New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3014] 
New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a second time 
. The main aim of this bill is to extend eligibility for the higher single rates of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions to all superannuitants and veterans pensioners who have spouses or partners in long-term residential care. This Labour-led Government is delivering on its promise of fairer treatment for the partners of people in long-term residential care. 
The bill also makes three other changes that will benefit older New Zealanders. It removes the sharing household expenses rule which previously limited eligibility for entitlement for the living alone payment. It extends the period of time a person can continue to receive New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension if that person is carrying out voluntary work overseas for a recognised aid agency. Finally the bill will enable all rates of veterans pensions to be increased by Order in Council. 
Four written submissions on the bill were received. Those submissions were supportive of the legislative amendments contained in the bill and I am pleased to report to the House that the Social Services Committee has recommended that the bill be passed and has reported it back to the House without amendment. I would like to thank that committee for its prompt consideration of the bill. I would also like to thank the organisations that made those submissions. 
The extension of the higher single rates of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions will ensure a fairer treatment for many superannuitants and veterans pensioners living in the community who have a spouse or partner in residential care. The change will remedy the current situation where spouses and partners of people in long-term care are currently eligible for higher single rates of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions only in limited circumstances. The main situation where that eligibility occurs is where the partner in care is receiving a residential care subsidy. However access to the residential care subsidy is limited by a means test. The current approach is seen as unfair to spouses and partners in the community. That issue was highlighted by the Barbara White petition which was presented to the House in late 2004. The extension of the higher single rates will apply from 1 July this year. It will mean up to $60.90 a week more net of tax for those affected. Approximately 2000 older New Zealanders will benefit from that change. I should like to take this opportunity again to convey my thanks to the petitioners who first brought this issue to the attention of the House and in particular to the lead petitioner Mrs Barbara White who was ably supported by my colleague Lianne Dalziel. 
As I have previously indicated the bill also makes other changes to eligibility criteria for New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions. From 1 July this year the bill will remove the sharing expenses rule which currently prevents some superannuitants and veterans pensioners from receiving the living alone payment. That payment represents the difference between the single sharing rate and the higher single living alone rate of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions. That difference is currently just over $20 a week net of tax. The sharing expenses rule currently operates as a somewhat strict and arbitrary form of income testing for the living alone payment. In some cases in the past for example superannuitants have been denied eligibility for the living alone payment because they have been receiving modest contributions to their household expenses from say family members. The removal of that rule will mean that eligibility for the living alone payment will be based solely on the actual living arrangements of superannuitants and veterans pensioners and it will therefore ensure a fairer treatment for all of them who are living alone. 
The third amendment contained in the bill will enable a person to be paid New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension for up to 156 weeks if that person is carrying out volunteer work overseas for a recognised aid agency such as Volunteer Service Abroad. Currently the maximum payment in those circumstances is for 52 weeks. However Volunteer Service Abroad for example has a standard assignment period of 2 years. The current rule therefore prevents a large number of older volunteers from making a longer contribution to service abroad. That issue was highlighted by the written submission on the bill that was made by Volunteer Service Abroad. The extension of the payment period to 156 weeks that is provided by this bill will allow for a typical 2-year assignment plus an extension of the assignment time for up to a further year if required. 
The final amendment contained in the bill changes the War Pensions Act to enable all rates of veterans pensions to be increased by Order in Council. That change will align the legislative provisions for making adjustments to the rates of veterans pensions with those for New Zealand superannuation under the Social Security Act. 
In summary the amendments contained in this bill address several anomalies in the current treatment of superannuitants and veterans pensioners. I am confident that those amendments will ensure fairer and more equitable treatment for many older New Zealanders. As I have previously indicated to the House the bill is further evidence of the commitment of this Government to ensuring that superannuitants and veterans pensioners are able to live in dignity and participate as fully as possible in society. I am pleased to commend the bill to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 This is a good bill. I do not want to shock members but I say that it is a good bill. The problem is of course that it has taken too long to get here. Mrs Barbara White was a very brave lady to come to Parliament with a petition. She came to the Social Services Committee and yes she was supported by the member referred to by the previous speaker David Benson-Pope. Mrs White is one of several people who are in the situation of being aged pensioners whose spouses are in hospital or in care—but the spouses can still recognise their wives or husbands. They are people who have been with their spouses for many many years but who are now not only living alone but are living on a smaller amount of benefit because it has not been recognised that they are living alone. She brought her petition in 2002; we are now in mid-2006. That is too long. It is far too long for a situation like this to continue for Mrs Barbara White and the other people affected. 
It is very interesting that a bill was introduced to this House only after my bench mate and colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith also took up the issue for Mr Page. He fought for Mr Page who is a Nelson resident to be able to get a single living alone allowance. Mr Page was living alone but because he had been married for 70 years and his wife still recognised him he was not able to get the single living alone allowance. He was told that he would have to get divorced or have his wife not recognise him before he could get the single living alone allowance. 
