Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I'll speak broadly to Part 1 and hopefully it responds to some of Opposition members' questions. But I won't speak to the spousal deduction issue because that's not covered in Part 1. That's in Part 3 I think of the bill.Most of the policy changes in the bill are dealt with at least in part by Part 1 which includes all the amendments to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001. As such Part 1 largely only deals with New Zealand superannuation. We move into the veterans pension in Part 2. The changes in this part are: the closure of the non-qualified partner provision with grandparenting of existing non-qualifying partners expanding eligibility to the living alone rate to single people in self-contained mobile homes providing more equitable treatment between missionaries and secular charitable volunteers correcting a drafting error affecting people needing to count time paying New Zealand tax while overseas as residents updating the calculation of New Zealand super rates to match the current practice and removing the special disability allowance from the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act.Most of these changes have an equivalent in Part 2 which amends the Veterans' Support Act 2014 to ensure that changes also apply to the veterans pension so I won't talk about the veterans pension whilst we're on Part 1. A signpost has been included near the beginning of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 to indicate its relationship with Social Security Act 2018. There were some questions asked about the non-qualifying partner provisions in this particular bill. A superannuitant can chose to include their non-qualifying partner in their rate of New Zealand super. If they do the couple receive an amount that is at most around $30 less per week than the amount for a couple who both qualify but this amount is subject to an income test. Clause 11 removes the option for a superannuitant to elect to include their non-qualifying partner in their rate of New Zealand super from the commencement date. That's accompanied by a provision to continue existing elections to receive that rate so that people who are already included as a non-qualifying partner don't lose this rate unless their circumstances change. This is found in new sections 7 to 10 of Schedule 1AA of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act inserted by clause 21 of the bill.Clause 17 makes a complementary amendment. This has been made by the select committee to allow main beneficiaries or veterans pension recipients to receive the equivalent of a single rate if they have a superannuitant partner who receives a lower rate while hospitalised for more than 13 weeks. A large number of technical amendments accompany the closure of the non-qualifying partner provision such as moving the grandparented rate to a separate part of Schedule 1. I think what was really heartening with this bill going through the different processes in Parliament was that the Social Services and Community Committee I think were generally in support of these provisions and have worked through really well the detail. So can I thank all of the select committee members for their work on this bill. Can I say that with the non-qualifying partner provision there seemed to be shared agreement that actually that was brought into play at a time that was quite different from now a time when there was an expectation that perhaps the female partner in the relationship would be younger than the male partner in the relationship that the male partner in the relationship would be the breadwinner and therefore the younger female would be reliant on the working income of that male partner and then when that person was to retire of course on their superannuation. So I think that really was the premise and I think we've got a shared understanding of why that particular provision was brought in at the time. Times have certainly changed and I'm glad that we have seen shared agreement across the House that actually it is no longer required. However we also agree that it would be unfair to take it away for those who are currently accessing that particular provision. Hence why the decision has also been made to grandparent that for those who are currently receiving it.