New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1630] 
New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Social Services Committee for consideration and that the committee report the bill back to the House on or before 22 May 2006. 
The main aim of the bill is to extend the eligibility for the single rates of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions to all superannuitants and veterans pensioners who have spouses or partners in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home. The single rates are higher than the rates payable to persons who are married or in a civil union. This amendment will apply from 1 July this year. It was recommended by the Social Services Committee in a report that the committee presented to Parliament in May last year. The committee report was prepared in response to concerns outlined in a public petition. The Government accepted the recommendation in the committee’s report. 
Currently a person with a spouse or partner in long-term residential care is eligible for the higher single rates in only two narrowly defined circumstances: firstly if the spouse or partner is receiving the residential care subsidy which is means-tested; or secondly if the spouse or partner is suffering the effects of a stroke or dementia and is thereby unable to recognise the spouse or partner and affirm marriage vows. There are two main issues with the current approach. First the current linking of access to the higher single rates to the residential care subsidy is inconsistent with the general non - means-tested approach to eligibility for New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions. Second the exception that relates to a spouse or partner suffering a stroke or dementia has proved difficult to administer. In particular it requires officials to ask intrusive questions and make complex decisions regarding sensitive issues. 
This amendment will ensure fairer treatment for many superannuitants and veterans pensioners living in the community with spouses and partners in residential care. Approximately 2000 older New Zealanders in that situation will benefit from this change. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the petitioners who first brought this issue to the attention of the House particularly petitioner Mrs Barbara White who was supported by Lianne Dalziel. 
The bill also makes other changes to eligibility criteria for New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions. From 1 July 2006 the bill will remove the sharing expenses rule which has prevented some superannuitants and veterans pensioners from receiving the living alone payment. The living alone payment represents the difference between the single sharing rate and the higher single living alone rate of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions. This difference is currently just under $20 a week net of tax. Current legislation limits eligibility for the living alone payment to superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are single living alone in their principal place of residence and not sharing their household expenses—including accommodation expenses—with any other person. 
The sharing expenses rule operates as a somewhat strict and arbitrary form of income testing for the living alone payment. It is strict in that any contribution to household expenses denies eligibility completely. It is arbitrary in that only a particular form of income—namely contributions to household or accommodation expenses—is counted. In some cases superannuitants and veterans pensioners have been denied eligibility for the living alone payment because they received modest contributions to their household expenses from others such as family members. The amendment will mean that eligibility for the living alone payment is based solely on actual living arrangements. It will therefore ensure fairer treatment for all superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are living alone. 
The third amendment contained in this bill will enable a person to be paid New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension for up to 156 weeks if that person is overseas and undertaking voluntary work for a recognised aid agency such as Volunteer Service Abroad. Currently the maximum payment period is 52 weeks. However Volunteer Service Abroad’s standard assignment period is 2 years. The extension of the payment period to 156 weeks that is provided by this bill will allow for a typical 2-year assignment plus potential extension of the assignment for up to a further year. This will therefore remove the financial disincentives that inhibit older volunteers from making a longer contribution to Volunteer Service Abroad. 
The final amendment contained in the bill changes the War Pensions Act to enable all rates of veterans pensions to be increased by Order in Council. This change will align the legislative provisions for the adjustment of rates of veterans pensions with those of New Zealand superannuation under the Social Security Act. As required under section 73 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act the Minister of Finance has provided a statement regarding the consultation process followed in the development of the amendments to that Act that are contained in the bill. The statement also covers the outcome of this consultation. The statement is included in the bill’s explanatory note and was also tabled in the House when the bill was introduced. 
The amendments contained in this bill address several anomalies in the current treatment of superannuitants and veterans pensioners. I am confident they will ensure fairer and more equitable treatment for many older New Zealanders. In summary the bill is further evidence of the commitment of this Government to ensure that superannuitants and veterans pensioners are able to live in dignity and participate fully in our society. I am pleased to commend this bill to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that the National Party supports this bill. It is a very good provision and it actually looks to recognise the situation that has been highlighted by my colleague the Hon Nick Smith. He took up the issue of a Nelson couple. Mrs Page had to go to a rest home. She and her husband have been married for 70 years and Mr Page applied to Work and Income for the living alone payment—because he was of course living alone—but he was declined under the previous Labour Government because his wife still recognised him. 
 So the situation was that because Mr and Mrs Page could recognise each other and were not divorced they were told by Work and Income that if Mr Page wanted to get the living alone allowance he would have to divorce his wife. That is the sort of callous situation that we found people in. 
I was on the select committee that looked at the petition the Minister referred to and it was certainly one that we took very seriously and I recall looked at very favourably because it actually addresses a very cruel situation for people who in this day and age have to be separated at such a time in their lives. I note that the bill was in fact introduced on 21 February this year 1 week after my colleague the Hon Nick Smith who was very frustrated with the lack of work the Government had put into this area lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on behalf of Mr Page who is now aged 91. I am very pleased to see that the Government has finally moved on it. We have to wonder why it took so long. With all the talk about petitions and everything else the Government knew about this problem. The Government has been in power for over 6 years and it could very easily have fixed this issue very quickly. 
When we look at the bill itself we see that it is a matter of only a couple of pages. So given that there was pretty much across-the-board and cross-party support for the bill one would have thought that a bill of six pages might have been introduced with somewhat more speed once this problem had been recognised. However we should be very grateful that despite the mad situation we have had and still have in law at the moment we are finally getting some action because if this couple Mr and Mrs Page aged 91 and 88 respectively had been either a de facto couple or a gay couple or if Mrs Page had dementia or was in prison then Mr Page would have been able to get the extra money. 
