Sharples Pita: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Sharples Pita: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3023] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 There is a very ancient waiata that includes the phrase: “He rakau tawhito e mau ana te taitea i waho ra e tu te tahiwi. 
[ 
An ancient tree with sapwood just adhering on the outside and only the heartwood standing firm. 
] 
That is a metaphor for an older person whose body is ailing but whose spirit is indomitable. Within our world the spirit of our elders permeates through every decision every discussion and every hui. And we sit up and listen. 
I had the privilege of nursing my mother and caring for her in our home right until the time of her passing. When it came to any decision about whether to attend a hui or travel to a tangi or to major family decisions she was the boss. Her word was law. Sometimes we were not always happy with that law. My children remember the way she used to give chocolates to the dog rather than to them when they were being naughty. We remember the long ash of her cigarette and how we were scared she would burn the house down with her smoking all the time. But nevertheless she was very much in charge. 
I remember at the tangi for one of our aunties in Hastings telling mum on the third day that I had to return to Auckland for some key meetings. It went something like this: “Mum I have to go; I have just been appointed as the race relations executive officer.” She said: “Son I know that’s important but you should stay.” I proceeded off to the marae kitchen though did my poroporoaki to my whanau—my farewells to all my mates family and cousins—and headed for the car. Mum was sitting in the car and she uttered three little words: “Son you stay.” My cousins in the kitchen could not contain themselves when they saw me walk back in somewhat sheepishly having been reminded of my obligations my priorities and my responsibilities. All it took was those three little words. 
The Maori Party therefore comes to this bill fully appreciating the vital importance of the continued participation by older people in community life. Our policy commitment has always been to ensure that superannuation provides for an equitable standard of living and pays for the essentials. We are therefore happy to support the amendments proposed specifically to extend eligibility for the higher single rate to all married superannuitants living in the community who have a spouse in long-term residential care to remove the sharing the expenses rule for determining entitlement to the living alone payment and to extend the period of time a person can receive New Zealand superannuation while he or she is overseas and working voluntarily for an aid agency. 
But we support those amendments while also recognising the relatively high rate of material disadvantage amongst older Maori and the ongoing disparities between the living standards of older Maori and older non-Maori. Decades of disparity have resulted in a higher likelihood of poverty and in higher material hardship levels for Maori than non-Maori as shown in Professor Mason Durie’s report  
Living Standards of Older Maori.  
Although we support the three initiatives to extend the eligibility for superannuation we hope that the Government is also taking responsibility for considering other amendments in the distribution of superannuation that will take into account the disparities evident in life expectancy. 
The figures are shocking. The  
Social Report 2005 
 revealed that the independent life expectancy for Maori men—that is without requiring the assistance of another person or a complex device—is a staggering 58 years. The general life expectancy is 69 for Maori males compared with 77.2 for non-Maori—a difference of 8.2 years. The figure is 73.2 years for Maori females compared with 81.9 for non-Maori—a difference of 8.7 years. That is 8 fewer years of life for me for Hone Harawira Ron Mark Mahara Okeroa Shane Jones Parekura Horomia Tau Henare—even Winston Peters—compared with many other people in this House and I ask whether that is fair. It is no wonder that we pack so much into every moment of our lives. I am intrigued that the members on the Government benches can always quantify and qualify the excellent benefits to Maori of every initiative they have ever created yet when we ask sensitive questions that do not fit with that spin they are silent. 
As in many areas of social policy the predetermined arbitrary age-limits for superannuation eligibility which seem to be set for fiscal reasons generate inequities. Members of the Maori Party challenge the thinking behind that because that creates the disparities. It was precisely because of the dramatic life and death disparities that the Maori Party raised the question before last year’s election that eligibility for superannuation should be reviewed in the light of the reduced life expectancy of some groups in the population such as Maori Pasifika and Pakeha from the lower socio-economic levels. Dr Cullen was duly asked about that very serious policy issue in Parliament on 26 July 2005 and his response was: “I am advised by Treasury that it cannot cost that accurately because it has no breakdown by ethnicity of New Zealand superannuation payments.” I ask members what sort of answer that is.  
Hansard 
 never lies. If the Government does not have the data why does it not? 
That was precisely why the key recommendation from the United Nations special rapporteur Rudolfo Stavenhagen suggested that more targeted research evaluation and statistical databases were required in order to respond to the unique needs of Maori. Of course we are not saying that reducing the eligibility for superannuation from 65 to 60 years is the only way we will achieve change; we are simply saying it is one measure out of many. We must invest in our greatest resource—the diversity of human capital—by addressing access to health services by assisting State agencies to be responsive to the needs of all communities by initiating strategies for recruitment participation and retention across all areas and so on. Services that do not recognise the diversity of the population will never work but it seems that this Government and many people in this House appear to be committed to a one-size-fits-all ethos and they do so in blind pursuit of the cliché of one law for all. 
The provision of responsive services for the elderly must reflect the choices and preferences we can all make about valuing the participation of older people in our society. I was proud that my mum lived out her life in our home. That was the choice of our whanau. Mum always said that she had kids only so that we could look after her in her old age. We were her insurance policy. She had paid the premiums through 70 years of enduring love of discipline of washing nappies and of all that stuff. That was our choice because it is our custom and I would not have had it be any other way. In days gone by that was the norm. The intergenerational disparities have taken their toll on whanau in terms of their ability to do what was done in the past. What will we do about that when we know that one in five older Maori face severe difficulties caused by material hardship and disadvantage? 
We in the Maori Party believe that the economic miracles that every Government has professed to perform have led in part to the fragmentation of whanau and family. Is that fragmentation and the consequential loss of care and responsibility of one human being for another genuine progress? We think not. Will next week’s Budget and its accompanying fanfare trumpet out the glorious differential of 8 to 9 years’ loss of life for Maori as opposed to non-Maori or will it be silent again? The Maori Party will not be silent on critical matters such as reckoning the national accounts in such a way as to ensure that genuine progress is achieved. We will judge the Budget on the basis of the genuine progress index. Our analysis will expose the deficits of that Budget and propose an alternative. We believe this bill should also have reflected and every bill should reflect genuine progress. We support the bill.