New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in  Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in  Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3099] 
New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in  Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 3 Purpose 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I bring the attention of the Committee to the genesis of this bill. I have a lovely constituent Mr Stan Page who is 91 years of age and lives in Hope in the Nelson region. Mr Page is a returned serviceman and he is proud to have been married to his lovely wife Nancy for 70 years. When his dear wife Nancy had to go into residential care at the Wakefield Village Rest Home he went to Work and Income and applied for a living alone payment. One would think that common sense would have applied because he was now living alone but what the people at Work and Income told him was gobsmacking. They told him that to get the living alone payment he would need to divorce his wife of 70 years. 
 That is disgraceful and it is insulting to a senior citizen of this country. I went digging and I found out that on 24 July 2004 this callous Government made a policy announcement stating that a person in the circumstance of Mr Stan Page could not get the living alone allowance unless his or her spouse suffered from dementia and could not recognise him or her. Well this was not the circumstance. Dear Nancy Page was physically incapacitated and required rest home care but she did recognise her husband. 
I asked myself what sort of a callous Government would have a policy that discriminated against one of our older respected citizens in that way. I wrote to the Minister and said that even a Labour Minister might see that the policy is unfair. I received a patronising response from the Minister that basically told me to get knotted. I thought that was unacceptable so I laid a complaint with the human rights commissioner who rightly determined that the policy was unlawful discrimination and needed to be fixed. I am pleased to say that at that point the Government succumbed. 
But I say to fellow members that since 2004 for 2 years—and this case was highlighted on the  
Holmes 
 programme—Labour members have sat on their butts and let this injustice go on and on. It is not just dear Mr and Mrs Page who are affected. I have stories from all over New Zealand. We have the case of Ralph and Josephine Simons here in Wellington. I could cite cases of people in Timaru 
Auckland Dunedin and Christchurch who are affected by these unfair provisions. It was only when the Government was on the ropes with the Human Rights Commission which said it was in breach and that it recognised the injustice and the wrong that had to be put right. 
That is why National members will support the clauses that put this injustice right. We say we should not discriminate against people because they are married and I hope the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope has the courage to apologise to 91-year-old Mr Stan Page of Hope who has been married for 70 years and who was told he had to divorce his wife to get a living alone allowance. People were horrified when they heard this story on the  
Holmes 
 programme. A businessman from my electorate rang me to say he was so disgusted that he would pay Mr Page the living alone allowance for the years until this matter is sorted. Do members know what Mr Page said? He said that he did not want that sort of charity; he was a man who had stood tall with his wife for all those years. The Minister should apologise. This injustice is wrong and needs to be fixed. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 1 of this New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We are on clause 3—on its own. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: That is exactly what my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith was talking about. But I want to go back again to the genesis of the bill—to where the Labour Government has shown extraordinary tardiness in relation to the cares and concerns of older New Zealanders. From 2004 not only was Mr Page in great anguish over this situation but also many others in New Zealand were in the same position. It has taken 3½ long years for this callous Labour Government to move to do anything about it. Back in 2002 Barbara White and 1519 others brought a petition to Parliament calling for the moves that are finally taking place today with the support of the excellent National Party. It did indeed take 2½ to 3 years before this Labour Government did anything about this iniquitous situation and it was the Hon Dr Nick Smith who made all the difference in terms of bringing Mr Page’s case to the human rights commissioner. That hugely embarrassed the Government and it was not until the Labour Government’s embarrassment was acute that it finally decided to move. 
I reiterate and emphasise that it was not only Mr Page and many many others throughout New Zealand but also back in 2002 Barbara White and 1519 others who begged the Labour Government to do something about the situation. But no it was not prepared to do so. It was far too busy creating welfare dependency and other such situations with thousands of New Zealanders and it failed to admit this very unfortunate iniquity that affects so many older people. 
I must say that when we look at the figures we see that there are very serious connotations to the situation because the net after-tax married income is $203. Effectively this bill changes that to $263.90—a difference of $60. That is a huge amount of difference to an elderly person who is living alone and who has to contend with not only power and food bills but also doctors’ bills and all those other basic necessities of life that are so difficult for them to provide. Here we have a Labour Government that has known about this situation since 2002 and has chosen to do absolutely nothing about it. 
Bob Clarkson 
: It’s inhuman. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: As Bob Clarkson says it is absolutely inhuman. It is really just a reflection of the Labour Government having a lacuna for some of the very important detail that affects people around New Zealand. I think Bob Clarkson was absolutely right when he said it was inhuman. Thank goodness the National Party was here to remind the Government that this iniquity existed and it is good today to be supporting a bill that will indeed put right this very very wrong situation. 
