Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSocial Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 16 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4442. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) BillIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsCARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I am standing to speak to Part 1 of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. It is nice when we have a bill go through that every political party in the House agrees with apart from some minor changes that have been suggested which we can talk about.The purpose of this bill is to allow eligible persons who reside in the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau to be able to apply from either of those countries or that territory for New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension and be paid these benefits in either of those countries or that territory or other specified Pacific countries. Part 1 of the bill is really just outlining that purpose.I actually think that many New Zealanders are not even aware of the fact that we have three countries that are not New Zealand—outside of New Zealand. They are three Pacific Islands that are part of the Realm of New Zealand and therefore there is not necessarily an understanding or a knowledge of the special relationship that we have with these three countries the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. I think that is a really important backdrop to discussing this bill because it is important to understand not only the historical ties to these three countries but also the constitutional relationships we have with them.Currently eligible New Zealanders can receive their New Zealand superannuation or their veterans pension in the Realm countries under the special portability arrangement that New Zealand has with 22 specified Pacific countries. However under the current arrangement people aged 65 years or older can only apply by being resident and present in New Zealand on the date they apply for New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension. This bill seeks to change that so that those residents of Cook Island Niuean and Tokelauan descent can apply from those countries rather than having to be resident in New Zealand.Part of this outlines the fact that they need to have been resident in New Zealand for 10 years. What is being proposed is that at least 5 of those years need to have been spent here in New Zealand between the ages of 50 and 65. I guess one point of difference when we are discussing eligibility between us—some of the minor parties I think—and the National Government is that we think that those 10 years of residence of being present in New Zealand should not necessarily have to be between the ages of 50 and 65. Currently it is proposed that 5 of those years resident in New Zealand must be when a person is aged between 50 and 65.One of the big issues that came up not only during the submissions but it has come up during my own experience when getting out and about with our Cook Island Niuean and Tokelauan communities and also visiting the Cook Islands and Niue is the issue of depopulation and the impact that that has had on these three Island States. I think one thing that we as New Zealanders do not recognise at all or enough is the fact that the issues of depopulation that those three countries face really are due to the constitutional arrangements we have with them in that those people are given the opportunity to travel freely to New Zealand. That is seen as a positive thing but also we have depleted those three countries of their biggest resource. We have been told that by the residents there as they struggle to be economically sustainable. Their biggest resource is their people.So one of the good things about this bill is that it will allow our Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau residents to return to the Islands to be able to contribute to the economic development and sustainability of their countries. When we say that they need to have been in New Zealand resident here and present for 5 of their 10 years between the ages of 50 and 65 I think we are actually attaching what really is an unnecessary condition because 10 years should be 10 years whether it is 10 years between the ages of 20 and 30 or whether it be 10 years between the ages of 20 and 50. I cannot understand why we need to stipulate that 5 of those years must be spent here between the ages of 50 and 65. We want to as part of the good-faith relationship that we have here in New Zealand with the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau actually support our Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau people returning to invest in those Island States if that is what they wish. We see the benefits for those Island States for their communities and for their families but also the benefit to New Zealand because they are part of the Realm of New Zealand.I need to note that in Part 1 we are talking about eligibility but later on tonight during this debate we will be debating and discussing a Supplementary Order Paper that has been put up by New Zealand First that actually removes that condition for them to have spent 5 of those 10 years in New Zealand present and resident here between the ages of 50 and 65. As I said we want to support them returning.When we talk about depopulation again I do not think most New Zealanders are aware of the extent of the depopulation that has occurred in Niue the Cook Islands and Tokelau because of the right to travel freely between those islands and New Zealand. If we look at the population statistics I think the latest ones for Niue show there is a population of about 1200 Niueans in Niue whereas we have 24000 approximately Niueans in New Zealand. We have approximately 14000 Cook Islanders in the Cook Islands whereas we have 60000 Cook Islanders here in New Zealand. There are approximately 1400 Tokelauans in Tokelau whereas we have about 8000 Tokelauans in New Zealand. From the time that constitutional arrangement was formalised with New Zealand they have all made a contribution to this country. Now I think is an opportunity for New Zealand to recognise that contribution and say: “Actually we’re going to support these people—our Cook Island Tokelauan and Niuean people—to return to their own country and make an investment there.”I do want to say that we support this bill and we support the purpose of this bill but I want to outline our support for the Supplementary Order Paper that is being put forward by New Zealand First which changes the eligibility from what the National Government has outlined in the bill that we have before us tonight. I do want to make one other point and that is that we do support the Supplementary Order Paper that has been put up by New Zealand First but I do want to acknowledge my colleague Poto Williams who actually signalled very early in the minority report that was put forward to the Social Services Committeethat she was going to be putting this Supplementary Order Paper up but then one of our friends from New Zealand First—no grudges—decided that was such a good idea that they would put the Supplementary Order Paper forward themselves.So we support this bill. As I have outlined though we do support the Supplementary Order Paper that is being put up by New Zealand First later on tonight to change the eligibility slightly so that of the 10 years served the 5 years of residing and being present in New Zealand do not need to be between the ages of 50 and 65. Thank you.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): We do not want people rewriting history tonight. The reality is the “section 70s” and those people who are caught by this legislation were first promised to have it fixed up by New Zealand First and no other political party. Those are facts. Go and look at the manifestos and you will see who it was—the political party New Zealand First—who realised that these anomalies are there for the “section 70s” and for the people of Tokelau the Cook Islands and Niue and who set out to redress them.If you look here you will see that some people in the Government still do not get it despite the fact that my colleague Andrew Bayly has been in the Cook Islands assuring all those people that he will give it his best intentions. He has given those Cook Islands people all sorts of assurances that when he gets back he is going to fix it up.Sue Moroney: Really?