New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
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:3504] 
New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 16 May. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I wish to advise the Committee at this stage that the Government has issued a financial veto certificate in relation to the Hon Nick Smith’s amendment to insert new clause 6A. The amendment is therefore out of order and no question will be put on it. However the veto certificate may be debated in the context of this part. 
Part 1 Amendments to Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 ( 
continued 
)  
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 It is with great honour that the National Party supports this bill. I suppose the first thing we should say about Part 1 is that thank goodness we are here to have a debate and to discuss something that should have happened many years ago. It is quite disturbing and quite upsetting to hear that my colleague Nick Smith’s amendment will not go through because it was when he brought this issue to the Human Rights Commission that we saw the Government finally do something about it. This tired Government finally felt that it might do something about this issue. 
Dr Smith had a constituent whose partner was in long-term residential care. He was getting less money than if he were receiving a living alone allowance even though the couple was not living together. It is a tragedy for the elderly people of New Zealand that they have had to wait so long for this bill. It is a tragedy that we cannot back-pay some of them so that they can see this happening. 
Members opposite can sit there and make gestures and think this issue is not important but it is incredibly important to a lot of people who are in the situation whereby they would have to divorce or declare themselves unmarried in order to be eligible for additional payment. This is one of those common-sense changes that needed to happen and it is a tragedy that this Government has taken so long to make it happen. 
I have been wondering whether perhaps the Government just did not think the money was important. In all respect it is not a lot of money that we are talking about. Part 1 which we have changed refers to a payment of some $20 to $30 a week to people. For elderly people who are living in their own homes that can make all the difference for them to be able to get services they really need—for them to be able to buy bread each week or the local paper if they are looking for something a bit more. The situation in terms of Nick Smith’s constituent was that the wife was in a rest home and because the couple still recognised each other the husband was not eligible to get the living alone payment. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: It’s appalling. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: The member is right it is appalling. Because the wife still vaguely knew her husband even though the husband was living alone he was not eligible to get the living alone allowance. We are finally seeing some changes in respect of that. 
The Hon Nick Smith needs to be commended for bringing this issue to the attention of the House. It is ridiculous that Dr Smith had to complain to the Human Rights Commission about this absolute miscarriage of justice as a last resort. A week later interestingly enough the bill was introduced by the Government. Government members now get to spout forth on how important this bill is and what a great job they are doing but I point out that it has taken over 6½ years—6½ long long years. As a new member I constantly hear about what the National Party did wrong in the 1990s and about everything else. We are in a new century and the Labour Government has had 6½ long long years to bring this issue to the attention of members and to do something about it. Without any doubt this issue has not been a priority for the Government. 
Thanks to Nick Smith we are able today to look at this bill and to consider the issues raised. As a member of the Social Services Committee since the last election I would like to say what an outstanding job the committee has done in bringing the bill together and writing it. The experts have put it together well and members have been able to understand it. The bill has been kept relatively simple which I think is important. Simplicity is not something that this Government in particular is generally very good at. It normally likes to complicate things as much as it possibly can and make things difficult for people to understand but in this case it seems to have got it relatively right because it has obviously listened to the officials. 
This legislation should make it quite easy for people who are eligible for living alone payments. Clause 13 relates to a person who is not considered to be living alone if he or she shares household expenses with another person. That is where it all starts to get a bit confusing and that is where people have been let down in the past. That clause is about the sharing of expenses. The reality is that it does cost more to live alone than to live with someone else. When a person is living alone then he or she is the only one who is paying the power and power use does not halve which may be a surprise to some people. A couple’s expenses do not halve because one person has moved out of the house. 
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— 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call on this bill and for this reason. We see Government members come here fresh bushy-tailed and raring to go and over time we see them get worn down slide away start to make mistakes and ignore good ideas. That is what is happening with this tired lethargic hopeless Labour Government. 
We have here a really good idea. Superannuitants their families and their grandchildren are crying out right across the country for this to happen—man and woman. They are standing up and saying: “Can you just make this little thing happen for my grandfather for my grandmother for my elderly aunt?”. That is all they are asking for—just a little wee bit—and this mean-spirited Government is not going to do it. It will not allow Nick Smith’s amendment. This Government is mean-spirited. It is typical of a failing Government that has to go. 
Let us have a look at what this is about. Let us take the country through this because it is really interesting. We have a system whereby this Government has been saying for years that if one’s husband wife or partner gets sick it is too bad. The Government will give those people a single superannuation payment and will not recognise the fact that they might have extra expenses. “Not us” says the Labour Government. “Not us” says Helen Clark. They are not going to do that. They are still going to make people pay. Well finally Nick Smith—and congratulations to him—has brought the Government to its senses and finally it will recognise that there is a need. But it has taken too long. 
But even worse the Government is using this thing called a fiscal impact report to reject Nick’s amendment that would have allowed anybody who applied since 2004 etc. to be eligible for the living alone payment. This country looks at claims going back to 1840 in some cases. There are people who are in this Parliament for that very reason—to make sure that injustices of the past are recognised. Here we have something that will cost less than $600 million. My colleague Dr Paul Hutchison talked about some of the things that this Government is prepared to spend money on. What about some of the things it wastes money on like Te Wananga o Aotearoa and things like that which the National Party has exposed? Why cannot the Government put a little bit of money aside to help our elderly folk? The Government has mean-spirited people. It is typical of a Government that is going down the gurgler. 
I want to say this about Nick Smith. He is the sort of genuine Kiwi who gets on to an issue and makes it happen. He is a guy in Opposition who is making the Government do its job. He is part of the National Party caucus which finally has got this Government to start to do something positive for the people of New Zealand—not just the elderly but their families and their grandchildren the whole of our society. I say to this Parliament: “Congratulations Nick Smith. At last you have brought a modicum of decency into this Parliament through its legislation.” He has recognised something that this lazy hopeless Government should have thought about so many years ago. How long? Is it 3 years 4 years? It does not matter. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: 5 years. 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is disgraceful. It is hard to believe that people in this country who pretend to be parliamentarians do not care for a whole 5-year period. That is amazing. I am shocked. I think I need a glass of water. I think my blood pressure is rising. I cannot believe this. How can anyone sit on that side of the Chamber and claim to represent the people of New Zealand particularly the superannuitants but then take 4 or 5 years to deliver? 