 Finally we are getting some action and really only after my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith took a complaint to the Human Rights Commission. Frankly the Ministers involved should be wondering why they could not have brought the matter to the House earlier. So we are very pleased to be able to support the bill. We do not want to be too nasty about that fact that it has taken so long because finally something is happening. We are very pleased to be able to say that the Government has finally got itself together found some legislation to bring to the House and can finally get a bill passed—even if it had to get a hurry-up from Nick Smith. So we are very pleased to support the bill and we are delighted to see that something will finally be done for Mr and Mrs Page and for couples like them. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to participate in the first reading 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 thought it was a little churlish for the member who has just resumed her seat Judith Collins to carry on about Mr Nick Smith who obviously had little influence in terms of finding a real solution to the problem as opposed to what the Government has been able to do. 
I would like to reiterate the words of the Minister for Social Development and Employment David Benson-Pope when he congratulated Mrs Barbara White the lead petitioner who brought the matter to the attention of the House via a petition and of course her excellent advocate in that matter the Hon Lianne Dalziel who was with her every step of the way. Not many petitions make it right through to this particular instance of having legislation created directly from them. So I congratulate Mrs White on achieving that outcome if she happens to be listening to the debate this evening and I hope she is pleased the bill has come to this point. 
This is another example of Labour delivering its election promises. The bill extends the eligibility for the single living alone rate from 1 July 2006 to married superannuitants who have a partner in long-term residential care. That was a key election commitment and this bill will do it. That change will mean that nearly $20 extra per week will go to approximately 2000 qualifying older New Zealanders. It is further evidence of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that superannuitants veterans and pensioners are able to live in dignity and to participate fully in society. This is the Year of the Veteran and what better timing could there be for such a bill? 
In conclusion I look forward to the House sending the bill to the Social Services Committee. We were very pleased to consider the petition of Mrs White which prompted this legislation. I commend the bill to the House. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise on behalf of the National Party 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. Since Georgina Beyer mentioned that this is the Year of the Veteran I point out that I have made an application to the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs Rick Barker in relation to a special statue and a memorial celebration to take place in the Auckland Domain for the bombers who have not had any memorial there and do not have a statue. I understand it would cost about $60000. Millions of dollars are floating around—the Minister of Finance has about $6 billion worth of surplus available to him. I know that this matter is a bit outside the topic of the bill but I am very hopeful that the bombers will get their just recognition. 
It is interesting that we are in a House that is a war memorial—and it was certainly a war zone today—and that we should be looking to do something for poor veterans and New Zealand superannuitants who have been forced by this Labour Government under a crazy scenario to divorce their partners of often up to 70 years so that they can get the single living alone allowance. What a disgrace it is that the Government has had 6 years to fix that up but it has sat on its hands and has done very little—other than to count the cash. Michael Cullen sits on a pile of cash that he likes to count night after night while the poor veterans and the New Zealand superannuitants are out there struggling to make ends meet. It has taken the Government 7 years to bring this legislation to the House. 
It has taken the good work of the member for Nelson Nick Smith to bring the bill forward. This is a proud day for Nick Smith and a proud day for the National Party because we are forcing the agenda once again just as we are forcing the tax agenda. Michael Cullen spoke today on the issue of payroll tax. It took the National Party to expose that Michael Cullen is by stealth about to introduce a payroll tax to many New Zealanders—fortunately not the New Zealanders who will be eligible for assistance under the provisions of this bill because they have moved outside the workforce. But I thank Nick Smith for his contribution of caring beyond the extent that many members of Parliament do by ensuring that the 2000 eligible New Zealanders will live with some dignity because it is a crazy scenario that a couple who have been married for 70 years could be forced to get a divorce. 
I can add that I have been married to my wife for 21 years. I do not like to admit that because I am greying slightly. I am 44. I know I am not very good with numbers but if we add to that another 21 years we will find that I will have been married for 42 years by the time I am 65. I do not anticipate going gaga any time soon but should I go gaga at 80 then that would add up to 57 years of marriage at that time. I do not think my lovely wife after 57 years should have to divorce me because she loves me as she does no other human being. She cares about me. She should not have to go through a divorce after 57 years of marriage so that we can get the single living alone allowance. It is a disgrace that my wife of 57 years—when I am 80 and gaga—should have to go through such a despicable display and I am surprised that that was not something the Government tackled earlier. 
I am surprised that Nick Smith the very hard-working member for Nelson had to drive the agenda and I am amazed that Georgina Beyer tried to rain on Nick Smith’s parade. That is disgraceful when Nick Smith had undertaken all that work on behalf of the party had listed all of those things and had driven the agenda. That is typical of the Labour Government: it is late to do absolutely everything but is all too quick to put its hand up and claim the credit. The Labour members in the House are barracking even as late as this point. They should just take it sitting down and accept that Nick Smith drove the agenda Nick Smith put the issue on the map and Nick Smith is the person whom thousands of New Zealanders will have the opportunity to reward. 
I say to Nick Smith that he has done a wonderful service for the people of New Zealand and a wonderful service for those veterans. What a tremendous job and what a tremendous effort he has made given that Michael Cullen is too busy dreaming up payroll taxes and Georgina Beyer was not sure whether she would stand in Wairarapa. In the end it did not matter because National romped home in that seat with Chester Borrows. It would not have really mattered whether Georgina Beyer or anyone else had stood in that seat because the people of Wairarapa knew a disgrace when they saw one. They knew that a person who has been married for 57 years should not have to get divorced in order to get the single living alone allowance. They knew that that was wrong. They knew not to ring 0800 Georgina Beyer they knew not to ring 0800 Labour and they knew not to trust a credit card that was paid for by the taxpayers of New Zealand—and while we are on the subject of that we want the money back thank you very much. 