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is what Mr Bayly did yes. He went to the Cook Islands New Zealand retirement people over there and gave them that assurance and my colleague the very esteemed Alfred Ngaro said as his excuse: “I wasn’t there.” Oh really? So who cast his vote without his authority? I know my friend Alfred Ngaro is an honourable man and I hope that Mr Bayly from up Hunua way is also an honourable man and tonight they are going to say they will support the New Zealand First Supplementary Order Paper because that is what they told the people in the Cook Islands down at the Swordfish Club. I have got the evidence. I do not blame them because 5 years ago Murray McCully promised exactly that as well.But you see you have got a Minister in the chair Anne Tolley who on the question of the purpose does not get it. If you look at the purpose clause clause 3 and read it very carefully and then you go to the Minister in the chair’s speech she repeats this line on the question of the purpose: “We must also bear in mind that without the 5 years’ residence over 50 rule there would be nothing preventing a person born in New Zealand who then lived overseas for most of their life returning to New Zealand at 65 years and claiming New Zealand superannuation.” I heard that and I thought: “That sounds rather familiar.” Well of course it is on page 6 of the Ministry of Social Development’s February report. Page 6 there it is—the exact same words parroted from paragraph 5. She parrots the identical same words and they are false and that is my point.My plea to the National Party is surely there is someone over there with some honour who could possibly do something to support those people it promised so much to before. When Mr Doocey was last on his feet on this matter this is what he said: “What I must say”—this is on the purpose—Matt Doocey: I’m glad you’re listening.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know it is laughable but you should not laugh yet. [Interruption]Oh we know it is laughable. This is what he said: “I must just challenge the minority view of New Zealand First. Really it has no shame to say ‘Compare this to the generosity of giving full New Zealand Superannuation entitlement to non-New Zealand citizens from non-reciprocal pension countries after just 10 years’ residency.’ I would challenge New Zealand First to stand up and show us the data for that. Normally individuals have to spend 10 years here to get 50 percent and 20 years to get 100 percent. This is just typical migrant bashing by New Zealand First—absolutely appalling and especially so with a bill like this.”You know they say in England that the malady of the ignorant is to be ignorant without knowing it but I have got chart after chart here that will tell the Government precisely how many people in the last 15 years have done just that. The number is 73985. [Interruption] And it is not a laughing matter Mr Doocey because your colleague Mr Bayly was down at the Cook Islands Swordfish Club promising these New Zealanders who worked hard for this country and who are critical for the Cook Islands community and its infrastructure that he would do something about it. What we do not like in New Zealand First is people who go overseas who are very fast on the lip and slow on the hip. He gets back home here and he is not going to do a thing about it. Look go to the library. All this information is here Mr Doocey. So next time do some homework rather than coming down here and showing us all what you do not know.Seventy-three thousand is a cost structure factor that the Ministry of Social Development keeps on telling a wayward Minister is a concern. I am talking about fewer than 100 people getting a fair go—I am talking about these people getting a fair go. One of these days I am going to tell you what is going to happen. New Zealand First is committed to fixing this at the very first opportunity and it is going to be very soon. If they do not see it our way tonight I want to tell all those people in the Cook Islands listening as we speak and I know they are—not all in the Cook Islands; they will be in Niue and they will be in Tokelau listening. I am going to tell them tonight that we will fix it up at the first chance we get. In fact it will be a bottom line. We know it is not a great number of people—maybe only 79.We will give Mr Ngaro this very esteemed representative from Auckland—a Cook Islander himself no doubt—a chance to cross the House and show some courage. I know it is not easy. I know it is not easy but come over for the fellowship. It is important because this is a very God-fearing country and they do not like people who say one thing in the church and something else outside—or do one thing in the Swordfish Club meeting all the members. Then he gets back home and what is Mr Bayly doing tonight? Mr Bayly? Are you Mr Bayly going to support the Supplementary Order Paper from New Zealand First? [Interruption] Oh that is sad. This is so sad. This is so sad because what the National Party is concerned about of course is always numbers. If these numbers were big like all of the beneficiaries falling through the cracks they would read the stuff from Crosby/Textor and do something. But it is a small number and so they think they can ignore them.Well let me tell the National Party this: there are backbenchers who are going to go down in the next campaign because of that behaviour—oh big time. I have seen the latest polls. [Interruption] Oh yes I have. Do you know what they do say? Do you know what they say? There is one party that the people in this country trust more than any other party. It is the second-highest choice of all the people across the great divide—the second choice which means we are the least hated of them all.Make no bones about it. This is a very important bill. So Mr Doocey perhaps you could demonstrate that you have learnt something tonight and cross the House when it comes to the amendment to ensure that New Zealanders who went across there to work as shipping people to work for various official groups over there—as we once used to provide them with 4 years’ assistance as teachers—to do rural or island support over there which means critical things will be done for the infrastructure are not punished by people being too weak to honour what Mr McCully promised them 5 years ago in the Cook Islands as my friend Alfred Ngaro knows; he promised them.Before I sit down I want to say that nobody is beyond redemption and I want to give Mr Ngaro a chance tonight knowing that all those Cook Islands people are listening—oh yes they are. He has got a chance now to stand up for them to be able to say: “I was a person who ran for the National Party under the label of being a Cook Islander so that I would bring some ethnic diversity to the party. But more important I am going to make sure that they hear my people’s word.” Now tonight Mr Ngaro is a date with destiny. It is time to cross the House—and bring Mr Bayly who was being so fast and loose at the Cook Islands Swordfish Club with you. Then we will know that this Committee stage debate is not a waste of time.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Kia orana Mr Chairperson. As the first Cook Islander to take a call on this bill I just want to make a little comment that this bill is intended to support those people who want to return to the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. Even the esteemed member who just spoke before me Winston Peters—he too can take advantage of this bill return to the Cook Islands and collect his pension. He too can be basking in the sun at the Swordfish Club because this bill is about supporting people to return home for their retirement. But if this Government had taken note of the submitters the bill could have allowed younger people to return home and contribute to the economy of the Cook Islands.The purpose of this bill is to allow people who are eligible for New Zealand superannuation to collect it in the countries of the Realm—namely the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. That does not mean just people who have a close affinity or have a blood connection to those islands of the Realm; that actually means each and every one of us as New Zealanders have that opportunity to do that. So the previous speaker is quite right in his assertions. This is an important bill for all people and in fact when we were first debating this in the first reading I know I made the comment that this would be something that I would consider doing myself. Given the opportunity it is something that I would really like to do.My colleague Carmel Sepuloni talked about what happened when we were given as countries of the Realm free association with New Zealand. What it means is that we have New Zealand citizenship. As people who are of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau descent we travel on New Zealand passports. We are New Zealand citizens. What that meant particularly when the first planes started to go to the Cooks in the 1960s was that we could travel quite freely as Cook Islanders. And we did; we travelled freely. It meant that our home islands became quite “depopularised” if that is a word. So now we are in a situation—Jono Naylor: “Depopulated” is the word.POTO WILLIAMS: —thank you—back in the home islands where we have got low numbers of people to support the economy as taxpayers. This bill when it was first promoted was asking for people to return home to the Cooks to Niue and to Tokelau not necessarily as older people in their retirement but as people who had built up some expertise and experience in this country and possibly some backing in terms of their financial status—to take that back home to the Cooks to Niue to Tokelau to set up businesses to take their expertise back there and to develop the economies back in the Realm Islands.I remember that my own father used to take advantage of going back to the Cooks in the wintertime to escape the winter here. Sometimes he would go without my mother much to my mother’s distress but he would do so for 3 or 4 months at a time. He would come back to New Zealand