New Zealand old age pension.

[JAG]

I am British, but I am asking on behalf of an elderly New Zealand friend of mine.

 

"D" is in his late 70s, and moved to live in Thailand on his retirement aged 65.

 

He is married to a Thai, herself a retired nurse. They live - scrape by really - on her pension. He has adult children in New Zealand, and a divorced wife, but they really don't seem to care.

 

He receives no pension whatsoever from New Zealand, despite having "paid in" throughout his entire working life, he was a qualified electrician. He tells me that he was denied at an interview when he applied, because he was moving abroad. His account of the interview was that it was extremely hostile, verging on the vitriolic, and he was very upset about it. Of course that was a long time ago, and beyond pursuing itself, the harpy who condemned him as a dirty old man off to live with a tart is probably herself retired.

 

This seems to me, to be somewhat unjust - as a Brit my government pension is "frozen" at the amount when I retired - but to simply receive nothing?

 

"D" is not particularly articulate, rather shy and completely non "tech/computer savvy". It is my intention to try to pursue this matter for him, using initially an email address which I will generate for him; but first I would like confirmation that, as he believes, he is simply not entitled to any pension. Any kind Kiwi soul who can advise?

[Paul Catton]

 

Hi JAG

 

Start with the following link.

 

https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/eligibility/seniors/superannuation/who-can-get-it/index.html#yearstable

 

 

I would say he's eligible and am quite happy to assist him with a representation on the ground here in NZ.

 

PM me with relevant details and will start the ground work.

 

Kind regards

Paul  

[KhunHeineken]

On 6/2/2025 at 3:59 AM, Paul Catton said:

I would say he's eligible and am quite happy to assist him with a representation on the ground here in NZ.

I had a look at the link you posted. 

 

The below seems to be his issue:

 

"are ordinarily resident in New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue or Tokelau when you apply, and"

 

Thailand is not one of the SSA countries.

 

"SSA countries are: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, Malta, the Netherlands, South Korea and United Kingdom."

 

He's in his late 70's, and has lived in Thailand since 65, so that's over 10 years he has been a non resident of NZ. 

 

Similar, to Australians, he may have to return to NZ to re-establish NZ residency.  For Australian's, that's a 2 year stay.  He may get the pension upon arrival, but he can't just fly out a fortnight later, if it's anything like the Australian system.   

 

Here's NZ's definition of "ordinary resident" from your link.

 

ordinarily resident

Ordinarily resident generally means a person who is normally and lawfully in New Zealand, intends to stay here and considers New Zealand to be their home. However, if you're applying for NZ Super or Veteran's Pension, this also includes: the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau, and any country NZ has a Social Security Agreement (SSA) with (except United Kingdom). If you're applying for another payment, this may also include a country NZ has a SSA with. It depends which payment you're applying for. When deciding if someone is ordinarily resident in the countries listed above, we look at: their intentions towards these countries, including their reasons for periods of absence and return the length of time they spend in these countries on a continual basis property and asset ownership. Do they own a home or any other large assets in these countries? the location of their cash assets: investments and bank accounts whether their income is earned in these countries or overseas whether they pay taxes in these countries whether they still vote in or still qualify to vote in these countries general elections their commitment to these countries, such as involvement in the community, clubs or other groups. Generally you're not considered to be ordinarily resident in these countries if you either: leave them for more than 26 weeks, or spend more time outside of them than inside. Please note: a person cannot be ordinarily resident in 2 places at the same time.

[KhunHeineken]

On 6/2/2025 at 1:31 AM, JAG said:

I am British, but I am asking on behalf of an elderly New Zealand friend of mine.

 

"D" is in his late 70s, and moved to live in Thailand on his retirement aged 65.

 

He is married to a Thai, herself a retired nurse. They live - scrape by really - on her pension. He has adult children in New Zealand, and a divorced wife, but they really don't seem to care.

 

He receives no pension whatsoever from New Zealand, despite having "paid in" throughout his entire working life, he was a qualified electrician. He tells me that he was denied at an interview when he applied, because he was moving abroad. His account of the interview was that it was extremely hostile, verging on the vitriolic, and he was very upset about it. Of course that was a long time ago, and beyond pursuing itself, the harpy who condemned him as a dirty old man off to live with a tart is probably herself retired.

