Allied Pensioners of New Zealand


Illegitimi non carborundum

NZs Greatest Danger.

The greatest danger our democratic nation face's to-day, is ourselves! We don't have to do anything, just bury our heads in the sand and pretend nothing is happening. By doing that we will allow the Crown administration to shackle us as surely as the dictators Stalin and Hitler shackled their particular nations, not so long ago. We oldies will remember them, some of us even suffered under them. An example of this danger to our democracy is listed as below:

The President of the Auckland Grey Power Association received a letter from Mr. Ross Robertson MP, who in turn had received that letter from the Finance Minister Hon Mr. English. The letter, dated 12th May 2009, was passed to me as the enquirer of the original question to Mr. Goff MP at our Association's Open General Meeting of the 26th March 2009. This enquiry was:

"Is the non-statutory NZ Government Superannuation Fund for its Public/Civil servants guaranteed by the NZ Government, a guarantee that has cost (to date) the NZ tax payer OVER NZ$10 BILLION in 'top ups'?

My rebuttal of the Minister's is:

Finance Minister.
Parliament Buildings.
18th July 2009
Dear Minister,

The greatest threat to our democratic nation's economy is the Crown (government) maladministration of the Government Superannuation Fund (GSF) Act 1956. This maladministration is by subsidizing the NON-public GSF from our public Consolidated Fund (CF) without our Parliament's express statutory permission. This unauthorized subsidy was in the letter's estimates (May 2009) for the 2008/9 year, $654,000,000. See Notes 1A and 1B.

This is a 60% increase on the Government's Actuary 2004/5 estimation of $414,000,000. This will only be further exacerbated in the next 50/60 years as there will be a reduction of contributors to the GSF and a corresponding increase in beneficiaries. See Notes 2a & B.

The figure of $654m was the estimate in your letter of the 11th May 2009 (reprinted below). Your letter was in reply to a query from Mr. Ross Robertson MP which, in turn, was the query from me to Mr. Goff, "Is the non-statutory NZ Government Superannuation Fund for its Public/Civil servants guaranteed by the NZ Government, a guarantee that has cost (to date) the NZ tax payer OVER NZ$10 BILLION in 'top ups'?

I have replied to each numbered paragraph in your letter for ease of reference. Your reply is without foundation and is thus unsatisfactory.

Verbatim, YOUR paragraph 2: The enquirer has asked whether "the non-statutory New Zealand Government Superannuation for its public/civil servants [is] guaranteed by the New Zealand Government, a guarantee that has cost (to date) the New Zealand tax payer over New Zealand $10 billion in top ups'".

Your paragraph 3: First I should perhaps point out that it is not correct to refer to the Government Superannuation Fund (GSF) as non-statutory, since the Fund is governed by the Government Superannuation Act 1956 (the GSF Act), which prescribes the terms of the scheme, including member contributions and entitlements.

My rebuttal of 3 & 4: It MUST be correct to refer to the GSF as NON-statutory as all occupational pensions are awarded by virtue of world-wide Social Security/private/GSF contractual contributions. These pensions are classed as PRIVATE PROPERTY and as such, are protected by the Magna Carta and the UN Human Rights Charter.

Your paragraph 5: Historically, the GSF was (should also include an "is") an occupational pension based on employers (i.e. government) and employers contributions. It has been closed to new members for many years. The contributions of members were (and are) paid regularly into the Fund during the period of their employment. For the most part, however, the employer subsidy/ or government contribution has been deferred and instead paid as entitlements became payable. First bracket, my words.

Rebuttal of 5: The Government (with a capital G) is NOT the contracting employer, it is the CROWN entities as it is they who are paid the annual approbations for their governing requirements. The Government, as our Parliaments Executive arm, CANNOT make statutory law, only subordinate law that MUST be consistent with statutory. The statutory GSF Act 1956 does not allow the Crown/government employer to defer annual payments to the GSF, no Parliament can pass statutory law to supersede natural law. As it naturally impossible for contributory to be equated to non-contributory (in relation to awarded pensions), historically, the Crown is/was at fault. The GSF occupational pension scheme is no different to any other contractual pension scheme controlled and governed by any statutory legislation world-wide.