because there was the requirement that you could not be out of the country for more than 6 months. You needed to continue to reapply for New Zealand superannuation. What this bill does is it changes that eligibility requirement.Initially you need to work in New Zealand for 10 years—that is the first part of the qualification—in order to gain 50 percent of the New Zealand superannuation. Then in order to have 100 percent of superannuation you should work for 20 years. But then there is another requirement: post the age of 50 you should be resident and present in New Zealand for 5 years. What that means is that you may have already returned to the Cooks you may have set up a business—and there are lots of young and not-so-young entrepreneurial people in the Cooks particularly who are working in the tourist industry and who operate businesses like the Swordfish Club or diving operations or hotels and motels. If they want to collect their New Zealand superannuation which they are entitled to do as New Zealand citizens and having met the earlier eligibility requirement they then have to return back to New Zealand for 5 years. That makes no sense whatsoever. They have to leave their businesses they have to leave their jobs and their families and return to New Zealand for a period of 5 years.Some of the submitters told us that they were leaving jobs behind coming back to New Zealand and going on the dole. That makes no sense at all. The submitters were very very clear about this particular point. It would make a huge difference to them if that criterion was not required if they did not have to do those 5 years post the age of 50. It would make a huge amount of difference.It is such a significant clause in the bill that we had an extraordinary thing happen. We had two heads of State come and present to the select committee. Both the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands and the Premier of Niue as well as Ministers of their Cabinets came and presented to the select committee to say: “If there is one thing we would change about this bill it would be to remove that requirement of being resident and present in New Zealand for 5 years after the age of 50.” It would make a significant difference and this is the issue addressed by New Zealand First in the Supplementary Order Paper it has put up. It would make a huge difference. It was such a significant clause that members of the select committee asked the officials to go away and ask how much that would cost. What would the cost be to New Zealand if we were to take that eligibility requirement out? The answer to that is between $9 million and $21 million. In terms of a flag referendum that is peanuts. And it is significant because a small amount between $9 million and $21 million would make a huge difference to those three Realm Islands—a huge difference.Louisa Wall: What is the benefit?POTO WILLIAMS: Well the cost benefit to New Zealand is that people would move to the Cooks to Niue and to Tokelau earlier and they would no longer be a burden on the health system. In terms of New Zealand aid into those Realm Islands they would be developing businesses and supporting the economy back in those Realm Islands and they would no longer be a burden on the New Zealand taxpayer. So for a small amount of money it would have made a significant difference to those Realm Islands.The other thing that I want to say about this and I have a lot to say on this topic is that what this bill points to as well—the unintended consequence of this bill—is about the quality of citizenship. The people from the Cooks Niue and Tokelau are New Zealand citizens but by having this eligibility requirement it means that these citizens are treated differently from other New Zealand citizens. I was at the Christchurch citizenship ceremony last night and we played a video from the Governor-General who said that when you become a citizen of New Zealand you are entitled to all the rights and responsibilities of New Zealand citizens. That includes eligibility for your New Zealand superannuation. Did you know that if you are resident in the Cook Islands for 5 years that counts towards your citizenship application to New Zealand? So this bill actually says that being resident in the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau means nothing in terms of your New Zealand citizenship.So if there is one question I would like to ask the Minister in the chair it is why do we have this eligibility requirement? I would like the Minister to explain why she believes that this eligibility requirement is required because it clearly makes a huge difference to the people of the Realm Islands and it does set up a different class of citizenship. It is evident that if that was not the case the benefit to New Zealand would be greater and in fact it would make it much fairer. It would actually align the other citizenship requirements for this country.I want to be really clear about what the submitters said. There were I think somewhere in the region of 13 or 14 submitters. Every single one of the submitters bar one who spoke about the war pensions—Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I am very happy to rise to my feet and answer the question that that member Poto Williams has asked. In fact this bill is bringing into line the people in those countries with every other New Zealander. That is the whole point. The member talked about the quality of citizenship. That is the purpose of this bill because currently those people in those three countries have to be resident here to apply. We are removing that requirement and we are bringing them into line with every other New Zealander and that is the whole point.The difficulty of acceding to the wishes of the Supplementary Order Paper would be that we would be putting in place a set of circumstances for this group of people that was different from every other New Zealander. So at the moment if you are born in New Zealand and you go away you have to come back and in order to make sure that there is some sort of connection to New Zealand you have to have that requirement of having lived here for 5 years from the age of 50.The purpose of this bill that we are talking to tonight is to bring those people in those three countries of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau into line with every other New Zealander with regard to the 5-year requirement. I would suggest that there are members over there who do not understand that that is what we are trying to do.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.ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call on this bill. First of all I just want to be really clear: I absolutely support this bill as it stands and as recommended by the Social Services Committee to return to the House. Secondly I do not support—and the Government does not support—Supplementary Order Paper 71 which the Rt Hon Winston Peters has lodged. He has talked a lot about the Swordfish Club or Swordfighters Club—I am not sure which one it is. I have not been to that club—sorry I have been but I have not frequented it as much. I think Trader Jacks is where the Rt Hon Winston Peters has actually been. He knows Trader Jacks very well. There have been very many great conversations with expats who live over there and I imagine that they have talked about this. I think this is a great opportunity because I know the Rt Hon Winston Peters probably has more stamps from the Cook Islands—from Rarotonga and even Aitutaki—on his passport even as the Minister of Foreign Affairs because such is the relationship that he has. Irrespective of the wine box and all the other things that have gone on previously he has a special relationship with the Cook Islands so this is a great opportunity to be able to ensure that he can reinforce that relationship.Let us get to the crux of the bill in the first part. There are a couple of points that have been made. Let us talk about these 5 years because those have been the contention. There were 13 submissions 12 of which talked about the issue of the 5 years and were looking for an exemption from those 5 years. Here are the reasons why. Some members may not have read the regulatory impact statement or the disclosure statement but they are very clear. First of all there are social security agreements with other countries such as Canada and the UK and in these agreements there is a reciprocal arrangement. Under that reciprocal arrangement what it means is that if there is a New Zealander who decides that he or she wants to retire back to one of these countries they still have to do their 5 years in order to receive that pension. The reciprocal arrangement is that New Zealand will pay for their pension—their superannuation—back in the Cook Islands. So the question is this: who pays for the superannuation of Cook Islanders or Kiwis from here if they decide to return to the Cook Islands Tokelau or Niue? Who is it? It is New Zealand that pays for it. If in return people in the Cook Islands decide that they want to return to New Zealand and live here could the Cook Island Niuean or Tokelauan Governments pay their superannuation? The answer is no they could not. That is what you call a reciprocal arrangement—a social security agreement—that could not be met. It is very simple. It is very