Anne Tolley 
: What about the veterans though? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Oh well! Do not get me started on the veterans! I would be here all night. I would have to have some oxygen to get through the veterans case. It is bad enough dealing with just this issue. At last the Government is finally doing stuff that Nick Smith has asked it to do. The National Party supports him. Thank goodness we are here! 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 What a fantastic contribution from my colleague Mr Carter and how true his words are. It is a disgrace that it has taken this Government so long to bring this legislation to the House and when it did it had the full cooperation of all the other parties to bring it through in a timely fashion because we all knew that it made sense and that it was fair and just legislation. 
But I just want to speak tonight about one little part of it that disturbed me throughout the whole process. I cannot see many of my colleagues from the Social Services Committee here but it was very difficult for me to get to the bottom of this part of the legislation during the select committee stage. I refer to clause 8 “Absences up to 52 weeks with aid agencies”. In the information that was provided to the select committee the case was made to change that 52 weeks because there were a reasonable number of superannuitants or veteran pensioners overseas undertaking voluntary work who were penalised for being out of the country too long. 
I do not have a problem with that; the problem I had was that all the information that came to the select committee members talked about a 2-year period and about the fact that the request for an extension of this time was to cover the 2-year duration of a standard Volunteer Service Abroad assignment. I was actually very happy to do that. The case was made that some people have had to take a shorter assignment because otherwise they would be penalised. I agree with all the logic in that. The question I kept asking however was why in this legislation we do not see a 2-year period as all the evidence and all the requests were about. No we see a 3-year period. I do not have a problem with whether it is 2 years or 3 years but I take passing legislation seriously and as a member of Parliament I want to know that I understand the reason for all the legislation that I am involved with and that I have to defend out in the community. 
Throughout the process I could not get a valid reason for having an extension to 3 years rather than an extension to 2 years. It was not that there was any great call for 3 years. It might be a pedantic point but I think that legislation is an important part of the role of a member of Parliament. Legislation affects people’s lives and we should have good reasons for passing laws in this country. We as parliamentarians need to be able to understand the reasons for them. At the very last minute when we were getting ready to deliberate in the select committee I was finally given a reason for the 3 years. It is because the term of our representatives overseas our ambassadors is 3 years. In actual fact that is quite a different issue from what is raised in this legislation. I thought we were talking about volunteers working for recognised aid agencies overseas. That has nothing to do with people working in the diplomatic service; that is quite another issue altogether. 
Because I had made considerable attempts to get some rationale behind the 3 years I did not want to pursue it anymore. I must confess I gave up but I did say that I was going to raise it during the debate. There is still not a good reason for extending it to 3 years. If there is a good reason I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson to take a call and explain to the Committee why there is this extension to 3 years rather than the 2 that was requested which was backed up by the information that had come in to the select committee. Why we are we now passing something that was not called for? I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to tell us whether the answer is as some of her colleagues are suggesting something that we should know. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to be speaking in the Committee stage of this New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I note that no member of the Labour Party has yet taken a call so it is really quite hard to believe that this is a Government bill. It might be a Government bill in name but it is quite obvious that it has actually resulted from the efforts of Dr Nick Smith the MP for Nelson who has had the gumption to bring this bill to the House. [ 
Interruption 
] We now have the member for Wellington Central—perhaps for not much longer a member of the Labour Party—Marian Hobbs starting to chime in. If she would like to get up and take a call on the Labour Party’s behalf the contribution would be most welcome. 
This is common-sense legislation and it has been put forward by the party of common sense the party that has the interests of ordinary New Zealanders at heart: the National Party. It really is a crime that it has taken 6½ years for this bill to come before the House. Dr Smith was approached by a constituent a Mr Page who could not get a living alone payment because his wife was in a rest home. That really highlighted quite a bizarre anomaly. While Mr Page who has paid taxes all his life and who is now a retiree was living at home his wife was in the rest home. If Mr Page had actually divorced his wife he would have been eligible for the living alone allowance. Mrs Pettis is shaking her head over there so I hope she will be taking a call soon too because she has had a lot to say during this debate about her own pension being cut. 
Jill Pettis 
: No my mother’s. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Oh her mother’s—I am sorry I thought it was Mrs Pettis’ pension. I apologise to the former member for Whanganui. 
This bill is all about dignity and it is the National Party that is giving New Zealanders back their dignity. I think it is just very sad and disappointing that Mr Page had to go to his member of Parliament who in turn had to go to the Human Rights Commission just to get the basics Mr Page was entitled to as a taxpayer—the dignity of being able to claim as a superannuitant that single person’s allowance. 
I note that it is quite interesting that this legislation put forward basically by Dr Smith really follows a similar pattern to what we have been seeing: the National Party gets behind a piece of legislation and suddenly it becomes Government policy and a Government bill. It is a bit like the situation where revenue from the petrol tax is now going to be put into roading. That is National Party policy but we heard at the launch of the last Budget that the Government will be doing that. Of course we know that before the next Budget and the next election Labour Party members will be talking about tax cuts because those members are on the back foot now. They are on the run and National is dictating the agenda. I note that Mrs Pettis has no answer to that—no answer at all. The interesting thing is that when the working people of New Zealand get that tax cut the pensioners of New Zealand will actually benefit. If people had received those tax cuts National was going to deliver at the last election— 
Jill Pettis 
: Well why didn’t they vote for you? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
:—Mrs Pettis should just listen; she will find out about her own pension—pensioners would have been better off by $1200 a year in the hand because the pension is based on the average take-home wage. So if the Labour Party were really serious about doing something practical for the working people of New Zealand and also for superannuitants it would have embraced tax cuts. That is a little bit of a digression but it is absolutely true. 
The public in regard to this bill were outraged with the sharing expenses rule. How that worked was that if someone had fixed costs—as we all do—in running a household those fixed costs were not taken into account when considering the level of allowance the person should have been paid while his or her spouse or partner was in a rest home. So this bill will extend the eligibility for that higher single rate of New Zealand superannuation for living alone payments or veterans’ pensions to those whose spouse or partner is in long-term residential care a hospital or a rest home. We in the National Party think that that is absolutely just. The Labour Party has had well over 6 years to do something about the situation but it has actually taken Dr Smith’s initiative to get the bill through. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 It is with absolute pleasure that New Zealand First supports 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. As has been pointed out the bill affects a significant number of our seniors; Dr Paul Hutchison mentioned that the number of people was in excess of 2000. We definitely want to see the bill passed through Parliament quickly particularly as every speaker to date has supported the bill. New Zealand First is 100 percent behind the bill and we want to see it fast tracked through. We do not want to see it delayed in any way. We know that developed countries around the world are assessed by how well they care for their seniors and we must ensure that our seniors here in New Zealand can live well in their golden years. 
