Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Oh sorry. The question is that the motion be agreed to. My apologies.CHRIS PENK: Thank you and no need to apologise Madam Speaker. I'm just grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate and on behalf of National to lead off on this the third and final reading. I confirm before going any further that National continues to support this legislation. We support its broad intent and indeed the detail within that.I'd like to make a number of remarks under the themes of the consistency that this legislation is seeking to introduce to a number of different pieces of legislation that are currently on the statute book; also talk about the extent to which the Parliament by passing this Act will be modernising a couple of different regimes; and finally just talk about some of the detail that is important. I acknowledge that the Minister for Social Development has gone through a certain amount of that detail already. I think it would be risky for me to try to paraphrase that in a way that might lead to more confusion not less. Some of that detail that we've heard about—and that indeed is contained in the bill obviously in some considerable length—should not be confused. The provisions regarding spousal deduction and the extent to which benefits and allowances are calculated or recalculated depending upon the status of one's spouse and overseas pension—that's material not to be trifled with so I don't intend to do so. But I do think it's helpful just to note a couple of the particular aspects of the bill in which the detail is significant because it points to the intent of the Parliament in passing the bill and I hope that anyone who is listening to the debate or should wish to go back and check later will understand what it is that we have been engaged in through this process.Speaking of process I wasn't on the relevant select committee at the time that the bill was going through and receiving submissions. I've done my best to get up to speed on that but I do just want to acknowledge none the less those who did contribute to the debate by appearing before the select committee by submitting in written form as well and of course all those involved in its passage so far—officials and members of Parliament on all sides of the House alike.I mentioned before that the passing of this bill is an exercise in ensuring some consistency. There are a couple of different regimes involved. One is superannuation in the general broad sense of that phrase also the veteran's pension schemes and I note that the Minister for Veterans is in the House and no doubt he's taking some interest in this as well as other legislation that is currently passing through this place. Suffice it to say that we believe in National—and I suspect and hope that other parties would agree—that changes that are made to the superannuation scheme that applies to all New Zealanders should not leave behind veterans. Certainly at the very least the changes should ensure consistency between those such that veterans aren't inadvertently excluded from any benefits that are brought by this bill.The fact that it's an omnibus bill reflects that there are a number of different pieces of legislation that are being changed. I won't go through all of those but suffice to say they're in the retirement social security and taxation policy spaces. Of course it's important that they all interrelate and the bill does the things that it should do in relation to making consequential amendments and of course ensuring that those all tie in together pretty well.I talked before about the second of the three major themes that I wanted to highlight. That was around modernisation. I think an example of that is the fact that changes are made to ensure that those who serve overseas in a charitable capacity are not disadvantaged by the fact that the nature of that work is secular or the characterisation of that is secular. That's consistent with a view that I think is pretty universally held: that the affairs of Church and State should be kept separate in most instances certainly. And I think it's appropriate—and we in National think it's appropriate—that people who are engaged in doing good generally overseas are not penalised as I say by the fact of the particular delivery of that not being ostensibly by a faith-based organisation.It's worth noting I suppose in the general policy context of what we're discussing that New Zealanders are living longer and many seniors will no doubt take an interest in different policies relating to superannuation ahead of the upcoming election. That however is not particularly the subject of this bill and there's obviously discussions that could be had around that in a separate kind of way. But I think what isn't in doubt—again I would say hopefully across the House—is that senior New Zealanders do contribute heavily to this nation. They provide help and assistance in many different ways sometimes still formally in the workforce as we understand that phrase in its usual kind of a way but also often in a volunteer capacity whether formal or informal. By recognising in some small way that work that's undertaken perhaps to support family or the community is work that's worthy of being recognised as such—notwithstanding that it's not employment with a capital E"—that's a useful thing that we can do through this bill as well.The detail—as I promised earlier I wouldn't look to get too deep into that. But I think it's worth noting that the bill is careful to recognise situations where an overseas pension is entered into by the spouse—or partner roughly speaking—of a person who themselves is eligible for New Zealand superannuation or a veteran's pension. There has been contention for many years—and a number of us will be aware of it as MPs who have received correspondence from constituents—that a person who is contributing to an overseas scheme that has a voluntary component feel sometimes as though they have been penalised by the fact of having made those voluntary contributions overseas because the New Zealand regime has until now in some cases regarded those as overseas pensions to reduce the amount of New Zealand super to which a person's entitled. Anyway suffice to say that that's I think helpful and useful and frankly a fair change that the bill is looking to make. Again on this side of the House we support that.The final comments I'll make relate to a bit of the detail because I think it's interesting as much as anything. One is to be found in Part 1; the other in Part 2. They're pretty similar—in fact mirror provisions so far as I can tell on a brief look. The "Meaning of living alone" which sounds a bit like it might be something that a Bee Gees song focuses on.Hon Tim Macindoe: Sing it for us.CHRIS PENK: Mr Macindoe's suggesting that I sing "I don't want to live alone" by the Bee Gees but I think in the interest of "Stayin' Alive" I will not do that. No I'm not going to go there.I thought nevertheless what was interesting under the heading of the "Meaning of living alone"—section 159 amended in clause 25 or replacement section 4A in clause 5 depending upon whether one's looking at the Veteran's Support Act amendments or amendments to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act—was the condition relating to the occupation of a different kind of dwelling. We've got a house or a flat; we've got a boat or craft moored within the following sea or waters which include any waters within New Zealand that are a lake estuary lagoon river stream creek or other waters. That seems to me impressively detailed and broad in such a way that the gentleman—I presume it was a gentleman who wrote the first thesaurus: "Rodget". I may not have even pronounced that correctly.Hon Member: Roget.CHRIS PENK: Roget—that's one for the Hansard people to consider and that I owe them a drink over again. Anyway don't know what you'd do without your thesaurus as the saying goes. I'd probably be lost for words if I were to lose it. Anyway I'll leave my contribution there except to say that we do continue to support the bill for all the reasons I've said and also some much more worthy ones that colleagues no doubt will go through at this the third and final reading."