New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill

I bring the attention of the Committee to the genesis of this bill. I have a lovely constituent, Mr Stan Page, who is 91 years of age and lives in Hope, in the Nelson region. Mr Page is a returned serviceman, and he is proud to have been married to his lovely wife, Nancy, for 70 years. When his dear wife, Nancy, had to go into residential care at the Wakefield Village Rest Home, he went to Work and Income and applied for a living alone payment. One would think that common sense would have applied, because he was now living alone, but what the people at Work and Income told him was gobsmacking. They told him that to get the living alone payment he would need to divorce his wife of 70 years.

That is disgraceful, and it is insulting to a senior citizen of this country. I went digging, and I found out that on 24 July 2004 this callous Government made a policy announcement stating that a person in the circumstance of Mr Stan Page could not get the living alone allowance unless his or her spouse suffered from dementia and could not recognise him or her. Well, this was not the circumstance. Dear Nancy Page was physically incapacitated and required rest home care, but she did recognise her husband.

I asked myself what sort of a callous Government would have a policy that discriminated against one of our older, respected citizens in that way. I wrote to the Minister and said that even a Labour Minister might see that the policy is unfair. I received a patronising response from the Minister that basically told me to get knotted. I thought that was unacceptable, so I laid a complaint with the human rights commissioner, who rightly determined that the policy was unlawful discrimination and needed to be fixed. I am pleased to say that at that point the Government succumbed.

But, I say to fellow members, that since 2004, for 2 years—and this case was highlighted on the Holmes programme—Labour members have sat on their butts and let this injustice go on and on. It is not just dear Mr and Mrs Page who are affected. I have stories from all over New Zealand. We have the case of Ralph and Josephine Simons here in Wellington. I could cite cases of people in Timaru, Auckland, Dunedin, and Christchurch who are affected by these unfair provisions. It was only when the Government was on the ropes with the Human Rights Commission, which said it was in breach, and that it recognised the injustice and the wrong that had to be put right.

That is why National members will support the clauses that put this injustice right. We say we should not discriminate against people because they are married, and I hope the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope, has the courage to apologise to 91-year-old Mr Stan Page of Hope, who has been married for 70 years and who was told he had to divorce his wife to get a living alone allowance. People were horrified when they heard this story on the Holmes programme. A businessman from my electorate rang me to say he was so disgusted that he would pay Mr Page the living alone allowance for the years until this matter is sorted. Do members know what Mr Page said? He said that he did not want that sort of charity; he was a man who had stood tall with his wife for all those years. The Minister should apologise. This injustice is wrong and needs to be fixed.

In speaking to Part 1 of this New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): We are on clause 3—on its own.

That is exactly what my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith was talking about. But I want to go back again to the genesis of the bill—to where the Labour Government has shown extraordinary tardiness in relation to the cares and concerns of older New Zealanders. From 2004, not only was Mr Page in great anguish over this situation but also many others in New Zealand were in the same position. It has taken 3½ long years for this callous Labour Government to move to do anything about it. Back in 2002 Barbara White and 1,519 others brought a petition to Parliament calling for the moves that are finally taking place today, with the support of the excellent National Party. It did indeed take 2½ to 3 years before this Labour Government did anything about this iniquitous situation, and it was the Hon Dr Nick Smith who made all the difference in terms of bringing Mr Page’s case to the human rights commissioner. That hugely embarrassed the Government, and it was not until the Labour Government’s embarrassment was acute that it finally decided to move.

I reiterate and emphasise that it was not only Mr Page and many, many others throughout New Zealand but also, back in 2002, Barbara White and 1,519 others who begged the Labour Government to do something about the situation. But, no, it was not prepared to do so. It was far too busy creating welfare dependency and other such situations with thousands of New Zealanders, and it failed to admit this very unfortunate iniquity that affects so many older people.

I must say that when we look at the figures we see that there are very serious connotations to the situation, because the net after-tax married income is $203. Effectively, this bill changes that to $263.90—a difference of $60. That is a huge amount of difference to an elderly person who is living alone and who has to contend with not only power and food bills but also doctors’ bills and all those other basic necessities of life that are so difficult for them to provide. Here we have a Labour Government that has known about this situation since 2002 and has chosen to do absolutely nothing about it.

💬 Bob Clarkson: It’s inhuman.