The changes that are outlined in the bill are absolutely essential. This is fair legislation and I know that that has been mentioned by every speaker to date. So we all want to see the bill passed. New Zealand First members are very pleased that this bill removes the anomalies that exist with the living alone payment. The amendments mean that eligibility for the living alone payment will be based on actual living arrangements rather than be influenced by whether another party is making a contribution. We hear so many sad stories when someone’s partner ends up in care and the remaining partner is left to cope. Unfortunately those people are living single lives at home but they still have all the responsibilities and costs that come with a household. It is time that this issue was clarified because we believe that people have been let down totally in this area in the past. 
Of course New Zealand First wants to see fairer treatment for our senior citizens and we are pleased that this is the second change we have seen in this Parliament. The first change was the raising of the superannuation rate to 66 percent of the net average wage which we applaud. Our next change will be the introduction of the golden age card for senior citizens. New Zealand First members know that our seniors are actually waiting for that change. We know too that the issues that are dealt with in this bill are urgent and people need to have them sorted out so they can get on with their lives. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Keep waiting! 
BARBARA STEWART 
: I know that the National member on the other side of the Chamber is also waiting for his golden age card. I can assure him that after the next election he will more than likely be eligible to apply for it. So I ask him to support the golden age card at this point in time. We are looking forward to the implementation of the golden age card and we know that that is coming through as a result of our confidence and supply agreement. 
We must acknowledge that this bill also deals with veterans and we need to remember the enormous sacrifice veterans have made on behalf of all New Zealanders. We owe those people a great deal. I thought that speeches made by some National members in this debate were a bit rich considering that successive National Governments would not recognise some of our veterans and would not give them medals—veterans like Nancy Wake and Des Scott—but I have heard that Sergeant Manahi will be recognised. There is also Lieutenant-Colonel Maloney. The Viet Nam vets have been striving for a long time to have some settlement over agent orange and of course there are also the nuclear test vets. They are all people to whom we owe a great deal. It is worth saying that the veterans of overseas service need to be recognised and we want to investigate ways of achieving that recognition. With the Year of the Veteran now upon us I know that one of our priorities in that area will definitely be met. We need to ensure that veterans and superannuitants have the best possible living standards and we do not want to see them disadvantaged in any way. This bill goes some way towards actually ensuring that. 
So we want to see the bill passed quickly through this Parliament—we do not want to see any delays—and we will be supporting it every step of the way. I know that my colleague from Hamilton East David Bennett will definitely be very happy to see the bill passed too. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Tena tatou katoa. I will make a brief call to reiterate the Maori Party’s support for the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. 
Ever since the beginning elders have had a special place in our family in our extended family and in our community. Against all sorts of odds we are still fighting hard to keep that situation going. The key thing for us is to make sure that our elders have the opportunity to play a role in the lives of their children grandchildren and great-grandchildren. That is obviously why we support the bill—so that they can have a fair means by which to enjoy their later life and times. 
In fact it was respect for elders that created the kohanga reo movement in 1981 which saw for the first time a whole-of-New Zealand movement whereby Maori respected and followed the wishes of their elders. All over New Zealand kohanga reo were created quite independent of Government or any formal organisation simply because the elders who had gathered decided that it was a good initiative that should be followed. So that is a modern example if you like of the status that our old people hold in our lives. 
I point out that although we support the initiatives of the bill—to extend eligibility etc.—we hope the Government is also taking the responsibility to consider other amendments in respect of the distribution of superannuation that take into account the disparities evident in life expectancy. For example Maori men will die 8.2 years earlier than non-Maori men and Maori women will die 8.8 years earlier than non-Maori women. So that means that Winston Peters Mahara Okeroa Ron Mark and a few other colleagues will not be around for as long as some other members. As in so many areas of our social policy those predetermined arbitrary age limits which seem to be set for fiscal reasons generate inequities. We challenge the thinking behind those age limits in that it creates the disparity. That is why prior to the election the Maori Party came out and said we should perhaps consider providing superannuation earlier to certain people if it could be shown that those people had a shorter life expectancy. 
The Maori Party supports the bill. We would also have supported the amendment for back pay—had it not been thrown away—the amendment to go back to that time when people applied for back pay and were declined and so on. But we support the bill. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I rise in support of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. It is good to hear that the Maori Party would have supported Nick Smith’s amendment which has unfortunately been vetoed. I think this is a callous Government that has actually— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: It’s a rebuff. 
NATHAN GUY 
: That is exactly right. That amendment should have been allowed to go through. Fundamentally it should have been in there. It is good to see that the Maori Party is supporting National in that matter. 
I was also interested to hear Mrs Stewart from New Zealand First talk about the golden age card that will come in soon. I think we are all waiting to see exactly what the golden age card will deliver. Will it deliver cheaper petrol or power for those who are over 65? We will wait and see. 
I am from Kapiti in Horowhenua and as members know that region has the highest number of people over 65 per capita. We have an ageing population in Horowhenua and Kapiti and this bill will help those people. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Including my mother. 
NATHAN GUY 
: That is exactly right. The member’s mother who resides in Otaki may well be listening this evening and I think she will be delighted with this bill. 
To understand more about the bill I recently went out with some caregivers in Otaki. They are doing a fantastic job in looking after war veterans and people who want to age with dignity in their homes but they are not being very well rewarded. It was interesting to see exactly what caregivers do. They are friends of the people they care for. They clean for them look after them and get their groceries for them. They are a point of contact for them. It was great to see in the Budget that some money is to flow through to those caregivers—they are to get 50c an hour. How pitiful is that for caregivers who look after those superannuitants? An hourly rate of 50c equates to about $1000 a year. Petrol is the biggest issue for caregivers who look after elderly people in their homes. We all know that it now costs about $100 to fuel up a car. Caregivers of aged people living at home have their own vehicles to look after. They have to provide their vehicle’s warrant of fitness and pay for its repairs and maintenance. Caregivers are being unfairly treated—just like superannuitants with this bill. 
It has taken 6 long years to get this measure through—6½ actually but who is counting? I guess caregivers are wondering whether they will have to wait that long before they get fairly remunerated and receive some assistance towards costs for looking after superannuitants who live in their own homes. 