The other thing I wanted to say will have to wait for my next speech because it looks as though the time has come for me to finish. But I am very glad to support this clause. Thank goodness the Labour Government has finally moved. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise in support of the amendment to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act—the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I congratulate my colleague Nick Smith and others who have brought this uncaring socialist Government to heel on this issue. I also talk about Stan Page from Hope in Nelson—that is Hope in Nelson not Hope in Arkansas which is President Bill Clinton’s home town. There is Hope in Nelson—unlike the Government of course as this Government has no hope of surviving beyond the next election. 
This bill is about Stan Page from Hope in Nelson. I congratulate my colleague Nick Smith on putting pressure on the Government over Mr Page’s situation. An amendment to an Act was passed under this socialist Government that brought about total inequity for about 2000 senior citizens to the tune of $60 per week as my colleague Paul Hutchison just mentioned. To people on a fixed income—whom members opposite claim to represent but have no understanding of—such as people in this circumstance $60 a week is a substantial amount of money. 
So what do we have? We have one of these people on a fixed income in this circumstance who has had to put a petition together supported by the National Party and bring it to this Parliament to politically embarrass this Government into doing what it campaigns on—that is to support the underdog. We have a classic example here of where that has been the case. It is a proud day for the National Party and Nick Smith to get this measure to the stage where we are debating it here tonight. I say to the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope that he should go back through all of his social policy and see whether there are other areas where he has created the same kind of inequity as has obviously come about in that legislation. 
If people are wondering what the debate is about the living alone payment represents the difference between a single sharing rate and a higher single living alone rate. That amendment Act brought about a circumstance whereby people who were living alone because their partner had gone into residential care had to divorce their partner or spouse of many years in order to get the higher rate. How ridiculous is that? How could that have happened? Did that one slip past the officials or did the Minister just rush it through in the normal socialist way out there engineering for people’s good and it backfired in this case—or was it a considered proposal when the legislation that brought about that circumstance was introduced? Part 1— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Clause 3. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Clause 3— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: It’s a drafting mistake. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is a drafting mistake. We have both made the same mistake I suspect. I wish the Minister would take a call on clause 3 and explain to the Committee how that mistake took place or whether it really was a mistake. That question has not been answered tonight. Was there a deliberate intention to try to save a few pennies and put these people in a precarious circumstance where they were clearly disadvantaged by having their spouse or partner go into a retirement or rest home environment? I will guarantee that the Minister will not take a call and answer that. 
I also thank the other members who have supported this bill. Clearly there are 2000-odd people out there tonight who will for the first time in a number of years have the equity they should have had from the beginning. I ask the Minister to please take a call and explain to the Committee how we finished up in the situation where with all the power of the ministry—with all the horsepower he has at his disposal—he passed legislation that brought about this ridiculous circumstance and explain why it took the Government so long to respond to the situation once it was made aware of it. The Minister should apologise to those older people who found themselves in this circumstance. 
I thank Barbara White for her petition which brought the matter to the attention of the Government. The Government should do something about it as soon as possible. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 It seems that there are so many other things we could be doing with our time this evening because there are so many wrongs that need to be righted. But instead we need to fix yet another mistake that has been shoddily put through. Really this is about fairness. I am not saying that every penny does not count; every penny does count for these people. They are generally in a situation where they are living day to day and every penny means something to them. The fact is that they have to fight for a mere $20 extra a week which could be the difference of getting the paper each day for example. It is ridiculous that we have to come back and address something that should have been done a long time ago. I understand from my colleague the Hon Nick Smith that this matter was raised in 2004. It seems ludicrous that it has taken 2 years for something like this to come around and to be addressed. 
The measure is about those spouses or partners who are in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home. Frankly the single rates are higher. It relates to a situation where they need to apply for an increase and it is a matter of whether their partner recognises them. If someone’s spouse or partner recognises that person it means that he or she is not eligible for the living alone allowance. We all know the costs of living alone at different times. To clarify things it is absolutely incredible that people would have to look at divorcing their spouse or partner whom they may have been married to for up to 70 years as in the case raised by Dr Smith. If a couple have been married for 70 years and they happen to recognise each other they can be faced with telling untruths. 