 

This seems to me, to be somewhat unjust - as a Brit my government pension is "frozen" at the amount when I retired - but to simply receive nothing?

 

"D" is not particularly articulate, rather shy and completely non "tech/computer savvy". It is my intention to try to pursue this matter for him, using initially an email address which I will generate for him; but first I would like confirmation that, as he believes, he is simply not entitled to any pension. Any kind Kiwi soul who can advise?

It appears he will have to re-establish NZ residency to be able to apply and receive the aged pension in NZ. 

 

I have posted the criteria to meet NZ's criteria of "ordinary resident" in a previous post. 

[Paul Catton]

Thanks for the "Precise Wording" you have extracted from the NZ "Work and Income" website.

 

Perhaps a cat thrown among the pigeons!

 

Eligibility wise:

 

Are 65+ or older = Boxed Ticked.

Have lived in New Zealand for a certain amount of time = Box ticked.

Are ordinarily resident in New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue or Tokelau when you apply, and ,

have lived in New Zealand for a certain amount of time = Box ticked.

 

I believe that the person in question "fulfilled the final criteria" from the following statement.

 

"He tells me that he was denied at an interview when he "applied", because he was moving abroad. His account of the interview was that it was extremely hostile, verging on the vitriolic, and he was very upset about it".

 

Eligibility would have been to be met, but appears to have been thwarted by an adverse "In-house Policy" when he applied with the "MSD Ministry of Social Development" who wrongfully decided an outcome at the time, by the above statement, which needs to be taken to task for retrospective compensation which has been denied.  

 

NZ Superannuation is portable upon application per any criteria being met.

https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/on-a-benefit/overseas-travel/nz-super-and-veterans-pension/index.html

 

A huge "Thanks" from me for your detailed observation regarding the pitfall.

[KhunHeineken]

On 6/4/2025 at 8:49 AM, Paul Catton said:

Are ordinarily resident in New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue or Tokelau when you apply, and ,

have lived in New Zealand for a certain amount of time = Box ticked.

 

This is from the OP:

 

""D" is in his late 70s, and moved to live in Thailand on his retirement aged 65."

 

I take this to mean he has been living in Thailand for around 10 to 15 years. 

 

How can you claim that he is "an ordinary resident in New Zealand" when he's been living in Thailand for years?  = "Box not ticked." 

 

Look at the criteria for "ordinary resident."  I posted it. 

 

There are many ways they assess your residency, but how would he get away with the below, being outside for more than 26 weeks?

 

Generally you're not considered to be ordinarily resident in these countries if you either:

• leave them for more than 26 weeks, or
• spend more time outside of them than inside.

Please note: a person cannot be ordinarily resident in 2 places at the same time.

[Paul Catton]

23 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

 

This is from the OP:

 

""D" is in his late 70s, and moved to live in Thailand on his retirement aged 65."

 

I take this to mean he has been living in Thailand for around 10 to 15 years. 

 

How can you claim that he is "an ordinary resident in New Zealand" when he's been living in Thailand for years?  = "Box not ticked." 

 

Look at the criteria for "ordinary resident."  I posted it. 

 

There are many ways they assess your residency, but how would he get away with the below, being outside for more than 26 weeks?

 

Generally you're not considered to be ordinarily resident in these countries if you either:

• leave them for more than 26 weeks, or
• spend more time outside of them than inside.

Please note: a person cannot be ordinarily resident in 2 places at the same time.

 

Criteria was apparently met from the "context of the OP" for application, as follows.

 

"He tells me that he was denied at an interview when he "applied", because he was moving abroad. His account of the interview was that it was extremely hostile, verging on the vitriolic, and he was very upset about it".

 

Thus, regardless of any future intention (which may or may not have unfolded)  the NZ Superannuation payment should have been "granted at the time".

It is then up to the "Recipient of the Payment" to inform "Work and Income" when their  circumstances actually change, (i.e. passing through "Border Control" at Auckland Airport for example), which should not have ruled out the denial for any initial and all payments.

"New Zealand Superannuation" is "Portable"  to Thailand, as evinced by many Kiwi recipients receiving it there.

 

It would appear, this "Friend of the OP", has a case for retrospective payments, erroneously denied by a "Civil Servant" who should have been following "NZ Legislation" not an emotion based upon any personal misandry.

 

 

Break it down from the current rates.