I believe that about 2000 superannuitants aged over 65 will qualify under this bill which is fantastic. It will be only a small drop in the bucket though. My arithmetic is that they will benefit by only about $20 a week. That is about $100 a month. Is that enough? I guess it is a start is it not? It is a start in relation to rewarding those people who have been unfairly treated by an old tired dilapidated Government that is on its last legs. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: They’re running out of ideas. 
NATHAN GUY 
: That is exactly right. Government members are running out of ideas so it is great to see that this bill has come into the House because National and the Hon Nick Smith—who has worked hard for people in his electorate of Nelson—have forced the Government’s hand. It has taken 6½ years to get the bill to this stage. 
It is also nice to see in relation to eligibility the extension of time from 1 year to 3 years for those who do voluntary service abroad. That is fantastic but I am still waiting as is the member for East Coast Anne Tolley for the Minister to take a call to explain why the extension to 3 years was introduced through the submission process when there was already a huge amount of support for the eligible period to go to 2 years. Why has it been extended to 3 years? Let us hear from the Minister. The challenge is for the Minister to take a call on that. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: We haven’t heard from anyone in Labour. 
NATHAN GUY 
: That is right. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Get Jim out of his newspaper. 
NATHAN GUY 
:They are not interested. The Government is old and tired. This bill is all about allowing those people who are over 65—those war veterans who have served this country—to age with dignity. Those people have looked after us and after this country. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am delighted 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 would like to reflect on how this bill came into being. I think it is important that we go back in time and think about how it got to be here in the Committee of the whole House today. For that we cannot look any further than the Nelson MP the Hon Nick Smith. We have “Nick for Nelson” to thank for this bill through one of his constituents a Mr Page—an elderly gentleman; I heard tonight that he was 91—who did not need all the grief he got. Mr Page’s wife Mrs Page was in residential care but Mr Page was not given the living alone payment because his wife recognised him. If Mr and Mrs Page had been a de facto couple or even a gay couple or if Mrs Page had had dementia or had been in prison then Mr Page would have qualified for the living alone payment. It was just a bizarre set of circumstances. 
So there we had Mr Page an elderly man with an ill wife in long-term residential care going to his MP the Hon Dr Nick Smith—“Nick for Nelson”—who brought the situation finally to the attention of the media. He took it further than that; he took it to the Human Rights Commission. It took Nick Smith’s efforts to get this legislation into the House and it is Nick Smith that we and Mr Page have to thank for that. 
In fact as I heard tonight there are over 2000 “Mr Pages” living in this country. Those people have been sadly neglected and it has taken 5 years for the legislation to get to this stage. This bill recognises that it is more expensive for people to live alone. In addition the bill recognises and acknowledges that more incidental costs are incurred when a person’s spouse or partner is in long-term residential care. Those costs include travel and the other little extras incurred in making sure a person’s loved one is well looked after. So this bill acknowledges the extra expenses involved when a spouse or partner lives alone and looks after a loved one who is in a long-term residential care situation. 
This bill will also improve the lives of the veterans we have in our society. This year is the Year of the Veteran and we have to acknowledge that. Veterans have played a huge part in developing this country. They have served their country and contributed to it. Veterans of course have been a dwindling part of our population since World War II. They are diminishing in number. I went on a search and did a calculation to find out how many veterans we have in New Zealand. There are about 16600 and we have to salute them. They have worked hard and served our country well. 
While I am on the subject of veterans I want to talk about Nancy Wake. I am terribly disappointed that this Government did not recognise Nancy Wake in the recent Queen’s Birthday honours. She is a New Zealander— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has to address the bill. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: This bill is about fairness. For partners or spouses who have loved ones in long-term care there is an added emotional and physical burden so I am pleased that this bill will in many ways help ease their financial burden. 
Clause 5 amends the sharing expenses rule for the living alone payment so that the entitlement to the living alone payment is based solely on actual living arrangements and not as previously on income testing or on contributions to household expenses from others such as family members or other sources. That is fair and I am very pleased that the sharing expenses rule has been amended. It is now fair and just. There was a lot of negative criticism about that particular rule and I am pleased it has been amended in Part 1. 
I have done some calculations as well. I have worked out exactly how many extra dollars per week and per month veterans will actually get in real terms. My calculation is different from that of my colleague Nathan Guy. I calculate that it is $24 per week not $20. But he is right: it is about $100 a month so I am not sure where we went wrong on the calculations to differ slightly on the weekly allowance. 
Nathan Guy 
: Inflation. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: That is right. That money is a start. It is not a huge amount of money but it will go some way to helping. We have to acknowledge that it is a start. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members that the amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to insert new clause 6A is out of order because it has been vetoed. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to War Pensions Act 1954 and consequential amendments 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 2 particularly refers to amendments to the War Pensions Act 1954 and to other consequential amendments. As we have heard from other members around the Chamber many veterans in this country—over 6000—will be affected by this bill. That is one of the reasons why National is supporting it—because we recognise the tremendous service over many decades that our service people have given for New Zealand. This Parliament is living testimony to the many wonderful deeds of our servicemen and women over the decades. The very least we can do is to increase their entitlements—as this bill will do. What worries me hugely is that the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act was passed by the Labour Government in 2001 Barbara White brought her petition to Parliament in 2002 and Mr Page—through Dr Nick Smith—took his case to the Human Rights Commission in 2004 but only now in 2006 5 years later has the Labour Government woken from its stupor to finally get on with passing this bill. 
My colleague Anne Tolley from East Coast an excellent member of Parliament— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: That she is an excellent member. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
:—Yes she is—brought out a very important point relating to the superannuation entitlement period of Volunteer Service Abroad people. Under this bill they have been awarded a period of 3 years’ absence from this country when all they requested at the Social Services Committee apparently was 2 years. I would like Mr Benson-Pope a man of considerable largesse in this case to take a call and explain to the House why that is so for Volunteer Service Abroad people—the over 65s apparently number about 40—who do wonderful work around the world and who were given a hard time in the past because they had to come home within 52 weeks but who now quite appropriately have had the time extended to at least 2 years. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Who in the National Party ever cared about that? Who in the National Party like the great Nick Smith ever cared about the volunteers? Not a soul. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: We wonder what Marian Hobbs is saying. I know she is very sore about the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary because that mean-spirited Labour Government would not support it—and it did nothing about this bill for 5 years. 