clear.The second thing is that there was a point that was made by Poto Williams with regard to citizenship. Let us also remember this: the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau are three nations of the realm. When we are talking about “the triple star” in our national anthem what we are talking about is this: they are self-governing and have free association. So yes they have the rights of citizenship but they are self-governing. In other words there is a difference. You cannot say that they are one and the same. If you do not know that then you may need to research a little bit about self-governance—OK? You may need to research a little bit about self-governance so that you get the point. That is why it becomes very important. There is no discrimination. There is no Outrageous Fortune by Mr Darroch Ball about this bill. This is a good bill.The last point that I want to make is this: Minister McCully talked about the fact that he was making a commitment to those three nations and that he would put this through. Let us remember: no other nationshave this special dispensation—not Samoa not Tuvalu not Kiribati and not Tonga. There are only three nations that have this special dispensation: these three nations. So when you say that there is discrimination there is no discrimination. In 2011 when the earthquake happened in Christchurch Minister McCully said this: his commitment was that this legislation would go through; however because of the cause of the issues in Christchurch we had to meet our obligations there first and foremost. However the question you ask and those who are listening ask is this: has he kept his promise? The answer is yes he has because here we have a bill and I would like to challenge the member over there. When it comes to voting for this bill you may not get your Supplementary Order Paper but I will ask you this question: will you vote for the bill? You have put your minority report in you have made your assertions you have talked about discrimination but the question is: when it comes to the bill will you vote for it? That is really where the answer will lie because this bill is a good bill. This bill is a bill that no other Pacific nation has the opportunity for. You do not have to be present and resident in this country. At the age of 55 you can return back to your nation you can serve your country for another 10 years and you can applyfrom there.So I have got to tell you this about the report that was committed in 2011 by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—and Mr Winston Peters will know this. I will call him the honourable John Hayes. The honourable John Hayes had this report and the report said this: our commitment and our responsibility back to those Pacific nations relate to the issue of depopulation. In some cases—in the Cook Islands for instance—up to 500 people were leaving the Cook Islandsper annum so this was a way of keeping up that commitment. In honour of that report and the research that was done this was the commitment. I commend this bill. I am happy to go with the Rt Hon Winston Peters to the Swordfish or Swordfighters Bar or whatever you want to call it or to Trader Jacks to sit down with the expats and give them the facts—not the semi-facts not the sort of shady facts in a box called a wine box; no no no. We will put it straight to them. I will be happy to stand there and be able to present them with the facts and the reasons why. I think that once they hear those they will see that this bill is common sense. I commend this bill to the House.SUE MORONEY (Labour): Well we heard in an earlier speech in this House that they call them the Brown-Blues or the Blue-Browns and now I think we know why. Now I think we know why after that very disappointing speech from that MP Alfred Ngaro who came into this House because he was going to speak for his people the Cook Islands people. Here we see him instead this evening when he has got the very best opportunity—the very best opportunity—to do the right thing by the Cook Islands people he is going to vote against a Supplementary Order Paper that is actually going to remove the situation whereby Cook Islands New Zealanders have a different standard for their right to have superannuation than other New Zealand citizens—Hon Anne Tolley: It is not.SUE MORONEY: —and there is no other way to hide that Minister. What other New Zealand citizen is going to have to prove that they have been here for 5 years between the ages of 50 and 65 in order to get their superannuation? Who else is going to have to do that? I am not going to have to do that so what the Minister said before is clearly wrong and unfortunately she seems to have pulled the wool over the eyes of some of her colleagues. It is disappointing to hear that Alfred Ngaro and apparently Andrew Bayly have been in front of Cook Islands communities pledging that they would fix up this part in the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill and then when it comes to the voting action clearly they are not going to honour that and I think that is deeply disappointing.Hon Member: Get some guts.SUE MORONEY: Yes it is shameful because one of the things that this Government has become known for is to say one thing outside the debating chamber and do another thing when it gets inside in the debating chamber and that is not going to enhance the reputation of that Government or of the New Zealand Parliament actually if it continues to do that.When I spoke on the first reading of this bill I paid homage to two very fine Cook Islands leaders in our community who had not long passed when we were debating the first reading of this bill: Terry Chapman and George Ford. I want to just pay homage to them again in the Committee stage and Part 1 when we are debating the purpose of this bill. I am sad to say that they did not live to see the day when they could have taken advantage of this bill. I am sure it would be something that they would have considered doing because they both felt very strongly about not only the Cook Islands community and supporting it in Hamilton but also about making sure that they kept very strong connections with the Cook Islands as well. I feel very honoured that in fact that speech that I gave on the first reading was shown up and down many Cook Islands churches right throughout the country and I feel very honoured that that was the case. But I hope also that the Cook Islands community will show the speech from Alfred Ngaro that he just finished in their churches as well because I think that speech deserves an airing in front of the Cook Islands communities. It is no good Mr Ngaro saying one thing outside the debating chamber and saying quite a different thing when we come inside the debating chamber.Alfred Ngaro: Really Sue?SUE MORONEY: Yes really Mr Ngaro. Are you ashamed that that speech would be shown in the Cook Island churches?Alfred Ngaro: What have you ever done for the Cook Islands community?SUE MORONEY: No he is happy for it to be shown so I think it should be and I will be—Alfred Ngaro: Oh really? Is that the greatest thing you could ever do?SUE MORONEY: I will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 71 Mr Ngaro ahead of you. So let us just see. If you feel proud of the speech please make sure that it gets played in the church services in the Cook Island churches—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Come back to the bill.SUE MORONEY: —up and down the country this Sunday. I think it would be very fine if you did that.This bill is a step forward but it could be so much better if the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by New Zealand First—I think it is in the name of Winston Peters—was to be supported across the Committee because we actually do have unity across the Committee on every other part of this bill. The purpose of it is a fine purpose. I find it interesting that when we are debating the bill we almost debate it as if we assume that it is going to be people of only Cook Island Niuean and Tokelauan descent who are going to use this bill but in fact the way I read the bill any of us could use it in this way. We could be resident in the Cook Islands—would that not be lovely—in our later years and use our New Zealand superannuation which I imagine would support quite a pleasant lifestyle in the Cook Islands or in Niue or in Tokelau. Certainly I think that is an opportunity.TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Kia ora Mr Chair. I am taking just a quick call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. It has been an interesting debate so far and there seems to be some confusion. Let us just talk about the confusion from the Government benches’ side. On one hand the Government benches are trying to say that the relationship with these three islands is special it is different it is recognised as such they are members of the Realm they are islands of the Realm and then on the other hand the Minister has stood up and said that they are to be no different. So on the one hand they are special and on the other hand they are to be no different.If I was to pick up on the Minister’s comments about their being no different from any other New Zealanders and speak on the purpose the purpose that has been described inside the bill—what if we just actually used a bit of forethought and expanded on the purpose? What would happen if the Government did support Supplementary Order Paper 71 which the Rt Hon Winston Peters has placed on the Table to remove the 5-year restriction? What would happen to that purpose which is about allowing the Cook Island Niuean and Tokelauan New Zealanders to be at home on their islands? I cannot imagine that Mr Alfred Ngaro does not understand the concept and the reasoning as to why these people want to go home in their final years why they want to go back and put money into their communities to spend their pensions on those islands creating a whole other level of industry on those islands for example. There would need to be aged care. There would need to be some expansion of the hospital services. They could take their skills back in those last years and add to the increase in those services. New Zealand currently provides aid into the Pacific. Is this not another way? Instead of providing money in one way between $9 million and $21 million it could be provided directly through what are eligible New Zealanders with their pensions.The Prime Minister of the Cook Islands himself came to express at the Social Services Committee what he understood was promised to him and his people by that Government. He came to express it. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands is a highly intelligent man. I do not believe he misunderstood conversations had with him by members of the Government. He understood as 12 out of the 13 submitters understood that there would not be this restriction.Should these islands be treated differently? We believe that they should. We believe that they are special. We do believe that there is a special relationship here. Does that then open the floodgates for Canada as Mr Ngaro said or any other nation? No it does not. We would suggest that this Government adhere to its word the word behind closed doors the word in the Swordfish Club the word taken by others to the Cook Islands community. The Government knows what the Cook Islands community the Tokelauan community and the Niuean community were seeking from it with this legislation. Half-pie is not ka pai. This is not good enough. This is another half measure by this Government that short-changes these New Zealanders.Again there is a Supplementary Order Paper sitting on the Table under the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters one of the few members inside this House who advocates for and truly understands these islands and the purpose they are seeking from legislation here. He is an advocate for them and has been so for years. New Zealand First will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper. We understand that the rest of the Opposition will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper. It will be the Government members who fail these people. It will be the Government members who fail these New Zealanders who fail to see an opportunity to partake and participate in the future of these Pacific Islands through a very small measure for a very small number of New Zealanders who could do so much good if the Supplementary Order Paper were to be supported. Kia ora.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on this bill. I think this is another indication somewhere else where the National Government has come out and shown its mean-spiritedness. It is short-sighted and mean-spirited. In actual fact looking around the Chamber tonight we are hearing a lot of support for the intent of this bill but having that eligibility clause in there Mr Doocey has some serious implications and some unfairness for New Zealand citizens. Mr Doocey I have to say you have got a chance to “Doocey” some homework and “Doocey” something about this instead of just sitting there playing on your phone right now. The reality is that this piece of legislation if we unite together as a Parliament can actually make some serious changes for those people who need some help.New Zealand First knows like the rest of the parties in this Chamber understand that the populations in these small minority islands are actually on the decline. To not accept Supplementary Order Paper 71 will actually just enhance that exit migration that is happening in those islands. Who is going to be picking up the pieces in the likes of these small islands of the Realm? It is going to be New Zealand. The fact that it was pointed out that they are in governance of their own shows that they are doing everything they can to minimise the impact on the costs that New Zealand is putting forward in aid of and support to those island nations.We heard Anne Tolley stand up and speak for a very brief moment when she was comparing apples with kiwifruit. The reality is that they have no similarity when we are talking about other parts of the world that we want to compare these islands with that are part of our Realm. What we should be specifically talking about and comparing them with are the other islands that are surrounding New Zealand—the likes of Stewart Island Matakana Island Great Barrier Island. Goodness me! Are we going to start disenfranchising those New Zealanders as well? They are adding to New Zealand’s currency they are adding to New Zealand’s popularity and doing everything they can to add a wider diversity to this country. To disenfranchise those islanders for the simple reason that they live so far away on an isolated island—we should be seriously looking at that Supplementary Order Paper. [Interruption] You can sit there and laugh all you like but the reality is that this is very serious for those people who grow up in these Island nations all right?If we could just get rid of this mean-spiritedness that this National Government has shown us time and time again—you know everything it can do to rip a little bit away—then I think we could actually all get along. Like Cadbury’s said wouldn’t it be nice if the world was made of chocolate? But would it not be nice if you could seriously see the sense in the Supplementary Order Paper that the Rt Hon Winston Peters had put forward to actually make a difference to those Island people living so close but yet so far away from New Zealand? Yes the intent of the bill is absolutely supported because it does make sense but you are missing a key point. You are putting a condition on it that should not be put there for those disenfranchised people who do not specifically live under the roof and umbrella of New Zealand. Thank you Mr Chair. That is all I have to say at this stage.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I just want to respond to the member Alfred Ngaro the only other Cook Islands member in the House because as he took his seat after his last call he pointed to the badge on his chest. In my first reading speech I told the House about the sacrifice that the Cook Islanders had made for this country in World War I. A hundred years ago 500 Cook Islands soldiers marched under the banner of New Zealand for this country. Their sacrifice is what Mr Ngaro referred to when he pointed to that badge on his chest. I have to say that it causes my heart deep mamae to see that in this House without him then making the absolute commitment to the people of the Cook Islands and crossing the floor to support the Supplementary Order Paper that will actually fix that clause that causes inequality for the people of the Cooks Niue and Tokelau in terms of their citizenship under the New Zealand flag. That one change would make a huge difference.We are unequal as citizens. We are. There are two parts of this bill that demonstrate that inequality and inequity. If you are a person from the Cooks Niue or Tokelau there is that 5-year requirement after the age of 50. But there is also the requirement to actually undertake 20 years of work service or residency in this country to qualify for 100 percent of the superannuation. As a New Zealander who just lives here you need to be here for only 10 years but as a Cook Islander a Niuean or a Tokelauan you need to be here for 20 years. There are two parts of this bill that show that this Government does not care for the people of the Cooks Niue and Tokelau. If Mr Ngaro wants to point to that badge and talk about the sacrifice that our people gave to this country then I have to say I am ashamed to see that in this House tonight Mr Ngaro. I am angry because our people died for this country. Yet you will not support a Supplementary Order Paper that will change this bill to make it equal for all New Zealanders—all citizens with a New Zealand passport Mr Ngaro. That is all I have to say.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.Part 1 agreed to.Part 2 Amendments to enactmentsRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): On the National Party side there are those people who have campaigned over the years for nomination as a candidate and who have put up their Māori background and one even has a Cook Islands background as one of the reasons they should be chosen to give the party narrow as it is a greater diverse dimension. They did so on the promise to those people who backed them that when they got here they would actually do something—put up their hands for them on those occasions when they should show because of their unique background as they claimed it their special understanding of their needs. This is such a moment.Jono Naylor: Last time I checked it was a Government bill.