Smith Nick: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in  Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: 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:3099] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I bring the attention of the Committee to the genesis of this bill. I have a lovely constituent Mr Stan Page who is 91 years of age and lives in Hope in the Nelson region. Mr Page is a returned serviceman and he is proud to have been married to his lovely wife Nancy for 70 years. When his dear wife Nancy had to go into residential care at the Wakefield Village Rest Home he went to Work and Income and applied for a living alone payment. One would think that common sense would have applied because he was now living alone but what the people at Work and Income told him was gobsmacking. They told him that to get the living alone payment he would need to divorce his wife of 70 years. 
 That is disgraceful and it is insulting to a senior citizen of this country. I went digging and I found out that on 24 July 2004 this callous Government made a policy announcement stating that a person in the circumstance of Mr Stan Page could not get the living alone allowance unless his or her spouse suffered from dementia and could not recognise him or her. Well this was not the circumstance. Dear Nancy Page was physically incapacitated and required rest home care but she did recognise her husband. 
I asked myself what sort of a callous Government would have a policy that discriminated against one of our older respected citizens in that way. I wrote to the Minister and said that even a Labour Minister might see that the policy is unfair. I received a patronising response from the Minister that basically told me to get knotted. I thought that was unacceptable so I laid a complaint with the human rights commissioner who rightly determined that the policy was unlawful discrimination and needed to be fixed. I am pleased to say that at that point the Government succumbed. 
But I say to fellow members that since 2004 for 2 years—and this case was highlighted on the  
Holmes 
 programme—Labour members have sat on their butts and let this injustice go on and on. It is not just dear Mr and Mrs Page who are affected. I have stories from all over New Zealand. We have the case of Ralph and Josephine Simons here in Wellington. I could cite cases of people in Timaru 
Auckland Dunedin and Christchurch who are affected by these unfair provisions. It was only when the Government was on the ropes with the Human Rights Commission which said it was in breach and that it recognised the injustice and the wrong that had to be put right. 
That is why National members will support the clauses that put this injustice right. We say we should not discriminate against people because they are married and I hope the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope has the courage to apologise to 91-year-old Mr Stan Page of Hope who has been married for 70 years and who was told he had to divorce his wife to get a living alone allowance. People were horrified when they heard this story on the  
Holmes 
 programme. A businessman from my electorate rang me to say he was so disgusted that he would pay Mr Page the living alone allowance for the years until this matter is sorted. Do members know what Mr Page said? He said that he did not want that sort of charity; he was a man who had stood tall with his wife for all those years. The Minister should apologise. This injustice is wrong and needs to be fixed.