New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3891] 
New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill 
War Pensions Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The main aim of the bills is to extend eligibility for the higher single rate of New Zealand superannuation and veteran pensions to all superannuitants and veterans pensioners who have spouses or partners in long-term residential care. The extension will ensure a fairer treatment for as many as 2000 superannuitants and veterans pensioners living in the community who have a spouse or partner in long-term residential care. The current approach is seen as unfair to spouses and partners in the community because only in a very limited range of circumstances can those people the spouses and partners of people in long-term residential care be eligible for the higher single rate of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension. This issue was highlighted by the petition of Barbara White presented to the House in September 2004. 
I would like to take this opportunity to convey my thanks to the petitioners who first brought this issue to the attention of the House and in particular to the lead petitioner Mrs Barbara White who was very ably supported by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel. I am proud to be part of a Labour-led Government that is rectifying an unfair situation with these bills. It is ensuring fairer treatment of New Zealanders. The reality is that Peter Gresham a National Government Minister in 1995 investigated this very policy and had it costed. He looked into exactly the measures that we are enacting today but he and the National Party of the day failed to do anything about it after they had seen the evidence. They did absolutely nothing to fix the unfair situation that saw married couples with one partner in long-term residential care get less money than their single counterparts. 
Another important thing these bills do is to remove from 1 July 2006 the “sharing expenses” rule which again currently prevents 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. The “sharing expenses” rule currently operates as a somewhat strict and arbitrary form of income testing for the living alone payment. In some cases superannuitants have been denied eligibility for the living alone payment because they have been receiving modest contributions to their household expenses from family members. Well that rule is being removed and its removal will mean that eligibility for the living alone payment will be based solely upon actual living arrangements. That will ensure fairer treatment for all superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are living alone. 
The third amendment contained in these bills will enable a person to be paid New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension for up to 156 weeks if he or she is carrying out volunteer work overseas for a recognised aid agency such as Volunteer Service Abroad. Currently the maximum payment period for that work is 52 weeks. 
A further amendment is contained in the War Pensions Amendment Bill. This amendment changes the War Pensions Act 1954 to enable all rates of the veterans pension to be increased by Order in Council. This change will align the legislative provisions for making adjustments to the rates of veterans pensions with those for New Zealand superannuation made under the Social Security Act 1964. 
We have heard much rhetoric from the opposite side of the House on these bills. The reality is that this Labour-led Government has given and is giving our senior citizens a fairer deal. Since we became the Government we have corrected for them many injustices and the unfairness of the 1990s. Let us remember who introduced the discriminatory asset-testing regime that has caused so much worry for our senior citizens. It was the National Party. It is this Government that is phasing out asset testing. Remember who cut superannuation to 60 percent of the average wage when last in Government and who would have cut it even further if they had not been voted out in 1999. It took a Labour-led Government to restore superannuation to no less than 65 percent for a married couple and this year to 66 percent because of our confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First. Let us not forget that the current leader of the National Party is on record as saying that he believes that we should raise the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation. 
The bottom line is that families in New Zealand should not trust that side of the House when it comes to issues of fairness for senior citizens in our country. National’s record in the past speaks volumes. Meanwhile with these bills the Labour-led Government is addressing several anomalies in the current treatment of our superannuitants and veterans pensioners. I am confident that the amendments will ensure fairer and more equitable treatment for many older New Zealanders and that is certainly what they deserve. I commend these bills to the House. 
Debate interrupted.