 

The "Friend of the OP" has lost around about 12 years of "Superannuation Payments" which I believe he was entitled to, and at today's "current" rates which is: 

 

Current Payment rate if you're single 

 

"How much you get depends on your living situation and what tax code you use.

Payments are fortnightly.

Your living situation Live alone 

$1,076.84

 

Approximately, there are an  "estimated past 12 Years", of what should have been perhaps deemed eligible payments at the onset, that were erroneously "denied", Retrospectively, the "Friend of the OP",

I believes he has "Subject to Claim" against "Work and Income NZ" following the initial "vitriolic

decision" if all records are documented.

 

12 Years x 26 Fortnightly payments, multiplied by fluency of foreign exchange rates, being applied retrospectively by jurisdictional law , should equate to a retrospective minimum payment of around  THB 332,000, present day,

[KhunHeineken]

28 minutes ago, Paul Catton said:

 

Criteria was apparently met from the "context of the OP" for application, as follows.

 

"He tells me that he was denied at an interview when he "applied", because he was moving abroad. His account of the interview was that it was extremely hostile, verging on the vitriolic, and he was very upset about it".

 

Thus, regardless of any future intention (which may or may not have unfolded)  the NZ Superannuation payment should have been "granted at the time".

It is then up to the "Recipient of the Payment" to inform "Work and Income" when their  circumstances actually change, (i.e. passing through "Border Control" at Auckland Airport for example), which should not have ruled out the denial for any initial and all payments.

"New Zealand Superannuation" is "Portable"  to Thailand, as evinced by many Kiwi recipients receiving it there.

 

It would appear, this "Friend of the OP", has a case for retrospective payments, erroneously denied by a "Civil Servant" who should have been following "NZ Legislation" not an emotion based upon any personal misandry.

 

 

Break it down from the current rates.

 

The "Friend of the OP" has lost around about 12 years of "Superannuation Payments" which I believe he was entitled to, and at today's "current" rates which is: 

 

Current Payment rate if you're single 

 

"How much you get depends on your living situation and what tax code you use.

Payments are fortnightly.

Your living situation Live alone 

$1,076.84

 

Approximately, there are an  "estimated past 12 Years", of what should have been perhaps deemed eligible payments at the onset, that were erroneously "denied", Retrospectively, the "Friend of the OP",

I believes he has "Subject to Claim" against "Work and Income NZ" following the initial "vitriolic

decision" if all records are documented.

 

12 Years x 26 Fortnightly payments, multiplied by fluency of foreign exchange rates, being applied retrospectively by jurisdictional law , should equate to a retrospective minimum payment of around  THB 332,000, present day,

You keep using the word "superannuation." 

 

The thread title is: "New Zealand old age pension." 

 

The old aged pension is different to superannuation. 

 

My question still stands.  How do YOU propose "D" becomes an "ordinary resident" of NZ again?  He has not resided in NZ for over 10 years.  What criteria must he meet to be deemed an "ordinary resident?"

[Paul Catton]

The thread title is "New Zealand Old Age Pension"

Unless, it is a  private scheme and could have completely have different dynamics.   

 

I will simplify for this for you, as now being to indulge.

 

Pension is a "generic term", and has different meaning throughout different Countries.

 

"Pension" in Europe, especially in France is a terminology for lodgings.

 

We use the term of "Superannuates" as set in our NZ Legislation?

 

I have previously advised the distinct difference between the two. 

The subject of the OP appeared would have appeared to have met criteria upon his application.

 

Please do not cherry-pick,  as it seems to be he was an ordinary resident by the following statement in the OP. 

Criteria was apparently met from the "context of the OP" for application, as follows.

 

"He tells me that he was denied at an interview when he "applied", because he was moving abroad. His account of the interview was that it was extremely hostile, verging on the vitriolic, and he was very upset about it".

 

Apparently he would had to have been Resident at the time of this Interview

 

I will continue to use the term of "NZ Superannuation" as opposed to any (private "Pension" being denied) as is plainly evident. 

 

Again, perhaps lay off the Heineken, maybe enjoy Carlsberg, or perhaps Stella Artois.

 

"D does not have to re-establish his residency criteria as it would have been established by the initial interview,

 

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

14 minutes ago, Paul Catton said:

as it seems to be he was an ordinary resident

That's correct, he "was" and ordinary resident.  Past tense.  He's not an ordinary resident now, is he?  He's lived in Thailand for over 10 years. 

