Prasad Rajen: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prasad Rajen: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7432. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I was intending to take just a short call on this bill the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill but the derogatory comments by the last member Melissa Lee really open the field for a slightly wider response to what that member was saying. Melissa Lee was saying that this side of the House has not supported the Government’s growth agenda. Well where is that growth agenda? What growth has been achieved? What that member refuses to acknowledge is that the country is suffering. There are people going into Christmas poorer and with little on the table. That is what my colleague Su’a William Sio was putting on the table but that member chose to respond in that nasty kind of way. Really what that member was not acknowledging is that the country is disappointed—is disappointed—in this Prime Minister and is disappointed in this Government because things have not improved. Things have been poorer— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Concentrate on the bill. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The member should go back and have another sleep—because he was having one earlier Mr Finlayson—rather than interjecting with his inane comments. Go back and have a sleep. That might be better Mr Finlayson because that is what the member was doing just a few minutes ago. For many in this country these last 4 years have been years of crisis I say to Melissa Lee with 4 years of broken promises 4 years of no growth 4 years of more people leaving the country 4 years of greater unemployment and 4 years of our youth being just totally disenfranchised. So let that member think about that while she tucks into her Christmas dinner this year because there will be many who will not be doing that. That is what my colleague Su’a William Sio was putting on the table. This bill is a good bill. We support it. It is largely uncontroversial so there is no need for the member to invoke all of those nasty things about this side of the House. 
The need for the bill arises from a decision of the Social Security Appeal Authority in relation to a decision of the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development. Really although the amendments to the bill are relatively minor and technical their effects will be significant on the lives of our most vulnerable—the elderly and those on other kinds of pensions such as veterans for example. Change for our elderly is trying at the best of times. Whatever can be done as this bill does to make that transition easier is to be supported which is why this side of the House has cooperated in the select committee process and supports this bill. To take that risk of trauma away from our elderly at this time is important. 
 The bill makes it clear that pensioners and veterans whose situation changes and who begin living alone will not be disadvantaged and that the transition to their new status will be a smooth one and really can be effected immediately. That is a good thing. So the new single living alone allowance rate will apply to these two groups of people: pensioners and those on veterans pensions. Under the amendments contained in this bill there will now also be a simplified procedure—and that is quite important—for their status as living alone to be effected immediately and automatically. This is a sensible change. Clearly there was a difficulty with the decision of the Social Security Appeal Authority that had to be fixed up. It has taken a while for it to go to the Social Services Committee and come back but it is here now. 
Another change has to do with the situations of those with a dependent child. My colleague Su’a William Sio talked about this at great length and explained that the definition of a dependent child is brought into line with the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act. The change now enables a person going on to superannuation to still be living alone until the end of the 18th year of their dependent child. So until the end of the year that the child turns 18 the person can still up to that point be declared to be living alone. That is a sensible thing to do. 
However it does really raise problems. This is what my colleague Su’a William Sio was talking about. At the select committee we tried to have this matter addressed. In addition to what my colleague Su’a William Sio was saying there are other situations that really are quite common now in New Zealand. We have talked about people having children later in life and therefore reaching the stage of retirement when they still have dependent children. With the increase in the number of grandparents now having to care for grandchildren the chances of that group of people having children dependent on them still living at home even beyond 18 have not been taken into account. This is why we will introduce some amendments during the Committee stage of this bill. 
In addition to what has already been talked about there will be those who will have particular and additional needs especially those with disabilities so the cut-off at year 18 seems a little bit arbitrary for that particular group of people. There could have been some simple amendments made through this particular amendment bill that would have addressed that but that opportunity was not taken. As I said knowing that there is a growing need for grandparents who are on superannuation to take on the care and responsibilities of grandchildren here we have an opportunity missed that we did not take that into account. We will be talking about that in some detail during the Committee stage so that those kinds of changes can be made. This is what the Dunedin Community Law Centre people and Grey Power were saying—that this was an opportunity to do that. But we could not convince the select committee to go along with that. 
The other changes again are technical. The bill does bring some definitions of licensed boarding houses into line with the Residential Tenancies Act. Although these changes are technical they have real impact on the lives of our most vulnerable at a vulnerable time. I am pleased that the bill does make those changes for our elderly and those who are veterans and makes that transition easier simpler and seamless. But it leaves a major issue unaddressed. I would like to hear what other members of the select committee who follow will say about that now as to what were those ideas and how they could be addressed because it still sits on the table particularly at a time when it is much more difficult for many young people especially those who are dependent because of disabilities to get work and to become independent. 
We all believe in families. We believe that families ought to offer that kind of support. We have prevailed now upon our elderly mainly grandparents to take on the care and responsibilities of grandchildren and when that is made more complicated because of the disabilities that exist in families then I thought this Parliament would take the opportunity to address that through this particular bill but it did not do that. There is an opportunity during the Committee stage. I hope members will consider the Supplementary Order Papers that are to come on that particular issue. If addressed they would resolve a difficulty. This side is quite happy to support this bill with that proviso. 
Returning to what I started with this is not the time through this bill to talk about this side’s response to what the Government is trying to do because the Government needs to live on its own record over the last 4 years. That record has not resolved the misery of many families and as they go to Christmas we ought to contemplate that. In the spirit of Christmas may I finally also wish the House and members’ families a very merry Christmas. Please keep safe. Thank you.