Instead of doing that people rang “Nick for Nelson”. When they rang “Nick for Nelson” the phone was on the hook unlike the Labour Party’s phone. Nick did what Nick always does: he stood up for the people of Nelson he stood up for the people of New Zealand and he went the extra mile. It was a tremendous effort by Nick Smith and I say to Georgina that I was absolutely shocked by what she said. I thought she would have risen above that and I thought she would have given the credit to the member for Nelson that he deserved. All I can say is that National is proud to support the bill because National led the agenda. Once again the people of New Zealand can look to the National Party for security for dependence for leadership—for all the things that one would expect from a party like ours. The people of New Zealand will be very happy. 
I make just one final point in relation to voluntary service abroad and the ability of New Zealanders to work abroad and still receive their New Zealand superannuation for 156 weeks not for 52. What a good idea that was as well. I do not know whether Nick Smith recommended that but I am pretty sure he would have done that as well because he has a heart. In Nelson where Nick works volunteer work is a critical part of the community. Nick knows the value of volunteer work and he knows that people who are working as volunteers overseas deserve to receive New Zealand superannuation. They deserve to receive the benefit of all those things. 
 How proud Nick and the other National members who have driven the agenda on this New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions bill can feel as New Zealanders head overseas for 156 weeks knowing that they can receive their New Zealand superannuation as they do their good work—as they work in the tsunami-affected areas and as they work in Pakistan in areas affected by earthquakes and landslides. As they work in other parts of the world that are challenged they can look to the National Party of New Zealand and know that it cares about them—not like the Labour members who sat there for 7 years not caring about that issue and who were too busy looking at student loans and things they could do to make their way back to victory. National cared enough to make this matter a big issue; National through Nick Smith cared enough to make that happen. 
I finish by simply saying that I am disappointed with Labour but frankly after 4 years I have come to learn how easy it is to be disappointed with Labour which is sitting around doing very little and leaving our economy to wander in the wilderness as other countries go past us. Only on Monday Peter Costello was very happy to set up a taxation review and very happy to make the Australian economy more efficient and more effective to drive home the real advantage for Australians. Our Minister of Finance sits in the House tonight twiddling his thumbs. He will probably get up at some stage take a call and claim that Nick Smith’s effort was not fantastic. Well I say to him that it does not matter what comes from people who have taken 7 years to put this issue on the agenda. National is the one to thank; Nick Smith is the one to thank. It makes one proud to be a member of the National Party. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not know whether it is good news or bad news for Mr Key’s wife but after listening to that speech I have to tell the good member’s wife that she will not have to wait 57 years for John Key to become gaga—I think he is well on the way. As for Nick Smith standing up for the people of Nelson if my memory serves me correctly within a fortnight of being made deputy leader he could not stand up for anybody. He was carried out of here—and I think he was actually carried back in. 
There is an old saying—at least I think it is an old saying; if nobody has said it before me I will say it now—that we should judge people not by what they say but by what they do. What did that crowd on the National benches do when it was last in Government? It scaled back superannuation to 60 percent of the net average wage and it wanted to means test superannuation and raise the age of entitlement to 70! And now National is trying to say it is the party of compassion. The only compassion National members have is that they feel sorry for themselves and they will spend a long time sitting there feeling even sorrier. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Three years. 
PETER BROWN 
: Three years? They will be there for a long time if they try to fool the people of New Zealand with the sort of carry-on that John Key has just indulged in. His contribution was really more about wishful thinking than anything with substance. 
New Zealand First members welcome the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. We are absolutely delighted with it. We do question why it has taken so long but now it is here and we hope it will be fast tracked through Parliament. It is very very sad for some New Zealanders whose husband or wife or partner has lost the ability to communicate for one reason or another and ends up in a rest home. The sound member of the partnership is left to cope as best as he or she can on less than adequate funding. The bill will address that problem; it will make it fairer. Those people are living single people’s lives with added responsibility and it is about time we delivered on the issue. It is about time we looked at the issue for war veterans as well and the bill will tidy that up. New Zealand First is pleased also that the period of pension entitlement will be increased from 52 weeks to 156 weeks for mature people who work overseas and give their time and effort for very very good causes. New Zealand First thinks that is a very important issue also. 
But there is much to be done. This is but the start. To quote Winston Churchill—and this quote I think applies to this issue as well as it applied to the one about which he spoke—“This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. It is perhaps the end of the beginning.” That is the case as far as elderly people in this country are concerned. We are at the end of the beginning of addressing their needs. New Zealand First will start a golden age card in this term and that will give— 
David Bennett 
: Oh! 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh the member rubbishes the idea! The member sits there and groans and thinks it is an uncaring idea. Well let me just tell the member that the golden age card will come and it will come in this term of Government—thanks to New Zealand First and in particular thanks to Winston Peters who will steer it through and lead the way on producing a golden age card for New Zealanders. Additionally—and this will happen before the bill comes back—the 65 percent of the net average wage that married couples are currently entitled to will increase in April to 66 percent and it will go up progressively thereafter. It is my understanding that that can be done by regulation for a superannuitant now but that it cannot be done by regulation for a person on a war veterans pension. The bill will tidy that up. The war veterans will receive the automatic increase that superannuitants receive. 
The bill has been a long time in coming. I will not give one iota of credit to any member of the National Party. I am encouraged that National members will support it but when it comes to addressing the problems of the elderly and the aged of this country they have been totally and absolutely remiss—so much so that they should be hanging their heads in shame. When they had the opportunity to address some of the concerns that face elderly folk in this country they walked away they turned their back and they said they would not help at all. In fact they did worse than that: they hindered things and tried to scale back superannuation as I said earlier on. 
We have an ageing population. The aged sector is about 12 percent of the population right now and by the year 2051 it will be closer to 25 percent. It is a sector of our society that we must help. This is the start but it is not the end. New Zealand First will ensure that the concerns of elderly people are uppermost in everybody’s mind in the House. John Key might like to speak light-heartedly in this particular debate but I can assure members that by the end of this session he will be taking it very seriously indeed. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Bring back the leader whoever that is! 
