Williams Poto: Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Poto: Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 18 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4592. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Kia orana Mr Speaker. In February I had the pleasure of travelling to Rarotonga to attend a United Nations development partners meeting. They had an award ceremony on one of the nights I was there and during the award ceremony they made an award to my uncle Mr Tekake Williams. Tekake Williams is a pioneer of the black pearl industry. Many of the people from this House who have travelled to the Cook Islands know that the black pearl is one of the major components of the economy in the Cooks. My father Nahora Williams used to travel back to the Cooks to help his younger brother work in the pearl farm in the early days. When my father retired he would travel every year to the Cooks for a couple of months—he would winter up there—and he would be very pleased to know that we are putting this bill through the House and that it will be passed tonight. Portability was important to him. He did not have the opportunity to access the portability that is now being afforded so in that regard today is a very important day because the bill will be passed and afford to many people the opportunity that my father did not have. My father I should also say used to travel to the Cooks and leave mother behind but that is a whole other issue.Portability is important because as my colleague Carmel Sepuloni said one of the unintended consequences of being part of the countries of the Realm of New Zealand and travelling on a New Zealand passport is the depopulation of the home islands. We are able to travel freely as people of the Realm to New Zealand and we have done so not only to New Zealand but also to Australia. So this portability bill is an attempt I guess to support the travel home the return home of people in order that they contribute to the economy of their home islands.But what is difficult about it—and we have traversed this well and truly across the House during the passage of this bill—has been the difficulty around the residency clause that mentions “after the age of 50”. Twelve of the 13 submitters were very clear that they felt that clause was a huge barrier to the opportunity to make a significant difference to the economy of the Cooks and to the population of the Cooks—and I speak of the example of the Cooks because I have personal knowledge of this. The opportunity that my father for example may have had to go back and actually start a pearl farm of his own had he been able to do so cannot be afforded to him and there are many people who are currently in the countries of the Realm who will have to return to do that 5 year residency. It is blatantly unfair when we have portability arrangements with other countries that do not have that as a provision. It is unfair.We had the benefit of having the Hon Henry Puna the Hon Nandi Glassie and Premier Talagi from Niue here to present and the very fact that we had two heads of State and a Government Minister from overseas countries come and present to our select committee should have been recognised for the value that it brought. They were coming to plead their case and that unfortunately fell on a couple of deaf ears. There was also the hard work by the Matua group and I have to acknowledge the group in Christchurch led by Mama Tufunga and Papa John Pitomaki who were very impassioned in their submission and quoted the sacrifice they felt they and their families who had come before them had given to this country. I have already in this House talked about the 500 soldiers from the Cook Islands who fought for New Zealand under the New Zealand flag during World War I. What has that afforded to us? In this bill it is demonstrated that that sacrifice has been for nothing. I also want to commend the submission made by the Christian Church in Christchurch by Mrs Teremoana McNabb. She too spoke quite passionately about the residency requirement post age 50 and how unequal that made her feel as a Cook Islander living in New Zealand.But there was hope. There was hope in the form of the Supplementary Order Paper that was put forward by New Zealand First. It was supported by us. It was a good Supplementary Order Paper and it was an attempt to redress an inequality that exists within this bill. After the Committee stage as my colleague Carmel Sepuloni has said I was canvassed quite heavily by members of the Cook Islands community to ask: what now? What now? What can we do now? Unfortunately for this bill that is it. We will not actually be able to demonstrate our commitment to our Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau communities as we would have hoped. We will not be able to say that yes your sacrifice your hard work and the lives of your ancestors do mean something to New Zealand and yes we will bring you in line with portability arrangements with other countries that do not have the special arrangements. But in this case we cannot say that.I also have to acknowledge the RSA submitter who made a very clear case that when you receive a war pension that is not the same as superannuation. He wanted it noted on the record that someone who puts their life at risk in service of this country should be recognised differently to someone who receives a pension because they have been a taxpayer and it is the age of eligibility that triggers that. I want to acknowledge that RSA submitter and say yes I agree that someone who does put their life on the line for their country should be treated in a different way and acknowledged in a different way. Superannuation and war pensions should be treated separately so I acknowledge the work that you have done.So I say to all of those people—and there will be one or two who are watching the third reading of this—that we did try. We tried really hard. We did our best but it has not come to fruition as you would have hoped. But we all know that there is one person whom we can point to on the other side of the House who could have stood up for you but chose not to—someone who could have petitioned his colleagues and talked about his own family experience but chose not to. I am not going to belabour the rest of this bill. I am pleased about the provisions that we are passing in this bill and it will make it possible for some people to have the opportunities that they may not have had prior. But at the end of the day it does not do what was promised by Mr McCully all those years ago and for that I am very disappointed. Kia orana. Meitaki maata.