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As for that member from Palmerston North I say to him that if you cannot win Palmerston North when you have got a swing going with you then I think it is time to not say much when you get to Parliament. I think it is not a time to get to Parliament and show off one’s ignorance. I am talking about those Māori members and their names are Reti Paula Bennett Jami-Lee Ross—whose greatest contribution to this debate is to get up and seek to terminate it—Jo Hayes Mr Korako Hekia Parata—Jono Naylor: Where’s this in Part 2?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This is Part 2 where you get to the change to that critical clause that says that it is not just for those people who live in Tokelau Niue or in the Cook Islands—not as to 10 years but 20 years which straightaway is prejudicial—but if you happen to be a European critical to the infrastructure like heading the Companies Office or like heading the Crown Law Office there or like working for those critical Government departments like education helping the local infrastructure in that case you are to be forgotten. That is where it is in Part 2 of the bill I say for the sake of the list MP for Palmerston North. Read the darn thing! I know that the Minister for Social Development has not read it because the Minister got up and again parroted in her explanation how little she understood about this subject. She tried to make out that if you came from the Ukraine or Poland you were the same as a New Zealander working in Tokelau the Cook Islands or Niue. This is so base and sad but we know that one day soon it will change because there will be support for New Zealand First’s amendment to the original bill and to this matter.On the question of affordability I say to the Government: do not allow 73000 to come to this country and be here for just 10 years have no requirement to pay tax and then tell me that you cannot afford my amendment. Or is it that nowadays we favour some other country and not our own? We want the capital “S” put back into the special relationship between us and these three Realm countries. It is that simple. Do not tell us you cannot afford it because 73000 have done just that.Of course Government members remind me sometimes of that famous line in The Mikado—the idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone all countries but his and all nations but his own. That is about what you hear from them day in and day out. They cannot explain themselves. They cannot explain why they are doing it and they are following a Minister who cannot read the legislation herself. They are praising all centuries but this one and every country but their own. When it comes to their citizens they have left them high and dry tonight.I come back to Mr Ngaro because he is the one unique person there whose powers of—how shall I put it—evangelical persuasion should have convinced his caucus members a long time ago of the unfairness of what they were doing. It should appeal to a man of the cloth to reach down for the ordinary people not the barons but the important people for whom the National Party is so famous—like the legislation earlier tonight where it backed Shell Todd Oil Services. I am not against the Todd family—the Government backed the Shell organisation a big huge multinational; it said “Jump” and the Government said: “How high?”—but some ordinary New Zealand people who work in that part of the world just want a fair go so that they can stay there and not come back here for 5 years dislocate their ownership their businesses their assets and what they critically can do for the Cook Islands some of which the Cook Islands cannot afford to lose nor can Niue or Tokelau and they will not move.Let me say to those members as Douglas MacArthur once said to the president of the Philippines: “There will come a time soon when your boss will want to talk to us and we’ll want to talk to him.” Make no bones about that and we are going to remember those days. We will remember them very very clearly and with great purpose because it comes down to this question: can you be trusted with the needs desires hopes and aspirations of ordinary people? And all we are hearing tonight is no. We have heard every reason except the right reason. If the reason is cost then pray tell me how 79 or 100 people could be anything like the 73000 thus far defended by them—73000 as against maybe 100? Or is it because these Island nations are not unique? Is the small “s” to come back into the relationship?When this measure was promised by New Zealand First and taken up by this Government over there it was to the New Zealand people who have spent parts of their lives serving those nations in the critical arrangement that we have with those three Realm countries. Is that too much to ask for? I am asking Reti Bennett Jami-Lee Ross Jo Hayes Korako Parata—oh and Simon Bridges. There is someone who discovered his iwi after he got into Parliament. What are they going to do? Are they going to say “We understand those people’s needs and we’ve something special to say?” or are they going to be just thumbed down by the whip and by the Minister misleading the Committee as she has done?Again I say to the Minister that if you go to the purpose of this legislation and then to the change we seek to make you will see that it does not have the effect that the Ministry of Social Development has laid out. How many times have I seen certain ministries miswrite the facts—Treasury countless times?Treasury has been telling the Minister of Finance that this country is the best-performing country in the OECD. The sad thing about that is that he believes it. That reminds me of J P Morgan who went of course to the American President one week before the great collapse of Wall Street and told him his country was performing unbelievably and that it had the greatest economy in the world. A week later the whole thing crashed worldwide.I want that Minister to explain to us why it is that those few people often in such critical jobs—and I have seen them over there heading up the law departments over there acting as the Solicitor-General over there acting as the head of the Companies Office doing critical things in the health department and in the education department—would be punished by being omitted? We do know that when Mr Andrew Bayly was over there he promised to take home their message and ensure that they got a fair go. When Mr Ngaro was over there—and it is not a matter of humour about Trader Jacks or the Swordfish Club; that was where those members were holding their meetings and where they gave this promise unconditional that when they got back they would do something about it.Mr Ngaro you cannot get away with the excuse that you were not there that night because these people are intelligent they are bright and they know that the proxy was left to vote it down. They know that. This time there is a chance to be in a personal sense self-redeeming. Just get up and walk across the Chamber at the critical time. No matter what happens in what looks like it might be a brief career back home they will always have a job for him. More important back home because of our change there will be superannuation when he gets to 65. This may not be very far away. The fact is that even if I can appeal to his narrow greedy instinct—he has got to be personally a beneficiary. They say that in politics there is no sin like ingratitude. There is no sin like ingratitude. Mr Ngaro has got a chance to fix up all those promises he made and to ensure that tonight his party for the first time for a long time does the right thing.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members we got ahead of ourselves prior to the Rt Hon Winston Peters speaking. The Committee moved and accepted a closure motion and the question was not put. I am now putting the question and the question is That Part 1 stand part. Those in favour will say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could you clarify then what the vote was that was taken at the time—what did we vote on?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes—[Interruption] no no—we had a closure motion which the Committee accepted but the Chair at the time did not put the question that Part 1 stand part. I have just put that question now it has been accepted and now we are back on Part 2. [Interruption] I am sorry—the member has just had two consecutive calls on Part 2—Rt Hon Winston Peters: No no—this is Part 2 now—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is right and you have already had two calls on Part 2. [Interruption] No I am calling Poto Williams. [Interruption] Sorry there is a point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Chair. I do not want to be difficult here. I understand the problem but speaking logically as a matter of logic and chronologically this is the first speech for Part 2 that I am seeking.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No we have already had two speeches on Part 2. What we had not done was actually vote on Part 1. I am calling Poto Williams.