We had better get back on track. I ask the Hon Mr Benson-Pope to explain why he has granted largesse over and above what was requested by the Volunteer Service Abroad people but has taken 5 long years to respond to a very significant anomaly affecting many elderly people in New Zealand including veterans. When we think that Mr Page was married for 70 years and then was told that the only way to receive the living alone allowance was to get a divorce—and that was 3 years after the situation had been brought to the attention of the Labour Government—we can understand why National is so concerned about the sensitivities of this almost stuporous Labour Government. Can Mr Benson-Pope explain why he has given largesse to the Volunteer Service Abroad people? It is quite right that they should be granted their request for 2 years but why go to 3 years? Can he tell us how many of them do stay away from New Zealand for 3 years? I would think that very few indeed would do so. 
However the really important thing is that Labour has been so tardy for so long in bringing this bill to the House. We see Mr Benson-Pope sitting there unprepared to answer a very serious point as to why he has not responded for all those years. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on Part 2 which directly addresses the amendments to the War Pensions Act of 1954 and to go through just a couple of the clauses that have been amended. There was an alteration to clause 10 because the Government had made a mistake so not only have we waited 5 years for the legislation but when we finally get it we find a mistake. It is a mistake in the definition of “partner”. Well I would have thought that the Government had introduced enough legislation into this House not to get that definition wrong. However— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: They did. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: It did and the mistake is now being put right. 
Hon Member 
: What’s the meaning? 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: It is the same meaning as in the Social Security Act 1964—so this bill does not actually tell us; we have to go away and look it up. 
The other clause to which I want to refer briefly deals with living alone payments. We on the Social Services Committee had quite a discussion about what qualified as a residence or dwelling for a living alone payment. In fact we asked the officials to come back to us with information on that. On the one hand we did not want to be too restrictive but on the other hand we wanted to make sure again that we were creating legislation that was easily defensible clear and transparent. The officials came back to us with some definitions under clause 13 of what qualified as a residence or dwelling for a living alone payment. They told us that a person had to live in a house or flat a boat or craft moored within New Zealand territory—which is very comforting for people up my way—a hotel room or motel unit a room in a licensed boarding house or a unit of accommodation in a caravan park. So that is what we are talking about as a principal place of residence. 
Our difficulties were in talking about what was defined as a residence or dwelling in relation to granny flats that are almost but not quite attached to a house and the distinction between sharing expenses and being deemed to be living alone. In fairness to the select committee I think that that was where most of the concern around the definition arose—so that we did not have people claiming they lived alone when in fact their arrangements were quite different. 
The intent of the legislation in the changes we are making in Part 2 as in Part 1 is that the primary place of residence of the partner must be in the nature of a house or a flat with a kitchen or kitchenette of some sort a bathroom a toilet and sleeping arrangements. Consequently if someone has exclusive use of a residence for living and sleeping—a residence that contains adequate and quite distinct areas for those activities—it will qualify as the person’s principal place of residence in order to determine whether that person is eligible for the living alone payment. 
Finally the last little piece discussed during the select committee examination of Part 2 was clause 14. My colleague Judy Turner raised the issue of whether by allowing pensions lump-sum payments and allowances to be increased by Order in Council there was any possibility those payments could equally be decreased in that way. I thought that it was a very reasonable question to want to be reassured on because “by Order in Council” means that the provision does not come before Parliament and the gaze of parliamentarians. 
Although we did not have a great deal of time on this bill the select committee did spend a good deal of time looking at some of the individual clauses and their effects. It tried to make sure that the legislation was clear and transparent. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I will not take up a great deal of the time of the Committee but like a lot of listeners I am growing somewhat tired of the cant we are hearing from Opposition members. [ 
Interruption 
] I will articulate and explain in a moment ladies and gentlemen. I guess no one should be surprised at National’s fascinating reinterpretation of history. This afternoon in the House we heard National members pretending they had not sold 13000 State houses. Well we know how to spell “crocodile” and no one for a long time has believed that any of the tears on the faces of National members were other than hypocrisy. 
I would like to say to Dr Hutchison in particular—who spent a great deal of time talking about how tardy this Government was in correcting this unfortunate situation—and to his little acolytes that the history goes back somewhat further than he is remembering. I am not surprised institutional memory does not exist in his party given its various electoral results in recent times but I say to Dr Hutchison that he needs to get his research unit to work because he will be interested to know— 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: What’s that got to do with the bill? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: You are about to find out if you would just listen big-ears. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Peter Gresham who was a National Government Minister in 1995—I say to Dr Hutchison that it was in 1995—had this policy issue investigated. Mr Gresham costed the correction this Government is now putting in place—apparently supported by the National Opposition although that is hard to believe when we hear the nonsense we are hearing—and he decided in 1995 not to do anything about it. I say to Opposition members that if they really believe that this is a policy step they need to do something about they should stop rabbiting on about it and support what is happening right now 11 years after their own member refused to take this step. I think that says the whole story. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is good to take a call on Part 2 “Amendments to the War Pensions Act 1954 and consequential amendments.” I was very much a passenger during the process of this bill through the House but I must admit that the way that the Minister approached his opportunity to articulate the meaningfulness of this bill brought to my memory some of the arguments made earlier on when it very much came down to a situation of tit for tat. 
When I look at Part 2 I see again that the Labour Government has been caught short while sitting on its hands and it has been judged wanting. When we look at the issue of the veterans we see this Labour Government has brought forward a generation of people in New Zealand who do not have a passion or a respect for the contribution that servicemen and women have made to New Zealand. It was an immense privilege to be present this year at Gallipoli and to experience the passion and the sense of nationhood that arises from being present at that ceremony. I would recommend that to all New Zealanders. 
However one cannot see past the fact that it is important to address the anomalies. There is very little difference between the circumstances of the case that Nick Smith took to the Human Rights Commission and the conditions we see amongst our veterans today. Those men and women are aged; they are getting on in years. No doubt at times they feel that we have forgotten them and do not value their contribution. It is interesting that in Marlborough the average age of our population is higher than normal. When elderly people come to see me they want the simple things to be done: cataracts hips and knees to be operated on and footpaths to be straightened. Those people were prepared to pay the ultimate price and put their lives on the line. The least that we can do for them is to treat them with the dignity they deserve and the respect they have earned. 
Jill Pettis 
: So why did you cut their pension in 1991? 
COLIN KING 
: That is a very interesting question. When one goes into an election being told there is a $2 billion surplus and then looks at the books and finds there is an $8 billion deficit one realises somebody has cooked the books and so does the fiscally prudent thing. I encourage the member to narrow down her comments to the bill as I will do. 
