Why do the NZ State Counsels file a motion to exclude the name of the NZ Prime Minister in the complaint to the Human Rights Review Tribunal?
The role of a leader of the country is to set the tone of the country i.e. to set a good example. The NZ human Rights Act 1993 stated DISCRIMINATION is UNLAWFUL, whether it is done DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY.
The fact that the Chief Executive of the NZ Ministry of Social Development discriminates against ONLY Singapore Citizens is fundamentally unlawful. Singapore Citizens, already DISCRIMINATED by their own government, suffer a 100% TAX in NZ on their CPF SAVINGS refunded MONTHLY by the CPF Board.
The fact that the NZ PM and all their NZ citizens who had worked in Singapore and collected their CPF Savings in FULL and TAX-FREE when they left Singapore, were not affected is proof of DISCRIMINATION against Nationality under their own Human Rights Act 1993.
The fact that Malaysian Permanent Residents in NZ receive their FULL Pension Entitlement, as well as all other nationalities who had worked in Singapore, is also proof of Discrimination against Singapore Citizens who are also NZ Permanent Residents and have paid the high NZ Taxes for more than 10 years.
So Teflon John, as he is known, does not want his name sullied but allows his Chief Executive to have the previously good name of NZ sullied.
Does the Ministry of Justice condone a Chief Executive to practice Discrimination which the NZ Human Rights Act 1993 stated is UNLAWFUL?