Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's been said that when you grow old three things happen. The first is that you lose your memory; the second is that you lose your memory; (c) you lose your memory; and of course fifthly you lose your memory. But something else happens in New Zealand as well and that is that you qualify for superannuation and in the case of some New Zealanders you also qualify for the veterans pension. This piece of legislation—on which I'll put members out of their misery and say that the New Zealand National Party will continue to support—does some very worthwhile things in clarifying and simplifying the entitlements for those who are able to receive New Zealand Superannuation.The Minister for Social Development has acknowledged the work of the Social Services and Community Committee. I was not privileged to be a member of the committee at the time that the submissions were made and the hearings were taking place and the consideration of the bill also took place but it's obvious from reading the report that they've produced that considerable work and care and diligence has gone into producing that. And the Minister has acknowledged a number of amendments that the select committee has recommended and we think that those are sensible as well. It's an omnibus bill Madam Speaker as you're well aware but of course I've got to continue to speak as I'm speaking to you—part of the fiction of this place. But anyway the omnibus bill it will amend a number of different Acts: the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 the Veterans' Support Act Social Security Act Income Tax Act and Tax Administration Act. I do want to acknowledge in relation to the veterans aspects that today is the 70th anniversary of the commencement of the Korean War and I note that in this Chamber we have among other memorials one dedicated to the Korean War sometimes referred to as the Forgotten War" but of course by remembering it on every occasion that we are able to we shall not forget.The legislation does some pretty complex technical things but all quite logical when you think about them in relation to a person who's entitled to receive superannuation and has that entitlement affected by other people in their lives—often well roughly speaking we could say "loved ones" but there's different categories of partner of course and also dependants. So I'll take a little time to walk through the most relevant ones of those for the benefit of the record and to explain why we in the National Party believe that this legislation continues to be worth supporting. One of the main ones is that the person who is able to receive superannuation will have a clearer path to having the rate calculated. So the bill takes away the non-qualified partner rate the NQP rate so that's where a person until now was able to choose a higher rate if their partner as in their life partner doesn't qualify in their own right. And so there's a simplification exercise whereby we're saying that the each of those persons will be entitled to receive what they are able to receive notwithstanding that the person who is subject to the provision of the bill is affected by the fact that they are in relationship with someone else. It's all pretty clear if you read it I can assure you.The effect of this isn't retrospective and I think that's important for the sake of fairness. If a person who has already elected to choose the NQP rate that's the non-qualifying partner rate has already entered into that regime effectively before the commencement date of the bill then they'll be entitled to proceed along the same lines. So that seems a reasonable kind of provision in our view. Spousal deduction is something that the Minister's mentioned. Sounds like something that Sherlock Holmes would have been checking up on his wife but in fact deduction in the sense obviously meaning the reduction of a pension—superannuation or a veterans pension—whereby a partner receives an overseas Government-administered pension. I think it's probably recognised right across the House that there's an element of unfairness whereby a person or—actually more to the point—a couple could receive less than what would be the standard amount as a result of the fact that one of them is in receipt of a benefit of some kind from overseas. And the bottom line really must be that there shouldn't be less entitlement for a New Zealander who is otherwise able to gain their full superannuation simply because their partner is overseas and in that kind of category.So too we are no longer penalising a person effectively for having been overseas outside the New Zealand qualification requirement where they're there doing humanitarian work and that's a pretty broad definition I think appropriately so. Similarly for those who are living in self-contained mobile homes well we don't say that that's the kind of accommodation that would disqualify them from the living-alone rate. In other words there's a bit more breadth and a bit more generosity about the kind of person—person's activities really—that allows someone to continue to receive the superannuation at the full relevant rate.The bill contains a number of different subtle details which I'll just go through reasonably quickly because there are a large number of them. But I think it's worth noting that a person's partner might change in status: for example the bill gives a particular example from a de facto to a spouse in the more traditional sense of that phrase. And that doesn't prevent a couple from continuing to receive the NQP rate that they'd opted into before the commencement date. However if the partnership changes—as in if there's a breakup and in a new partner enters the life of the relevant person—then all bets are off in the sense that the person doesn't have the ability to say "Well I'm going to go back to being in the pre-Act position of claiming the NQP rate anyway."There's a lot actually in the bill as well that's quite laudable that actually just simply clarifies the position. It doesn't actually change necessarily the status of people to be able to claim superannuation but does make things clearer and that's actually a useful thing in itself. The change of pension type for example in relation to those who switch between New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension—these provisions are sequential; they are next to each other and in the same Act so that's clearer. I've been part of the process where the same committee actually—the same select committee—has been considering in relation to another piece of legislation which is considering more particularly the situation of veterans. And one of the themes that's emerged from that is that the lack of clarity about what's available to these fine Kiwis—the lack of clarity is often actually quite a challenging thing itself. So for this piece of legislation actively to be seeking to make the situation clearer for the benefit of those who are eligible to receive these various kinds of benefits that's a worthwhile thing.We talked before about spousal deductions; well so too for dependents who are living overseas and receiving a benefit or pension. Likewise they shouldn't be in the position of penalising a person who would otherwise be receiving a full superannuation. So that's a good thing. And similarly—well not similarly but a sort of a similar kind of theme albeit that the details are different is if one's partner is hospitalised then the effect of the amendment that the select committee's proposing is to say well for that period of time that there's a long period of hospitalisation then the person who is the subject of the Act would not be receiving superannuation—it's reduced—as though they had a partner. It's a little bit like saying that we'll treat them as though they are a single person for that period of time. While in some senses that would seem I suppose anomalous because the fact of the partnership remains in practical terms and in terms of the support for a person who is living by themselves we can say that for someone who has a partner who is hospitalised in effect that's a pretty similar thing to being single for certain purposes at least. The final point that I would make again in support of the bill is to say that there's a principle at play whereby those who receive veterans pensions shouldn't be having a more onerous income test than those receiving the more ordinary form of superannuation. That's something that the committee spelt out quite clearly and explicitly and I thank them for doing that. And so for all those reasons on this side of the House we continue to support the bill and we look forward to its continued passage on that basis."