Little Andrew: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Little Andrew: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:9101. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. Like the previous speaker Alfred Ngaro I appreciate that we are debating a very important piece of legislation—very important for those who stand to benefit from it. As Mr Ngaro himself acknowledged they are the people who have in large part made a significant contribution whether as people who have retired—they are superannuitants—or as veterans. They have made a significant contribution. 
We are debating this measure on this the cusp of the break for Easter itself a significant period a significant time a time for reflection and a time to reflect on the Resurrection. It is of course an important occasion so we understand the magnitude of the time but also of the issue. 
In a spirit of reflection when we might otherwise pat ourselves on the back let us also reflect that the issue that underpins this legislation was first brought to the attention of the Government in 2009. It came back to the House for consideration by way of legislation in 2011. Much as each of us here in the House today may in our hearts value and cherish the contribution of those who will benefit from this legislation we might also be honest and ask ourselves why it has taken 4 years to act on a problem that we knew of in 2009 and indeed why it has taken 2 years to come back and deal with the report from the Social Services Committee. But notwithstanding that—this is not a time to be churlish and combative; we have had that earlier in the week—let us not brush under the carpet the fact that there has been some delay in bringing a resolution to this issue back to this House for passing. 
As the other members who have already spoken have indicated this bill does do a very important thing. For many superannuitants who find themselves living on their own because of bereavement—the loss of their partner their significant other or their spouse—they are faced with many things at that time sorting out the affairs of the estate of their spouse dealing with family members and dealing with issues that in many cases they are not used to dealing with. The last thing they want to do is have to trot off to the local Work and Income office and fill out more forms that entitle them to a higher payment. 
So this bill is a good measure in that respect—this is a good measure—and it saves superannuitants who are in that position and who might otherwise feel a sense of indignity at having to put their hand out to the State which has already offered to support them for a little more. Now that change will be automatic. Frankly in this day and age of information data storage and data gathering notwithstanding the issues that that has clearly caused in the last couple of years that ought to be a reasonably easy process. So it is good that this legislation will enable that to happen. It will be good for those who are in receipt of superannuation or a veterans pension to not have to go through the process of applying for a payment that under our social security scheme they are properly and fully entitled to. 
In relation to the part of the bill that deals with dependent children and particularly as it applies to superannuitants there are some issues about that and I think the plea from this side of the House is that flexibility is shown. We know that for young people who are still dependent after the age of 18 who may well be students and those who are still undergoing training perhaps into their early 20s it is possible that the bill as it presently is does not afford sufficient flexibility. We know that there are young people who have as parents superannuitants—and I was one of them. In the first couple of years when I was at university I would go home for the Christmas break for work. This present arrangement— 
Mike Sabin 
: Empty out the cupboards—raid the fridge. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: Yes. I worked on the Think Big projects. I understand about the satisfactory use of our gas resources. I was not quite sure of the economics of the Think Big projects at the time but they have been transformed. They have been transformed at least the synthetic fuel plant—we are no longer producing synthetic gasoline at great net cost to the nation but with great returns to Mobil which provided the technology and had a win-win agreement with the Government. We now produce methanol which provides returns both to the owner and to the community. 
But putting that aside I was one of those people who would routinely return to my parents’ home—they were both superannuitants—but for a student returning to a superannuitant living on their own this causes some inflexibility if they are sort of moving in and out of different categories and have a different status for qualification for payment and actually the economics of the household do not change a great deal. If a student returns home for 10 or 15 weeks over the Christmas break the economics of that household do not change for the superannuitant who runs it and owns it. So there does need to be some flexibility in there which was the purport of the amendments in the name of Jacinda Ardern. 
So addressing those two situations—the situation of the superannuitant who generally through bereavement and very rarely through decisions of their spouse finds that they are living alone and are therefore entitled to a higher payment this legislation will make it easy. On the changes in relation to the definition of a dependent child—of course we understand the need to do that in light of the decisions taken by the Social Security Appeal Authority but the solution that we have put up is needed to recognise the most common situations that will be faced without compromising entitlement to the living alone payment for superannuitants and veterans who would otherwise be entitled to it under this provision. 
So with that we have no qualms in supporting the legislation at this time understanding that it is going to be a constant process of ensuring that our social security system maintains its currency and that it meets contemporary needs. Ours is the party of social security. Ours was the party that was the architect of social security. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Tell us more. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: Well I am happy to give you the history of it. Let me go back to the 1935 election when people gathered in the streets on election night in 1935 with a sense of hope and a sense of determination because they knew that life would change. There were people there pensioners and those who had suffered great hardship who knew that a newly elected Labour Government was going to do something good. It has done it and it did happen. Something new did evolve. In 1938 the Social Security Act was passed and social security has been a mainstay of New Zealand—the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand society—ever since. That is why it is important that every time this House comes to consider social security legislation we get on board we modernise it and we keep it contemporary but at the heart of it it is looking after our most vulnerable and looking after good hard-working New Zealanders in their time of need. This legislation does that yet again and for that reason we in the Labour Party are proud to support it.