What really upset me when I was looking at this legislation was how much dignity people have lost so far. To date people have had the indignity of sitting before their spouse of many many years and having someone else determine whether they recognise each other. It is utterly an issue of fairness and what is unjust in our society that people needed to go through that sort of indignity. I quote from the Minister himself who said in the first reading that the current legislation requires officials to ask intrusive questions and make complex decisions regarding sensitive issues. 
Thank goodness we are standing in the Chamber tonight to try to right this wrong. How ridiculous that we need to do so but thank goodness the National Party raised this matter as the very important issue that it is. Thank goodness for someone taking on the good fight and battling his way through to see it standing before this Parliament tonight. I commend Nick Smith and I feel saddened for those elderly people who have had to endure the indignity of standing up and asking for a voice—a voice they were not getting from the current Government. It is ludicrous unfair and unjust and as such we proudly stand up and advocate for these people. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 This very significant bill is known as the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I draw to the attention of the Committee that we are speaking on clause 3 “Purpose”. I think it is worthwhile going over what the purpose is: “The purpose of this Act is to—(a) extend eligibility for the higher single rate of New Zealand superannuation living alone payments or veteran’s pension to superannuitants or persons entitled to the veteran’s pension whose spouse or partner is in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home:”. 
The reason I think it is so important to point out that we are speaking to clause 3 is that the Labour Government has put a very unusual situation before Parliament because we have a purpose clause that is not included in a part. I understand that this is an example of the Labour Government once again making a mistake. We have the Minister—the Hon David Benson-Pope—sitting there in the chair. I hope he will have an explanation of why once again the Labour Government has made a mistake over this bill and the way it has been framed. 
After all it was brought to the attention of this House 4 long years ago in a petition by Barbara White in which she pointed out the gross inequity of a situation where someone is living in long-term residential care who is unwell or infirm and whose partner who is living at home is not eligible for the higher living alone single benefit which is worth about $60 a week. It is a great worry that the Labour Government is likely to vote against its own bill which just demonstrates the silliness of this Labour Government and the lack of preparation and thought it often has for detail. In this bill which is hugely important to older New Zealanders in a very difficult situation the Labour Government has not only delayed the payments for something like 4 years but also when it finally brings the bill to the House it mucks it up. It is just not acceptable. 
Hon Member 
: Take your pill. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well we see that the Hon David Benson-Pope is not taking it seriously. I hope he will give us a serious explanation of why his Government intends to vote against the purpose of this bill which I understand it is going to do. I hope Government members will give us an explanation because after all as Nick Smith has pointed out it was Mr Page who was put in this very invidious position 4 years ago at the same time as Barbara White and the 1519 others who brought a petition to Parliament. They have had all these years to put it right and they have only just now finally—with the support of National—brought this bill to Parliament but they have managed to muck it up. 
Another point I want to make is that in one of the submissions to this bill Age Concern makes the point that while it certainly supports the proposed amendments through this bill it believes that it does not address the fundamental issue which is that many older people currently do not receive adequate financial assistance from the Government to ensure that poverty does not predetermine their health and well-being. This is a very important issue for many thousands of older New Zealanders under this Labour Government. The Government has basically prohibited older people from having the $60 or made it impossible. Finally they are bringing the payment in after 4 years. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I want to take a short call on this bill. 
Hon Member 
: Give us an explanation. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well the member asked for an explanation in respect of the vote against clause 3. If the member took a moment to look at parliamentary procedure he would note there are two Supplementary Order Papers one of which splits the bill. Because of that the clause becomes redundant. It is rather a technical phenomenon. I have tried to use small words and small concepts. I know “redundant” is a rather large term but that is why we voted against it; it is a technical move. 
I cannot resist focusing on the false bravado and immodest behaviour of Dr Smith and other speakers. They get up in this Chamber and have the audacity to talk about their deeply held beliefs and feelings for our good elderly folk how they have been so deprived under this Government and how all this is so awful. Mr Ardern—if he pulled his head in for a moment because I know he is quite an honest bloke; he is one of the better of them—knows deep down what this is all about. This is about a National Government who in 9 years first had asset testing and second cut the pension three times. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Not true. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes that is true. That was Mrs Shipley’s legacy—as Nick Smith did the numbers to roll Bill English and I am now told he was not sure who he was doing the numbers for—the pension was cut three times and the rug was pulled from under every elderly New Zealander. I see the members of New Zealand First are nodding. They helped to rectify that problem and I acknowledge that. 