PETER BROWN 
: There is no hope for Tau Henare—no hope whatsoever. But for John Key there might be a glimmer of hope. I can see he is taking what I say seriously and maybe the next time he speaks he will not be so frivolous when he talks about the concerns of the elderly. 
New Zealand First is 100 percent behind the bill and we hope to see it fast tracked through Parliament through the select committee process and back in the House with unanimous support—and genuine support not the rather flippant and frivolous support that the two National members presented. New Zealand First is 100 percent behind the passage of the bill. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I take a brief call to say that we also are totally behind this bill. It is long overdue and once again characterises just one aspect of the huge mess that our income support and welfare system is in. However at least this little piece of it is being sorted out. 
I would like to endorse the words of Peter Brown who just now said that it has been a bit disappointing to hear such frivolity from Mr Key on this topic. This is actually about fixing up a situation for people in absolutely desperate straits at the end of their lives where one partner of a couple has been in long-term residential care and the other partner who has been left out in the real world has been stuck on the married rate of the pension or veterans’ benefit to his or her disadvantage. That is actually really serious when one is counting every dollar and every cent and it is not something that should be the subject of a whole lot of laughter. 
I would also like to acknowledge the role that Lianne Dalziel of the Labour Party played. An elderly petitioner came to the Social Services Committee as did Lianne Dalziel to tell the committee about this situation. I would like to acknowledge the courage in coming to speak to the committee of the elderly lady who led the petition. She has had long-term support from Lianne Dalziel in trying to get this legislation through Parliament. I would like to acknowledge both her and her colleagues for bringing it through—quite quickly now that I know something about the legislative processes here. It has been quite a quick process since we heard the petition at the committee not a long one. It is good to see that the Government does not just accept the decisions of the Social Security Appeal Authority. I just wish we had a mechanism whereby we could look at a lot more of them rather than just this one. 
The Green Party is totally behind this measure. We will be pleased to see the day come very soon when this anomaly is ended as it affects thousands of people. I understand that the select committee process will be quick which is excellent—as long as people have a chance to make submissions. If people have problems with it let us hear from them but I doubt that they will. 
On the other matter of the Volunteer Service Abroad I say that I think it is fantastic that the Government has seen fit to extend the period for which people can get superannuation or the veterans’ pension while they do volunteer work abroad. It is being extended from 1 year to 3 years. It is a wonderful thing to see our older generation giving their time and experience in this way and I know that increasing numbers of them are doing this once they leave our regular workforce. It is a great contribution that this country can make particularly to our neighbours in the Pacific and Asia. 
From what I understand this is very unusual: we are seeing unanimity across the House in support of a piece of welfare legislation. That is great. Let us just get there as fast as we can. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Rakau papa panga ka hei ki te marae. A weapon discarded can be an ornament on the marae. In the context of this bill that whakatauki advises us that an older person who has followed a career of certain skill but is no longer agile enough or strong enough can teach younger persons the same skill. In its essence this describes the unique relationship of reciprocity of manaakitanga inherent in our valuing of our kaumatuatanga—of recognising that the elders the wise ones are the repositories of whanau stories and family histories; that they are the bridge to a world not lived by the young. 
It is these characteristics that instruct us in supporting the proposed changes to amend the New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension provisions. We must ensure that the adjustments provide for an equitable standard of living pay for essentials and enable the continued participation by older people in community life—participation which is about the best opportunities for all that will close the gaps between rich and poor Maori and non-Maori and older and younger. 
This House will recall the New Zealand report from Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen last year. The special rapporteur identified significant disparities between Maori and Pakeha in regard to social and human development indicators in his visit to Aotearoa. A key concern for the special rapporteur was the lack of significant disaggregated statistical data that identified ethnicity. If one does not have the right data one cannot really target social policy. The information we do have in Aotearoa is as a result of a 2002 report published by Professor Mason Durie.  
The Living Standards of Older Maori 
 report shows a relatively high rate of material disadvantage amongst older Maori and clear disparities between the living standards of older Maori and non-Maori. One in five older Maori face severe difficulties. 
It is data such as this that must inform the subsequent drafting of new legislation to broaden eligibility criteria and to ensure that Maori are able to maximise their take-up from superannuation and the veterans pension. It is never too soon to plan ahead to help boost Maori material well-being and to ensure that all superannuitants and veterans pensioners living in the community are able to benefit from simplified rules clear entitlements and income support appropriate to assist actual living arrangements. If we are to hold our heads up high on an international stage we need to know how to respond to what Professor Stavenhagen observed is a surprising differential of 10 years in life expectancy between Maori and Pakeha. 
The urgency of this crisis is also influenced by the demographic changes as the Maori population will age at a faster rate but at a later time than the non-Maori population. In March 1996 there were 14200 Maori aged 65 and over. By the year 2011 the number of Maori in this age group is expected to have increased by 84 percent to reach 26100 when Maori will comprise 5 percent of the population aged 65 years and over. By 2031 the expected number of older Maori will be 59000—more than four times its current size—and they will account for 9 percent of the total Maori population. In the space of one generation we can expect significant population pressures that this new legislation must take into account. 
It is our moral economic and cultural responsibility to take care of our older people. Such care is critical for the survival of mana a-hapu and we must not short-change another generation. If we can live up to this expectation the benefits will accrue for the nation as we nurture the leaders and wise advisers of our growing communities. It is all about respect and taking appropriate care of our elderly. The broadening of eligibility criteria means that our elderly are able to continue to play an active role in our communities. The provision to extend the period of time a person can continue to receive superannuation or the veterans pension while overseas working voluntarily for an aid agency is a particularly commendable move. 
