Bradford Sue: Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2246] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill which from what we can ascertain at this stage at least simply makes a logical and long-overdue amendment to the way this country treats superannuitants and veterans who travel or reside overseas for more than 6 months. 
At the moment people who are eligible for superannuation or the veterans pension and who journey abroad for longer than 6 months or who go to countries that do not have reciprocal social security arrangements with New Zealand are unable to go on receiving their entitlements. This of course means that they have the option either to return home or to be reduced to seeking employment to penury or to dependence on others if they choose to remain away from New Zealand. In the current economic situation around the world the first option that of getting paid work will become even more difficult for our older citizens in the times ahead than it is already no matter what country they are in. Penury will be an even more likely outcome for many. 
It is therefore timely that the Government has decided to present this bill to Parliament and I hope it will go through the select committee and House processes with considerable alacrity. It is hard to imagine that any party in this Parliament will hold it up—and given the speeches so far I do not think that will happen—given that this bill provides for a significant improvement in the lives of our older citizens who choose to spend time or live permanently overseas. 
The only issue I can see at this stage as possibly creating a little angst is the provision that superannuation or the veterans pension will be paid in these circumstances at a rate of 1/540th of the full rate for each month of residence in New Zealand between the ages of 20 and 65 years. However for those who have spent a substantial portion of their working lives elsewhere this has the upside that should they receive an overseas pension for example from the UK it will not be reduced by the amount they may have earned during that period when they were not in New Zealand. Having sat through a number of discussions on various reciprocal arrangements we have with other jurisdictions while on the Social Services Committee over the last 9 years I can say that it is something of a relief to see a bill coming through in this area that is not dependent on the negotiation of exact arrangements with another sovereign nation and that aims to be inclusive in its effect rather than exclusive. 
The bill also appears to have a side effect of potentially removing the barriers that currently exist that preclude a social security agreement with the United States. I am sure that there will be many who will welcome this given the number of citizens of both countries who move between them. 
However this bill does not attempt to deal with the vexed issue that has come to the select committee and I am sure to all of our out-of-Parliament offices at different times relating to the operation and effect of the dollar for dollar deduction against New Zealand social security benefits imposed in respect of contributory pension schemes administered by Governments overseas. This matter has been raised time and time again by people aggrieved by the fundamental unfairness of arbitrarily missing out on the benefits of contributory pension funds that they have been part of—often for a substantial part of their working lives—because of the unfair provisions imposed by section 70 of the Social Security Act. 
 The issue is really quite simple. If overseas pensions are paid from taxation revenue gathered by overseas Governments as New Zealand superannuation and benefits paid under the Social Security Act are then a dollar for dollar deduction is totally appropriate. But if a portion of the revenue for such overseas pension schemes is from contributions by employees then the dollar for dollar deduction is simply unfair. Whether an overseas Government or a private fund administers the scheme should be an irrelevant consideration. 
The previous Government promised for most of its tenure to address this knotty issue. Legislation was promised to be introduced in the last parliamentary term. When this bill was introduced I expected the bill to deal with this issue also. It does not. Both New Zealanders living overseas and contributing to pension schemes administered by overseas Governments and immigrants to New Zealand who have contributed to such schemes for many years before coming here will continue to be unfairly penalised unless urgent action is taken. I heard National members talking about this in a most sympathetic and understanding manner in years gone by when they were in Opposition. I hope that in this new Parliament we might see some progress made on this broader and more significant problem. 
I invite the Minister to consider amending this bill to address this issue as an option and invite her to meet with me to discuss ways in which the gross unfairness of section 70 of the Social Security Act can be most readily addressed. If National remains true to the statements of its spokespeople when in Opposition this is an issue on which we could work together and I am sure on which other parties in the House could work as well. Meanwhile I commend to the House this minor but welcome amendment to our superannuation and pension laws.