Turner Judy: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Turner Judy: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3916] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the third readings of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill. Previously those bills were in one bill under a completely different name but we have separated it out into two bills for this reading. 
The purpose of the legislation is clear. It recognises that many senior citizens or superannuitants who are married or partnered are actually living alone. Those people have all the financial pressures of managing a home on their own yet until this bill is passed into law they are assessed if their partner is still alive on whether their partner can recognise them. The other thing that is often not taken into account when a loved one is in care is the extra expense incurred by things like visits transport and the little bits and pieces that the person in care requires. Those things have to be bought out of the partner’s income and that additional expenditure goes along with the inconvenience of the partner still being treated as part of a couple in terms of the rate of benefit received. So United Future is very very pleased to see this legislation finally come before the House. The legislation also removes the sharing expenses rule that has applied up until now. For a lot of people who are captured under this provision that will mean a saving of $20.30 a week. 
I always remember a rather interesting lady whom I met during an election campaign at a little meeting in a country hall. She came up and asked to see me privately afterwards. We had a little bit of a talk and her concern was that she had been sent a $3000 funeral bill for a gentleman whom she had been living with. His family refused to pay the bill and it was sent to her because she was deemed to be the partner of that man. It was a confusing conversation. She explained that she had been living with him for only a couple of years. She had heard that the man had health concerns and no one to look after him so she took it upon herself to move in and look after him. She had been honest and said they were living together which the department concerned took to mean that they were living as a couple. 
Because of the way the conversation went and the little details she gave me I suddenly realised that they were not actually a couple at all but that she was just one very kind person. I think the way I queried her was to ask whether their relationship was romantic—I was trying to think of how I could put the question sensitively. She looked horrified and said: “Young lady”—which I quite enjoyed—“I am no …” and then she used a word that means a woman of ill-repute which I probably should not say in the House. It became very clear that that dear kind lady who had been living with and caring for that gentleman at a financial handicap to herself—and had now been sent a $3000 bill—had been captured in the talk of the department and it had never been fully understood as to what her living situation really was. 
The other thing this legislation does is extend to 3 years the eligibility period for New Zealand superannuitants and veterans who are working voluntarily overseas for aid agencies. There has been a little bit of scoffing about the fact that the period has been increased from 1 year to 3 years but most 65-year-olds are pretty active people who could easily see themselves committing to 1 2 3 or more years of living overseas. It is a very sensible provision. In one of my previous speeches I mentioned a lady called Myrtle Whitehead. She was working in Borneo with the Iban people and had to come back all the time to New Zealand so that her superannuation would not be cancelled then get on a plane and fly back to Borneo to do the work she was so ably doing over there. So the provision is really really sensible. 
United Future believes we could do more as a country and as a Government to recognise the superannuitants who volunteer within New Zealand. It could be a case of tokenism we admit but we are suggesting that those people could be given something like $500 for 100 hours of voluntary service within the community—some sort of tax rebate that could be given to superannuitants on a fixed income who are doing a huge amount and making a huge difference in the community. To give those people a little bit of a rebate would be a way of recognising honouring and thanking them for the work they are doing. We look forward to an opportunity in the future when we may be able to advance that suggestion. Instead of rebating people for the money they donate to charitable causes we could provide a rebate to people for the hours of service they give when they are on a low fixed income and when giving money is a much more difficult thing to do. 
Finally this legislation also enables us to adjust veterans pensions and those of superannuitants in an aligned kind of way which is a really good thing. I have a reputation of being a bit paranoid about Orders in Council. Certainly if we read any of the recommendations of the Regulations Review Committee we find that that committee is always a little nervous about Orders in Council and that has made me a bit nervous too. My nervousness is always about the open-ended nature of those orders. So I am really pleased that we are looking clearly at the fact that Order in Council provisions can be used to increase veterans pensions or superannuitants pensions not to drag them back down. Superannuitants need to be relieved about that. 
Certainly I do not think it is the intention of this Government to decrease pensions and hopefully no future Government will do so but there have been seasons and times when senior citizens have felt disadvantaged by Government policy. Certainly we would not like the Government to make any move in that direction without having the full consultation of Parliament and going through the select committee process. I am very pleased that those Order in Council provisions apply to increases and not to the general adjustment in any direction of pensions of both veterans and superannuitants. 
United Future is very pleased to be supporting along with all other parties this legislation. We think it is timely; it is probably actually late—it should have been done some time ago. At least it is happening now and we are very glad to be supporting it.