Dalziel Lianne: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1644] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 As the MP who met with Barbara White to discuss with her what we would do in order to address what was a serious issue I am very pleased to be able to speak in the first reading debate on a bill that addresses the second limb of the two-limbed issue she brought to my attention. When we drafted the wording of the petition we wrote: “That the House of Representatives recommend that the Government review the rules of eligibility for the living alone payment when one of a superannuitant couple is in long-stay or permanent residential care and for practical purposes they are no longer able to live together as a couple.” 
We made a mistake Barbara White and I because we did not realise when we wrote the wording of the petition that the issue of the living alone payment was not the primary issue. For her to qualify for the living alone payment she first had to qualify for the single rate of superannuation. A person cannot get the single rate of superannuation if he or she is married and that was the issue she faced. So we discovered after we had presented the petition that there were two separate issues. One was the appropriate rate of superannuation—that is the single rate as opposed to half the married rate—and the second issue related to the living alone payment which appeared to be subject to different considerations not simply whether the person was living alone. 
So I did some research and I found out that the ministerial directive that related to the living alone payment dated back to 1999. It was a National Minister who signed the ministerial directive that set the way the living alone payment was to be paid. So I had then to find out why she was not entitled to the single rate of superannuation because she was entitled only to half of the married rate of superannuation. I discovered when I went back that a previous National Minister had been given costings on fixing that problem nearly 10 years ago but National had said that it was too expensive and had decided to leave it like that—precisely like that. [ 
Interruption 
] I am really interested that National members want to try to yell over the top of me. The point I want to make to the House— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Interjection is obviously OK but not barraging and not repetitive barraging in the way it is going on now. Would members please keep it down a bit. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I think it is important for the House to recognise that National was presented with this problem in Government about a decade ago and National said it was too costly to fix. This problem— 
John Key 
: It was weeks before the election. What was the actual date? Come on name the date. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It was in 1996 or 1997 that National costed the fixing of this problem. I think it is important for members to know why that happened but I know that National members are not interested in knowing why that happened. The reason was that National finally delivered on a commitment it had given in 1990 which was to remove the surcharge on superannuation. It removed the surcharge and when it did that it created this anomaly. National members do not remember that because they cannot recall how that happened. But I know that Peter Gresham was the Minister of Social Welfare who called for the costing on this matter and he said that it was too expensive to fix. So it— 
John Key 
: You should be ashamed that it’s taken 7 years to sort this out. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It has not taken 7 years to fix because it was brought to my attention by Barbara White 2 years ago and within 2 years this Government has fixed the problem. That is because Barbara White came to me unlike the constituents in Nelson who went to their constituency MP and got nothing. They got a letter sent to the Human Rights Commission; we got a change in the law. 
I think it is important for people to realise that it was not any Government neither Labour nor National that brought in that dreadful exemption which I call the “dementia exception”. It was actually a decision of the Social Security Appeal Authority which stated: “where a married couple are living apart due to one partner suffering the effects of a stroke or dementia and he or she has ceased to recognise his or her spouse and as a result is incapable of positively affirming their marriage vows for the limited purpose of determining what rate of superannuation the spouse living at home should receive the chief executive should regard that spouse as living apart from the marriage partner and therefore unmarried.” Nick Smith said in his letter as was quoted in the House that the policy is stupid and unfair—that is true. That is why the Social Security Appeal Authority tried to work its way around it. It was a National policy that the authority was trying to work its way around. The Social Security Appeal Authority had to determine that a couple was essentially unmarried in order that the spouse at home could qualify for the higher rate of superannuation. This bill fixes that issue. 
But there was a second issue. By the time Barbara White brought her petition to Parliament and had her hearing—very respectfully I might add in front of the Social Services Committee whose members on all sides of the House treated her with great respect and she was very grateful to be treated that way—she had been determined as eligible for the single rate of superannuation. But she did not qualify for the living alone payment because it was considered by the department that her husband was still contributing financially to the household through their joint assets. This bill fixes the second limb of the problem. So both parts of this problem are now addressed for everyone—not just for Barbara White but for the other people who signed the petition. 
 I met the man who signed the petition second. He was in exactly the same situation as the individual referred to by the previous National Party speaker. He did not qualify for the exception because his wife did not have dementia—she did recognise him. He did not qualify for the exception that had been created by the Social Security Appeal Authority to get around the stupid and unfair policy that had been created by National. This legislation will fix that for him. So I think that this is a very proud day. We should be celebrating the fact that the parliamentary system has worked. An individual came to a member of Parliament and said that the situation was unfair. The member of Parliament agreed that it was not fair and undertook to try to fix it. So that member of Parliament instead of rushing off to the Human Rights Commission informed the Minister’s office that a petition would be brought in and asked the Minister to work with the petitioners. We worked with the select committee Barbara White brought her petition to Parliament and with the Minister’s office we were able to achieve this very great result. 
I know that Barbara White is proud of the New Zealand Parliament today because Parliament has set aside some of the political differences that affect the way we operate from time to time to do the right thing—the right thing for her for the other 1500 people who signed her petition and for those who did not put their names on the petition but want to have this matter addressed. This is an example of the system working well—somebody brought an issue to Parliament and Parliament set aside all personal interests to look at the issue and find a solution. 
I think that this could not have happened except under a Labour-led Government prepared to listen to the real concerns of the people and finally to address the problem. I am afraid some National Party members will be very embarrassed when they find out that one of their own previous social security Ministers actually costed fixing this problem a decade ago and decided that it would cost the country too much. All the hollow words that we have heard tonight will return to reflect on those who said that they cared about this issue. Barbara White is a tremendous New Zealander who has done a great thing by bringing this matter to the attention of a Government that is prepared to act and make a difference. 
Bill read a first time.