Ball Darroch: Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBall Darroch: Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 18 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4596. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DARROCH BALL (NZ First): New Zealand First has made it quite clear from the start where we stand on this bill. We do agree with the changes that are being made but it is not good enough. We did put in Supplementary Order Paper 71 and requested support from the Government; in particular from one member of the Government at least who knows that he should have voted for that Supplementary Order Paper. We have had support and the same way of thinking from all the Opposition parties in regard to the Supplementary Order Paper and that Supplementary Order Paper was specifically in regard to the 5 years over 50 rule.I would just like to talk about something that Matt Doocey said in his speech previously and that was that this was nothing but petty Opposition politics—disagreeing with things or thinking that the changes are never good enough. Well I would like him to have a look at the submissions and who submitted and what they submitted on. There were 13 submissions and 12 of them were in regard to the 5 years over 50 part of the amendment. I would like him to contact the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands and tell him that this is nothing but petty politics because it is not. It shows the importance the outright importance of that specific clause to the people of those three Realm countries. In fact we had a unique situation where the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands and the Premier of Niue I believe it was came over personally and gave an oral submission. That is the importance that they placed on that clause. In fact what the Government of the Cook Islands submitted was that the Cook Islands did support the bill but recommended further consideration given the 5 years over 50 rule. Not only that the submitters actually made a good point where they pointed out that the regulatory impact statement did not actually mention the financial burden placed on New Zealand by applicants who may claim welfare payments returning to satisfy the 5-year residence requirement. So from the get-go in the process—and I know that there has actually been a long time going through the process of this bill—it seemed to me when I was going through it in the select committee and through these different stages that there was not actually a lot of thought put into the bill itself. The reason why I say that is—Jono Naylor: Oh!DARROCH BALL: Well Mr Naylor might disagree with that but I ask him to look at all of the submissions and see what the opposition to that clause is and who is saying it. It is not just the Opposition parties; it is the people who are being affected by that clause specifically—and that is the importance of that clause.What I would also like to go on to are the purpose and intent. The reason why I say there was not much thought put into the bill is because the purpose and the intent of the bill are actually good ones. They are to recognise the very special relationship that New Zealand as a country has with those three Island nations. They come under the Realm of New Zealand and the Cook Islands as Mr Ngaro would know even uses the New Zealand dollar. So not only have we got ancestral connections with those islands but we have the largest population centre—being Auckland—of the Pacific Islands and in particular of those three. We have economic ties. They come under our protectorate. So the bill misses out on that very important provision on the 5 years over 50 which those islands have been asking for for a very very long time. I think that the Government assumed that this would be a bill that would pass through the House quite easily and uncontested. But that was not the case. New Zealand First put through a minority report stating those different points.But I would just like to touch on the extra costs that the departmental report from the Ministry of Social Development said that it would actually cost. We are not talking about a huge number of people this would affect but it would make such a big impact in their lives—and more important their families’ lives. If we are talking just about the administrative implications for the ministry in 2020 in 5 years’ time we are talking about only $60000 to $65000 in administrative costs. That is the cost that the Government is saying is one of the reasons why it will not change that clause. We are talking about up to 100 additional applications for New Zealand superannuation in subsequent years and it costs the ministry only around a million dollars a year. If you compare that with a waste of money like the flag referendum which is costing $30 million you can see where the Government puts its priority.New Zealand First like I said is supporting this bill. We support the intent; we support the purpose. We do not think it goes far enough and for very good reason. I would like to join my Labour colleagues in saying to those peopleout there whom this does affect that we tried our hardest. We put in the Supplementary Order Paper. All it would have taken was one member across in the Government benches to vote for the Supplementary Order Paper but he did not.