When we talk about clause 3 and the Opposition bleats about why Labour is opposing it it is simply because—as National does know—of the two Supplementary Order Papers. One splits the bill and therefore clause 3 becomes redundant. Nick Smith’s guile in getting up and bleating and trying to have any credibility with our elderly folk is amazing after National pulled the rug from under every elderly person for 9 years. National members cut the pension and did not inflation-proof it and they cut the link to the average wage. They did all those things then introduced asset testing—which we are removing through legislation we have passed. 
I ask members who has more credibility with the elderly folk in this country. We reversed all the cuts of the National Government. We did not actually promise to increase the pension but we increased it. We got rid of asset testing. We are the ones who are putting the rates rebate up so that elderly people can actually afford it—so who has the credibility? 
That silly member from Nelson stands up and thinks he can get away with hoodwinking and conning the elderly people in New Zealand. He thinks that just because people are old they are silly. He thinks every elderly person at home tonight will sit there awestruck by Dr Smith. He thinks they will not remember what National did over 9 years—how it forced elderly people to turn their heaters off at home because National cut their pensions and they could not afford to have them on. The National Government forced elderly people who maybe should have been in a rest home but could not get there because of asset testing and who did not want to give up the family home and the assets they had put aside for their grandkids because Dr Smith’s Government introduced it. Labour got rid of it. 
If Dr Smith thinks any elderly person tonight is sitting at home and giving him any credibility at all then he is condemned because he says that people who are old are silly and they are not. National members have quietened down now because somebody has got up and reminded them of their legacy and of their history. I invite one of them—even the elderly member over there who took a point of order—to try to get up and tell this Committee that first they did not introduce asset testing second they did not take off the inflation index to the pension and third they did not cut the pension three times. All of those things are true. 
When we dispose of the technical amendments in clause 3 we will deal with these issues. When it comes to standing beside our elderly folk and supporting them I look forward to the debate. If all National members can do is get up and bleat about clause 3—because Mr Ardern is too stupid to understand that a Supplementary Order Paper splits the bill and that is why is has become redundant—then they are bereft of any ideas at all. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I recognise that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove who has just resumed his seat has made a worthwhile contribution; he has outlined a number of facts. But I advise him to hang on to his halo for a little bit longer because I ask members who introduced the superannuation surcharge. It was of course the Labour Government. Members will recall that in 1990 the Rt Hon Jim Bolger the Prime Minister of the time said the Government was going to dispense with the surcharge—there were “no ifs no buts no maybes”. But what did the National Government do? It increased the surcharge. Then to pour salt on to the wounds it had the “mother of all Budgets” and reduced a lot of benefits for a lot of people in New Zealand. 
The removal of the superannuation surcharge came about as a direct result—absolutely 100 percent as a direct result—of New Zealand First. It would not have been removed but for the efforts of New Zealand First and in the main our leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters. That was a condition—and the Hon Nick Smith knows it—of the coalition Government in 1996. If he doubts my word I will bring the document and show it to him. 
Tonight in the Chamber there are all these compassionate National people—they have obviously been on a bus ride. Do members know where they have been? They have been on the road to Damascus; they have seen the light. They have suddenly recognised that elderly folk in this country count for something. They have suddenly recognised that fact and I have never seen so many people converted on the road to Damascus at any one time. I could not believe all the compassionate speeches I was hearing from National members in support of the elderly because in 1998 about 6 or 7 weeks after the National Party dispensed with New Zealand First in the coalition National made an attempt to scale down the pension the superannuation to being 60 percent of the average wage. 
Shane Ardern was there. He might have been the National MP who came and sat next to me—as one of them did; that is the absolute truth— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Which one? 
PETER BROWN 
: I think it was Shane Ardern. He came and sat next to me in this House and he asked: “Why in the dickens are we doing this?” and I said: “If you find out let me know because there’s nobody else here who knows.” The National Party—and Clayton Cosgrove said this—has taken the elderly for a bunch of fools. There are 500000 of them out there and they are growing by the day. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Winston does that all by himself. 
PETER BROWN 
: There is one of them there—and they are growing by the day. I am pleased that National members have seen the light and now recognise that people of more mature years count for something in this country that they have to make a contribution and that they should be considered by parliamentary legislation. 
The purpose of this bill is very clear-cut. I accept that it will be divided into two and have some technical adjustments and that it appears apparently—on the surface at least—that Labour will vote against it but I assume that Labour will not vote to put it right out of court. 
