Ball Darroch: Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBall Darroch: Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 16 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4448. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DARROCH BALL (NZ First): It is my pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First—Carmel Sepuloni: Correct the Minister Darroch.DARROCH BALL: —to talk on—Carmel Sepuloni: Correct the Minister.DARROCH BALL: —yes yes I will get there—the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. Speaking specifically on the bill’s purpose unfortunately I think the Minister the Hon Anne Tolley is mistaken. That comes out in the purpose it has come out through the select committee and it has come out definitely through the departmental report.The Minister always talks about the inequalities and about making things equal and equitable between New Zealanders but the point that New Zealand First is making—and I know that the other Opposition parties are making it also—is that yes there is a difference with those three countries. That is the point. If the Minister is trying to compare the New Zealanders who are citizens of New Zealand holding New Zealand passports living in the Realm of New Zealand in those three islands with New Zealanders living in England or Australia or elsewhere then yes it is different and we understand it is different and we are saying that it is different. That is why we need to change the legislation that the Minister is trying to push through.If I can put it into some context if you look at the explanatory note where it says “The changes take into account New Zealand’s close constitutional ties with the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau and are part of New Zealand’s commitment to support their ongoing economic and social viability.” then that blows it out of the water if you put the stipulation that they are different or if you are trying to say they are the same as all the other New Zealanders around the world. You have just isolated those three countries specifically as part of the purpose and now you are backtracking and saying: “Well we are making it because it is the same for every New Zealander who is living overseas.” That does not make sense.Jono Naylor: You don’t make sense.DARROCH BALL: Sorry? And that is why New Zealand First has put in Supplementary Order Paper 71. That is why the Opposition parties are going to support the Supplementary Order Paper because it is common sense. That is what the problem is with this amendment bill and that is why the National Government knows—even through the select committee process Alfred Ngaro was nodding along. The majority of the submissions that came through to the committee were all on the 5 years over 50 rule. The reason why is that it is the most important part which affects the viability of this entire piece of legislation and the viability and the credibility of this Government and of the Minister when she stipulates what the very purpose of this bill is. It undermines the entire process.What we are looking at is a very unique situation where one of the submitters was actually the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands himself. I think that highlights the importance of the issue. What he brought up was the 5 years over 50 rule. The Government and the Minister cannot continue to ignore that point that we are trying to make. We are trying to push through with this Supplementary Order Paper 71 the changes that we need to have the support of the National Government on. I know that Jono Naylor agrees with me—Jono Naylor: Yeah that’s right!DARROCH BALL: —yes—with regard to the 5 years over 50 rule. So what is happening with the situation now? At the moment we have—and it is part of the New Zealand First minority view that we put through—New Zealanders living in the Cooks who are born and bred Kiwis. So for example one worked in New Zealand for 29 years with 26 of them after the age of 20. He does not qualify for New Zealand superannuation because he returned to the Cook Islands when he was 46 years of age. So if you compare this with the generosity of giving full New Zealand superannuation entitlement to over 65000 non - New Zealand citizens from non-reciprocal pension countries after just 10 years of residency where is the fairness? Where is the equitability that the Minister was talking about in the purpose of this bill?Those who enter under the parent category have no requirement to contribute to this economy but we have got people who have worked here for 25-plus years who have paid their taxes and have decided to move to one of these three Realm Islands who are holders of our passports and are citizens of this country and who do not meet the requirements according to this legislation for New Zealand superannuation payments. That is outrageous and that is why we have put forward the Supplementary Order Paper.