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I rise to take a call on Part 2. This is actually the most substantial part of the bill. There are a couple of things that I want to raise in this contribution. This part is about the kind of technical operation of the bill. One of the things that this bill does is provide for the mechanism to make the application for the superannuation a little bit easier so that if you are actually already resident in the Cooks at the age of 65 which is the age at which you can qualify for and apply for the superannuation you can do so from the Realm of New Zealand islands. You do not have return to New Zealand to make that application and have it accepted. You can also apply for the superannuationbefore the age of eligibility. It will not get paid to you until you reach the age of eligibility but you can still have that application in place ready for when you do turn 65.The other thing this bill provides for is the checking mechanisms. In one of my earlier contributions I talked about how my father would winter sometimes in the Cooks and would be required to come back to New Zealand and that was part of the old checking mechanisms for New Zealand superannuation. With this bill you are now able to remain resident in the Cooks Niue or Tokelau and the ministry can check with you—usually by writing to you—that your eligibility requirements are still in place so it makes it a lot easier. It also provides for the application to stay live for a longer period of time because let us face it there are constraints around having documents sent in the mail etc. So it just clears up some of those difficulties that some applicants may have had in the past.But also in Part 2 are those contentious eligibility requirements which we have already traversed quite a bit in the first part of the Committee stage but they are very relevant. I want to reiterate what I see as the huge inequity in this. To qualify under this bill for 100 percent of New Zealand superannuation you have to do twice as long a residency in this country as any other New Zealander. Under current superannuationlaws you can be resident in New Zealand for 10 years after the age of 20 and qualify for 100 percent of your superannuation. However if you are going to apply from the islands of the Realm you have to be resident in New Zealand for 20 years to qualify for 100 percent of your superannuation. That is inequity No. 1 as I have already described.Inequity No. 2—the whole crux of Supplementary Order Paper 71 and the really difficult part which is actually the part that the National member from the Cook Islands could carve out as his contribution to our country. This is the nub of the matter which is that you have to come back to New Zealand after the age of 50 and do 5 years’ residency here in order to qualify to collect your superannuation.When I was talking to members of the Cook Islands Government about this earlier in the year they asked: “Why is that the case when in order to qualify for New Zealand citizenship you can be resident in the Cooks for 5 years?”. In fact I met a gentleman who was doing just that. In order to qualify for his New Zealand citizenship he was resident in the Cook Islands. It makes no sense to me that you could have that requirement for New Zealand citizenship but you could have a completely different requirement in order to collect New Zealand superannuation when you are already a citizen of this country. The Minister in the chair Anne Tolley did not explain well enough to me why that is the case. I do not understand why that is the case. It is blatantly unfair for someone who holds a New Zealand passport as a New Zealand citizen to be treated differently from another person who holds a New Zealand passport and is a New Zealand citizen. That is the crux of the argument on which the members of the Opposition have so much disagreement.The rest of the bill we completely agree with. The rest of the bill is great and it actually provides an opportunity to have a discussion in this most important year for the Cook Islands when we celebrate 50 years of being self-governing in free association with New Zealand. This a great year an important year and I suspect the reason that we are actually debating this bill in the House is that it is a gift to the countries of the Realm to have those things passed. However would it not be wonderful if we could actually do something that made a difference by removing that requirement for residency of 5 years after the age of 50?There are a couple of other parts of this bill that have caused the veterans some difficulty. That was the other submitter on the bill—the only one who did not submit on the residency clauses. The submitter who spoke about the veterans pension said very clearly that it was his belief and the belief of returned servicemen that veterans pensions were not superannuation and that they should not be covered under the same bill. They should be treated separately because a veteran attracts the veterans pension because of the service that they have given to our country and because they have put themselves at the ultimate risk in terms of fighting for our country. I have to say that no one has actually picked up that part of the submissions tonight so I want to honour that submitter who made that submission and say that I understand what you were saying in that submission. That submitter was wanting to differentiate between someone who collects a pension because they are of an age and someone who collects a pension because they have provided service to their country.I just want to say in conclusion that this is an important piece of legislation for the countries of the Realm. I would again ask the Minister to please explain why in terms of our citizenship there is different treatment for people who want to collect their superannuation in the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. We are citizens of New Zealand and we do hold New Zealand passports. Thank you.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I rise to take a short call in support of the bill along with my colleagues. I acknowledge that we are in the Committee stage on Part 2 but as the Chair will be aware Part 2 contains almost all of the operative provisions of the bill and therefore it is appropriate I think that we are able to traverse in reasonable breadth the guiding principles of the bill and the way it will be implemented. The first point that is germane to Labour’s support of this bill is that it pertains to residents and citizens of the Realm of New Zealand. The Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau are not entirely separate constitutional entities; they are part of the Realm of New Zealand. So when we go back to first principles we ask ourselves whether it is appropriate that they should enjoy the rights of other New Zealand citizens to pension entitlements. Then in principle there is a very strong argument that they should.The second argument that we have considered is the fact that those communities have made a significant contribution to New Zealand and that large parts of their historic populations and high proportions of their current population are ordinarily resident in New Zealand. Therefore the productive lives of many of their sons and daughters have been spent in New Zealand and have enriched our country. Therefore there is an argument—I think a very powerful argument—that it is appropriate that both those sons and daughters and their parents ought to be able to enjoy the benefits of a funded retirement in the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau.Thirdly I think it is germane—and as a former health Minister and immigration Minister I am informed by past practice and precedent here—to note that New Zealand’s economic interests are probably well served by this bill. The reason is that we all know that there are significant advantages to ageing in place. We leave aside for a moment the issue of being trans-border; we know that our own senior citizens often prefer to live in their own homes for as long as they can before health issues overtake them and they need to move into a retirement care facility. In the same way there are distinct advantages to people being able to live in the Islands if that is where they have grown up and they have had their families and their memories. It also means that they probably will be a lower economic cost to the New Zealand health system based in those Island countries. Although there is an upfront cost to making the pension portable there is a downstream saving to our health system.Those upfront costs are significant but they are not insurmountable according to officials’ analysis. We are looking at roughly an extension of around $4.5 million to $5 million per annum by 2016-2017 with administration costs to the new legislation of between $70000 and $137000 up to 2016 declining to $66000 thereafter. In terms of the broad numbers those are not huge numbers. Given the principles that we have enunciated at the start which are the contributions of those peoples to New Zealand and our close constitutional relationship with those parts of the Realm it is certainly our view that those costs are well warranted and indeed offset by savings to the health system.Let me note in relation to this part another set of interests that are well served. New Zealand is historically located in the South-west Pacific. This is our strategic front yard. Those parts of the Realm of New Zealand as the world becomes ever more complex have never been more important for us to hold close hold dear and hold intact. That is a contribution to New Zealand’s national security that is not to be underestimated. Therefore this is one of those happy coincidences of both principle and interest. It is principle because of the considerable contribution that residents of those parts of the Realm of New Zealand have made to the broader New Zealand society and economy. It is a contribution that is well known to those of us from west Auckland which has a high population of peoples of those communities.