Hutchison Paul: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in  Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in  Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3102] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 This very significant bill is known as the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I draw to the attention of the Committee that we are speaking on clause 3 “Purpose”. I think it is worthwhile going over what the purpose is: “The purpose of this Act is to—(a) extend eligibility for the higher single rate of New Zealand superannuation living alone payments or veteran’s pension to superannuitants or persons entitled to the veteran’s pension whose spouse or partner is in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home:”. 
The reason I think it is so important to point out that we are speaking to clause 3 is that the Labour Government has put a very unusual situation before Parliament because we have a purpose clause that is not included in a part. I understand that this is an example of the Labour Government once again making a mistake. We have the Minister—the Hon David Benson-Pope—sitting there in the chair. I hope he will have an explanation of why once again the Labour Government has made a mistake over this bill and the way it has been framed. 
After all it was brought to the attention of this House 4 long years ago in a petition by Barbara White in which she pointed out the gross inequity of a situation where someone is living in long-term residential care who is unwell or infirm and whose partner who is living at home is not eligible for the higher living alone single benefit which is worth about $60 a week. It is a great worry that the Labour Government is likely to vote against its own bill which just demonstrates the silliness of this Labour Government and the lack of preparation and thought it often has for detail. In this bill which is hugely important to older New Zealanders in a very difficult situation the Labour Government has not only delayed the payments for something like 4 years but also when it finally brings the bill to the House it mucks it up. It is just not acceptable. 
Hon Member 
: Take your pill. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well we see that the Hon David Benson-Pope is not taking it seriously. I hope he will give us a serious explanation of why his Government intends to vote against the purpose of this bill which I understand it is going to do. I hope Government members will give us an explanation because after all as Nick Smith has pointed out it was Mr Page who was put in this very invidious position 4 years ago at the same time as Barbara White and the 1519 others who brought a petition to Parliament. They have had all these years to put it right and they have only just now finally—with the support of National—brought this bill to Parliament but they have managed to muck it up. 
Another point I want to make is that in one of the submissions to this bill Age Concern makes the point that while it certainly supports the proposed amendments through this bill it believes that it does not address the fundamental issue which is that many older people currently do not receive adequate financial assistance from the Government to ensure that poverty does not predetermine their health and well-being. This is a very important issue for many thousands of older New Zealanders under this Labour Government. The Government has basically prohibited older people from having the $60 or made it impossible. Finally they are bringing the payment in after 4 years.