Wong Pansy: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
Wong Pansy: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:606;Page:3887] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 Part 2 goes into some depth about the exact changes the effect of those changes and the time frame of those changes affecting surviving spouses and also children. Even though this is a small bill it is a bill that is supported by all parties in the House. The Government Administration Committee of which I am a member received submissions from the Government Superannuitants Association; the Law Society who provided a very good technical amendment which we accepted; and also the National Council of Women. I draw members’ attention to the submission made by the council. Although in general it supported the intention of the bill it raised two very valid questions. 
The first question was about when the changes would take place and the second dealt with an issue that is not answered in the commentary on the bill. The Minister in the chair the Hon John Tamihere should take a call and answer that question. The council raised the issue of whether those changes will apply only to children under the age of 16. The council said that sometimes children over the age of 16 are still financially dependent and asked why they are excluded from the entitlement. The officials told us—and we included the answer in the commentary—that discretions can be made to apply those entitlements to children over 16 years. But what are the criteria? We cannot find the answer anywhere in the commentary.  
The National Council of Women has always been very diligent in making good substantial submissions. This submission was made by three joint standing committees of that council which had a very genuine concern about the welfare of children who may be over the age of 16 but are still financially dependent. We were told by the officials that discretions can be made by the Government Superannuation Fund to ensure that those children get an entitlement under the scheme. But nowhere have we found the criteria. So the Hon John Tamihere the Minister in the chair must stand and answer the genuine questions posed by submitters about the criteria for those children who are still dependent. How do they know whether they are entitled to that discretion—that waiver—under the Government Superannuation Fund which their parent had subscribed to?  
The Minister should answer. It will be a sad day when a Minister is in the chair but simply as a punishment because he somehow upset the Prime Minister Helen Clark and then refuses to answer valid questions. Every Minister who earns a salary as they do and sits in that chair has an obligation to answer valid questions raised by members of Opposition parties. In this case the questions have been raised by the public. The National Council of Women spent time making submissions and wanted answers but the arrogant minority Labour Government puts a Minister in the chair who knows nothing about the bill will not consult the officials and refuses to answer questions from people who might be affected by these changes. How do they know? Where do they go to apply for these discretions? Even if they are over the age of 16 and financially dependent where do they go and who do they ask? How do they know whether they might fit the criteria for that provision to be uplifted? I do not think it is good enough for the Minister to continue to sit there not answering genuine questions raised by a member of Parliament especially when the questions are raised on behalf of a substantial organisation the National Council of Women.