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Part 2 as my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe was saying seeks to make amendments to the enactments that enable us to carry through the purpose of this bill basically. I do want to just say that it really would not be that difficult to amend the enactments that are relevant to this particular bill those being the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act the Veterans’ Support Act and the Social Security Act. It really would not be difficult to extend the amendments to actually include the provisions of Supplementary Order Paper 71 which has been put up by New Zealand First.I just want to refer to that particular Supplementary Order Paper in relation to the enactments that would need to be amended and make a point of highlighting something that the Minister said earlier. She said: “Why would we exempt these three Realm countries from the 5 years over 50 rule when that does not apply to other countries?”. I just need to clarify with the Minister that actually it does apply to other countries because we have reciprocal pension agreements with countries like Australia the UK and the Netherlands.There are provisions there that may differ from what we are seeking to have here with the three Realm countries but as has been pointed out by my colleague Poto Williams and some of our New Zealand First colleagues here in the Chamber tonight the exemption that we are seeking for citizens of the Realm countries is something that is unique and actually our constitutional arrangement with those three countries is unique. As has been touched on by my colleague Poto Williams not only are the citizens from these three countries entitled to free association with New Zealand but a really important point is that they have also fought under the New Zealand flag.Not only have we a problem here with regard to the depopulation that is happening across the Pacific in these three Realm countries but we actually have had citizens residents from these three Realm countries die while serving under the New Zealand flag. So if ever there was just cause for an exemption I think that is justification for an exemption.I would like the Minister for Social Development to respond to what I have just said with regard to the countries that do have an exemption from the 5 years over 50 rule—those being Australia UK the Netherlands and I think there are others. I want the Minister to explain to us why it is OK that those countries are exempt but why the three Realm countries that have free association with New Zealand that have given us their biggest resource that being their citizens who have fought under this flag are not entitled to the same exemption that those countries are provided with.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members we move to the vote on Part 2—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Hang on. Sorry can I—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Rt Hon Winston Peters.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Thank you Mr Chairperson. I was sitting here patiently. I thought it was high time we got to the relevant Supplementary Order Paper that we have put up in our name. I just want to make a very quick statement on the Supplementary Order Paper 71 the second paragraph of the explanatory note. There are two different categories there. They are plain as daylight and I refer them to the Minister for Social Development in particular. It says: “Compare this to the generosity of giving full New Zealand superannuation entitlement to non-New Zealand citizens from non-reciprocal pension countries after just 10 years’ residency.” Then it goes on to say: “Many countries enjoy an exemption from section 8(c) because they are countries that have a reciprocal pension agreement with New Zealand for example Australia United Kingdom and Netherlands.” Minister with respect nothing that has been said by you or your ministry is actually in any way relevant on this subject. It is that plain.These people are from three special Realm of New Zealand countries. I am talking about New Zealanders who are mainly European but some are Māori who went to serve in various institutions and various official positions and in various ways in business in the Cook Islands Tokelau and Niue and frankly their being there is not something of little moment. There is the view that no one is indispensable. Well I am afraid that in some of these Island populations being as small as they are some people are indispensable. If they were not there then things would not operate because they are so widespread in their talents able to do all sorts of electrical carpentry roofing and mechanical work. These skills in any small community are very much needed and the smaller the community is the more important they are. At the higher levels of government we have sent people over there to act as advisers for their Treasury. We have sent people over to act as advisers for their tax department for their companies office for—dare I say it—their shipping service and their shipping flag register operation. If they are not allowed in by our Supplementary Order Paper to change the present legislation and replace section 8(c) with what we have got there then they are plainly going to be missed out and for no sound reason at all.It cannot be cost because the National Government members are saying that 73000-plus acquiring superannuation full entitlement after 10 years whether they have paid tax or not is OK by them. So what could it be based on? That somehow we will allow a flood in from other parts of the world? No we will not because the requirements are that you have to be and have been a New Zealander who has worked in New Zealand. So in short the Government has been caught out because I suppose people in the Government have decided to take officialdom’s advice and just dig in and say there is something wrong with the Supplementary Order Paper. Well frankly there is nothing wrong with the Supplementary Order Paper. We believe that the numbers are small—we do not know whether there are 79 89 or maybe slightly higher—but it is such a small number as to be able to say that we can allow that given how generous we have been how extraordinarily generous we have been in respect of these people who are coming in from other countries in particular China massively and India.When I see someone like Lincoln Tan writing for the New Zealand Herald—and Lincoln Tan is someone who is sympathetic to the Asian cause—saying that ageing China migrants are a major concern and writes article about it then it ill behoves members over there to jeer at New Zealand First seeking justice for a small number of New Zealand citizens working in these offshore islands whilst doing nothing about this unfairness that they so willingly condone here. All we ask is for those members is to let this Supplementary Order Paper stand tonight. And when you consider how much money is being tossed around like an eight-armed octopus on so many unworthy causes this one has as its merit that it is right and that it is fair. That is all we ask because it will beonly a few months before the tide of New Zealand politics changes. We do not think this Government will make it to November 2017. We think it is terribly shaky now and he will be the first guy to go—the one who is two in whom nobody knows. [Interruption] Boy have I seen that laugh before and it never lasts long. I would say to him it would be very wise to pay attention to these sorts of issues because in the end this is what politics is like. You get in all right and you have got a truckload of supporters at the back. But every corner you hit hard you are seeing people being tossed off and boy they are being tossed off real fast now. I was up in Northland recently in a by-election. Boy did they come off the truck fast then—each corner—and most going over a single-lane bridge first. Let me say to that member: be careful here.Hon David Cunliffe: Those were the days.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well you know what they say Mr Cunliffe: bragging might not bring you happiness but no man walks home having caught a big fish through the back alley. I want to say to those members over there: pay attention because one of these days ignoring this matter will come to visit you big time.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 71 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to clause 5 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59;Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 2agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.