New Zealand First supports this bill. We believe it would not have come into being without the efforts of New Zealand First under the leadership of the Rt Hon Winston Peters. We have said for many a year now that the more mature segments of our society should be looked after. Governments have been treating them over a number of years as people who do not count but National members now realise that the elderly do have political clout and that they do count. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 We heard something of a pathetic speech from Clayton Cosgrove. He raved about all the great things Labour has done for elderly New Zealanders but he did not refer for one moment to this bill. I have a simple question for the previous Minister in the chair Mr Clayton Cosgrove. Why for 5 years have Government members knowingly allowed the injustice of elderly people being discriminated against in terms of the living alone payment because the married partner lived in care? Mr Cosgrove cannot answer that. Can the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope answer it? No he cannot. For all their rhetoric about how much they care for the elderly they cannot answer when it comes to a practical issue like the case of 91-year-old Mr Stan Page getting a living alone payment because his dear wife has gone into a rest home. In that situation Labour said to Mr Page in respect of his wife of 70 years: “Divorce her!”. That shows the callousness of Clayton Cosgrove and his colleagues. 
Let us test a few of the assertions that have been made by Mr Cosgrove. He said that Labour has abolished the asset and income test. Well that is news! I have to tell members that this very week—Saturday at the Nelson market—a dear old lady whose name I will not mention because I do not have her consent told me how disappointed she was that Labour promised to get rid of the asset and income test and 6 years later it is still there and it is still being applied. I ask Mr Cosgrove this question: will he bet me the best bottle of Nelson wine that the asset and income test is gone? He is silent now. Five minutes ago he was making all sorts of assertions but he will not take me on for a bottle of wine because the asset and income test which Labour promised to abolish in 1999 is still being applied as we speak. 
Then he had the audacity to talk about some of the costs for older New Zealanders. Let us talk some facts I say to Mr Cosgrove. Does he know how much the price of power has gone up since his party has been the Government? It has gone up by 42 percent. That is an average of a 7 percent increase per year in the price of power. Let us have a look at National’s record. What was the average increase in the price of power between 1990 and 1999 when National was the Government? The answer is 2 percent. It was 2 percent per year in the 1990s and it is 6 percent per year I say to Mr Cosgrove when his party is in power. He should hide his head in shame. 
Let us have a look at another significant expense for our elderly—rates. Does Mr Cosgrove know how much rates have gone up because of the dopey legislation his Government has been passing through the House? Rates have gone up by 7 percent per year—so rates have gone up 44 percent for those elderly folk for whom this evening he was crying crocodile tears. Does he know what the average increase was when National was in office? It was less than half that. So I am happy to stand in this House and say that when it comes to the real issues of our elderly folk—their power bills their rates bills and their superannuation— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You cut the superannuation. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well let us talk about superannuation. This bill is about the living alone payment. Does the member know who introduced the living alone payment? Does the member know who it was who recognised that people living alone actually have greater expenses and are deserving of a greater allowance from the State? It was Jenny Shipley one of the great Prime Ministers of this country. She was the person who introduced the living alone payment which recognised the costs of living alone to older New Zealanders. I am proud of the heritage that the National Party brings to the House and I proud today again that it is the National Party that is providing leadership on the issues of justice and dignity for our elderly people by making sure that they get that living alone payment even if their partner is in a rest home. It is right and it is just and the only thing I say to those Labour members is that they should hide their heads in shame because they have known about this for 4 years and have done nothing. That is why I hope they will be supporting my amendments—so that Stan Page and those like him might get this payment that they should have been getting 3 years ago and that they will get it for the period for which they were ineligible. That will be the test of Labour members’ mettle when it comes to the question of whether they are prepared to honour elderly New Zealanders. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to.  
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Clause 3 not agreed to. 
Part 1 Amendments to New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 For the benefit of the third parties in the Parliament I want to outline the amendment I have put forward because it is significant. On 24 July 2004 the Social Security Appeal Authority ruled that the way in which the Government was applying the provisions was unfair and unjust. I am proposing in my amendment that eligibility for the living alone payment—which I think this Parliament uniformly agrees is unfair and wrong—should apply from that date. What does this mean? Mr Stan Page the constituent on whose behalf I have advocated applied in 2004 for the living alone payment when his wife Nancy went into care. My amendment will say that he will be eligible for the payment from 24 July 2004 or if it was after that date from the date they first applied. 