As Bob Clarkson says, it is absolutely inhuman. It is really just a reflection of the Labour Government having a lacuna for some of the very important detail that affects people around New Zealand. I think Bob Clarkson was absolutely right when he said it was inhuman. Thank goodness the National Party was here to remind the Government that this iniquity existed, and it is good today to be supporting a bill that will, indeed, put right this very, very wrong situation.

The other thing I wanted to say will have to wait for my next speech, because it looks as though the time has come for me to finish. But I am very glad to support this clause. Thank goodness the Labour Government has finally moved.

I rise in support of the amendment to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act—the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I congratulate my colleague Nick Smith and others who have brought this uncaring socialist Government to heel on this issue. I also talk about Stan Page from Hope in Nelson—that is, Hope in Nelson, not Hope in Arkansas, which is President Bill Clinton’s home town. There is Hope in Nelson—unlike the Government, of course, as this Government has no hope of surviving beyond the next election.

This bill is about Stan Page from Hope in Nelson. I congratulate my colleague Nick Smith on putting pressure on the Government over Mr Page’s situation. An amendment to an Act was passed under this socialist Government that brought about total inequity for about 2,000 senior citizens, to the tune of $60 per week, as my colleague Paul Hutchison just mentioned. To people on a fixed income—whom members opposite claim to represent but have no understanding of—such as people in this circumstance, $60 a week is a substantial amount of money.

So what do we have? We have one of these people on a fixed income, in this circumstance, who has had to put a petition together, supported by the National Party, and bring it to this Parliament to politically embarrass this Government into doing what it campaigns on—that is, to support the underdog. We have a classic example here of where that has been the case. It is a proud day for the National Party and Nick Smith to get this measure to the stage where we are debating it here tonight. I say to the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope, that he should go back through all of his social policy and see whether there are other areas where he has created the same kind of inequity as has obviously come about in that legislation.

If people are wondering what the debate is about, the living alone payment represents the difference between a single sharing rate and a higher single living alone rate. That amendment Act brought about a circumstance whereby people who were living alone because their partner had gone into residential care had to divorce their partner or spouse of many years in order to get the higher rate. How ridiculous is that? How could that have happened? Did that one slip past the officials, or did the Minister just rush it through in the normal socialist way, out there engineering for people’s good, and it backfired in this case—or was it a considered proposal when the legislation that brought about that circumstance was introduced? Part 1—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Clause 3.

Clause 3—

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: It’s a drafting mistake.

It is a drafting mistake. We have both made the same mistake, I suspect. I wish the Minister would take a call on clause 3 and explain to the Committee how that mistake took place, or whether it really was a mistake. That question has not been answered tonight. Was there a deliberate intention to try to save a few pennies and put these people in a precarious circumstance where they were clearly disadvantaged by having their spouse or partner go into a retirement or rest home environment? I will guarantee that the Minister will not take a call and answer that.

I also thank the other members who have supported this bill. Clearly, there are 2,000-odd people out there tonight who will, for the first time in a number of years, have the equity they should have had from the beginning. I ask the Minister to please take a call and explain to the Committee how we finished up in the situation where, with all the power of the ministry—with all the horsepower he has at his disposal—he passed legislation that brought about this ridiculous circumstance, and explain why it took the Government so long to respond to the situation once it was made aware of it. The Minister should apologise to those older people who found themselves in this circumstance.

I thank Barbara White for her petition, which brought the matter to the attention of the Government. The Government should do something about it as soon as possible.

It seems that there are so many other things we could be doing with our time this evening, because there are so many wrongs that need to be righted. But, instead, we need to fix yet another mistake that has been shoddily put through. Really, this is about fairness. I am not saying that every penny does not count; every penny does count for these people. They are generally in a situation where they are living day to day, and every penny means something to them. The fact is that they have to fight for a mere $20 extra a week, which could be the difference of getting the paper each day, for example. It is ridiculous that we have to come back and address something that should have been done a long time ago. I understand from my colleague the Hon Nick Smith that this matter was raised in 2004. It seems ludicrous that it has taken 2 years for something like this to come around and to be addressed.

The measure is about those spouses or partners who are in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home. Frankly, the single rates are higher. It relates to a situation where they need to apply for an increase, and it is a matter of whether their partner recognises them. If someone’s spouse or partner recognises that person, it means that he or she is not eligible for the living alone allowance. We all know the costs of living alone, at different times. To clarify things, it is absolutely incredible that people would have to look at divorcing their spouse or partner, whom they may have been married to for up to 70 years, as in the case raised by Dr Smith. If a couple have been married for 70 years and they happen to recognise each other, they can be faced with telling untruths.