The interesting aspects that are coming in include the provisions relating to absences for up to 52 weeks with aid agencies. It is very appropriate to extend that period even though the honourable member Anne Tolley made a very fine point when asking why the amendment was for a period of over 2 years. I was quite comfortable with a period of 3 years but I did not sit on the select committee. I found the arguments put forward by my colleague Anne Tolley very informative and on that basis I bow to her experience. When the Minister takes another opportunity to get to his feet and speak I ask him to address the bill and to explain to us where the period of 3 years came from. 
It is interesting also to note that section 74H of the principal Act states that the chief executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade must determine any question that arises as to whether an aid agency fulfils the qualifications set out in the legislation. So when the Volunteer Service Abroad people go across the seas they still have to get approval. It makes me wonder whether if they have approval we should limit their time at all. I think that anybody who is prepared to leave these shores and serve where the need is great where education is short where a country’s economic well-being is tipped upside down and in turmoil is very similar to the veterans who have served our country so well and who will do so in the future. 
It gives me great pleasure to support this part of the bill. I take great comfort and support from the information and knowledge that has been so very evident on the Opposition side of the Chamber and lacking on the Government side. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on Part 2 which deals with amendments to the War Pensions Act of 1954 and consequential amendments to that Act. It is quite appropriate that Part 2 will deliver something in this the Year of the Veteran. Veterans have made a major contribution to New Zealand society. They are people whom we should honour and cherish right through their old age and until their dying days. 
I also want to acknowledge a lady who has not been mentioned so far in this debate—Barbara White. She is a lady who brought a petition to the Social Services Committee I believe it was 4½ years ago. I must say I think the Minister missed a splendid opportunity as the sponsor of this bill to pay tribute to that lady because it takes quite some bravery for a member of the public to come before a select committee and present a petition. I think we should acknowledge her contribution. 
I was disappointed that when the Minister spoke on this bill he did not take the opportunity to say something positive and Labour members degenerated into a stream of bile directed towards the National Party. This is legislation that all the parties are supporting and it will deliver something positive for New Zealanders. In the spirit of that legislation this is a good opportunity to say something positive. I note too that this bill deals with Volunteer Service Abroad issues. I have had the honour over the past week of going on the Pacific mission with the Minister of Foreign Affairs up to Vanuatu—an area of the Pacific that is really— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Did he behave himself? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well actually he did behave himself. He represented us with dignity. It was an insight into the workload of Ministers. I see one Minister over there reading a newspaper. I thought Ministers would be working all the time on the plane on the way up and they would have a big red box full of papers that they would be wading through. I would like to report the Minister watched  
Wedding Crashers 
 on the way up— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order that has nothing to do with the call. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: —and did the  
Cook Islands Times  
crossword on the way back. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order or I will terminate the member’s speech. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: To get back to the subject of Vanuatu and Volunteer Service Abroad Vanuatu is a region totally dependent on input from volunteers and there are a number of older New Zealanders who are putting something back into the community in their retirement years by serving in places like that. It gave me great pride as the member of Parliament for Northcote to be up there for the opening of the tuberculosis ward of the Vanuatu Hospital—a hospital staffed by Volunteer Service Abroad people in part. Members from my electorate were there and they had done a tremendous amount of work—including Mr Ron King from Birkenhead—in establishing that tuberculosis ward. It brought me a great deal of pride to be present as a member of Parliament at the opening of the ward but I digress slightly. 
To support the Pacific area we need to support our Volunteer Service Abroad workers. Many of those people are retired and I think it is a very positive thing that this bill will increase the entitlement for superannuitants who want to work in Volunteer Service Abroad from the current 1 year to 3 years. That is something pretty positive. But I want to make the point that has been alluded to previously that Mr Nick Smith has made a significant contribution in making sure this legislation came before the House. When we were talking about Part 1— 
Jill Pettis 
: What took him so long? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Sorry it is Dr Nick Smith. What took him so long? We have heard what took the Labour Government so long to get this here. We have covered that well I say to Mrs Pettis and this will not affect her pension entitlements. 
Jill Pettis 
: Good. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Good I know the member is very pleased about that. Dr Smith was a driving force in bringing this before the House and getting it here today. The point I made was that this was a National Party driven bill and it has now been picked up by the Government—very much in the same way that the National Party was going to take the petrol tax and put it straight into roading and lo and behold that is now Government policy. Very much in the same way that at the next election tax cuts will be Government policy as well. This is another example of National driving the agenda. 
I make a further point that if we had been able to deliver those tax cuts superannuitants would be better off by $1200 a year in the hand. The reason for that is that the pension is based on the average wage. We know that with the tax cuts that National will deliver for all New Zealanders the average wage will go up. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to you Mr Benson-Pope that with your eligibility for a pension in 4 years your pension will go up as well. So you will benefit and when you support tax cuts at the next election you will find that you will be better off too. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order you are bringing the Chairman into the debate. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I rise to talk to Part 2 of the bill. In particular I want to talk about the removal of the reference to shared household expenses. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: That’s a good point. 
NATHAN GUY 
: It is a very important point because removing this provision is extremely important for those elderly couples one of whom is living alone who have been struggling as costs continue to increase. Removing the reference to sharing household expenses in terms of the living alone payment will increase it for those single people by $20 a week. The projected cost is only $135000 in 2006 moving out to $150000 in 2008. 
The significant issue I believe is around the submission received from Age Concern New Zealand which stated: “While we acknowledge the proposed amendments through the bill improve the situation and make it fairer the changes do not address the fundamental issue which is that many older people currently do not receive adequate financial assistance from the Government to ensure that poverty does not predetermine their health and well-being.” We have seen interest-free student loans and Working for Families happen and the elderly over-65 superannuitants and the war pensioners have just been forgotten. This bill is finally progressing through the House now after 6 long years of National supporting it. It has taken 6 long years for this Government to get the bill to the House. 
I also touch on the voluntary work overseas of the Volunteer Service Abroad people who do a fantastic job. There are about 40 of them I believe who work overseas and do a fantastic job— 
Marian Hobbs 
: Why are you quibbling then about extending it to 3 years? 