No one should leave this House tonight without acknowledging the fact that this is the Year of the Veteran. This is our chance to thank all New Zealand veterans of all ages—tangata whenua Pasifika and tauiwi alike. This is our time to honour their enormous sacrifices. It is an opportunity to recognise the inherent value of their service to our nation. The Maori Party will continue to call for justice for New Zealand’s veterans who served in the Viet Nam War in order to ensure that their significant contribution to shaping our nation is also recognised. 
In light of the year being distinguished as the Year of the Veteran we could not believe it when we were first approached by Viet Nam War veterans throughout the country who were incensed at the decision by the joint working-group on the concerns of Viet Nam War veterans to refuse to meet on marae for their hearings. We received emails and phone calls including a letter from one vet currently living in Sydney who called the working-group’s decision to boycott the Ngati Kahu marae in Tauranga a “cultural insult disrespectful and a slap in the face for Maori Viet Nam War veterans.” We had to ask how hard it is to hold a meeting on a marae in order to respect the wishes of tangata whenua to honour their request. Many of the veterans never received any support or counselling following their return to Aotearoa. Many experienced serious trauma and turned to alcohol to help them to cope. So where were the hearings held? They were held at the good old watering-hole the RSA—far more suitable than the marae or so the working-group decided. 
One would think that the long-term care and restoration of all our veterans including those who served in Viet Nam would be that they could be rehabilitated with as little trauma as possible. It seems to us to be simple good sense that those who were wounded in mind or body would be adequately cared for and compensated for their injuries. 
The well-being of veterans’ families is of critical importance. Our veterans and their whanau have waited for 30 years for the report released by the Health Committee which confirms that Viet Nam War veterans were exposed to a toxic environment. In honouring the dedication of our own forces we must never forget the innocent victims of war—the villagers people and families of Viet Nam—who were also sprayed with the defoliant—the innocent non-combatants whose voices here in New Zealand we do not hear. 
It is time now for the Government to act. The Government must honour its responsibility to respond to the devastating trauma experienced by Viet Nam War veterans and the ongoing intergenerational impact on their children in light of their exposure to Agent Orange and defoliant chemicals during their war service and it must do it now. The Maori Party believes there is no better way of honouring the Year of the Veteran this year than to recognise the genetic damage and the serious health problems caused by the impact of Agent Orange on Viet Nam War veterans. Taking action on Agent Orange agreeing to hold meetings on the marae and introducing amendments to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act and the War Pensions Act are all ways of commemorating and paying tribute to the services so many of the people of this land gifted to future generations. 
We as a society must ensure that what nature has decreed should not generate undue insecurity as Nelson Mandela aged 77 at the time said. He went further and said that he wanted to be able to sleep until eternity with a broad smile on his face knowing that the youth opinion-makers and everybody are stretched across the divide trying to unite the nation. We will support this bill as a mark of respect and for the principle of honouring our elderly our pakeke and our veterans the sons and daughters of Tumatauenga many of whom as rangatahi sacrificed their youth in serving so that we may sleep with smiles on our faces. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to take a brief call on the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I must say that it is a pleasure in this House sometimes to follow members of the Maori Party and the previous speech given by the honourable Tariana Turia was one example of a very thoughtful well-constructed and very good contribution to the debate on this bill. When she talked about the importance of ethnicity in terms of the statistical—and if one likes the genetic—characteristics of ethnicity I was reminded of the little campaign that seems to be run by some members of the National Party at the moment that seeks to confuse New Zealanders about the difference between ethnicity and nationality. For example this morning at the Finance and Expenditure Committee the member Craig Foss wanted to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why he did not just regard all the people working for Treasury as New Zealanders rather than worry about their ethnic origins. 
It is important to say that ethnicity talks about a person’s DNA and gene pool origin. In my case that happens to be Caucasian and within Caucasian is the subset of Scottish English and Irish. It is a completely different question from nationality. The other difference between the two is that we are born with our ethnicity. It is not something we choose and it is not something we can change whereas our nationality is something we can change. Everybody who is born in this country is a New Zealander; everybody who has a New Zealand passport is a New Zealander but I could choose tomorrow to go and live in Australia and I could start to call myself an Australian. Or people could come as many have from places like Taiwan to live in New Zealand and they now consider themselves to be New Zealanders. So that is just a little aside for those in the National Party who have confused minds about the difference between the two terms. 
I come to the bill. United Future supports very strongly the provisions of this bill. We believe that it is entirely fair and reasonable when a spouse or a partner goes into full-time residential care that the rate for the partner who continues to live in the community should then become the single person’s rate. That is eminently fair and it addresses a situation that has probably been blatantly unfair for quite some time. We also support the provision of the bill that simplifies the rules for living alone payments so that it is based on a person’s actual living arrangements. Again we are a common-sense party and this is a common-sense provision when one thinks about it. There is a difference in the rates for single and married couples because of the difference in living costs. The old saying that two can live together cheaper than one is true when it comes to sharing all kinds of things from cars to packets of Weet-Bix. One can achieve some economy if one is part of a married couple or a couple living in a partnership as compared with a person who is on his or her own. That is exactly what the scheme does and that is the distinction we should ensure is made. I know from correspondence I have had from people that there has been some confusion around that point and it is good to see it clarified. 