What really upset me when I was looking at this legislation was how much dignity people have lost so far. To date, people have had the indignity of sitting before their spouse of many, many years and having someone else determine whether they recognise each other. It is utterly an issue of fairness and what is unjust in our society, that people needed to go through that sort of indignity. I quote from the Minister himself, who said in the first reading that the current legislation requires officials to ask intrusive questions and make complex decisions regarding sensitive issues.

Thank goodness we are standing in the Chamber tonight to try to right this wrong. How ridiculous that we need to do so, but thank goodness the National Party raised this matter as the very important issue that it is. Thank goodness for someone taking on the good fight and battling his way through to see it standing before this Parliament tonight. I commend Nick Smith and I feel saddened for those elderly people who have had to endure the indignity of standing up and asking for a voice—a voice they were not getting from the current Government. It is ludicrous, unfair, and unjust, and, as such, we proudly stand up and advocate for these people.

This very significant bill is known as the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I draw to the attention of the Committee that we are speaking on clause 3, “Purpose”. I think it is worthwhile going over what the purpose is: “The purpose of this Act is to—(a) extend eligibility for the higher single rate of New Zealand superannuation, living alone payments, or veteran’s pension to superannuitants or persons entitled to the veteran’s pension whose spouse or partner is in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home:”.

The reason I think it is so important to point out that we are speaking to clause 3 is that the Labour Government has put a very unusual situation before Parliament, because we have a purpose clause that is not included in a part. I understand that this is an example of the Labour Government, once again, making a mistake. We have the Minister—the Hon David Benson-Pope—sitting there in the chair. I hope he will have an explanation of why, once again, the Labour Government has made a mistake over this bill and the way it has been framed.

After all, it was brought to the attention of this House 4 long years ago in a petition by Barbara White, in which she pointed out the gross inequity of a situation where someone is living in long-term residential care who is unwell or infirm and whose partner, who is living at home, is not eligible for the higher living alone single benefit, which is worth about $60 a week. It is a great worry that the Labour Government is likely to vote against its own bill, which just demonstrates the silliness of this Labour Government, and the lack of preparation and thought it often has for detail. In this bill, which is hugely important to older New Zealanders in a very difficult situation, the Labour Government has not only delayed the payments for something like 4 years, but also when it finally brings the bill to the House, it mucks it up. It is just not acceptable.

💬 Hon Member: Take your pill.

Well, we see that the Hon David Benson-Pope is not taking it seriously. I hope he will give us a serious explanation of why his Government intends to vote against the purpose of this bill, which I understand it is going to do. I hope Government members will give us an explanation because, after all, as Nick Smith has pointed out, it was Mr Page who was put in this very invidious position 4 years ago, at the same time as Barbara White and the 1,519 others who brought a petition to Parliament. They have had all these years to put it right and they have only just now finally—with the support of National—brought this bill to Parliament, but they have managed to muck it up.

Another point I want to make is that in one of the submissions to this bill, Age Concern makes the point that while it certainly supports the proposed amendments through this bill, it believes that it does not address the fundamental issue, which is that many older people currently do not receive adequate financial assistance from the Government to ensure that poverty does not predetermine their health and well-being. This is a very important issue for many thousands of older New Zealanders under this Labour Government. The Government has basically prohibited older people from having the $60, or made it impossible. Finally, they are bringing the payment in after 4 years.

I want to take a short call on this bill.

💬 Hon Member: Give us an explanation.

Well, the member asked for an explanation in respect of the vote against clause 3. If the member took a moment to look at parliamentary procedure, he would note there are two Supplementary Order Papers, one of which splits the bill. Because of that, the clause becomes redundant. It is rather a technical phenomenon. I have tried to use small words and small concepts. I know “redundant” is a rather large term but that is why we voted against it; it is a technical move.

I cannot resist focusing on the false bravado and immodest behaviour of Dr Smith and other speakers. They get up in this Chamber and have the audacity to talk about their deeply held beliefs and feelings for our good elderly folk, how they have been so deprived under this Government, and how all this is so awful. Mr Ardern—if he pulled his head in for a moment, because I know he is quite an honest bloke; he is one of the better of them—knows, deep down, what this is all about. This is about a National Government who, in 9 years, first, had asset testing and, second, cut the pension three times.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Not true.