NATHAN GUY 
: We have been waiting for the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson to take a call on this issue because we are unsure about it. The Minister has been silent on this issue I say to Ms Hobbs. We have been trying to understand and get the Minister to talk a call as to why it has increased to 3 years. Submitters were happy for it to be extended from 52 weeks out to 104; instead it is going out to 3 years. We would like the Minister to take a call so that we can understand exactly why that is so. The projected cost—about $266000 in 2006 moving out to about $300000 in 2008—is fantastic but we are still unsure why on earth the Government has chosen to move it out to 3 years when submitters came in and made submissions on extending it out to 2 years. We are still waiting for the Minister to take a call on that. 
This bill will allow about 2000 eligible people to age with dignity. It is great that the member for East Coast Ms Tolley has outlined some of the grey areas such as whether the residential home can be a granny flat. I heard her mention it could even be a caravan or a boat moored in seas within the New Zealand jurisdiction. This bill has taken 6 long years but finally it is here. National is here to support it after the good work that the honourable member from Nelson has done and the many other National Party colleagues who have spoken here tonight. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 We come now to the title discussion in this Committee stage 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 the key point about this bill is that it restores dignity for the elderly. 
We had a situation with regard to Mr Page of Nelson where in order to get his single person entitlement under the legislation he would actually have had to divorce his wife who was in residential care. It really was a disgraceful situation that in order to meet economic needs someone would have had to go to the length of rejecting— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is to debate the title. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well I thought this was an opportunity for free— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is a free-flowing debate but the member is bringing another issue out. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I thought it was related to the bill Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: As long as the member relates that matter to the bill specifically that is so. But the member must mention the bill and how it relates to it. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The point I was making was that that gentleman Mr Page was the driving force behind this bill being brought to Parliament. That is why we are here. The bill could be called the “Mr Page of Nelson Bill” because as we know he was the one who contacted his local member of Parliament and that led to this bill being brought before the House. 
I think the other point to note is that this legislation is way overdue. It was quite some years ago that Mr Page got in touch with Dr Smith. He went to the Human Rights Commission and within a week this bill entered Parliament. 
I go back to the point about restoring dignity and I tell members that this bill affects one of the most vulnerable groups of people in New Zealand society: our elderly people. It also affects those who are probably the most honoured group in New Zealand society: veterans. I think we really owe an absolute debt of honour and gratitude to those people who quite selflessly served this nation in conflicts overseas. The very least they are due is to be able to receive their veterans pension now without having to crawl on their hands and knees and beg the Government to make an exception for them. 
This is a very positive day for older people in New Zealand and it is certainly a positive day for war veterans. I know that a lot of people throughout the country will be celebrating this bill and that a lot of those are actually people who have fallen maybe into a difficult period of their lives—a period when their lifelong partner their spouse may have been admitted to a residential care facility. But now this legislation gives them some hope and that is something we should celebrate. 
There was quite a lot of public outrage at the legislation as it is stood before in relation to the sharing of expenses rule. One of the problems with that was that it was way too strict and it was quite arbitrary. It was strict in the sense that any external contribution to a person’s income whether it was a donation from a local group from family or from friends actually compromised that person’s eligibility to receive his or her superannuation entitlement. But this bill now extends the eligibility for the higher single rate of New Zealand superannuation the living alone payment and the veterans pension to those whose spouse or partner is in long-term residential care in hospital or in a rest home. 
The bill also increases the period of time that people who are overseas can receive their pension or war veterans benefit from 1 year to 3 years if they choose to serve in Volunteer Service Abroad. I think as I have already stated earlier in the debate that that is absolutely an important contribution. It means that superannuitants are able to put something back by serving their fellow human beings overseas as aid workers. So that is important and it will really make a difference. 
The point I would make again which has been said several times is that Dr Nick Smith has been responsible for driving this legislation. The Government has picked it up very enthusiastically and I believe that we are seeing that trend across Parliament in a number of cases regarding legislation. Presently however in relation to the veterans pension legislation people with spouses or partners— 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I would like to speak to the title of this bill the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. 
In fact I was stopped short; I had wanted actually to speak to Part 2 “Amendments to War Pensions Act 1954 and consequential amendments” but we now have to go to the title. I was quite puzzled by the conversation about why the superannuation entitlement of 52 weeks was being increased to 3 years for those superannuitants or veterans who go and work overseas for voluntary aid organisations such as Volunteer Service Abroad. It is a bit of a puzzle and I would have liked to hear an explanation but unfortunately none was forthcoming. So it is a bit of a mystery why for that one thing this Government will be giving more not less and will be giving more than was asked for. It would be interesting to know the rationale behind that. 
The veterans are an important group. I am not familiar with Volunteer Service Abroad or other voluntary aid organisations but I am interested in the actual numbers of superannuitants or veterans who would want to work overseas for Volunteer Service Abroad or other such organisations. Are we talking huge numbers small numbers or what? I would like to know just so that I can get a sense of the contribution those people make to voluntary aid organisations. I think they deserve to be saluted for the selfless work they do in Third World countries. My colleague Jonathan Coleman was talking about Vanuatu. I have not been there but I hope to go in the near future and I will be looking at what those voluntary aid organisations do. Indeed I will look at how this bill will help those superannuitants and veterans who wish to travel to distant locations to work for not 1 year or 2 years—which is what they actually wanted the superannuation entitlement to cover—but up to 3 years. It is very puzzling indeed. 
I think it is also time to acknowledge—my colleague Jonathan Coleman was absolutely correct—Barbara White who brought a petition to Parliament and was instrumental in this legislation coming forward. She got 1500 signatures or thereabouts. Her petition was to broaden the eligibility criteria. The bill was considered by the Social Services Committee and its report was presented to Parliament in May. So Barbara White needs to be acknowledged for her contribution to this legislation as well as Mr Page who went through a lot of grief at the age of 91 when he was denied a living alone payment because his wife in care still recognised him. That was just bizarre—a bizarre situation. As my colleague Jonathan Coleman pointed out for Mr Page to get a living alone entitlement that couple would have had to divorce—which is just crazy—or to be de facto. As I said before if Mrs Page had been in prison or if the couple had been gay there would not have been an issue. It was quite bizarre outdated legislation and it is right that the new provision should come into Parliament and become law. 
The sharing expenses rule was a great cause of concern and distress among the New Zealand public and it is good that it has been remedied. There is no such bias any more for people who receive income from a family member or some other source. That is fair enough. 