We strongly support the extension of the voluntary work provisions for people who are doing voluntary work overseas from 52 weeks to 156 weeks. I am constantly amazed at the number of New Zealanders who in their retirement years choose to undertake fantastic voluntary work overseas. I would like to ask the select committee that will consider this bill to look carefully at the way in which that work is defined. In my view it should be defined in a way that includes in an unambiguous manner people who take short 1 to 3-year terms overseas as missionaries. Some people like to argue that they are in the business of simply—if one likes—winning converts to their particular faith be it Christian Muslim Hindu or whatever. But speaking for the many many missionary organisations that I know about the reality is that day in day out they give considerable humanitarian support to people particularly in Third World countries in every range of charity one could imagine. By the way the word “charity” happens to mean love for one’s fellow man They express that through medical help educational help translation help—the list goes on and on. All of that is part of the day-by-day work done by many of those people in missionary organisations. It is true that their motivation is based on faith but that should not obscure the reality of the good that they do in those countries. I think that if an objective account were ever taken of New Zealand’s history it would be true to say that the early missionaries in this country also made a significant contribution—sometimes controversial but overall extremely positive. 
It is also right that we align the veterans pension with the adjustments we are making to New Zealand superannuation. United Future strongly supports the confidence and supply agreement between Labour and New Zealand First that New Zealand superannuation will move to 66 percent of the ordinary-time weekly earnings as from 1 April 2006. Indeed our own party’s policy would have been a bit more generous than that. We wanted to move the data to a prospective base rather than a retrospective base. At the moment those calculations are done on 1 April but are based on the figures for the previous 31 December. When one works that through the next 12 months one finds that superannuitants are always 9 months behind the eight ball because this new rate applies from 1 April until 31 March in the next year but is still based on 31 December in the year before. I have done the sums and that is the way it works out on average. One is always 9 months behind. Under our formula we would have gone to more than 66 percent but this at least is a good step in the right direction. I am happy to signal our strong support for this bill on that basis. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I begin by thanking all members of the House for so far their support for the bill. Some clearly are more enthusiastically and genuinely supportive than others. 
I would just say to my friend Gordon Copeland that everybody is actually about a year behind everybody else in terms of pay increases once he or she has had his or her last pay increase and that is no different for superannuitants than for anybody else. The formula in that respect in terms of the fixing has not changed in that instance since 1976 when New Zealand superannuation was first introduced under the National Government. It has always been related to wage relativity at the point that it occurs not at some point further down the track. 
I would have to say I was a bit surprised by his call for further increases in Government spending as this morning he was urging me at the Finance and Expenditure Committee to cut Government spending as a proportion of GDP. He appears on occasion to share the strange belief of members opposite that one can increase every item of Government spending but reduce the total in some way or another. It is a very interesting prospect I have to say. 
I want particularly to thank Mrs Barbara White who was the person who really brought this matter to Parliament’s attention and my colleague Lianne Dalziel who is the MP who was most supportive. 
I must say I was very amused by the enthusiastic over-the-top speech in support of Dr Nick Smith by Mr John Key. I am surprised that he had heard of Dr Smith because he thought the member for Wairarapa was Chester Borrows. He said so in his speech. If he is ever going to get the numbers to do Dr Brash he has to learn that Mr Hayes is the MP for Wairarapa and Mr Borrows is the MP for Wanganui. But never mind that is the trouble when one thinks about financial markets rather than one’s colleagues. I gently say to Mr Key that in a few weeks’ time he may want to read that  
Hansard 
 and perhaps dissociate himself rather more from Dr Smith than he was doing this evening. I gently suggest to him that he might care to start distancing himself from one or two of his colleagues on the front bench reasonably early in the process. I am sure he will do that over the next few weeks at some point. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Henare that what goes around comes around. That is an old rule in this place and the National Party will learn about that old rule some time in the next few weeks. I will now come to the other extraordinary thing about Mr Key. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh yes and it is a lot better too some of it. 
Let me now come to another aspect of Mr Key. When one has been overseas for so many years speculating on the foreign exchange markets one tends to become out of date with what is happening in New Zealand. I just need to bring him up to date very briefly about what has happened with superannuation in the last 15 or so years. Firstly the single living alone allowance was introduced by the last Labour Government. I was the Minister who introduced the single living alone allowance. Secondly the last National Government in 3 out of its 9 years froze New Zealand superannuation and had no annual increase at all. In its last year in Government it legislated to cut the relativity from 65 percent to 60 percent. It had proposed 55 percent but to get Mr Henare’s support and that of one or two others it had to raise it to 60 percent. And there is no question that Dr Brash—because I think he might have said it in detail—actually wanted to go to a relativity of 50 percent of the average wage. National as a whole wanted to go to 55 percent. What was the first thing the incoming Labour Government did? It restored the relativity up to 65 percent and in the end to 67 percent of the average wage. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Thanks very much! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I know that Mr Clarkson gets all his jokes from old films. He also got most of his money from a Labour Government at some time or another. 
Some of the younger puppies opposite want to start trying to bark and bleat about New Zealand superannuation but they need to know the awful history of their own National Government in that respect. In 3 out of 9 years there was no increase for any superannuitant in the country and the relativity of New Zealand superannuation was cut. The National Government abolished the surcharge only because New Zealand First forced it to. We know that Dr Brash wants to raise again the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation. He has given speech after speech saying that the New Zealand superannuation age of eligibility should be raised. Of course that did not stop him from collecting it the moment he turned 65. So dedicated was he to reducing Government spending that instead of simply not collecting the pension he decided to collect it then release a press statement saying he was going to give it to charity. Well he could have saved the taxpayers the money in the first place by simply not collecting the pension. It is not compulsory to take New Zealand superannuation when one turns 65. It is not a legal requirement. 
But let me say again to Mr Key that I advise him very strongly—especially when he is talking about Dr Nick Smith being on the telephone—to be very careful before he associates himself and his future too closely with that of Dr Nick Smith. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. It has been a long time in the making and we have to thank the Hon Dr Nick Smith member for Nelson for getting this going. It is a pity that we had to wait so long. 
I am pleased that the bill will make changes to the New Zealand Superannuation Retirement Income Act 1954 and that it will enhance the lives of superannuitants and veterans who have spouses in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home. Superannuitants and veterans are a section of our society that needs to be acknowledged. They have all contributed to our society; it is a pity that they have had to wait so long to get this recognition. 