Yes, that is true. That was Mrs Shipley’s legacy—as Nick Smith did the numbers to roll Bill English, and I am now told he was not sure who he was doing the numbers for—the pension was cut three times and the rug was pulled from under every elderly New Zealander. I see the members of New Zealand First are nodding. They helped to rectify that problem and I acknowledge that.

When we talk about clause 3 and the Opposition bleats about why Labour is opposing it, it is simply because—as National does know—of the two Supplementary Order Papers. One splits the bill and, therefore, clause 3 becomes redundant. Nick Smith’s guile in getting up and bleating and trying to have any credibility with our elderly folk is amazing, after National pulled the rug from under every elderly person for 9 years. National members cut the pension and did not inflation-proof it, and they cut the link to the average wage. They did all those things, then introduced asset testing—which we are removing through legislation we have passed.

I ask members who has more credibility with the elderly folk in this country. We reversed all the cuts of the National Government. We did not actually promise to increase the pension but we increased it. We got rid of asset testing. We are the ones who are putting the rates rebate up so that elderly people can actually afford it—so who has the credibility?

That silly member from Nelson stands up and thinks he can get away with hoodwinking and conning the elderly people in New Zealand. He thinks that just because people are old, they are silly. He thinks every elderly person at home tonight will sit there awestruck by Dr Smith. He thinks they will not remember what National did over 9 years—how it forced elderly people to turn their heaters off at home because National cut their pensions and they could not afford to have them on. The National Government forced elderly people, who, maybe, should have been in a rest home but could not get there because of asset testing, and who did not want to give up the family home and the assets they had put aside for their grandkids, because Dr Smith’s Government introduced it. Labour got rid of it.

If Dr Smith thinks any elderly person tonight is sitting at home and giving him any credibility at all, then he is condemned, because he says that people who are old are silly, and they are not. National members have quietened down now because somebody has got up and reminded them of their legacy and of their history. I invite one of them—even the elderly member over there who took a point of order—to try to get up and tell this Committee that, first, they did not introduce asset testing, second, they did not take off the inflation index to the pension, and, third, they did not cut the pension three times. All of those things are true.

When we dispose of the technical amendments in clause 3, we will deal with these issues. When it comes to standing beside our elderly folk and supporting them, I look forward to the debate. If all National members can do is get up and bleat about clause 3—because Mr Ardern is too stupid to understand that a Supplementary Order Paper splits the bill, and that is why is has become redundant—then they are bereft of any ideas at all.

I recognise that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, who has just resumed his seat, has made a worthwhile contribution; he has outlined a number of facts. But I advise him to hang on to his halo for a little bit longer, because I ask members who introduced the superannuation surcharge. It was, of course, the Labour Government. Members will recall that in 1990 the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, the Prime Minister of the time, said the Government was going to dispense with the surcharge—there were “no ifs, no buts, no maybes”. But what did the National Government do? It increased the surcharge. Then, to pour salt on to the wounds, it had the “mother of all Budgets” and reduced a lot of benefits for a lot of people in New Zealand.

The removal of the superannuation surcharge came about as a direct result—absolutely 100 percent as a direct result—of New Zealand First. It would not have been removed but for the efforts of New Zealand First and, in the main, our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. That was a condition—and the Hon Nick Smith knows it—of the coalition Government in 1996. If he doubts my word, I will bring the document and show it to him.

Tonight in the Chamber there are all these compassionate National people—they have obviously been on a bus ride. Do members know where they have been? They have been on the road to Damascus; they have seen the light. They have suddenly recognised that elderly folk in this country count for something. They have suddenly recognised that fact, and I have never seen so many people converted on the road to Damascus at any one time. I could not believe all the compassionate speeches I was hearing from National members in support of the elderly because, in 1998, about 6 or 7 weeks after the National Party dispensed with New Zealand First in the coalition, National made an attempt to scale down the pension, the superannuation, to being 60 percent of the average wage.

Shane Ardern was there. He might have been the National MP who came and sat next to me—as one of them did; that is the absolute truth—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Which one?

I think it was Shane Ardern. He came and sat next to me, in this House, and he asked: “Why in the dickens are we doing this?”, and I said: “If you find out let me know, because there’s nobody else here who knows.” The National Party—and Clayton Cosgrove said this—has taken the elderly for a bunch of fools. There are 500,000 of them out there, and they are growing by the day.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Winston does that all by himself.

