Smith Nick: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in  Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: 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:3107] 
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.