Veterans are a specific group within New Zealand and this amendment bill in part acknowledges the role that veterans have played and continue to play in the development of New Zealand as a nation. The decline in the number of veterans of World War II in our population means that veterans are a dwindling population. It is difficult to estimate the numbers of veterans in New Zealand but it is probably best done by counting the numbers in receipt of the war disablement pension. Approximately 16000 veterans are in receipt of that particular pension. This bill targets those veterans who have spouses in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home. In respect of the veteran population we are dealing with a small but diminishing population. Having a loved one in a long-term care facility is an added emotional and physical burden to this group. 
I am pleased that the bill will go some way to help both the veterans and the superannuitants. When a spouse or partner is critically ill in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home facility there is the inevitable additional financial cost of travelling to and from the facility and the other extra costs of caring for a loved one who is in care. Quite simply it is more expensive to live alone. This bill removes the sharing expenses rule for the living alone payment so that entitlement to the living alone payment for New Zealand superannuitants and veteran pensioners is based solely on actual living arrangements. 
I am pleased that the sharing expenses rule has been addressed as it has been the cause of a lot of negative public comment. It operates as a strict and arbitrary form of income testing for the living alone payment. Any outside contribution to the household expenses denies completely a person’s eligibility for the payment. It is arbitrary in that only a particular form of income namely that directly related to household or accommodation expenses is counted. In some cases New Zealand superannuitants and veteran pensioners who are living alone are denied eligibility because they receive modest contributions to their household expenses from others such as family members. Clearly that is wrong. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: It is wrong! 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: It is very wrong. I am pleased that the sharing expenses rule has been removed; it is a pity that it has taken such a long time. We have to thank Dr Smith for that. It is a fair and just amendment. In real terms this bill means that those veterans and superannuitants who have a spouse or partner in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home facility will be better off by $24 per week or about $100 per month. That will go some way to ease the financial burden of those veterans and superannuitants. 
The bill also increases the period of time a person can continue to receive New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension while overseas and working voluntarily for an aid agency such as Volunteer Service Abroad from 52 weeks to 156 weeks. I would be lost even to begin to estimate how many superannuitants or veterans are working overseas voluntarily and suspect that it would be quite a small group. But nonetheless it is an important group however small and those people should not be disadvantaged as they are doing selfless work in Third World countries. They need to be acknowledged saluted and supported and this amendment will go some way towards that. 
However I suspect that many superannuitants and veterans want to travel overseas on extended visits to their children and grandchildren who are settled in other countries because they do not see a future in New Zealand. Those children and grandchildren are part of a growing exodus of people who are leaving our shores in search of a better life. Those superannuitants and veterans should not also be disadvantaged simply because they want to spend some time with their relatives overseas. I am pleased that the bill acknowledges those circumstances. 
Under the current legislation a person with a spouse or partner in long-term residential care can receive only a single or single living alone rate of New Zealand’s superannuation or veterans pension in two narrowly defined circumstances. The first circumstance is if a person’s spouse or partner is receiving a residential care subsidy which is means-tested. The second circumstance is if a spouse or partner is suffering the effects of a stroke and/or dementia and as a result is no longer able to affirm his or her marriage or civil union. We have the petition of Barbara White and 1500 or so others which has been mentioned by previous speakers to thank for the broadening of the eligibility criteria introduced into the bill. It was considered by the Social Services Committee and was recommended in a report that was presented to Parliament on 12 May last year. 
National MP the Hon Dr Nick Smith will be very gratified by the introduction of the bill. In February last year he sent out a press release entitled “Super living alone policy stupid and unfair.” 
Paula Bennett 
: Did Nick put out a press release? 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: Yes. He will be very pleased that something is finally happening. It was actually on behalf of an elderly man in his electorate who was denied the living alone payment under Government policy because his wife was in a rest home and still recognised him. The Hon Nick Smith said in his press release that “The policy is stupid and unfair. It should make no difference to eligibility whether the husband or the wife was in rest home care because of physical or mental disability.” 
He went on to say: “It is insulting that WINZ is advising people that to get the living alone payment they would need to divorce lifelong partners who required resthome care.” He further said: “It is bizarre that if this couple were de facto or gay or if Mrs Page had dementia or was in prison he would be eligible. These factors should be irrelevant to eligibility for the Living Alone Payment that is intended to recognise that it is more expensive for superannuitants living alone.” He went on to say: “There will be hundreds of New Zealand superannuitants whose wife or husband has gone into care and who are affected by that iniquitous policy. The Government should recognize that their new policy is blatantly unfair and change it. If not the Human Rights Commission should declare the discrimination unlawful.” It is very gratifying to see that the legislation is finally coming home to be passed. 
Before I conclude as an associate health spokesperson I would like to make some remarks on the care of our elderly. I would like to quote my colleague Jo Goodhew who is the member for Aoraki and also an associate health spokesperson. In a recent media release she said there was widespread concern that district health boards are still not passing on funding or funding increases to providers of aged-care residential facilities. Mrs Goodhew discovered at a recent Health Committee that figures show that some district health boards are passing on the funding and others are not. Mrs Goodhew was very concerned and did not receive a satisfactory explanation of why that was happening. She said that questions had been asked about why that increased funding had not flowed through to providers but those questions are yet to be answered adequately by the Ministry of Health. It seems that $71 million is in fact to allow the sector only to tread water not to meet increased costs. 
