Hide Rodney: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Hide Rodney: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3923] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party rises in support of the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill does overcome a longstanding anomaly in which a widow or a spouse of a civil servant who remarries loses the entitlement to which she or he would otherwise be due simply by virtue of the fact that she or he is getting married. The ACT party agrees with every other political party in the House that that is anomalous wrong and unfair and should be stopped. 
The question then is whether it a principle that this House wants to apply generally. Imagine the situation that one is a widower or a widow one is entitled to a New Zealand pension—not a Government Superannuation Fund pension; I am comparing it to this situation—one remarries and by virtue of remarrying one loses one’s pension. I am sure members in this House will say that is impossible. They can understand that it was occurring before the passage of this bill and that that is what this bill is designed to overcome but in fact a New Zealander entitled to New Zealand superannuation who remarries can lose that entitlement. I look around the House I look at Mr Cunliffe talking on the Prime Minister’s phone and I see that he is dumbfounded by that statement. Michael Cullen and the Labour Government are supporting the fact that New Zealand pensioners who remarry can lose their pensions. 
How can that possibly be? It works like this. If a New Zealander marries someone who is entitled to an overseas pension that New Zealander is income tested. That is right. I have a case in my electorate of Epsom—I say “my” in the romantic sense of the word in the sense of my emotional attachment to Epsom which I know that the Maori members opposite understand—of someone who planned his or her life thinking that superannuation would be available who worked away reached the age of 65 went to get the pension and was told by this Government that there was no pension. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is outside the scope of the bill. This bill is the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2). It is not about the New Zealand scheme. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 94/5: “Debate on the third reading is more restricted than it is on the second reading of a bill. It is limited to matters contained in the bill”. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The matter that is contained in the bill is that if a person remarries as compared with what Mr McNair would call “living in sin” his or her financial arrangement should not be affected. I agree with that. It is a bit odd that currently if one is happily receiving a pension from the State and one stops what Mr McNair would call living in sin does the right thing by the lady and gets married suddenly whack one loses the pension. I know that Mr McNair would not agree with that and I know that United Future would not agree with that. Actually without the passage of this bill we are encouraging all pensioners to live in sin and enjoy each other’s company and comfort. If they do that they will get their pension but if they go along to the local church or to the registry office or even if they get married in their own backyard by a marriage celebrant and they say the magic words “I do.” whack they lose their pension. [ 
Interruption 
] With the passage of this bill—as my good friend and colleague Mr Copeland is pointing out—that anomaly will stop. I ask members of the Government and members of the Opposition whether that is an anomaly that they agree should be stopped. 
Pansy Wong 
: Yes. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Pansy Wong says it is. I go across to David Cunliffe who is still enjoying himself on the Prime Minister’s phone. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that is out of order. The member will come to the bill or have his speech terminated. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I ask David Cunliffe whether he thinks that is an anomaly that should be stamped on. If a person is getting a pension from the State as under this bill and he or she gets married does he agree that that pension should continue? 
David Cunliffe 
: Tell us about the ACT offices. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: David Cunliffe has not focused his mind on this bill and his support for it. It is quite odd because we do have situations in New Zealand still—far more than just those under the Government Superannuation Fund I have to report—where people get married and lose their pension. I would like to know whether the Labour Party United Future the New Zealand First Party the National Party and the Green party—and I will get to Mr Cunliffe whatever party he wants to say he belongs to—think it is correct and right that someone who gets married loses the pension that he or she is entitled to if he or she is not married. I look across to Mr Copeland and Mr Murray Smith and I think they would agree with me that it is odd that people can live in sin and get the pension but if they get married no they do not! Yet for large numbers of New Zealanders notwithstanding this bill that is precisely the situation as people coming to my office in Epsom have explained to me. I find that an anomaly. 
This bill covers the Government Superannuation Fund which as members have pointed out is not a fund sufficient to cover the contractual entitlements that civil servants have in respect of their pensions. Happily it is closed off but there still is a large tail. The last time I looked it was about $8 billion. The liabilities are about $8000 million and from memory the assets of this fund are between $3000 million and $3500 million. So the fund’s assets do not cover 50 percent of the liability. 
Then we have the problem that the fund has lost $380 million of its value in 14 months. I said to a gentleman this morning on my way here: “How do you feel about the Government giving money to Team New Zealand?”. He said: “Well when you compare it to what it’s lost with the fund I’d rather it spent the money on Team New Zealand.” The point about that money is that Mr Cullen says: “Oh well that loss is just on paper.” Well that is how money is recorded in the modern world. It is a real loss and if that loss is not made up it has to be made up by the taxpayer. That is the precise situation and that is how it wags around—similarly with the accident compensation account where the Government accounts. 
I have to say that when we look at that situation and at the anomalies this bill is attempting to address we find that there is some distance to go if this Government is to convince New Zealanders of the wisdom of a fund such as the New Zealand Superannuation Fund which is managed on behalf of the Government. I would very much like the next Government speaker to explain given its support for overcoming the anomaly of one’s losing one’s pension if one remarries whether that is a general principle that the Government is prepared to support because if that is so there are many pensioners whom I could put it in contact with who are not in that situation. 
Thank you very much Mr Speaker for your kindness in letting me speak. 
Bill read a third time.