Section 70(1), of the 1964 SS Act.
What is the law, as quoted by WINZ/MSD/Crown and how is it applicable in relation to the NZ Superannuation (NZS)?
Parliament, powerful though it is, does not have the power of devolution to give away its absolute power, only the power of delegation of authority
This power of delegation is demonstrated in our Parliaments Social Security (SS) Act 1964 where, it delegates that the CEO/MSD may have the opinion to determine, which overseas state-funded, non-contributory is similar/dissimilar to one in our 1964 Act, not any pension, see after s.70(1) (a & b)
[regulations made under this Act:
Provided that if the chief executive determines that the overseas benefit, pension, or periodic allowance, or any part of it is in the nature of , and is paid for similar purposes as, -]
That is the words of our Parliament and nobody (other than our Parliaments Amendment to the 1964 Act) may put aside or alter in anyway, shape or form, therefore:
The intention of s.70(1) comes within the purpose of the 1964 SS Act, an Act that is Parliaments specific statutory instructions to the Crown, an Act for assessing any constituents eligibility for any public non-contributory state-funded benefit/pension that is personal to that applicant/constituent.
To find the meaning of any Act, a constituent must examine the purpose and intention of any Act, see s.5 of the Interpretations Act 1999, for ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Parliament has enacted the NZ Superannuation Act 2001 to be income/asset free to all fully qualified NZ constituents except, to those subject to any of this Acts provisos, proviso 3 of this 2001 Act, is the 1964 Act, only to be used if that constituent is subject to s.70(1). To deny Parliaments instructions is to deny Parliament itself.
If the constituent has no state-funded, non-contributory benefits/pensions from overseas, or is not subject to any interlocutory subordinate legislation not exempt the 1964 Act, s.70(1) cannot be applied to any Act such as the 2001 Act and, the 1964 Act is just proviso 3.
When s.70(1) doesnt apply then s.6, the 12 Principles of the Privacy Act 1993 protects the 2001 Act as this 1993 Act is binding on the Crown.
The intention of s.70(1) (within the 1964 Acts purpose) is to directly deduct, dollar for dollar, any other nations state-funded, non-contributory benefits/pensions that fully qualified constituent is entitled to, from overseas unless, an interlocutory Order or Reciprocal Agreement is invoked, these being subordinate to statutory legislation.
If neither Order or Agreement is invoked, then for the Crown to apply s.70(1) to any overseas occupational pension, is a denial of our democratic system and Parliament.
There is only one nation I know that exports any state funded non-contributory benefit/pension similar, for the same purpose or analogous to the NZS and that is Canadas Old Age Superannuation (OAS), That OAS is the equal to proviso 3 of the 2001 Act and s.70(1) then comes into play.
The Common Law s.70(1), was established under the many successful case stated appeals to the High Court. Those Common Law case stated appeals are only in relation to the 1964 Act and is not relevant to the 2001 Act.
ALL overseas SS occupational pensions have no equal in the 1964 or 2001 Acts, so for the Crown administration to apply that s,70(1) Common Law is unlawfully as it is a misfeasance. If it is done with mischief, it is a misfeasance in public office and the Crown may be sued under the Privacy Act.