Blue Jackie: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Blue Jackie: 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:1642] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. It has been a long time in the making and we have to thank the Hon Dr Nick Smith member for Nelson for getting this going. It is a pity that we had to wait so long. 
I am pleased that the bill will make changes to the New Zealand Superannuation Retirement Income Act 1954 and that it will enhance the lives of superannuitants and veterans who have spouses in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home. Superannuitants and veterans are a section of our society that needs to be acknowledged. They have all contributed to our society; it is a pity that they have had to wait so long to get this recognition. 
Veterans are a specific group within New Zealand and this amendment bill in part acknowledges the role that veterans have played and continue to play in the development of New Zealand as a nation. The decline in the number of veterans of World War II in our population means that veterans are a dwindling population. It is difficult to estimate the numbers of veterans in New Zealand but it is probably best done by counting the numbers in receipt of the war disablement pension. Approximately 16000 veterans are in receipt of that particular pension. This bill targets those veterans who have spouses in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home. In respect of the veteran population we are dealing with a small but diminishing population. Having a loved one in a long-term care facility is an added emotional and physical burden to this group. 
I am pleased that the bill will go some way to help both the veterans and the superannuitants. When a spouse or partner is critically ill in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home facility there is the inevitable additional financial cost of travelling to and from the facility and the other extra costs of caring for a loved one who is in care. Quite simply it is more expensive to live alone. This bill removes the sharing expenses rule for the living alone payment so that entitlement to the living alone payment for New Zealand superannuitants and veteran pensioners is based solely on actual living arrangements. 
I am pleased that the sharing expenses rule has been addressed as it has been the cause of a lot of negative public comment. It operates as a strict and arbitrary form of income testing for the living alone payment. Any outside contribution to the household expenses denies completely a person’s eligibility for the payment. It is arbitrary in that only a particular form of income namely that directly related to household or accommodation expenses is counted. In some cases New Zealand superannuitants and veteran pensioners who are living alone are denied eligibility because they receive modest contributions to their household expenses from others such as family members. Clearly that is wrong. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: It is wrong! 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: It is very wrong. I am pleased that the sharing expenses rule has been removed; it is a pity that it has taken such a long time. We have to thank Dr Smith for that. It is a fair and just amendment. In real terms this bill means that those veterans and superannuitants who have a spouse or partner in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home facility will be better off by $24 per week or about $100 per month. That will go some way to ease the financial burden of those veterans and superannuitants. 
The bill also increases the period of time a person can continue to receive New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension while overseas and working voluntarily for an aid agency such as Volunteer Service Abroad from 52 weeks to 156 weeks. I would be lost even to begin to estimate how many superannuitants or veterans are working overseas voluntarily and suspect that it would be quite a small group. But nonetheless it is an important group however small and those people should not be disadvantaged as they are doing selfless work in Third World countries. They need to be acknowledged saluted and supported and this amendment will go some way towards that. 
However I suspect that many superannuitants and veterans want to travel overseas on extended visits to their children and grandchildren who are settled in other countries because they do not see a future in New Zealand. Those children and grandchildren are part of a growing exodus of people who are leaving our shores in search of a better life. Those superannuitants and veterans should not also be disadvantaged simply because they want to spend some time with their relatives overseas. I am pleased that the bill acknowledges those circumstances. 
Under the current legislation a person with a spouse or partner in long-term residential care can receive only a single or single living alone rate of New Zealand’s superannuation or veterans pension in two narrowly defined circumstances. The first circumstance is if a person’s spouse or partner is receiving a residential care subsidy which is means-tested. The second circumstance is if a spouse or partner is suffering the effects of a stroke and/or dementia and as a result is no longer able to affirm his or her marriage or civil union. We have the petition of Barbara White and 1500 or so others which has been mentioned by previous speakers to thank for the broadening of the eligibility criteria introduced into the bill. It was considered by the Social Services Committee and was recommended in a report that was presented to Parliament on 12 May last year. 
National MP the Hon Dr Nick Smith will be very gratified by the introduction of the bill. In February last year he sent out a press release entitled “Super living alone policy stupid and unfair.” 
Paula Bennett 
: Did Nick put out a press release? 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: Yes. He will be very pleased that something is finally happening. It was actually on behalf of an elderly man in his electorate who was denied the living alone payment under Government policy because his wife was in a rest home and still recognised him. The Hon Nick Smith said in his press release that “The policy is stupid and unfair. It should make no difference to eligibility whether the husband or the wife was in rest home care because of physical or mental disability.” 
He went on to say: “It is insulting that WINZ is advising people that to get the living alone payment they would need to divorce lifelong partners who required resthome care.” He further said: “It is bizarre that if this couple were de facto or gay or if Mrs Page had dementia or was in prison he would be eligible. These factors should be irrelevant to eligibility for the Living Alone Payment that is intended to recognise that it is more expensive for superannuitants living alone.” He went on to say: “There will be hundreds of New Zealand superannuitants whose wife or husband has gone into care and who are affected by that iniquitous policy. The Government should recognize that their new policy is blatantly unfair and change it. If not the Human Rights Commission should declare the discrimination unlawful.” It is very gratifying to see that the legislation is finally coming home to be passed. 
Before I conclude as an associate health spokesperson I would like to make some remarks on the care of our elderly. I would like to quote my colleague Jo Goodhew who is the member for Aoraki and also an associate health spokesperson. In a recent media release she said there was widespread concern that district health boards are still not passing on funding or funding increases to providers of aged-care residential facilities. Mrs Goodhew discovered at a recent Health Committee that figures show that some district health boards are passing on the funding and others are not. Mrs Goodhew was very concerned and did not receive a satisfactory explanation of why that was happening. She said that questions had been asked about why that increased funding had not flowed through to providers but those questions are yet to be answered adequately by the Ministry of Health. It seems that $71 million is in fact to allow the sector only to tread water not to meet increased costs. 
That is simply not good enough. We are an ageing population and to ensure that the health system works effectively we must ensure that we have residential facilities and hospitals for our sick elderly population and we must ensure that those facilities are adequately funded.