 I think that overall this is a fair bill. It brings balance back. It acknowledges the fact that it is more expensive to live alone and also acknowledges the extra costs involved in looking after a loved one. It is very stressful having a partner or spouse in long-term residential care and this bill goes a long way to help the emotional state of the spouse or partner not in care. I agree wholeheartedly with that and I think the 2000 Mr Pages in this country would agree. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: That’s for sure. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: Absolutely. We have to thank Nick Smith. He was instrumental in getting this bill to come to this House. Mr Page went to Nick Smith and lobbied him. Nick Smith then went to the media but he got no traction on the issue and he had to go on Mr Page’s behalf to the Human Rights Commission in order that we could debate this bill here today. It will be passed and that is a very very good thing. This bill is for the 2000 Mr Pages and for all the superannuitants and veterans who want to do volunteer work in distant countries in Third World countries and give back something of what they have been given. Members must remember that these people have served their country either as veterans— 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I wish to take a call on the title clause and draw to the Committee’s attention the fact that the bill is actually called the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill—which in itself is rather a mouthful. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Sorry what was it? I missed that! 
JOHN CARTER 
: I will not repeat that for the member; I am sure she is able to read it. But I just make this point: I am not sure that we have the title quite right. Somewhere in the title we should have the words “Thank Nick Smith and Mr Page.” Those words should be in the title because this bill would not be here if it were not for Nick Smith and the work he did on this whole issue. Nick Smith needs to be congratulated for making it happen. So I would suggest that the first thing we need to consider is whether we have the wording right in regard to saying that it is just about New Zealand superannuitants and New Zealand superannuation. I would suggest that if members had listened to this debate—and I have listened very closely—they would have heard that our members and others who spoke referred to the very very good work that our colleague Nick Smith did and the way in which he defended his constituent Mr Page. So that is the first thing we need to put into the title to ensure we have that aspect right. 
The second thing we really need to add to the title are the words “Lazy Tired Government.” That is what should be in there: “Lazy Tired”—and what about “Hopeless” as well? We could put those words into the title because they describe what has happened with this bill. How long has it taken for this Government to get around to doing this tiny little thing that is so important to so many people in New Zealand? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: How long? Tell us how long! 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well at the moment I am not sure. I heard 2 years then I heard 3 years and then I heard 6½ years. I think it is probably around about that time. So somewhere in this title we need to put in “Lazy Tired Hopeless 6½ Years of Socialist Government”. That is what we should be putting in the title because those are the sorts of words that people when they pick up this bill will need to identify it by. That is the easiest way by which people will identify it. If we are to be accurate in this Parliament—and I suggest that the National Party wants us to be—then we really need to describe what this bill is about. It is describing the inadequacies of this Government and the fact that its members do not care about our elderly folk. They seriously do not care. There they are—we have had to railroad them force them and drive them to take this stance on this bill. If it were not for Nick Smith and the National caucus the bill would not have happened; we would not have been debating it today. 
It is a good thing that this country has the National caucus here at all. Otherwise there would be some very distraught distressed elderly people as well as their children and their grandchildren. It would be a terrible place without this National caucus. We should probably put that in the title as well actually when I think about it. We should put words in the title such as “Thank Goodness for the National Caucus” as well. That would be appropriate. We could fit those words in. 
My mother is overseas at the moment but I know that she will be listening to this debate. She will have her earpiece in over in Brisbane where she is with my sister listening to this debate closely and saying: “There’s my boy working for me along with his colleagues from the National caucus. Thank goodness for the National caucus.” She knows that none of those socialists over on that side of the Chamber will get this issue sorted. It is only us who will do it. We are getting it sorted out for the elderly folk in this country. Elderly folk will be in their wheelchairs and their rest home beds tonight saying: “Thank goodness for the National caucus thank goodness for Don Brash thank goodness for Nick Smith—thank goodness for the National team.” 
Do members know what will really disappoint our elderly folk at the end of the day? When we finally put this bill through it will be called only the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. Well that is just not good enough. Seriously if we have a title—and the title is meant to explain what this bill does and what we are debating—we need to add the words “Nick Smith” we need to add the words “National Party” and we need to add the words “Don Brash”. That would then appropriately reflect what this bill is all about. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I am just following on from the very valid contribution from the member for Northland. I am speaking to the title and there is no need for me to read it out is there? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: No but what does it mean? 
NATHAN GUY 
: There is no need to I do not think. I think the amendment should be exactly what the member for Northland has just talked about—the great work the National Party caucus has done in bringing this bill to the House. It has taken 6½ years for this Government to get the bill to where it is today. If it were not for a constituent in Nelson and a very hard-working National MP the Hon Nick Smith doing great work these changes would not have been brought to where we are at today. 
This bill is all about allowing the over 65s to age with dignity. There are about 6000 war veterans in this country many of whom will be eligible for this measure when it comes through the House. There are about 2000 over-65-year-olds who will qualify for this measure when it goes through. It is all about long-term residential care whether it be in a hospital or in a rest home. These people are the forgotten sector of our society—they are the people who have been forgotten. Often they have served our country by going to war and then have been forgotten. I will be interested to see when we get to the next election—either in 2008 or before—whether the Labour Party will consider buying this sector of votes as it did with the Working for Families package and interest-free student loans. 
But these are wise folk. These are people who have worked hard in New Zealand and they deserve to get something better than what they are getting now. We will be interested to see and hear about the golden age card that New Zealand First is proposing and whether it will make an iota of difference. This over-65s group are wise people. They are a bit cynical about any sort of a golden age card—whether it will deliver cheaper power or a reduction in fuel costs. 
David Bennett 
: What power? 
NATHAN GUY 
: That is exactly right—what power? We saw the crisis yesterday in the top half of the North Island. The power supply was diabolical because of a dilapidated infrastructure investment over the last 6½ years. Many of our war pensioners have been shivering in their homes because of a shonky Government not investing in infrastructure. There are some big issues that we will have to address when we get on to the Treasury benches in the next term. 
So just to sum up this bill is about allowing the aged sector to age with dignity with the support of this bill. It is a shame it has taken 6½ years to get here. These people deserve better—the ones who have gone to war for this country and those who have been forgotten and neglected. This bill goes some way to addressing that—it provides about $60 when I look at this chart here. It is interesting is it not that one now has to be married or in a civil union. The chart shows that the net wage for a married or civil unionised couple—that is very modern language—will move from $203 to $263. That is an increase of $60 which is fundamental for a sector that has been forgotten. I am happy to support this bill. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill  
divided into New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill 
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper35. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.