Winston Peters was the driver of a plan to extend the qualification period for NZ Super for migrants to New Zealand from 10 years to 20 years. Most New Zealanders agreed with this proposal. It was clear that some devious financial planning was going on, whereby younger family members were bringing their parents over to live in New Zealand approximately 10 years before they qualified for superannuation payments here. Some might call it a rort, but it is clear that we are out of step with many other countries who make older migrants wait longer for superannuation payments than we do.
But, apparently, we are ‘inhumane’ by wanting to do this:
African-born Hendrik Wentzel, an engineer with Ballance Agri-Nutrients, says his parents Jannie and Nicolette Wentzel enable him and his healthcare worker wife Sunel to make their contribution to the economy of their adopted home.
Wentzel, born in Nambia, moved to New Zealand in 2007 from South Africa, and were joined in 2015 by his parents, who are now in their 70s.
But the family’s financial planning is under threat from a proposed law change that would see the residency period for his parents to qualify for NZ Super shift overnight from 10 to 20 years.
So the parents paid their taxes in their home country all their working lives and then came here to retire, working out to the cent how much they would be entitled to here, and when.
He says if the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Bill passed into law in its current form, some older migrants already in the country would die before they were paid a cent of NZ Super.
Far be it from me to wish anyone dead, but why is that our problem? Why is there an expectation that we must support these people who choose to come here at the end of their lives, having paid their taxes elsewhere?
The Wentzels, and members of the Chinese migrant community, say the Fair Residency bill is anything but fair, though they support lifting the qualifying period for future migrants to 20 years, as the current period was low compared to other countries.
So they are happy for it to apply to others… just not to them. Got it.
Jannie Wentzel called the proposed law “unfair and unreasonable”, saying when he and his wife emigrated, they did careful financial planning, factoring in the promise of NZ Super after 10 years of residency.
Nothing unfair about that. They should have done some homework, as Winston has banged on about this for years. Things change. If they were earning over $180,000 a year, could they rightfully claim that they should not pay the new, higher rate of tax because their financial planning didn’t allow for it?
We could all try that one, couldn’t we?
But their main aim in coming to New Zealand was not the NZ Super, but to support family.
“Our main aim of emigration was to support our grandchildren and children who are both New Zealand citizens and professionals. They both work long hours in important jobs that contribute majorly to the welfare and wellbeing of New Zealanders in general,” he said.
That’s nice. So glad to hear that. The fact that New Zealand is still one of the safest places in the world, certainly compared to most African countries, had no bearing on the decision, of course. Regardless, it doesn’t mean you are exempt from our laws, no matter how ‘unfair’ you think they are.
Chinese associations from across Auckland sent pleas to MPs calling the proposal “inhumane”, and asking for an exemption for migrants already in New Zealand, and asked that the rise from 10 to 20 years be phased over a 10-year period for new migrants.
I wonder how much state pension a New Zealander who had lived in China for the last 10 years would get? Oh, that’s right. Nothing. So why would it be ‘inhumane’ to apply the same laws here as are applied in their homeland?
Aucklander Gloria Gao said her parents, who came to live in New Zealand in 2012, were very worried about the proposed law.
They were in their late 60s, and were within touching distance of qualifying for NZ Super. Both got small Chinese state pensions, but they were not enough to live on.
“It’s not fair for them. When they achieve their 10 years they will already be quite aged,” Gao said.
The parents are surviving on their “small Chinese state pensions” at the moment, and this would give them two pensions. New Zealand has no reciprocal arrangement with China for any superannuation entitlement to be paid over to the government here, as it has with the UK and Australia, so these people would then be better off than people from those countries who had lived and worked here for years. That’s not inhumane though…
This policy has the potential to save about $80 million in the first year, rising to $4.4 billion over 10 years. For those who think that the age of entitlement should increase, and that superannuation payments should be means tested, surely this is a good place to start, rather than depriving those who have lived and worked here and paid taxes for decades.
She {Gao} said both were also only children as a result of China’s one-family, one-child policy, and in the Chinese community there was an obligation on children to look after their parents in old age.
Hendrik Wentzel said the African way was also for children to support parents, just as parents supported their children.
“In Africa we have a tremendous sense of looking after our parents and factoring them and their wellbeing into our everyday lives,” he said.
Stuff.
Problem solved then. We expect migrants to make a real contribution to our country, and offer them a great lifestyle in return. But people who have only lived here for 10 years should not expect to get the same treatment in retirement as those who have lived and worked here all their lives. You and I are paying for this, remember.
Please share this article with others so they can discover The BFD
