Dyson Ruth: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7329. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It is a rare moment in our Parliament unfortunately when National agrees with Labour and supports our legislation. I am delighted to hear the contributions of that member and his colleagues supporting the progress of this legislation. 
In my earlier contribution to this debate I raised concerns though about the confidence with which younger members of our society can look forward to their retirement because the National Government has gutted the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The benefits of this legislation—which will make it easier for superannuitants and people who are in receipt of a veterans pension to travel or retire overseas—will be lost on people who because of Bill English’s gutting of the Superannuation Fund will not have enough money to travel overseas let along to retire on it. It is not credible for this Government to say that it values older New Zealanders that it wants to keep the level of superannuation at the level it currently is in order to keep the level of entitlement at the same rate and that it wants to ensure that people can receive that entitlement when they are 65 years old while at the same time it is taking away the very fund that will allow that to happen in the future. It will not affect the superannuitants of this year or of next year but it will affect the superannuation entitlement of members like the Hon John Carter who made a contribution earlier in this debate. It is very frustrating to hear what I consider to be conflicting points of view from the National Government when it says that it supports this legislation because it will make it easier for superannuitants to travel or to retire overseas but at the same time says to people in their 40s and 50s: “But we are not going to have you retire with that level of income because you”—Not you Mr Speaker; you are much younger than that. I apologise for referring to you as being in your 40s or 50s. You have a long way to go before you reach that level of age. But those of that age will not be able to receive the level of superannuation that would allow them to retire in confidence. 
My colleague and friend the Hon Annette King asked the Minister the Hon Paula Bennett during the Committee stage of this debate one simple question. Tragically the Minister was not able to answer it. She took a call but she totally ignored the question. It was a very serious issue which was raised by people who in New Zealand deserve just about more respect than anyone. They are the people who have risked their lives literally and their well-being by going overseas and serving in a war on our behalf. Those war veterans made submissions to the select committee during the process of this legislation and they expressed some frustration which it is my understanding was shared by every member of the select committee with the fact that at the moment the war pension is directly linked to superannuation when it is actually quite a different entitlement. The war pension is granted to a person who has served our country on our behalf and who has some sort of impairment as a result of his or her engagement. That person might receive that entitlement at a much younger age than a person on superannuation. This is all directly referred to in Part 2 of the original bill and fortunately at the moment a very extensive review of the War Pensions Act is being undertaken by the Law Commission. 
I know that the Minister of Justice is right on top of that issue. He has a very strong personal interest in the war pensions situation. I hope that he is able to advise his colleague the Minister for Social Development and Employment to turn her attention to this issue because she did not even acknowledge that a question had been asked and she did not acknowledge the many submissions that were made to the select committee about why the current link is made when there is such a different threshold for entitlement between the two pensions. Changes are clearly needed in this area. The select committee looked at the matter and on the advice it received and accepted it decided that it was outside the scope of this particular amendment. The committee could not make that amendment progress but I am certain that Labour would welcome any such amendment that was brought to the House as a result of the Law Commission review. So I hope that the Hon Simon Power can get his colleague the Minister for Social Development and Employment up to speed on this issue because she clearly missed the boat when it came to what I think were very critical submissions to the committee. 
The other issue that was raised earlier in debate—and I was delighted to see the Hon John Carter give a clear commitment to progressing work on this issue—was the huge frustration felt by a number of people who originally lived and worked in another country but have since moved to New Zealand to retire and now receive New Zealand superannuation. They feel a huge frustration that they lose their entire overseas superannuation when they get the entire New Zealand superannuation. They are not expecting to get two lots of superannuation in full but they would like to get the percentage of their overseas superannuation they earned while they were overseas whether it was in Switzerland Holland or Canada and they would like to get the percentage of New Zealand superannuation they earned while they were here. I frankly do not think that that is too big an ask. 
We made some good work on that issue. It never got to the top of our list in terms of Budget priorities but we had a very strong commitment from the Minister for Senior Citizens the Hon John Carter earlier in this debate to progress that issue. Again that would be an initiative that would be welcomed by New Zealanders. Some people who had lived overseas might be disadvantaged; I think therefore that it would be fair to consider giving people the choice. We would not want people to be financially disadvantaged by the fact that their overseas pension is worth considerably less than the value of the New Zealand pension and actually compared with many countries we are quite generous. But compared with other countries we are not. So some people are financially disadvantaged and the Crown is advantaged by their giving over all their overseas superannuation to the Crown and receiving just the level of New Zealand superannuation. So I hope that the issue outlined in section 70 of the social security legislation will be addressed by the National Government. I will be asking questions of the Minister for Senior Citizens the Hon John Carter on a regular basis because he has given the House a commitment to making progress on that matter. I think that would be very warmly welcomed not just by members of the House but by those New Zealand superannuitants I referred to earlier who currently have to miss out on their fair share. 
This has been a very worthwhile debate with the exception of the contribution from the ACT member who has misunderstood despite having it very clearly outlined to him that people do not come to New Zealand from the Pacific Islands on a whim. They come here only if they meet the requirements of New Zealand’s immigration policy. They have to meet those standards. They do not decide to come to New Zealand just to get a pension; they come here under the policy that New Zealand sets out. They meet our rules and that is a fair call. The ACT member was clearly advised that this was not a back room foreign affairs New Zealand overseas aid contribution. It was a genuine effort by the previous Government supported by the current Government to make sure that when people who were in receipt of New Zealand superannuation wanted to travel or retire overseas they were not financially disadvantaged in being able to do that. 
As I said at the beginning of my contribution we find ourselves in an unusual situation. First of all it is no longer unusual to have urgency. It seems to be usual to have urgency and I think there will be a motion put to the House at some stage that we stop calling urgency “urgency” and start calling it “normal time” because it is what we do every week. But the Order Paper is very unusual under urgency. Usually when the House moves into urgency it is to progress matters that require the urgent attention of the House outside normal sitting time—for example the referral of a bill to a select committee if a Minister requires a bill to be back in a very short space of time. We heard in the House last week that the Minister for ACC had intended to progress the ACC legislation but he had forgotten to secure the support of a majority of members of Parliament so we could not do that legislation under urgency. We did some other very critical matters such as a customs bill and an offender levy bill. But those issues clearly did not require the urgent attention of the House. It kept members of Parliament in Wellington away from their families on a Thursday night and the huge additional cost to taxpayers to ordinary citizens of New Zealand of running this Parliament was for no good reason. Urgency was without justification and was solely due to mismanagement by the Leader of the House the Hon Gerry Brownlee. 
This legislation is in that same category. It does not need to be progressed under urgency but from a personal point of view I am delighted that the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill are being progressed.