There is one of them there—and they are growing by the day. I am pleased that National members have seen the light and now recognise that people of more mature years count for something in this country, that they have to make a contribution, and that they should be considered by parliamentary legislation.

The purpose of this bill is very clear-cut. I accept that it will be divided into two and have some technical adjustments, and that it appears, apparently—on the surface at least—that Labour will vote against it, but I assume that Labour will not vote to put it right out of court.

New Zealand First supports this bill. We believe it would not have come into being without the efforts of New Zealand First under the leadership of the Rt Hon Winston Peters. We have said for many a year now that the more mature segments of our society should be looked after. Governments have been treating them over a number of years as people who do not count, but National members now realise that the elderly do have political clout, and that they do count.

I move, That the question be now put.

We heard something of a pathetic speech from Clayton Cosgrove. He raved about all the great things Labour has done for elderly New Zealanders, but he did not refer for one moment to this bill. I have a simple question for the previous Minister in the chair, Mr Clayton Cosgrove. Why for 5 years have Government members knowingly allowed the injustice of elderly people being discriminated against in terms of the living alone payment because the married partner lived in care? Mr Cosgrove cannot answer that. Can the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, answer it? No, he cannot. For all their rhetoric about how much they care for the elderly, they cannot answer when it comes to a practical issue like the case of 91-year-old Mr Stan Page getting a living alone payment because his dear wife has gone into a rest home. In that situation, Labour said to Mr Page, in respect of his wife of 70 years: “Divorce her!”. That shows the callousness of Clayton Cosgrove and his colleagues.

Let us test a few of the assertions that have been made by Mr Cosgrove. He said that Labour has abolished the asset and income test. Well, that is news! I have to tell members that this very week—Saturday, at the Nelson market—a dear old lady, whose name I will not mention because I do not have her consent, told me how disappointed she was that Labour promised to get rid of the asset and income test, and 6 years later it is still there and it is still being applied. I ask Mr Cosgrove this question: will he bet me the best bottle of Nelson wine that the asset and income test is gone? He is silent now. Five minutes ago he was making all sorts of assertions, but he will not take me on for a bottle of wine because the asset and income test, which Labour promised to abolish in 1999, is still being applied as we speak.

Then he had the audacity to talk about some of the costs for older New Zealanders. Let us talk some facts, I say to Mr Cosgrove. Does he know how much the price of power has gone up since his party has been the Government? It has gone up by 42 percent. That is an average of a 7 percent increase per year in the price of power. Let us have a look at National’s record. What was the average increase in the price of power between 1990 and 1999 when National was the Government? The answer is 2 percent. It was 2 percent per year in the 1990s, and it is 6 percent per year, I say to Mr Cosgrove, when his party is in power. He should hide his head in shame.

Let us have a look at another significant expense for our elderly—rates. Does Mr Cosgrove know how much rates have gone up because of the dopey legislation his Government has been passing through the House? Rates have gone up by 7 percent per year—so rates have gone up 44 percent for those elderly folk for whom this evening he was crying crocodile tears. Does he know what the average increase was when National was in office? It was less than half that. So I am happy to stand in this House and say that when it comes to the real issues of our elderly folk—their power bills, their rates bills, and their superannuation—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You cut the superannuation.

Well, let us talk about superannuation. This bill is about the living alone payment. Does the member know who introduced the living alone payment? Does the member know who it was who recognised that people living alone actually have greater expenses and are deserving of a greater allowance from the State? It was Jenny Shipley, one of the great Prime Ministers of this country. She was the person who introduced the living alone payment, which recognised the costs of living alone to older New Zealanders. I am proud of the heritage that the National Party brings to the House, and I proud today, again, that it is the National Party that is providing leadership on the issues of justice and dignity for our elderly people by making sure that they get that living alone payment even if their partner is in a rest home. It is right and it is just, and the only thing I say to those Labour members is that they should hide their heads in shame because they have known about this for 4 years and have done nothing. That is why I hope they will be supporting my amendments—so that Stan Page and those like him might get this payment that they should have been getting 3 years ago, and that they will get it for the period for which they were ineligible. That will be the test of Labour members’ mettle when it comes to the question of whether they are prepared to honour elderly New Zealanders.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.