Allied Pensioners of New Zealand

 

Illegitimi non carborundum

Auckland. 13th April 2009.

Dear Mr. Littlewood,
My wife and I are in receipt of a commercially sensitive, overseas non-statutory pension, naturally awarded pension (awarded pension), obtained under the conditions contained in that nation's (which is the UK) Social Security Act (SS Act).
The private details of these awarded pensions were obtained lawfully by the Crown entity of the MSD, under s.69 of our SS Act, details protected by statutory instructions in our s.6, Principles of the Privacy Act 1993, from unlawful use by the Crown or its entities.
Since 1997, I have increased my awarded pension from UK 33.75 to the present over 50 but 42.36 has been unlawfully deducted (by a like sum in NZ$) from my statutory NZ Superannuation (NZS) since Aug 2000, even though I am fully entitled to this NZ benefit. This is contrary to the lawful use of s.6 of 1993 Act by the NZ Crown or its entities. See Note 1A & B.
I have contested this unlawful deduction as far as the Auckland High Court but been denied justice based on past NZ High Court precedents and twice been refused permission to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal. This is water under the bridge, unless I apply for a judicial review, as is my statutory right.

As a tax payer funded pension advisor, could you answer the following please:

1. Are you not aware that natural law cannot be superseded by International or any domestic/subordinate law, that those laws are being manipulated (spun) to impoverish up to 60,000 of our NZ pensioners?Do you not know that these two domestic and International laws cannot supersede natural law?
2. Why was the PM's late mum (2000) given the unlawful choice (by the Crown) of either her statutory right to the NZS or her natural right to her overseas awarded widow's pension in 1983, then in 1996 scammed into opening a Special Bank Account (SBA) when she was fully entitled to both pensions? See Note 2.
3. Why is the 1991 widow, aged 67, resident continually in NZ since aged 19, not entitled to the full NZS when she has no overseas statutory benefit/pension similar to any in the NZ Social Security Act 1964? See Note 2
4. Why was a life long NZ resident (NZ born 1938, widowed 2007) only allowed her rightful statutory full NZS on sufferance of assigning her awarded widow's pension to a Special Bank Account (SBA) controlled by and for the benefit of the Crown? See Note 2.
5. Why was a now 89 year old WW2 veteran and 87 year old wife, both fully entitled to the NZS, both given the same choice in 1984, as the PM's late mum, then scammed by the same method in 1996, into assigning their overseas awarded pensions, to a SBA, in order to receive their full entitlement to the statutory NZS? That WW2 veteran's pension was earned by private/military/private occupational and voluntary contributions. See Note 3A & B.
6. Why are up to 5/6th of 60,000 other fully entitled NZS recipients, scammed into assigning their overseas awarded pension entitlements to similar SBA's, in a manner similar as the widows and WW2 veteran in paragraphs 3, 5 & 6?
7. Why is the remaining 1/6th of those 60,000 fully entitled NZS recipients having their statutory benefits deducted (by a similar amount in NZ$) in defiance of our Parliaments wishes in the NZS 2001 ACT? You may not be aware that Professor Barry Spicer, Dean of your faculty, is a member of the same overseas awarded pension retirement fund as those in paragraphs 3 - 6 as it's common knowledge that membership is a condition (can be entirely voluntary) of employment in the UK.
8. Do you know that any benefit/pension awarded by contributions for a non-statutory pension, are made under (but not by) the conditions of a statutory Act and that the NZS is a Crown grant from Parliament, by a statutory Act?
9. Surely you must know that our Parliament has not sanctioned the creation of any SS awarded pension/superannuation fund that can be contributed to, either occupationally or voluntary?
10. Have you ever heard of the NZ Principles of Privacy Act 1993? It appears from the advice given by you and Dr. Susan St. John to the Crown entity of MSD, that neither of you seem to be aware that all NZ Acts are interactive with each other.
11. Why has the privacy of Mr. Antonie van der Stelt (Tony) who complied with s.69 of the SS Act 1964 been breached by application of s.70 of that Act, by the Crown entity of the MSD? Tony's military pension was awarded by his military occupation contributions, a pension that is exempt that 1964 Act, by virtue of s.3, which specifically exempts such pensions, from application of s.70. See Note 4.
12. Furthermore, that military pension is private and as such, is under the protection of the UN Human Rights Charter, Articles 12 & 17. Surely you are fully conversant with both that Charter and 1964 Act?
13. Do you know that all awarded pensions earned by occupational and/or voluntary contributions are similar in nature to the NZ Government Superannuation Fund (GSF) for its employees, general details of which can be obtained on the web?