That is an instance of the cruelty of some of these regulations. They are set in good faith but unfortunately they do not always take into account human realities. This bill has taken far too long in gestation. It is only a couple of pages long; it did not take an awful lot of effort. I am not aware of any party in this House that did not vote for it. I am not aware of anyone on the Social Services Committee who did not support it. This is a good bill; it should have been before the House a lot more quickly. We could have passed it under urgency—we have had so many sittings under urgency since late 2004. There is no excuse for this bill to have taken so long. It is interesting that only a few people will in fact benefit from this bill. That is because not everybody lives long enough to be living alone while his or her lifetime partner is in care. 
Given the title of this bill and considering that it affects veterans pensions it is appropriate to mention that there are veterans living in the Montecillo Veterans Home in Dunedin who are worried about what happened there. There are Viet Nam veterans who will never ever benefit from this bill because with the life expectancy of Viet Nam veterans they will never live long enough. One of the jobs that I have had to do involving veterans—as with the Agent Orange inquiry—has been to go to an awful lot of their funerals. These are men in their 60s—some now in their 70s—who died far too young. Generally veterans lose about 10 years of their life expectancy. I think that applies to veterans of any war frankly because it takes an awful lot off them. 
Unfortunately this bill will not be of any benefit to Nancy Wake who is the most celebrated war heroine of this country. It will not do her any good. She is now living in England but was born in New Zealand and is of part-Maori extraction part-French and part-English. She is a woman of extreme courage. She is now in her 90s. I have asked this Government to award her an honour while she is alive. I hope that the Government actually takes that step. I understand that it is unlikely given that so many members of the Government in Cabinet have written to me and said that she does not qualify. No I guess she does not. She is only one of the bravest people in the world. She is only a New Zealander. She still has a New Zealand passport. She is a New Zealander. So of course she would not qualify! She has been honoured by the Americans and she is not American. She has been honoured by the English and she is not English. She has also been honoured by the French and the Australians. Australia is the country that she grew up in but she is not Australian any more. She is a New Zealander. 
There are times when we have to make exceptions for exceptional people. Nancy Wake is one of those exceptions. She will not benefit from this bill but she is someone whom this country should be very proud of. I urge members from all sides of the House to put forward Nancy Wake to the Prime Minister and the Ministers and ask that they please take what might be the last opportunity to honour a woman of courage. Too often in this country we honour people just for sporting prowess and arts prowess. We sometimes have difficulty honouring people who do the work that others of us would rather was not done. 
Unfortunately war is a brutal business and Nancy Wake’s job was brutal but she did it. She led 7000 resistance fighters and she led them in the most extreme circumstances. This Parliament has the ability to ask the Prime Minister and the Ministers to do the right thing by one of our very few remaining unrewarded extreme heroes. She is undoubtedly the most decorated war heroine in the world. The only country that has not done its duty by her is her own country New Zealand. My colleagues in the Maori Party have asked that she be honoured National Party members have asked that she be honoured I am sure New Zealand First would wish that she be honoured—and I see some nodding from New Zealand First members—I am sure the ACT party would wish her to be honoured and I am sure that there are many good people in the Labour Party who would wish her to be honoured. I ask them please to take some steps to get their Government to do the right thing by this woman. It is no good getting all excited about heroes and heroines once they are dead because death is pretty final. 
 This woman is 94. Days are not getting any longer for her; they are becoming pretty short. We work in a war memorial. I ask that we please respect this woman and honour her now while she is alive. She will not get the benefit of this bill but it would be one of the things that so many veterans would take as a mark of very good faith and they would respect us very much for doing this. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 In case anyone had forgotten we are debating the second reading of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. This bill is designed to ensure a fairer and more equitable treatment for many older New Zealanders. The Social Services Committee which was pleased to receive this bill worked very collaboratively and well together on something that nobody had any real disagreement upon. It was drafted well and the advice we received on the bill was pertinent. We were able to expedite it quite quickly. As chair of the committee I thank the committee for its good work and the advisers and committee clerks and staff for the assistance we have had to bring it back to this point in the House. 
This bill is delivering on Labour’s election promises as per usual. It extends the eligibility for the single living alone rate from 1 July 2006 to married superannuitants with a partner in long-term residential care. That was a key election commitment and the bill does that. It extends eligibility for the single rates of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension to all superannuitants and veterans pensioners who have spouses or partners in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home. This change will mean nearly an extra $20 per week for approximately 2000 qualifying older New Zealanders. The bill also removes the sharing expenses rule which is arbitrary and too strict in places and it extends to 156 weeks the time people can be paid New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension while they are overseas and undertaking voluntary work for a recognised aid agency. 