I think the Parliament is in agreement that there was an injustice. But I think a real test for this Parliament is the question of whether we are prepared to put it right for the likes of Mr Page. When I met with him in 2004 I was doubtful that he at the age of 91 could wait many years to get justice on this issue. He promptly applied to the department for the living alone payment. I think it is right and proper that he be eligible from the date on which he applied particularly as at that date the Social Security Appeal Authority had given its ruling and the department had to revise it. So my appeal to the Committee is on a matter of justice. Mr Page applied and thousands of other New Zealanders applied so should they not receive the living alone payment from the date on which they lodged their applications? 
I say to New Zealand First members Green Party members and Maori Party members who are in the House today: “Will you today stand up for the likes of Mr Stan Page?” When Mr Stan Page’s case was highlighted nationally a business person came forward and said: “This is so appalling. This is not the way that we treat returned servicemen and this is not the way we treat senior citizens in this country. I’ll pay the living alone payment.” Mr Page being of that decent generation said he did not want to accept charity and that it was the Government that needed to put this right—and that is what my amendment will do. 
So I say to Labour members opposite who have just heard Clayton Cosgrove say that his party will stand beside elderly New Zealanders that this will test them. What good reasons can this Parliament give for Mr Stan Page not having the living alone payment backdated to the date on which he would have been eligible? Can any member—the Minister or anybody else—tell me why Mr Stan Page whose wife Nancy is in a rest home should not be eligible for that payment from 24 July 2004? 
What good reason has this Government had for taking 2 long years to get to this point when it knew about the situation for longer than that? [ 
Interruption 
] As my colleague Paul Hutchison points out the Barbara White petition was in 2002. I have been reasonably generous in saying that we will backdate it to 24 July 2004 the date of the Social Security Appeal Authority decision. I ask members of New Zealand First the Green Party and the Maori Party whether today is not the day to put this situation right. Is today not a day on which we can say to the Stan Pages of the world: “Parliament is going to put right this wrong. We will ensure that you’re eligible for the living alone payment from that date.”? It will be an interesting test for the Parliament. Are we truly committed to fixing this? Will Parliament be able to stand tall and correct this anomaly? It is a test for Mr Stan Page. 
I see that Mr Clayton Cosgrove is doing one of those cynical grins that Mike Moore used to do. He is the guy who said that it was not sincerity in Parliament that was important; it was the capacity to fake sincerity. Clayton Cosgrove represents all of that. Let us test Mr Cosgrove’s sincerity and see whether he will vote for an amendment that gives justice to Mr Page or whether he will get to his feet and explain why Mr Stan Page should not receive the living alone payment from the date when the Social Security Appeal Authority gave its ruling. That is the right and just answer and I say to this House that that is what we should do. 
I also want to comment briefly on the provision in respect of Volunteer Service Abroad. I too have had constituents draw attention to this problem. I have two elderly constituents who are working for Volunteer Service Abroad in Bougainville. They are beavering away there helping the community with its infrastructure and with its teaching facilities at a school in Bougainville that war-ravaged land. They are ineligible for superannuation because they have completed a 2-year contract with Volunteer Service Abroad. I commend to the Committee clause 8 which will correct that anomaly. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 1 deals with amendments to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001. Indeed I absolutely agree with my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith that this part will test the sincerity of Labour members of the Government. It will test the sincerity of Clayton Cosgrove who waxed so lyrical about what he says is his party’s attitude towards the elderly. There is no doubt that in this bill before us there has been nothing shown but negligence by the Labour Government towards the elderly. 
I certainly want to commend to the Committee the very appropriate amendment of my colleague Dr Nick Smith which will address the anomaly that has been perpetrated on Mr Page from Hope Nelson. It is very unfair that Mr Page aged 91 who applied for the single living alone allowance in 2004 was totally ignored by the Labour Government. He was totally ignored by the Labour Government not just once but I understand two or three times to the extent that it required Dr Smith to take Mr Page’s case to the human rights commissioner. The commissioner said: “No this is an anomaly that the Labour Government has perpetrated.” and the Government was finally shocked out of its lethargy. So the amendment we have before us is very right and proper in that it would backdate the living alone payment to Mr Page and to others like him who applied prior to 24 July 2004. 
 I too want to make the comment that this part deals with those aged 65 and over who are doing Volunteer Service Abroad around the world. Many many New Zealanders who do that fantastic work right around the world often in very dangerous situations have been penalised by that situation. I think we heard about Mrs Myrtle Whitehead who had done some terrific work in Asia but who had to keep on coming back to New Zealand in order to get her rightful entitlement. So indeed it is quite appropriate that this bill extends the period from 52 weeks to 156 weeks. That means that the over-65 category of superannuitants who are working for Volunteer Service Abroad—and I understand that something like 11 percent of Volunteer Service Abroad workers are in that category—will be affected by that provision so it is appropriate. 
