Hutchison Paul: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3505] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to speak to Part 1 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I think it is once again a great indictment on this Labour Government when we hear tonight that Nick Smith’s very sensible amendment to allow— 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I was saying before the dinner break that I viewed with great concern the decision of the Labour Government which I believe is very mean-spirited to strike out the most appropriate amendment from the Hon Nick Smith. His amendment has two aspects to it: any person who applied for the living alone payment prior to 24 July 2004 but was declined on the basis of his or her spouse living in a rest home shall be eligible for payment from 24 July 2004. 
One might ask why I am concerned about the mean-spiritedness of this Labour Government. I go back to 2001 5 years ago when the Labour Government passed the superannuation legislation. It was only a year later that Barbara White brought her petition to Parliament pointing out the anomaly whereby those who were living alone and whose partner or spouse was in long-term residential care were not eligible for the living alone allowance. That was 4 years ago. Nothing was done by the Labour Government—not for 1 year not for 2 years not until 2004. That was when Dr Nick Smith was approached by Mr Page a 91-year-old whose wife with Alzheimer’s was living in long-term residential care to see whether he could apply for the single living alone allowance. He had tried not once not twice but three times and he had been rebuffed by the Labour Government. Dr Nick Smith took it to the Human Rights Commission and it was only then only after that long period of time that the Labour Government finally decided to bring this issue to Parliament. Here we are now 5 long years later and the Labour Government has been moved out of its lethargy out of its stupor and has brought in this bill which we indeed support. 
When we look at why Dr Nick Smith’s amendment has been so cruelly struck out by the Labour Government we see that the reason is that the proposed amendment would increase the Crown’s total operating expenses and decrease the balance by an amount of $600000. If we put that in the context of the $1 billion this Labour Government has put into the interest-free student loan scheme or the $1.5 billion—even more—this Labour Government has put into the Working for Families package thus cementing welfare dependency even further into the New Zealand psyche then we see that it is a very small amount indeed. It absolutely typifies the mean-spiritedness of this Labour Government towards the elderly of New Zealand. 
I see the Minister for Disability Issues Ruth Dyson sitting in the chair. She is not taking notice of the fact that it is her Government that has dawdled for 5 years over a clear anomaly that affects a considerable number of our elderly in New Zealand. In fact I think about 2100 are affected by this anomaly. When this provision is put into place it will mean about $60 more per week for those individuals. If they are on about $200 a week then $60 a week represents a huge amount to them. It can make all the difference in terms of the little treats and even I should say the necessities of life that are so important for our elderly. It seems that it is quite mean-spirited of this Labour Government not only to have ignored these people for 5 years to have ignored the petition of Barbara White for 4 years—