 

14 minutes ago, Paul Catton said:

D does not have to re-establish his residency criteria as it would have been established by the initial interview

So, he has to go back to NZ for a start.

 

Now the question of portability arises.  Can he fly back to NZ, apply, be interviewed and basically lie and say he's back in NZ for good, receive the pension, and fly out a week later?

 

Returning Australians pensioners must remain in Australia for 2 years to achieve portability.

 

Also, what will happen to his pension / superannuation after 26 weeks?

 

You posted this in a previous post:  "I would say he's eligible."  I am not suggesting he's not eligible.  What I am suggesting is "D" currently does not satisfy the criteria for a successful application, primarily because he is not an "ordinary resident."

 

In this post, you say he automatically becomes an "ordinary resident" as soon as he flies into NZ for the interview.  Do you have a link for this?   

 

The criteria I posted, from your own link, shows there are  many things to satisfy before one becomes an "ordinary resident." 

[Paul Catton]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

That's correct, he "was" and ordinary resident.  Past tense.  He's not an ordinary resident now, is he?  He's lived in Thailand for over 10 years. 

 

So, he has to go back to NZ for a start.

 

Now the question of portability arises.  Can he fly back to NZ, apply, be interviewed and basically lie and say he's back in NZ for good, receive the pension, and fly out a week later?

 

Returning Australians pensioners must remain in Australia for 2 years to achieve portability.

 

Also, what will happen to his pension / superannuation after 26 weeks?

 

You posted this in a previous post:  "I would say he's eligible."  I am not suggesting he's not eligible.  What I am suggesting is "D" currently does not satisfy the criteria for a successful application, primarily because he is not an "ordinary resident."

 

In this post, you say he automatically becomes an "ordinary resident" as soon as he flies into NZ for the interview.  Do you have a link for this?   

 

The criteria I posted, from your own link, shows there are  many things to satisfy before one becomes an "ordinary resident." 

Incorrect,

All past "injustice proven" should not detract or provide ambiguity within this thread. 

 

The person "D" per the "OP" applied within the standard time-frame to access his entitled NZ Superannuation.

 

Please stop comparing any and all  "Australian entitlements" to any "NZ entitlements".

 

Person D, had apparently applied, been interviewed, and thus rejected, not from actual dynamic but through the misandry policies being promoted. .

 

Presumably, there will be a paper-chase and <deleted> storm to face, but for about my estimate of THB 300,000+,

Like Sir Edmund Hillary, "I would knock the Bastard Off"

   

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Paul Catton said:

Incorrect,

What is incorrect?

 

1 hour ago, Paul Catton said:

All past "injustice proven" should not detract or provide ambiguity within this thread. 

I requesting you to clarify at what point does "D" become "an ordinary resident" and can apply? 

 

1 hour ago, Paul Catton said:

The person "D" per the "OP" applied within the standard time-frame to access his entitled NZ Superannuation.

That was 10 to 15 years ago.  It's irrelevant now. 

 

In his late 70's, and working up to 65, he is eligible, but I am requesting YOU advise the OP on how "D" can be deemed "an ordinary resident" before he applies? 

 

1 hour ago, Paul Catton said:

Please stop comparing any and all  "Australian entitlements" to any "NZ entitlements".

I wasn't comparing.  I simply added the way the Australian system works. 

 

1 hour ago, Paul Catton said:

Person D, had apparently applied, been interviewed, and thus rejected, not from actual dynamic but through the misandry policies being promoted. .

Once again, irrelevant.  It was 10 to 15 years ago.

 

2 hours ago, Paul Catton said:

Presumably, there will be a paper-chase and <deleted> storm to face,

What sh*t storm will he have to face? 

 

Would it be he needs to meet the below criteria, or, does he meet the criteria as soon as his plane lands?  

 

When deciding if someone is ordinarily resident in the countries listed above, we look at:

• their intentions towards these countries, including their reasons for periods of absence and return
• the length of time they spend in these countries on a continual basis
• property and asset ownership. Do they own a home or any other large assets in these countries?
• the location of their cash assets: investments and bank accounts
• whether their income is earned in these countries or overseas
• whether they pay taxes in these countries
• whether they still vote in or still qualify to vote in these countries general elections
• their commitment to these countries, such as involvement in the community, clubs or other groups.
•