The bill is further evidence of the commitment of this Government towards ensuring that superannuitants and veterans pensioners are able to live in dignity and to participate fully in society. This is the Year of the Veteran and what better timing could we have? The Labour-led Government has already made significant progress on issues that are important to older New Zealanders and this bill builds upon that progress. I commend it to the House and look forward to the rest of its passage. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I am from the Kapiti-Horowhenua area and that area has one of the highest rates of over-65s per capita in the country. We all know that we have an ageing population and it will be interesting to see how much that figure increases in the latest census. Up in my region those elderly people are struggling to make ends meet even with the 1 percent lift in the superannuation rate for married couples—which is something to do with the supply and confidence agreement with New Zealand First I believe—that moves the rate to 66 percent of the average wage. But the trouble is that costs continually increase for our elderly people and a lot of those increased costs have been passed through this House in the last 6 years under this Government. 
Rates are increasing. Right now councils are out there consulting on their annual plans and long-term council community plans. We only need to look at how the Building Act has increased the level of general rates on average by 1 percent. We see that councils have ongoing costs of consultation with their glossy documents called long-term council community plans. Councils are out there trying to consult communities with just a handful of people turning up to public meetings while more legislation has been passed under the Local Government Act. 
We should just look at fuel costs and how they are impacting on the elderly. Approximately half of the cost of fuel is collected by this Government in tax. And we can just imagine how much costs will increase for elderly people who have dogs as companions when they have to microchip their dogs. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Only their new ones. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Only the new ones Mr Cosgrove yells out. But what is next if that provision moves through on 1 July? The elderly will have their dogs microchipped so will it be their cats next—who knows? 
Ongoing legislation being passed in this House by this Government is impacting on the elderly. Is the $71 million passing through aged residential care services actually moving through the district health boards? In some cases it is but in most cases it is not. What about the caregivers in this country getting some assistance through an increase in salary? Do they have to wait until next week the week after or a couple of years after that? In my particular patch of Kapiti and Horowhenua we have a crisis with caregivers. Kimberly Centre is closing because there are not enough caregivers to look after those people in our local communities. 
But let us move to this bill which has taken a long time to get to the House—a long long time. I think the fact that it is here at all is due in part to my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith the member for Nelson forcing the issue through the Human Rights Commission. I was interested to read about Mr and Mrs Page who were 91 and 88 years of age respectively. Mr Page was advised by Work and Income to seek a divorce so as to receive the living alone payment and I think that is disgraceful. So this bill will help to get around that issue. It tidies up that situation. 
We need to be aware that the veterans are a dwindling population many of whom have served our country fantastically well. The calculations I have seen estimate that there are about 2000 eligible New Zealanders who will be affected by this bill. We all know it is expensive to live alone so it is good to address the sharing expenses rule. The calculations that I have seen show that the bill will add about $100 a month for those people. Although that may seem small it will go some way towards assisting them. 
The other significant aspect of the bill is that it covers service abroad for veterans and superannuitants. That is moving from 52 weeks out to 3 years which I think is a very important initiative. The bill seems to be a common-sense approach but it has taken a while to get through. I think it has taken far too long. 
In summing up I say that it is great that those people are being acknowledged by the bill because there is an anomaly. Had the Page family been a de facto couple or gay or had Mrs Page had dementia they would have been eligible. So we have to tidy up that issue and the bill does that. 
National needs to be acknowledged as the party that forced this issue to come before the House. Thanks should be expressed to the honourable member Nick Smith for forcing the issue. 
It is hard for the elderly to make ends meet with more and more legislation being passed through the House and that impacts on the many many over-65s in my electorate. 
Darren Hughes 
: Whose electorate? 
NATHAN GUY 
: Just in a couple of years the electorate has become the most marginal electorate in the country. It was won by 382 votes. 
Darren Hughes 
: You’re a list member. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Do not worry about that. It once was a Labour stronghold electorate; now it is the most marginal in the country. 
It was good to see all the back-bench members in the electorate during the recent House adjournment trying to shore up support but they should have done that last year. It is a case of too little too late. There is more legislation jammed down the throat of the elderly. The bill will support the over-65s in my region who need acknowledging. I am happy to support the bill. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 For those who missed that diatribe I point out that that was one very humble Nathan Guy who is a list member from somewhere and is claiming to be a constituent member for the Otaki electorate. The truth hurts—he is not. He is in the Opposition. He is a list member. 
I listened with some interest as Mr Guy addressed this bill and talked about council rates increases. I am advised by a very good authority sitting close to me that Nathan Guy was elected to some council or other—I do not recall which council—in 1998 and I am told that when he was elected to Parliament he gave a pledge that he would resign from the council. I am told he still is a councillor. When he talks about rates rises and how awful councils are in imposing rates rises on the elderly I say to him that he has been on that council since 1998—does he take no responsibility for that? What sort of a council was he part of and what management structure did it run? Governments do not increase rates; Governments look after taxes. Councillors increase rates. He is a councillor. He has been in since 1998 but of course he blames everybody else. 