14. Are you not aware that all awarded pensions do not have any direct tax payer involvement, EXCEPT the GSF? That GSF unfunded liabilities (government top ups') in the financial year to May 2005, was $414 MILLION, making a government top up' of close to $11 BILLION. Verification can be obtained on the web site http://www.gsfa.govt.nz/ You, Dr St. John and the Dean (but not Ms. Annette Lazonby) may be members of the GSF and that is your private affair, but as a tax payer, I have the democratic right to know where my taxes are being spent.
15. Are you aware that the contractual conditions of the UK National Insurance Fund (NIF) awarded pensions are contained in Part I of their SS Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (C& B)? Section 113 (a) of Chapter 4 of that Act only concerns Parts II - V and deals only with statutory Crown granted benefits/pensions, to those abroad from the UK. These statutory benefits/pensions are similar to those in the 1964 Act and which s.70 is designed to capture , while s.115 of the C&B states that pensions in Part I are to be considered private and s.116 instructs their military/government employer to pay a lower NIF contribution for that member. This is because that employee no requirement to be insured against injury, health or unemployment, but is required to contribute for an occupationally retirement pension. See that C&B web site on the UK Publications.
16. Are you aware of the significance of paragraph 10, the 2002 England and Wales High Court (EWHC) decision 978?
This decision states [Mr. Eadie, on behalf of the Secretary of State, accepted that the right to a contributory pension is protected by Article 1 of the First Protocol] That First Protocol is the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, a protection based on the UN Human Rights Charter. If you access the web site BAILII [World Law] you will see that paragraph 9 of the EWHC decision 978, refers only to a state (statutory) pension, my brackets.. That statement in paragraph 10, exempts awarded pensions from that appeal decision and only those narrow but far reaching parameters apply to any statutory pensions. What is more, the 2003 England and Wales Court of Appeal 797, the 2005 UK House of Lords 37 and the 2008 European Court of Human Rights, application 42184/05 decisions all upheld those narrow parameters in the 2002 EWHC decision 978, decisions also available on that site.
17. Are you not aware, that a fully entitled recipient of the NZ statutory benefit/pension must NOT be disqualified by a reciprocal agreement, even the Crown entity MSD is fully aware of this dispensation! See Note 5A & B.
18. Have you ever heard of the International Labour Organisation (ILO)? You should have, as C118 Article 2.6 (a) bans the use of transitional (reciprocal) agreements (as in Note B) unless an applicant is not fully qualified (by residence but who could be if an agreement was evoked. Then, and only then, does (b) of Article 2.6 apply. The MSD failed to mention this in submission!
19. Do you realize that by ignoring statutory instructions from their individual Parliaments and by maladministration of reciprocal agreements, the NZ, UK, and Netherlands SS Crown entities are causing these the NZ State Treasury to lose hundreds of millions of NZ tax dollars annually (plus impoverishing these NZS NZS recipients to the point of penury) before being spent in our economy and the opportunity to earn further hundreds of millions in NZ dollars annually for all?
20. Is the NZ Crown administration's greed more important than our economic well being? These awarded pensions are the life long savings (made in very austere times) of many of the 60,000 NZS recipients. The awarded increases I have achieved (less investment of 2.041 and before tax), can be achieved by the vast majority of these NZS recipients. This maladministration of these savings increases plus increases, would DECREASE the dependency of ALL other NZ statutory SS/SW benefits handouts! It would also mean that the Crown has less SS/SW obligations.
21. Do you not realize that our Parliament has already granted Crown the finance for these 60,000 NZS benefits/pensions, so it will not cost the tax payer a NZ$1 more?
22. What is so difficult for the UK, NZ and Netherlands Crown SS administration departments (and their advisors, which includes you, Dr. Susan St John and researcher Annette Lazonby) to see that all these 60,000 fully entitled NZS recipients with entitlements to overseas these awarded pension, are all fully qualified under the NZS Act 2001 and could be a financial asset for or economy?
23. NZS Qualifications are:10 year residency, 5 after aged 50 and be 65 years old or older. That's why it is so simple and generous as it is our Parliament wishes and if NZ constituents don't like it, let them petition Parliament to alter those qualifications. Personally I would prefer the NZS to be means-tested but that is up to our Parliament to decide. In the meantime, others are quite free to petition as that is their democratic right!

It will be most interesting to hear your explanation of these 23 questions, especially with the SS Amendment Bill presently before Parliament.

Yours sincerely
Frank Dunn.
C.c. The Dean of the Business School, Professor Barry Spicer.

©2009  Website by Simply Good Websites