach of my right to a reply from the Prime Minister.
You can take this back to the Prime Minister and ask her to fulfil her responsibility and explain why we Section 70 victims are not worthy of her consideration.
She talks of her concerns of equality and fairness for all but in the end she is an ageist, an abuser of us elderly.
Ask her to read all the MSD reviews that prove Section 70 is an abortion of our human rights and then to read the 2004 High Court Sant Raj Rai case where judge Doogue ruled pensions born out of Social insurance employer/employee contributions are not subject to Section 70, the MSD fought the ruling and lost, the ruling still remains in law my UK pension mirrors the ruling and this will be tested in the courts.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Newcombe
Jan McKeogh left an annotation ()
There are many questions imbedded in the issues outlined above.
The current government is ignoring them in the face of other public concerns as if they are not important.
Nor does it seem, that responses to people affected by Section 70 are a priority.
Surely the Government should be performing better than this?
From: Dinah Okeby
Dear Mr Newcombe
I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, to
acknowledge receipt of your Official Information Act request.
Your request will be responded to under the provisions of the Official
Information Act 1982.
Yours sincerely
Dinah Okeby
Office of the Prime Minister
Authorised by Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern MP, Parliament Buildings Wellington
6012
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Newcombe
[[1]mailto:[FOI #7027 email]]
Sent: Friday, 26 January 2018 6:40 PM
To: Clare-Louise Chapman <[2][email address]>
Subject: Re: Response to Official Information Act Request
Dear Clare-Louise Chapman,
My question was directed at Prime Minister Ardern, I do know she worked on
the impoverishment that Section 70 has on around 90,000 ofvus elderly now.
Labour had reform on its agenda so it cannot ignore this injustice.
Jacinda Ardern was the Labour representative on the 2012 Select Committee
on Social Welfare and along with NZ1ST and the Greens called for a Revue
of Section 70.
For you or her to pass this on to Carmel Sepuloni is a breach of my right
to a reply from the Prime Minister.
You can take this back to the Prime Minister and ask her to fulfil her
responsibility and explain why we Section 70 victims are not worthy of her
consideration.
She talks of her concerns of equality and fairness for all but in the end
she is an ageist, an abuser of us elderly.
Ask her to read all the MSD reviews that prove Section 70 is an abortion
of our human rights and then to read the 2004 High Court Sant Raj Rai case
where judge Doogue ruled pensions born out of Social insurance
employer/employee contributions are not subject to Section 70, the MSD
fought the ruling and lost, the ruling still remains in law my UK pension
mirrors the ruling and this will be tested in the courts.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Newcombe
-----Original Message-----
Dear Robert
Please find attached the response to your correspondence received on
15^th December 2017.
Kind Regards
Clare-Louise
Clare-Louise Chapman
Office of the Prime Minister
DDI +64 4 817 9388 | Email:[email address]
Authorised by Rt. Hon Jacinda Ardern MP, Parliament Buildings, Wellington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[3][FOI #7027 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[4]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this email message is for the attention of
the intended recipient only and is not necessarily the official view or
communication of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. If you
are not the intended recipient you must not disclose, copy or distribute
this message or the information in it. If you have received this message
in error, please destroy the email and notify the sender immediately.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #7027 email]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[FOI #7027 email]
4. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
hide quoted sections
Robert Newcombe left an annotation ()
Jacinda Ardern has refused to answer the request and why wouldn't she, she and Peters who have campaigned consistently to end the injustice of Section 70 Ardern even asking so along with NZ1st and the Greens at the 2012 Select Committee on Social Development and were outvoted by the National members, that's what Select Committees are all about, a pretence of democracy but ensuring the govt has the numbers to shut down opposition.
Now she and Peters have proved their unsuitability for office by uturning and carrying on with the crime.
A complaint to the ombudsman failed to get Ardern to answer and cannot supply the information which would prove Ardern is two faced, she has been in the news twice where she openly supported change.
I'm not bothered, the rort of using a civil servant the CEO.MSD to interpret the rules such that an overseas contributory pension is on behalf of its govt, funded by that govt was blown out the water in the 2004 MSD v SSAA Rai case in the Auckland High Court Rt when Judge Doogue ruled such a pension even though administered by a govt was in fact on behalf of the contributors and as such not subject to Section 70.
In the Human Rights Revue Tribunal case this week in Wellington, Section 70 is unravelling, the start of the end of this human rights abuse involving billions of dollars over decades affecting now over 90,000 elderly.
It is my sincere wish that when Section 70 is defeated this year, a class action against the govt by Section 70 victims and the descendants of those who died without justice will bring this govt to its knees as the world learns of NZ's crime against humanity.
To Jacinda Ardern I never expected you to grant my request, like Winston Peters your political promises were worthless.
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this request
Jan McKeogh left an annotation ()
For the pensioners who are victims of Section 70 and have their NZS wiped out by the overseas deduction policy and those spouses who are further punished by spousal deduction, it is of intense disappointment that we continue to be ignored.
What the coalition in each of its parties stated in their pre election policies, it gave us 89,000 pensioners affected, the hope that these policies would be honoured. It seems not to be the case.
Whilst the family package is welcome in so far that the Winter Energy Supplement is a gesture we appreciate, all we want is what is rightfully ours. Elderly poverty is a state I never thought I would experience as we had well prepared for our retirement but never thought 50% would be taken from us as it is currently.
A bleak Christmas season and New Year prospect indeed.
Jan McKeogh
Link to this