As I look at this bill I see what a superb piece of legislation it is. It is yet another building block that the Government has put in place to look after our elderly folk. That member who has been here 5 minutes gets up pontificates and tries to be the friend of the battling elderly Kiwi man and woman when he is part of a party that when in office cut the pension three times did not inflation-proof it and de-linked it from the average wage. Now every pensioner around the country knows that. Pensioners are not silly people. They are very wise learned Kiwis who can smell bull a mile away and they got plenty of it from him. [ 
Interruption 
] That member squawks like a headless chook. I invite him to get up again and justify how he can stand there with any gall and any credibility when he is a part of a party that when in office cut the elderly’s pension three times. Does he have an answer for that? No the silence is deafening. He does not because he knows he has been done like a dinner. 
Every elderly person who heard that speech tonight knows that Nathan Guy stands for nothing. Nathan Guy thinks he can hoodwink every elderly person and then he claims he is an electorate MP. Well that is two things. He claims he can hoodwink every elderly person and he thinks that just because they are in their retirement years they may forget it was a National Government that cut their pension three times. And we can see Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber on the other side grinning like a couple of Cheshire cats. They were members of a Government that cut the pension of the elderly. What has Labour done? We have inflation-indexed it. We linked it to 65 percent of the average wage as we promised to do and it goes up with our support party New Zealand First to 66 percent. We introduced the rates rebate for pensioners. We did that. We raised the rate of the pension actually when we became the Government. We had not promised to do it but we did it anyway. I will stand on my record of standing beside our elderly pensioners. 
 There was a time when there was a sort of social contract in New Zealand where one generation had an obligation to look after the previous one. And here I acknowledge our veterans. I have never served in uniform—I acknowledge that. I am a part of only a couple of generations who have not been called to arms to serve in uniform. Who cut the veterans pension? The National Government did. Who pulled the rug out from under every veteran when his or her national superannuation was cut? The National Government did. Who reversed inflation-indexing? Who cut the rate? Who de-linked it? Nathan Guy gets up and proudly pontificates about every veteran as if he is their friend. Well I tell him it was a National Government and that crew over there who sold out every one of those people—people who fought to give us the democracy and the Parliament we have now. “Lest we forget them” is as the ode to the fallen goes but I say it should be: “Lest they forget what the National Government did to them”—and every Returned and Services Association member knows that. 
I invite Mr Guy to learn one or two things from the little 10-minute experience he had. He should not make it up. He should tell the truth. He should not pretend to be something he is not—and he is not an electorate MP. He should not pontificate about rates increases and how hard they are on elderly folk when he sat on a council—and continues to sit in a council—that put up rates. That member said on the electorate stump that if he got elected to Parliament he would resign from that council and would not double dip. And has he? No and he has so much time on his hands serving the one or two people who might have had a look at him on the stump that he is doing two jobs. I invite him to reflect on that. This is a good piece— 
Nathan Guy 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would just like to clarify something. I am not double-dipping. I am still on the Horowhenua District Council but I am not— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That was not a point of order—and that shows him up again. But I thank him for admitting he is doing two jobs. I do not know which constituency he is trying to be a part of. I do not know what he does with his pay and rations from the council; I do not think anyone does. But I will stand by the record of this Government which has stood by pensioners lifted their standard of living given them a rates rebate and looked after them. I compare that with those members over there. 
Then we have Mr Finlayson the “EQC”—the excluded QC. He still is not over it of course. He is part of a party that when it was in Government cut the pension. But of course with his wage packet from his previous job he would not care about pensioners. This Government is delivering on every election promise we made to elderly people. 
Nathan Guy 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to respond under Standing Order 116 “Personal Reflections”. I would like to make a personal reflection; I am not double-dipping on the council. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No that does not apply to that— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: The member takes offence at being accused by the member opposite of double-dipping and under Standing Order 116 is asking the member who made those comments to apologise for them. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The reason I did not take that from what Mr Guy was saying although I accept that he said he was not double-dipping was that he said he wants to make a personal reflection. Clearly Nathan Guy has taken offence. I ask Mr Cosgrove to withdraw his comments. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. But I maintain the position. I am advised that he donates one or the other of the salaries somewhere but nobody knows which salary. That is yet to be proven of course. 
However this bill is a good piece of legislation. It looks after our elderly folk and our veterans. This change will be positive for a whole lot of elderly people. I acknowledge of course that petrol prices and other prices are going up—and that includes rates which that member as a councillor put up. That is why we are including a rates rebate for our senior citizens. This is part of the economic transformation that we as a Government are part of and are putting forward. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Veterans are part of our national identity. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My colleague is right. All the plaques around this Chamber symbolise battles that our veterans either deceased or still living have fought in order to protect and serve our country. They were sold out by that crew over there who cut their pensions. But we stand by them. We acknowledge them. It was this Government that put in place the Year of the Veteran and it was this Government that put in place funds for veterans’ projects this year. It is this Government that initiated after many years of veterans asking for it the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior. I am very very proud of that. [ 
Interruption 
] 
No amount of squawking from the headless chooks on the other side—from the “EQC” the excluded QC over there who still has not got over it—will alter the fact that the elderly know which Government supported them. No amount of squawking from those members will change the fact that the RSA Grey Power and the old folks in rest homes know which Government put in the dollars to assist them which Government gave them a rates rebate and which Government increased their pension. Those folk voted as they will again against a party that during its 9 years in Government degraded their economic circumstances cut their pensions three times—that was Mrs Shipley’s last legacy I think—and pulled out the rug from under them. I commend this bill to the House. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First it is with pleasure that I rise to support the second reading of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. New Zealand First is 100 percent behind this bill and we would like to see it fast tracked through Parliament. Nobody likes to see our senior citizens or veterans disadvantaged in any way so we repeat we would be very happy to see the bill fast tracked through Parliament. 