The other point I want to make is that in the Age Concern New Zealand submission on the bill the one major problem its people had was that the bill did not address the fundamental issue—which is that many older people currently do not receive adequate financial assistance from this Labour Government. I think that that is the nub of the issue because as we all know superannuation is indexed to the average weekly wage and we have a Labour Government that came into power in 1999 when the economic growth rate was 4.9 percent—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know that Mr Benson-Pope who is a relatively new Minister is in the chair but there is a longstanding rule from Speakers that the Minister who has preferential access to the microphone should not be able to interject in the way he was doing. I suggest that you bring the Minister to order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that. Dr Smith is absolutely right and I dealt with that matter just before the member raised it. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I am very glad to hear that because I was making the point that this Labour Government came into power in 1999 when the growth rate was 4.9 percent. But what is the growth rate now? It is 0 percent. If we did not have the situation where over 600 New Zealanders are departing these shores every week for Australia perhaps things might be different. But we have a legacy from this Labour Government that the growth rate in New Zealand has not been sufficient to make sure that the elderly of our nation have sufficient financial assistance to ensure in the words of Age Concern that poverty does not predetermine their health and well-being. What an indictment against this Labour Government! If we look into the future for the next few years we can see that the economic growth rate under Labour will fall—it is estimated that it will be between 0 and 1 percent—and that is very serious for the elderly people of this country. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to speak in favour of this bill. It is interesting to note that we always seem to make assumptions about the way people live their lives. We have made a lot of assumptions about elderly people who are living together are sharing a home and have been married for many many years. I think back to my grandparents who were married for 71 years and I am sure that from time to time my wife thinks: “Hell I can’t take another 45 years of this!”. 
Fortunately we as a family did not have to go through the situation of that couple being separated. But through my work as a funeral celebrant I have come across this situation on many many occasions. A couple may have been married for 60 years. The wife is in the home looking after dad. Dad is starting to lose his way a little bit and she through loyalty and commitment does all she can for him—covers the tracks makes little excuses and changes the sheets or whatever when there have been problems. I can think of one particular lady who I buried about a year ago in exactly that situation. For years and years she looked after her husband; she did not want him to go into a home. Eventually it had to happen and by the time he got to that home she was absolutely wrung out. She was a spent force. She passed away not very long after he went to the home and he has survived her. 
There have been inequities around that situation for many many years and they extend right back to a time that we are not really allowed to talk about. It is quite interesting but as soon as National members start speaking about this sort of situation people from the other side yell out: “What about the 1990s?” 
Peter Brown 
: Yeah what about them? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: That is a valid point—what about the 1990s? But if we go back a little bit and start talking about the 1980s then we are told that that is ancient history and that no one wants to know anything about that. After all the Prime Minister apologised to Labour people for the way the Labour Government dealt with them during the 1980s. But a lot of those people knew and Mr Brown would know—because he had less grey hair in those days; he could concentrate on what was happening on the wireless a little more easily I suppose—the situation we found ourselves in in the 1990s. It led to some of the decisions that have been thrown back at us across the Chamber tonight but those decisions were actually being cooked up through the 1980s. I do not know where members on the other side were during the 1980s; maybe some of them were asleep or in some sort of self-induced coma. But some of them had very high positions in the Labour Government and they were part of that situation. When National went into the 1990 campaign the Minister of Finance was saying that there was a $2 billion surplus then we won the election and found that in actual fact there was an $8 billion deficit so I ask members what the hell we were supposed to do. People did it hard; we know that people did it hard. But there is no point in trying to pretend that the situation extends back to only 1990. This Labour Government forgets that Labour has been in Government for 12 of the last 22 years and it is time it started carrying the can for that. But all its members do is swim like a crayfish whenever that issue is raised—“Oh no Chester! That is ancient history.” 
The fact is that Labour has people who have been living with inequity for a long time and it would have been good to have dealt with that through the 1990s. It would have been good to have dealt with that in the last week of 1999 or it could have been dealt with in maybe 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 or—here we are—2006. Labour cracks on that its members are so articulate that they know what is going on and that they have a finger on every button but it was not until the matter was raised by our colleague Nick Smith that they had any intuition it was going on. 
