Tolley Anne: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Tolley Anne: 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:3515] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on Part 2 which directly addresses the amendments to the War Pensions Act of 1954 and to go through just a couple of the clauses that have been amended. There was an alteration to clause 10 because the Government had made a mistake so not only have we waited 5 years for the legislation but when we finally get it we find a mistake. It is a mistake in the definition of “partner”. Well I would have thought that the Government had introduced enough legislation into this House not to get that definition wrong. However— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: They did. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: It did and the mistake is now being put right. 
Hon Member 
: What’s the meaning? 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: It is the same meaning as in the Social Security Act 1964—so this bill does not actually tell us; we have to go away and look it up. 
The other clause to which I want to refer briefly deals with living alone payments. We on the Social Services Committee had quite a discussion about what qualified as a residence or dwelling for a living alone payment. In fact we asked the officials to come back to us with information on that. On the one hand we did not want to be too restrictive but on the other hand we wanted to make sure again that we were creating legislation that was easily defensible clear and transparent. The officials came back to us with some definitions under clause 13 of what qualified as a residence or dwelling for a living alone payment. They told us that a person had to live in a house or flat a boat or craft moored within New Zealand territory—which is very comforting for people up my way—a hotel room or motel unit a room in a licensed boarding house or a unit of accommodation in a caravan park. So that is what we are talking about as a principal place of residence. 
Our difficulties were in talking about what was defined as a residence or dwelling in relation to granny flats that are almost but not quite attached to a house and the distinction between sharing expenses and being deemed to be living alone. In fairness to the select committee I think that that was where most of the concern around the definition arose—so that we did not have people claiming they lived alone when in fact their arrangements were quite different. 
The intent of the legislation in the changes we are making in Part 2 as in Part 1 is that the primary place of residence of the partner must be in the nature of a house or a flat with a kitchen or kitchenette of some sort a bathroom a toilet and sleeping arrangements. Consequently if someone has exclusive use of a residence for living and sleeping—a residence that contains adequate and quite distinct areas for those activities—it will qualify as the person’s principal place of residence in order to determine whether that person is eligible for the living alone payment. 
Finally the last little piece discussed during the select committee examination of Part 2 was clause 14. My colleague Judy Turner raised the issue of whether by allowing pensions lump-sum payments and allowances to be increased by Order in Council there was any possibility those payments could equally be decreased in that way. I thought that it was a very reasonable question to want to be reassured on because “by Order in Council” means that the provision does not come before Parliament and the gaze of parliamentarians. 
Although we did not have a great deal of time on this bill the select committee did spend a good deal of time looking at some of the individual clauses and their effects. It tried to make sure that the legislation was clear and transparent.