As Minister Benson-Pope said the bill amends the eligibility rules for New Zealand superannuation under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act and the War Pensions Act of 1954. It makes some very significant changes to the eligibility rules for New Zealand superannuation in relation to people with partners or spouses living in long-term residential care and people who are living alone yet share household expenses. The bill also increases the time a person can continue to receive New Zealand superannuation while overseas and working voluntarily. 
Hon Member 
: Ah! 
BARBARA STEWART 
: It may pay some of the National Party members to listen because the bill will affect them in years to come. 
These are all essential changes. It is worth noting that all of the eligibility changes also apply to veterans pensions. New Zealand First wants to see veterans pension provisions mirror those of New Zealand superannuation. We must acknowledge too that this is the Year of the Veteran so it is timely to remember the enormous sacrifice that all of our veterans made and that many continue to make on behalf of all New Zealanders. It is only just now that the changes have included that group as well. We owe those people a great deal. 
I thought the speech from Judith Collins the first National Party member to speak in the debate was a bit rich given that successive National Governments would not recognise servicemen and women such as Colonel Malone Sergeant Manahi Des Scott or Nancy Wake or even the Viet Nam vets in their plight over Agent Orange or the nuclear test vets. They are all people to whom we owe a great deal. It is worth saying too that in New Zealand First’s confidence and supply agreement with the Government we have agreed that better recognition can be given to the veterans of active overseas service and we want to investigate ways of achieving that. It is one of our priorities in this particular area. 
In New Zealand First we know it is absolutely essential to ensure that the floor for superannuation and veterans pensions does not fall below 66 percent of the net average wage. As previous speakers have said there have been significant price increases in petrol in rates and in all aspects of living and we do not want to see our superannuitants or veterans disadvantaged in that way. We must say that the start of addressing the needs of senior citizens and veterans here in New Zealand was the raising of the level of superannuation. The next change for our senior citizens in line with our supply and confidence agreement will be the golden age card for all senior citizens which we will be delighted to see implemented next year. I am sure Nathan Guy will be extremely happy to acknowledge that in his electorate. I can see members opposite nodding and agreeing. 
New Zealand First members like many other members in this House have heard some very sad stories and received some very sad letters about the situation when someone’s husband wife or partner ends up going into care and the remaining member of the partnership is left to cope as best as he or she can on less than adequate funding. The bill will address that issue far better than is the case at present. These people are living single people’s lives but they still have added responsibilities and costs and it is time we delivered on that issue. New Zealand First members want to see fairer treatment and we are pleased to see that that will be so. 
On the matter of overseas service abroad which many of our senior citizens now get involved in it is really great that the Government has seen fit to extend the period for which people can get superannuation or the veterans pension while they do volunteer work abroad. It is absolutely wonderful to see older people giving of their time and experience overseas. It is something that no doubt many of us will become involved in in years to come. Increasing numbers of seniors are going to the Pacific and they must be applauded. 
New Zealand First applauds this fair and equitable treatment for our seniors and veterans. We want to see the bill fast tracked through the House and it is with great pleasure that we support its second reading. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Let me first congratulate Barbara Stewart on her contribution to the debate. It was the first contribution so far that has been relevant to the bill that dealt with the issues and that avoided the foolish politicking that is going on. I thank her for that contribution. 
The Greens are very pleased to see the bill come back to the House. We would also like to see it fast tracked; we see no need for delay. The issues are urgent and people need to have them sorted so that they can get on with their lives. We fully support the extension of the eligibility for the single rate of superannuation or the veterans pension to those who have spouses or partners in long-term residential care. We agree that the restricted eligibility criteria were very intrusive and very unfair. My colleague Sue Bradford sat on the Social Services Committee which heard the bill and she made a first reading speech on the legislation. I know that she feels very strongly about these issues as well as me. 
We also fully support the changes to the sharing expenses rule that the bill sets out. Like all people on low incomes superannuitants make huge efforts to maintain a reasonable life on a very meagre income. On a day-to-day basis they like other low-income people make financial arrangements to help with the inevitable financial shortfalls that occur when one lives on such a poor income. Those people should not be penalised or persecuted for making those arrangements. This bill fixes some of those rules for superannuitants and those on veterans pensions. We would like to see much more work done on fixing the rules that control and dominate the way in which low-income people manage their finances. We know it is extremely difficult for those who live on a very very low income and there must be some flexibility and recognition of the incredible work people do in trying to maintain an ordinary life. 