That is simply not good enough. We are an ageing population and to ensure that the health system works effectively we must ensure that we have residential facilities and hospitals for our sick elderly population and we must ensure that those facilities are adequately funded. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 As the MP who met with Barbara White to discuss with her what we would do in order to address what was a serious issue I am very pleased to be able to speak in the first reading debate on a bill that addresses the second limb of the two-limbed issue she brought to my attention. When we drafted the wording of the petition we wrote: “That the House of Representatives recommend that the Government review the rules of eligibility for the living alone payment when one of a superannuitant couple is in long-stay or permanent residential care and for practical purposes they are no longer able to live together as a couple.” 
We made a mistake Barbara White and I because we did not realise when we wrote the wording of the petition that the issue of the living alone payment was not the primary issue. For her to qualify for the living alone payment she first had to qualify for the single rate of superannuation. A person cannot get the single rate of superannuation if he or she is married and that was the issue she faced. So we discovered after we had presented the petition that there were two separate issues. One was the appropriate rate of superannuation—that is the single rate as opposed to half the married rate—and the second issue related to the living alone payment which appeared to be subject to different considerations not simply whether the person was living alone. 
So I did some research and I found out that the ministerial directive that related to the living alone payment dated back to 1999. It was a National Minister who signed the ministerial directive that set the way the living alone payment was to be paid. So I had then to find out why she was not entitled to the single rate of superannuation because she was entitled only to half of the married rate of superannuation. I discovered when I went back that a previous National Minister had been given costings on fixing that problem nearly 10 years ago but National had said that it was too expensive and had decided to leave it like that—precisely like that. [ 
Interruption 
] I am really interested that National members want to try to yell over the top of me. The point I want to make to the House— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Interjection is obviously OK but not barraging and not repetitive barraging in the way it is going on now. Would members please keep it down a bit. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I think it is important for the House to recognise that National was presented with this problem in Government about a decade ago and National said it was too costly to fix. This problem— 
John Key 
: It was weeks before the election. What was the actual date? Come on name the date. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It was in 1996 or 1997 that National costed the fixing of this problem. I think it is important for members to know why that happened but I know that National members are not interested in knowing why that happened. The reason was that National finally delivered on a commitment it had given in 1990 which was to remove the surcharge on superannuation. It removed the surcharge and when it did that it created this anomaly. National members do not remember that because they cannot recall how that happened. But I know that Peter Gresham was the Minister of Social Welfare who called for the costing on this matter and he said that it was too expensive to fix. So it— 
John Key 
: You should be ashamed that it’s taken 7 years to sort this out. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It has not taken 7 years to fix because it was brought to my attention by Barbara White 2 years ago and within 2 years this Government has fixed the problem. That is because Barbara White came to me unlike the constituents in Nelson who went to their constituency MP and got nothing. They got a letter sent to the Human Rights Commission; we got a change in the law. 
I think it is important for people to realise that it was not any Government neither Labour nor National that brought in that dreadful exemption which I call the “dementia exception”. It was actually a decision of the Social Security Appeal Authority which stated: “where a married couple are living apart due to one partner suffering the effects of a stroke or dementia and he or she has ceased to recognise his or her spouse and as a result is incapable of positively affirming their marriage vows for the limited purpose of determining what rate of superannuation the spouse living at home should receive the chief executive should regard that spouse as living apart from the marriage partner and therefore unmarried.” Nick Smith said in his letter as was quoted in the House that the policy is stupid and unfair—that is true. That is why the Social Security Appeal Authority tried to work its way around it. It was a National policy that the authority was trying to work its way around. The Social Security Appeal Authority had to determine that a couple was essentially unmarried in order that the spouse at home could qualify for the higher rate of superannuation. This bill fixes that issue. 
But there was a second issue. By the time Barbara White brought her petition to Parliament and had her hearing—very respectfully I might add in front of the Social Services Committee whose members on all sides of the House treated her with great respect and she was very grateful to be treated that way—she had been determined as eligible for the single rate of superannuation. But she did not qualify for the living alone payment because it was considered by the department that her husband was still contributing financially to the household through their joint assets. This bill fixes the second limb of the problem. So both parts of this problem are now addressed for everyone—not just for Barbara White but for the other people who signed the petition. 
 I met the man who signed the petition second. He was in exactly the same situation as the individual referred to by the previous National Party speaker. He did not qualify for the exception because his wife did not have dementia—she did recognise him. He did not qualify for the exception that had been created by the Social Security Appeal Authority to get around the stupid and unfair policy that had been created by National. This legislation will fix that for him. So I think that this is a very proud day. We should be celebrating the fact that the parliamentary system has worked. An individual came to a member of Parliament and said that the situation was unfair. The member of Parliament agreed that it was not fair and undertook to try to fix it. So that member of Parliament instead of rushing off to the Human Rights Commission informed the Minister’s office that a petition would be brought in and asked the Minister to work with the petitioners. We worked with the select committee Barbara White brought her petition to Parliament and with the Minister’s office we were able to achieve this very great result. 
I know that Barbara White is proud of the New Zealand Parliament today because Parliament has set aside some of the political differences that affect the way we operate from time to time to do the right thing—the right thing for her for the other 1500 people who signed her petition and for those who did not put their names on the petition but want to have this matter addressed. This is an example of the system working well—somebody brought an issue to Parliament and Parliament set aside all personal interests to look at the issue and find a solution. 
I think that this could not have happened except under a Labour-led Government prepared to listen to the real concerns of the people and finally to address the problem. I am afraid some National Party members will be very embarrassed when they find out that one of their own previous social security Ministers actually costed fixing this problem a decade ago and decided that it would cost the country too much. All the hollow words that we have heard tonight will return to reflect on those who said that they cared about this issue. Barbara White is a tremendous New Zealander who has done a great thing by bringing this matter to the attention of a Government that is prepared to act and make a difference. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill be referred to the Social Services Committee 
referred to Social Services Committee 
 and that the committee finally report the bill back to the House on or before 22 May 2006. 
Motion agreed to.