Your paragraph 6: The GSF Act requires the government to pay into the Fund each year an amount representing a proportion of the benefits payable in that year, as certified by the Government Actuary. The "top ups" mentioned by your enquirer simply represent the government's (deferred) obligation to pay the contributions to the GSF in respect of the entitlements specified in the legislation.

Rebuttal of 6: By your referral to the government with a small "g" you are referring to the Crown who administers the statutory and subordinate laws. You are correct in stating "The GSF Act requires the government (Crown) to pay in to the Fund" as this is their contractual obligation AS THEIR EMPLOYER. This obligation is verified UNDER s.29 to deduct contributions and pay to the GSF as the salary becomes payable. Under the GSF contractual conditions (which are statutory) the employer is obligated to match those contributions at the same time. The Crown has NO statutory authority to defer those employer contributions WITHOUT informing the Government Actuary who MUST report this to Parliament in his annual report.

Your paragraph 7: The GSF website notes that, as of 30 June 2007, the Government Actuary had valued the total past service liabilities of the Fund (that is, the accrued benefits payable) at $14.0 billion (see Actuary Valuations. The market value of the net assets of the Fund, was $4.0 billion. This may be the figure your enquirer had in mind. As updated valuation report as at 30 June 2008, which was only recently tabled in the House, has now been posted on the same website. This valuation shows an unfunded past service liability at that date at $10.8 billion.

Your paragraph 8: Actual and estimated annual payments by the government are noted in the Financial Statements and Budget Papers on the Treasury website at The expected annual payment for the 2008/9 financial year is $654 million.

Rebuttal of 7 & 8: The GSFA web site , dated 25 April 2005 describes the annual shortfall as a "top up" or an unfunded liability, so I was correct in referring to "top ups". The estimation of the "top up" required as of the year 2005, was $414 million. The 2008/9 year shows the "top up" estimate to be $654 million, ON TOP of the 2008 total $10.8 billion, which brings the total to $11.454 BILLION. That is a 60% increase on the 2004/5 year shortfall. As there will be LESS contributors in the coming years and a corresponding INCREASE in beneficiaries, there will be bigger "top ups" required, all because the Crown, without statutory authority, deferred" its naturally contractual, contributions. It has got nothing to do with the Government, it is a matter of the Crown's handling of its governing of state affairs and the hiding of the TRUE facts.

Section 95AA of the GSF Act can only give the Crown the statutory authority to incur statutory expenses, not private expenses such as entitlement shortfalls. If the Crown's entities approbations are not enough to cover their contributions (as employers) to the GSF, then the Crown MUST apply for a Special grant ANNUALLY from Parliament.

May I draw your attention to s.93, s. 93A, s.93 B in regards to Financial statements, Audit and Annual report, also s.97 Regulations? Section 97 is only to be used in conjunction with s.28(1)(b), 61(1)(b), 71JA, 81OA, 86FA and 88HA. None of these sections give the Crown the statutory authority to defer their contractual payments.

In Claire Trevett's article on A3 of the18th June 2009 issue of the NZ Herald and entitled "The Lucky 13 MPs in gilt-edged super scheme" include you, Mr. Robertson and the other current MPs AND other retired and defeated MPs. One such defeated MP may be Mr. Winston Peters but I believe he was in Parliament BEFORE 1992. If so, think what baubles Mr. Peters will receive in GSF annuities, as his last position was as our Foreign Minister!

Another approx 20,000 Civil servants not yet retired. All of them and you Mr. Minister will be joining the others, which include Ms. Helen Clark, Mr. M. Cullen, Mr. J. Hunt, Mr. J. Bolger, Mr. R. Prebble and many others, all ex-MPs AND Mr. M. Witterington, Mr. M. Preble (brother of R.Prebble) and the many tens of thousands of thousands of Civil Servants "living off the pig's back" (our economy)!

You and the other 72,000 GSF beneficiaries will be "enjoying the fruits", plucked from the trees of future tax payers (our off-spring), the unlawfully acquired overseas occupational pensions for decades to come. Please return OUR democracy to us!

F.C. Dunn.

©2009  Website by Simply Good Websites