We hope that this bill passes quickly and without fuss. I urge members to enable that to happen and to desist from their foolish politicking. This is far too important an issue for that. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 There is a very ancient waiata that includes the phrase: “He rakau tawhito e mau ana te taitea i waho ra e tu te tahiwi. 
[ 
An ancient tree with sapwood just adhering on the outside and only the heartwood standing firm. 
] 
That is a metaphor for an older person whose body is ailing but whose spirit is indomitable. Within our world the spirit of our elders permeates through every decision every discussion and every hui. And we sit up and listen. 
I had the privilege of nursing my mother and caring for her in our home right until the time of her passing. When it came to any decision about whether to attend a hui or travel to a tangi or to major family decisions she was the boss. Her word was law. Sometimes we were not always happy with that law. My children remember the way she used to give chocolates to the dog rather than to them when they were being naughty. We remember the long ash of her cigarette and how we were scared she would burn the house down with her smoking all the time. But nevertheless she was very much in charge. 
I remember at the tangi for one of our aunties in Hastings telling mum on the third day that I had to return to Auckland for some key meetings. It went something like this: “Mum I have to go; I have just been appointed as the race relations executive officer.” She said: “Son I know that’s important but you should stay.” I proceeded off to the marae kitchen though did my poroporoaki to my whanau—my farewells to all my mates family and cousins—and headed for the car. Mum was sitting in the car and she uttered three little words: “Son you stay.” My cousins in the kitchen could not contain themselves when they saw me walk back in somewhat sheepishly having been reminded of my obligations my priorities and my responsibilities. All it took was those three little words. 
The Maori Party therefore comes to this bill fully appreciating the vital importance of the continued participation by older people in community life. Our policy commitment has always been to ensure that superannuation provides for an equitable standard of living and pays for the essentials. We are therefore happy to support the amendments proposed specifically to extend eligibility for the higher single rate to all married superannuitants living in the community who have a spouse in long-term residential care to remove the sharing the expenses rule for determining entitlement to the living alone payment and to extend the period of time a person can receive New Zealand superannuation while he or she is overseas and working voluntarily for an aid agency. 
But we support those amendments while also recognising the relatively high rate of material disadvantage amongst older Maori and the ongoing disparities between the living standards of older Maori and older non-Maori. Decades of disparity have resulted in a higher likelihood of poverty and in higher material hardship levels for Maori than non-Maori as shown in Professor Mason Durie’s report  
Living Standards of Older Maori.  
Although we support the three initiatives to extend the eligibility for superannuation we hope that the Government is also taking responsibility for considering other amendments in the distribution of superannuation that will take into account the disparities evident in life expectancy. 
The figures are shocking. The  
Social Report 2005 
 revealed that the independent life expectancy for Maori men—that is without requiring the assistance of another person or a complex device—is a staggering 58 years. The general life expectancy is 69 for Maori males compared with 77.2 for non-Maori—a difference of 8.2 years. The figure is 73.2 years for Maori females compared with 81.9 for non-Maori—a difference of 8.7 years. That is 8 fewer years of life for me for Hone Harawira Ron Mark Mahara Okeroa Shane Jones Parekura Horomia Tau Henare—even Winston Peters—compared with many other people in this House and I ask whether that is fair. It is no wonder that we pack so much into every moment of our lives. I am intrigued that the members on the Government benches can always quantify and qualify the excellent benefits to Maori of every initiative they have ever created yet when we ask sensitive questions that do not fit with that spin they are silent. 
As in many areas of social policy the predetermined arbitrary age-limits for superannuation eligibility which seem to be set for fiscal reasons generate inequities. Members of the Maori Party challenge the thinking behind that because that creates the disparities. It was precisely because of the dramatic life and death disparities that the Maori Party raised the question before last year’s election that eligibility for superannuation should be reviewed in the light of the reduced life expectancy of some groups in the population such as Maori Pasifika and Pakeha from the lower socio-economic levels. Dr Cullen was duly asked about that very serious policy issue in Parliament on 26 July 2005 and his response was: “I am advised by Treasury that it cannot cost that accurately because it has no breakdown by ethnicity of New Zealand superannuation payments.” I ask members what sort of answer that is.  
Hansard 
 never lies. If the Government does not have the data why does it not? 
That was precisely why the key recommendation from the United Nations special rapporteur Rudolfo Stavenhagen suggested that more targeted research evaluation and statistical databases were required in order to respond to the unique needs of Maori. Of course we are not saying that reducing the eligibility for superannuation from 65 to 60 years is the only way we will achieve change; we are simply saying it is one measure out of many. We must invest in our greatest resource—the diversity of human capital—by addressing access to health services by assisting State agencies to be responsive to the needs of all communities by initiating strategies for recruitment participation and retention across all areas and so on. Services that do not recognise the diversity of the population will never work but it seems that this Government and many people in this House appear to be committed to a one-size-fits-all ethos and they do so in blind pursuit of the cliché of one law for all. 
