King Annette: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Annette: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7303. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 This legislation fulfils Parliament’s commitment to older New Zealanders. It was supported by all parties with the exception of the ACT Party during the Committee stage. However I note that ACT did not vote against the legislation at the Committee stage nor did it propose any amendments. Although I respect the arguments that Sir Roger Douglas put forward and appreciate the charts that he showed members—which unfortunately other people probably could not see—I think that he has the wrong end of the stick in relation to this legislation. 
I do not believe that it was the previous Labour Government’s intention when we tabled the original bill the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill in the House in September 2008 nor the intention of the current National Government to set up a system that would advantage Pacific Island people in coming into New Zealand to get a job so that they could get a better pension. I think that argument does not take account of a number of issues the main one being that in order for Pacific Island people to come into New Zealand to get a job they have to go through the immigration hoops to begin with. The idea that the door is open for people from the Pacific to walk in and work here in order to get a pension to take back to the Islands misses out quite a few important steps mainly that anybody who comes into this country must meet the immigration criteria that are in place. 
This legislation was put into the House and it is supported by all parties except for ACT because we wanted to make things easier and better for our older New Zealanders. They will be able to take their pension with them if they go to live in another country of their choice. People have been able since April 1999 to take 50 percent of their pension with them. Unfortunately that amount is not enough for people to live on in most other countries. It was a real restriction on people who felt that they had paid their taxes all their lives and had made their contribution. They had worked hard and they had money that they thought was their entitlement. Superannuation is not a benefit; it is a pension in their eyes. They felt that they could not take a sufficient proportion of it with them to perhaps enable them to reside in another country where their family is now living. 
This legislation uses a formula which I think is a fair one to take account of the years that people have worked and resided in this country. I think that it is a fair formula which now enables people to do some of the things that Minister Paula Bennett outlined in her speech. She was correct when she said that for New Zealanders today the age of 65 is really like what age 55 was like previously. People are much more active today. They want to travel and many of them have children who now live overseas. That is part of the global economy in which we live. Our children get jobs in other countries they marry people from other countries and they take up residence in other countries. One of the things that people want to do when they get older is to share time with their families and to live near them. This legislation will enable that to happen for many New Zealanders and I think that change is to be welcomed. 
At the Social Services Committee people generally supported the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. They did raise a number of issues that were outside the scope of the bill but also they raised some issues that were within the scope of the bill but on which we could not make the changes that they wanted without making the system unfair for other New Zealanders. One such issue that comes to mind is that of the non-qualifying spouse. The argument that was put to us related to the situation that occurs when a couple heads off overseas and the man is already receiving New Zealand superannuation and even if the woman is only a few months off turning 65 years she cannot apply for superannuation while she is overseas. We were asked why the non-qualifying spouse should not be able to apply for superannuation from the country he or she is now residing in and in which country the couple say they will now permanently reside. I know that Chester Borrows would agree that on the surface that sounded like a very fair thing to provide for until the officials started to unpick the whole scenario. If an advantage was given to one non-qualifying spouse a whole lot of disadvantage would then open up for a whole lot of other people. We would have got ourselves into a right old pickle if we had agreed with one group that had made a submission about that issue and had supported such a change. 
The Minister did not answer some questions that were asked during the Committee stage. They were serious questions on the issue of section 70 of the Social Security Act 1964. People submitted on that section. We did not hear their submissions. Submitters did not care about the fact that they were not meant to submit on that section of the Act. They wanted their submissions to be heard and John Carter said during his speech that the issue they raised was something that he had heard about for many many years. People want to be able to have their overseas pension that they earned in another country as part of their income here in New Zealand. As I said in the Committee stage we believed that was unfinished business in terms of the changes that need to be made. I asked the Minister whether the Government was considering making such a change or doing work on such a change but the Minister did not address that matter. 
I also asked the Minister during the Committee stage whether the Government was considering making the changes proposed by the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association. The association made a very compelling submission to the select committee around the veterans’ entitlement and the portability issue. The association did not believe that portability should be linked to age; it said that it ought to be linked to the fact that people were receiving the veterans pension because of their disability. I gather that the association has felt strongly about this issue for a long time. I did ask the Minister whether the Government was considering making such a change and in terms of the review was looking at such a change being made. We could not make it; it was not possible for us to do that. We were given good reasons as to why we could not include that change in this legislation but I did ask the Minister whether the Government was considering making it. I think the association would really like to know whether this matter is on the Government’s work agenda because I have no doubt that the issue will not go away. 
There was little debate on this legislation. There did not need to be a lot of debate on it because there was agreement across the House. There was little dispute and little rancour. There was some grandstanding about whose legislation it was but let us put the issues on the table. The Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill was tabled by Ruth Dyson in September 2008. One speaker from the Government side said the previous Labour Government waited too long before doing anything about it. I have a very clear memory that from around 22 September onwards we were rather busy. An election was held in I think early November. There were not many people in this House who were busy debating anything but former Ministers had done work in the area of updating and improving portability over a long period of time. We had been doing that going right back to 1990 and as the Minister said going back to the changes made in 1999 around the entitlements for people who are living in the Pacific. It was ongoing work and as I have pointed out there is still more to be done. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.