Wong Pansy: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
Wong Pansy: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:606;Page:3881] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
:  
I am really pleased to see that there is a change of Minister in the chair for the debate on Part 1. We have the Hon John Tamihere instead of the Hon Michael Cullen who seemed hell-bent on shutting down the debate which was interesting last night. Because of that fiasco last night the Committee spent 35 minutes on debating points of order because the Hon Michael Cullen would not allow the ACT member the Hon Richard Prebble to seek a call on the title of the bill. I find that really interesting.  
My understanding is that Part 1 indeed the whole bill is supported by all parties in the House. So why is the Labour Government so hell-bent on shutting down debate? One would think that it does not want to pass this legislation that modernises the practice that no person should be disadvantaged—in this case whether under the Government Superannuation Fund a widow or widower of a pensioner would continue to receive the benefit if the widow or widower happened to remarry. I am surprised because last night my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith believed that the title Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) did not clearly bring out the intention that is set out in Part 1. I believe that the Hon Richard Prebble should be entitled to seek a call on that.  
The Hon Michael Cullen made an accusation towards my colleague the honourable Dr Lockwood Smith who has spent 19 years in Parliament and has never been expelled from the Chamber. All he did was politely ask the Chair whether it was democratic to allow the ACT leader the Hon Richard Prebble to seek a call because the title of the bill does not clearly spell out what is set out in Part 1— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Could the member just talk about the bill. 
PANSY WONG 
: The bill is about whether a widow or widower who is entitled to receive the pension should not be disadvantaged if he or she chooses to remarry. One would have thought that that was a perfectly reasonable action but nothing is reasonable according to the minority Labour Government. I am still perplexed and hope that the Labour Minister the Hon John Tamihere is not still under a gagging order. I hope he will seek a call to explain to the public why the title of this legislation which seems to be well received by the House does not more clearly spell out the purpose that is set out in clause 3 which might enlighten people listening to this debate. 
The National Party is supporting this bill. As it has been 20 years since the passage of the last bill we think it is about time that society recognises that widows and widowers will remarry and seek another period of happy life. That should not jeopardise their entitlement under this bill to receive the pension. I hope this Minister who does have a reputation of speaking his mind and making his own decisions until his arm has been twisted will take a call to explain further to the public the background that leads to the purpose of the bill.  
I hope the Chairperson will also allow a few more calls from the various parties because we are witnessing one of those rare occasions where most parties—and I would say probably all parties—will support this legislation. But it is important that the Minister seeks the call to explain the issue further because last night some members raised a concern as to whether the investment is being made wisely.