The provision of responsive services for the elderly must reflect the choices and preferences we can all make about valuing the participation of older people in our society. I was proud that my mum lived out her life in our home. That was the choice of our whanau. Mum always said that she had kids only so that we could look after her in her old age. We were her insurance policy. She had paid the premiums through 70 years of enduring love of discipline of washing nappies and of all that stuff. That was our choice because it is our custom and I would not have had it be any other way. In days gone by that was the norm. The intergenerational disparities have taken their toll on whanau in terms of their ability to do what was done in the past. What will we do about that when we know that one in five older Maori face severe difficulties caused by material hardship and disadvantage? 
We in the Maori Party believe that the economic miracles that every Government has professed to perform have led in part to the fragmentation of whanau and family. Is that fragmentation and the consequential loss of care and responsibility of one human being for another genuine progress? We think not. Will next week’s Budget and its accompanying fanfare trumpet out the glorious differential of 8 to 9 years’ loss of life for Maori as opposed to non-Maori or will it be silent again? The Maori Party will not be silent on critical matters such as reckoning the national accounts in such a way as to ensure that genuine progress is achieved. We will judge the Budget on the basis of the genuine progress index. Our analysis will expose the deficits of that Budget and propose an alternative. We believe this bill should also have reflected and every bill should reflect genuine progress. We support the bill. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand to speak on behalf of United Future on the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. Obviously we will support this bill along with all other parties. It is a good move it is a fair move and I agree that it is probably long overdue. It is interesting to note there were four written submissions on this bill no oral submissions were asked for and all submissions were fully supportive of the bill. No substantive issues were raised in relation to the legislative amendments contained within the bill and no changes were made by the committee. 
I would like to refer to the submitters because I think it is a good time to look at those who did take the time. One submitter that has been mentioned is Volunteer Service Abroad which was genuinely thrilled at the extended period of time from 52 weeks to 156 weeks that someone can receive New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension if he or she is carrying out volunteer work overseas for a recognised aid agency. 
I remember at the time thinking about a lady whom I was very fond of—and I have to mention her name: Myrtle Whitehead—who served for years and years including when she was a superannuitant in Borneo. I remembered a day when we got notice that Myrtle was missing. She was missing for some weeks in the jungles of Borneo. To be honest we had all come to the conclusion that she had had an accident and hurt herself and that we would eventually possibly get news that her body had been found. However a very long time later Myrtle wandered out of the jungle into a village. She had just become lost and gone astray. Through all those years of her hard work for that country with her love of the people of Borneo she was travelling back and forth to New Zealand to keep current with her superannuation which was difficult. 
I was really touched by the comments made by Dr Pita Sharples about the time he had his mum living with him. My husband and I took my husband’s grandmother in to live with us at one stage and she lived with us for the last 18 months to 2 years of her life. We look back on that as a very rich time in our lives. We also have some very funny stories that we can tell about that chance to have her live with us. We could set the clock at the time she would open her door to her part of the house shuffle through not speak a word to anybody come into the kitchen where I was cooking tea and lift ceremonially all the lids of the pots to check that there were green vegetables for our son and if there were not green vegetables of sufficient quantity then I got a telling off. My youngest boy who incidentally is not obese and has never been obese had the best diet of any of our children because nana kept a good eye on it. So all of us who have enjoyed that type of arrangement know how precious it is. 
What our family has not experienced and what this bill is about addressing is the situation where one elderly relative is unable to be cared for by family or spouse because of the level of care that is required and has to go into care and the financial difficulties that that can create for the person living on his or her own at that stage. It is right and proper that this bill is passed and the respect it creates is acknowledged. 
The National Council of Women was also keen to add its support and it made the comment that it felt that this complemented the Ministry of Health’s “ageing in place” strategy and I think the council is right. Age Concern New Zealand also made its feelings known on this matter. There was a submission that talked a little bit about—and I know this will be dear to Mr Mark’s heart—this whole idea of the portability of pensions. It was not addressed in this bill properly because it was kind of outside the terms of this bill. But since I have received some letters on this issue I have been asking the Minister for a briefing on it. I think it is something that needs to be further addressed and we will be looking to the Government to make some changes. 
Ron Mark 
: It is in the Labour - New Zealand First agreement! 
JUDY TURNER 
: Well things are hunky-dory—there is action! We would support that too. We think there is a real need to look at some flexible arrangements around the payment of pensions. So we are very happy to support this bill and we look forward to its speedy implementation. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. 
Darren Hughes 
: The pleasure is all ours. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I am delighted to hear from the junior Labour whip that he is delighted to hear me speak. 
