Hutchison Paul: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Hutchison Paul: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3910] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 The National Party is indeed happy and glad to be supporting the third reading of this legislation because we care about the veterans and the elderly in this country. I think it is very important to go back to the genesis of this legislation. It came about when the Labour Government introduced its New Zealand Superannuation Bill in 2001. As a result 1 year later the petition of Barbara White and 1519 others arrived at Parliament. The petition pointed out the anomalies this legislation addresses—anomalies that for 5 years under this Labour Government saw significant numbers of veterans and elderly in this country being cut off from their entitlements. For over 5 years the Labour Government has knowingly cut out the entitlements of our elderly and veterans. 
So here was Barbara White back in 2002 bringing to this Parliament a petition that has been ignored by the Labour Government for at least 4 long years. What it took was the case of an elderly Nelson man by the name of Mr Page who was 90 years old and whose elderly wife was in long-term residential care with Alzheimer’s disease. Mr Page applied for his entitlement but was told by this mean-spirited Labour Government that if he wanted to get that entitlement he would have to divorce his wife of over 70 years! 
Hon Member:  
 Is that what they said? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: That is exactly what the Labour Government said. This Labour Government has brought in all sorts of liberal laws over the last few years but it said to this elderly gentleman Mr Page from Nelson whose wife was in long-term residential care with Alzheimer’s disease that it was sorry but the only way he would get the entitlement due to him was to divorce his wife. That is exactly how this Labour Government operates. 
But what happened? Fortunately Mr Page went to see the very good member for Nelson the Hon Nick Smith who said he would rectify that anomaly. He went first to the various Labour Government authorities who said they were sorry but the rules were the rules. Despite the petition of Barbara White and despite 5 years of that anomaly they were not prepared to do anything. So Nick Smith quite rightly took Mr Page’s case to the Human Rights Commissioner who immediately said that something was basically wrong and that it reflected an absolute wrong by the Labour Government. It was only then that—after 5 long years of mean-spirited behaviour by the Government towards veterans and the elderly—suddenly the legislation appeared in Parliament. But the elderly and the veterans have been diddled out of a substantial amount of money. It amounts to about $60 a week and for an elderly person who would otherwise be earning after tax only $203 a week that $263.90 which is the adjustment represents a large amount—almost 25 percent more than he or she had been getting previously. In fact it will affect initially something like 2000 people at a cost of $6.1 million in 2006 rising to something like $6.7 million in 2008-09. 
But the real worry is that the Labour Government waited so long before it was prepared to give our veterans and our elderly the entitlements that are their due. It is quite interesting that the Labour Government is prepared to continue its mean-spirited behaviour. Nick Smith proposed two amendments to new clause 6A. The first stated: “(1) Any person who applied for the living alone payment prior to 24 July 2004 but were declined on the basis of their spouse living in rest-home care shall be eligible for payment from 24 July 2004.” That is pretty reasonable—particularly in the case of Mr Page who has so patiently waited for his due entitlement. But once again that very reasonable amendment from the Hon Nick Smith was disallowed by the mean-spirited Labour Government. 
On the other side of the ledger when the Volunteer Service Abroad people came along to the Social Services Committee and pointed out that many of them were finding it difficult to serve the usual routine 2-year stint overseas because they had to come back to New Zealand and apply for their entitlement again the Labour Government said that it would not just make it 2 years’ entitlement which is what the organisation requested but that it had heaps of money—and we know it does not look into things very carefully or seriously—and would make it 3 years’ entitlement. 
That response was absolutely unnecessary absolutely inappropriate and way over-the-top. If we look at it in the context of the major point of the legislation being about ensuring that New Zealand’s elderly and New Zealand’s veterans are not diddled out of their entitlements then is it not ridiculous that Mr Benson-Pope can sit on the other side of the House and give to Volunteer Service Abroad people not 2 years’ entitlement but 3 years’ entitlement? Yet not one of them has ever applied for 3 years’ entitlement nor are they likely to. 
One of the other very interesting things about the bill is a submission from Age Concern stating: “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 poverty does not predetermine their health and well-being.” The issue is all about whether this country’s economic growth is substantial enough and sustainable enough to ensure that our elderly people receive appropriate benefits when they reach old age. What we know is that after 6 long years of a Labour Government—which when it came to office in 1999 inherited a growth rate of 4.9 percent—economic growth in the first quarter of this year fell to 0 percent. The current quarter is about 1 percent and predictions by the Reserve Bank over the next few years say it will be approximately 1 to 2 percent. 
The submission from Age Concern is absolutely appropriate to the needs of elderly people but the Labour Government has put New Zealand further and further down the ladder in terms of our ranking in the OECD. When we look to the future we see that New Zealand is destined to go even further down if we remain under a Labour Government. If the elderly and the veterans of New Zealand are to achieve adequate recompense then we should look to a National Government.