I look forward very much to the day when Labour members start casting their eyes around the other inequities that exist within our welfare system and start to deal to some of those too. And yes I would like to think that they had been dealt with within the term of the National Government but it did not happen. Well now is Labour’s chance—its chance to accentuate just how on top of it Labour is. Let us see Labour deal to all those inequities—just let us see it. I will look forward to seeing that happen. 
The other provision I am pleased to support is the ability for people to spend 3 years overseas working with Volunteer Service Abroad or other aid organisations. That reinforces our role as global citizens and it enhances the cultural values of New Zealanders who have been working overseas for many years. I was speaking to a constituent only yesterday who on a regular basis travels up into Cambodia to train people in optometry. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I rise to support Part 1. I say to my colleague over there Clayton Cosgrove who was kind enough to mention me on more than one occasion in his last speech that he should think about two things when he comes to this Chamber. The first is his predecessor in Waimakariri Mike Moore who I believe represented the true values of the Labour Party and cared for poor old people like those we are speaking of in this legislation. The second point that that member should remember and take on board is that it is no good standing up in this Chamber and running the 1999 campaign now. It is gone. Labour won in 1999 and it has had 6 years to fix up some of these problems. 
Tonight we are debating an issue that has been around since 2001 in fact. The original New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act was passed in 2001 and that is when this Government made a mistake. The question I put to Labour members and to the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope is how that mistake happened. How did this inequity come about and why once the issue was raised did this Government take a minimum of 4 years—maybe longer—from the first time it was notified of this inequity to do something about it? Why has it taken the Government so long to come around to the conclusion that this needed to be fixed up? 
I will look at Part 1 because I know that the Chairperson is anxious that somebody does so at some stage during this debate and at the amendment put forward by my good colleague Nick Smith which was a result of the case of Stan Page in Hope Nelson—not Hope Arkansas which is where President Bill Clinton is from. I know that Labour members have a fixation on anything that comes out of the United States at the moment but I am talking about Hope Nelson. That is for their information just in case they get confused about that. Looking at that particular case and at others like it I understand that 2000 people are potentially affected to the tune of $60 per week by what has been an inequity over all this time. That inequity is from a Labour Government that campaigns every time on social policy. 
I was pleased to hear the comments of my colleague Chester Borrows from Wanganui when he said that not all of the problems within this country were caused by the last National Government. In fact going back to the genesis of some of this inequity it most certainly started in the 1980s under the Labour Government of the time—Helen Clark was a senior Cabinet Minister in that Government and so too was Michael Cullen and a number of other members of the current Government. We should not forget that. In fact there may be one or two members sitting over there who had a fairly senior role in the party during that time as well. So it is a very good point to raise at this stage in the debate. 
Not all of the problems that we face today came about in the 1990s. This Government has had 6 long years since the 1999 campaign when it campaigned against that stuff. Further it has had the best economic circumstances in a generation in which to fix up some of these social inequities. Tonight we heard from the member Clayton Cosgrove about what a dreadful bunch of uncaring people the former National Government members were. Well that member should take a close look at his own track record and that of his party. 
I also say that it is a great thing that tonight with this amendment we are finally recognising those people who are willing to do voluntary service abroad. The fact is that we have a huge number of people with a huge amount of institutional knowledge in a whole range of areas that is useful to New Zealand not only from a public relations point of view but also from an economic market access point of view and a humanitarian point of view—from the point of view of any kind of good work one can think of. They are willing to give up their time go off to countries that one could describe as being not as pleasant to live in during one’s twilight years as New Zealand is and give their services and expertise that has been built up over many many years of experience in their field. 
I also say to the Government members that it is an absolute indictment on them that it took a group of elderly people led by Barbara White to bring a petition to this Parliament to finally get them to do something. I am pleased that the Minister David Benson-Pope is finally standing to take a call. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am hoping a lot of older New Zealanders sitting out there wherever they are are listening to this debate tonight because like me they will be absolutely gobsmacked by the sanctimonious self-serving nonsense they have heard from the benches of the Opposition. Just to remind the members of the Opposition of matters that they have not covered I will talk about Labour’s record of achievement for senior citizens. It was this Government that reversed National’s cuts to superannuation and restored the pension to not less than— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are in the Committee stage of Part 1 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I am looking at the details and we have made many speeches and have wanted some answers from the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope. There are issues of living alone payments for people in residential care and also of people on Volunteer Service Abroad. I think it would be helpful for the Minister actually to address those issues rather than give us a lecture in ancient history. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. I am sure that the Minister was coming to that. He was fully entitled to range over a few issues because he and the Government had been under attack for some time. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.