I have just been with one of his colleagues having a briefing on disability and I must say it was absolutely opportune because there is a very large disabled sector in New Zealand. I think the sector commands a budget of about $2.7 billion yet from time to time we hear of anomalies. For example there are situations where for one reason or another a person who is very unwell or disabled and living in a residential care home is separated from his or her long-time husband or wife who is well and living in their own home and one of the couple is unable to access his or her fair pension. What is extraordinary about that situation is that the Labour Government brought in the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act in 2001 and it has taken 5 years for this Labour Government to be prepared to fix that anomaly. 
I acknowledge firstly Barbara White who in 2002 with 1519 others brought to the attention of this House the anomalies that are contained in the legislation whereby some elderly people are not given a fair deal. The petition was presented in 2002. It was not until 2004 that finally the Labour Government was prepared to respond to it. I think that was almost certainly entirely because my colleague the Hon Nick Smith had raised the issue in Nelson. He had raised the issue because of a constituent of his Mr Page who was then aged 91 and whose wife aged 88 was in a long-term residential care home. Mr Page was told by Work and Income that unless he got a divorce from his wife of 70 years he would not be able to receive the single living alone allowance that was due to him. Nick Smith firstly wrote to the Minister but there was no response. Finally he had to go to the extreme lengths of bringing the case to the human rights commissioner— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: And rightly so. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: That is quite the case. It seems extraordinary that despite the petition in 2002 the Labour Government failed to respond and that despite the many letters to the Minister it failed to respond. It was not until Nick Smith brought the case of Mr Page to the human rights commissioner that suddenly and mysteriously this bill came on to the Order Paper. I think that absolutely reflects the fact that this Labour Government often has large areas of lacunae where it does not look at the simple and easily correctable matters that are so important to ordinary New Zealanders particularly veterans and old-age pensioners. I see Clayton Cosgrove who has just come into the Chamber— 
Darren Hughes 
: The Hon. Clayton Cosgrove. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well certainly if the member likes to add that title to his name he is rightfully able to call himself the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. We had a display of strutting and pirouetting from him a little while ago. He had forgotten that it was the Labour Government— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I can’t pirouette. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: He is suggesting that it was inappropriate to say he was pirouetting or doing pliés. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Twinkletoes. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: No that is Rodney Hide. Clayton Cosgrove just sticks to strutting. 
The point I wanted to make was that he overlooked entirely that the Labour Government after a petition from Barbara White and 1500 others left this huge anomaly unaddressed for 4 long years. It was not until the Hon Nick Smith of National brought it to the attention of the human rights commissioner that finally and mysteriously the Labour Government was prepared to address it. 
I must say that the Labour Government prior to the election also said that it would review the entire aged-care sector. The Hon Pete Hodgson went around the country saying that Labour would sort it out once it got into power again. I can say that the aged-care sector continues to be in crisis. There is the situation where different district health boards even though they may get the money do not hand it on to the aged-care facilities. We have absolutely not heard a squeak from the Minister of Health as to how his review will address the considerable problems associated with the aged-care sector. 
I also want to acknowledge the various submitters on this bill which as Judy Turner pointed out included Volunteer Service Abroad. It said in its submission that it was very glad finally to see this anomaly being addressed. Judy Turner described the case of Myrtle Whitehead who had to come back at regular intervals to New Zealand from her excellent service abroad. Now if she wishes she is able to spend up to 2 years away doing very important volunteer work. Naturally once again I want to say that the volunteer sector is hugely important to New Zealand. Clayton Cosgrove and his friends in Labour would again be suppressing the spontaneous commitment and passion of many of these good people if they possibly could. However the National Party is absolutely behind the volunteer sector in New Zealand. The second submission came from the organisation known as the RIMPAC Association and I acknowledge Trevor Humphrey QSM a 70-year-old pensioner who with that group decided that this bill is a very important one. They are pleased that it is before the House. 
Mr Hughes is indicating that I ought to finish this speech. But I think it is very important also to hear what Age Concern had to say about this bill. It said: “We acknowledge the proposed amendment through this bill will improve the situation and make it fairer but the changes do not address the fundamental issue which is that many older people currently do not receive adequate financial assistance from the Government to ensure poverty does not predetermine their health and well-being.” 
I finish by saying that we have a Labour Government that came into office 9 years ago when the Australian average wage on which pensions are indexed was 25 percent higher than that here in New Zealand. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: It is not 9 years; it is 6 years. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well it seems like 9 years. After 6 long years of this Labour Government the average wage in Australia has now increased to become 33 percent higher than the average wage here in New Zealand. That is one of the fundamental reasons why our old people are not benefiting from an increase in the average wage and it is due to the utterly inappropriate policy mix that this Labour Government has installed in New Zealand and has imposed on New Zealand. It is absolutely contrary to the conventional economic wisdom around the world. I see Clayton Cosgrove sitting over there the strutter from down in the south; he does not acknowledge that the fundamental problem that New Zealand pensioners are facing is that we need economic growth in this country. What are the figures today? The Labour Government came in when economic growth was 4.6 percent; it is now 0 percent. That is the legacy of the Labour Government. 
Bill read a second time.