Carter David: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Carter David: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3719] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I shall start by correcting something that the Minister said when moving the second reading of the bill. In fact the bill did not go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee; it went to the Government Administration Committee. I remember that because when the first reading occurred there was discussion across the House— 
Jill Pettis 
: National still voted against it. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No we voted for it. Jill Pettis a whip does not seem to remember the history. I remember the history quite clearly as I spoke in the first reading and argued that the bill should have been referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. But the Government of the day for reasons known only to itself—and reasons that Michael Cullen was not prepared to share with the House—sent the bill to the Government Administration Committee. I am pleased to see it back here with minor amendments. As we read it for the second time in the House today it certainly has the support of the National Party caucus.  
I recall a meeting in July last year when Lady McCombs—for those who do not know Lady McCombs is the widow of the Hon Sir Terence McCombs who was a respected member of Parliament for Lyttelton for many years. She came and saw me— 
Rod Donald 
: She is a great supporter of the single transferable vote. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: She is also a great supporter of the Labour Party I might add. But she still bothered to come and see me and I appreciated the opportunity of meeting her and other representatives who were dramatically affected by this issue. At the meeting which was held shortly after the calling of the snap election in 2002 she asked whether the National Party would be prepared to support the legislation. I gave her an assurance that we would and I am pleased to be part of the second reading when we further deliver on the promise that I gave to Lady McCombs.  
The purpose of the bill has been outlined by the Minister the Hon Margaret Wilson. It removes an inequity that has existed for some time which occurred in 1985 in the time of the previous Government. It removes an inequity in the way widows and widowers are treated and I am pleased to say that it will be retrospective to 1 July 2002. But I am concerned about the timing of the legislation. It has taken a long time to wind its way through the process and then be back before the House for the second reading debate. I am far from convinced by the Hon Margaret Wilson’s excuse for that which was that the Government has a heavy legislative workload. This legislation could have passed through very quickly. It has widespread support in the House. Margaret Wilson argues that it affects very few people. She gave the numbers from the select committee report—about 800 widows and 19 children. Yes by anybody’s standard that is a very small number of people but that is not the point. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It’s the principle. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: It is more than the principle. This issue is a very big issue for that small number of people and every week that goes by they want not just the promise that the legislation will be passed and not just the fact that it will be retrospectively dated back to 1 July 2002. They want to see the law changed and they— 
Rod Donald 
: It will be by Thursday and it would have been passed today if ACT had not denied leave for its remaining stages. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I do not think for one minute that it is fair for Rod Donald to blame ACT for the legislative programme of the Government. Dr Michael Cullen who sponsors the bill is in charge of the legislative programme—and it is just a nonsense for Rod Donald who has been here for a couple of terms to suggest that Ken Shirley is in charge of the legislative programme. Dr Michael Cullen is the person who decides how important this legislation is. Is it more important than the Holidays Bill which has just had its first reading? To people like Lady McCombs it definitely is. Rod Donald should not blame Ken Shirley; he should blame the person who is making a mess of the legislative programme and is not prepared to get his priorities right. Instead of chipping in he should talk to his mate on the other side of the House and make sure that we get the legislative programme organised so that this legislation is passed in a timely fashion. I say that in all seriousness because when small bills that require inequities to be fixed come before the House it is incumbent on all members of Parliament—particularly when there is such widespread support for the legislation—to get on and actually do the job. It is not a matter of playing politics with it; it is a matter simply of reorganising the schedule reorganising the Order Paper and making sure that we get the legislation passed.  
There is little more that I can add to the legislation at this time. A small number of people are affected but I repeat for them it is a very big issue. I am pleased to be part of the second reading debate and to support the bill.