Wong Pansy: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Wong Pansy: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3920] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 This arrogant minority Labour Government has only itself to blame for the fiasco created during the Committee stage of this bill—a bill that is supported by all parties in the House. This bill recognises the changed circumstances in which people live in today’s environment. Widows and widowers of the contributors to the Government Superannuation Fund should not have their allowances forfeited simply because they remarry—and for a while there I thought that Rod Donald was going to declare a conflict of interest. The bill also changes the allowance paid to children of deceased members who came under under the 1985 scheme by replacing the prescribed amount with an inflation-adjusted allowance. 
We were told that the number of widows and widowers affected is estimated to be only about 1200 out of the 47000 people who are currently in receipt of the Government Superannuation Fund pension. The number of children likely to be affected is even smaller. The National Party supports this bill none the less because we believe it is important and significant to those affected. 
Unfortunately this bill—which is very positive and significant for those affected by it—has been overshadowed by the draconian measures used by the minority Labour Government to shut down debate during the Committee stage. First the Chair at the time Anne Hartley would not allow the ACT party leader— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Procedural issues like that cannot be referred to. Decisions made by the Chair have to be accepted. 
PANSY WONG 
: There was a very wide-ranging debate in the Committee stage on the title of this bill. Given that it is generic rather than specific I think that many more members would have taken calls to challenge the title. In modern-day legislation the title of a bill is designed to reflect more accurately its content and purpose. In this instance a generic title like the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) has led to many debates which have extended to the nature of the investment involving the Government Superannuation Fund. When the Government is introducing bills to this House in future it should ensure that titles are more specific and reflective of their purpose rather than being generic. In this instance it has led to a 35-minute debate on Standing Orders. 
The other issue is that during the Committee stage the Hon. John Tamihere replaced the Minister in the chair the Hon Michael Cullen. That was rather unfortunate because there were quite a few valid questions being asked including one that the Hon. Michael Cullen has just provided an answer to—namely the cost of this change. We were told that the cost is estimated to be between $2 million and $2.5 million. The Minister said it might be less than that but the public and members of the various parties in this House were entitled to that information. Indeed repeated questions were asked during the Committee stage and John Tamihere was not able to—or was unprepared to—take a call and reassure us as to the cost of the changes. 
This relatively short bill attracted only three submissions. One was from the New Zealand Law Society which advised on some technical changes to ensure that the wording of one of the clauses was not confusing. The other submission was the endorsement from the Government Superannuitants Association. The third submission was from the National Council of Women of New Zealand on whose behalf I have raised the question of the criteria by which an exception can be made for children above the age of 16 who might still be financially dependent. 
The National Council of Women is an organisation all members should be grateful for because it has taken great trouble—conducting research in its own time—to furnish submissions to various select committees on various bills. Although the council supports this bill in general it has raised the issue of the age at which the children affected are classified as being financially dependent. The council stated that nowadays we are encouraging children to stay longer in the educational sector to equip themselves for a much more dynamic society in which education and skill are required to ensure that they secure more fulfilling jobs. It is a valid concern that children are now more likely to remain financially dependent beyond the age of 16. The officials’ answer was that a case could be made to extend the allowance to children beyond the age of 16 and up to the age of 18. 
So a whole series of questions was posed to the Minister of Youth Affairs the Hon John Tamihere as to what those criteria were; how those children or their guardians could find out how to start the process and who they could consult as to whether they qualified for that waiver. It was extremely disappointing that never at any stage when he was in the chair did the Hon. John Tamihere intend to take a call to furnish those answers or to consult his officials. No matter how short a bill is a Minister in the chair should really be answerable to the public and should answer questions that have been validly raised by members of various political parties. The fact that the Hon John Tamihere was made to sit through the Committee stage after being gagged by the Prime Minister for his indiscretion in speaking against his own colleague Steve Maharey the Minister of Social Services and Employment for the latter’s lack of action should not influence his ability to stand up and answer to the public on a genuine question raised by the National Council of Women.