Ardern Shane: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in  Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: 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:3100] 
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.