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

For the benefit of the third parties in the Parliament, I want to outline the amendment I have put forward, because it is significant. On 24 July 2004 the Social Security Appeal Authority ruled that the way in which the Government was applying the provisions was unfair and unjust. I am proposing in my amendment that eligibility for the living alone payment—which, I think, this Parliament uniformly agrees is unfair and wrong—should apply from that date. What does this mean? Mr Stan Page, the constituent on whose behalf I have advocated, applied in 2004 for the living alone payment when his wife Nancy went into care. My amendment will say that he will be eligible for the payment from 24 July 2004, or if it was after that date, from the date they first applied.

I think the Parliament is in agreement that there was an injustice. But I think a real test for this Parliament is the question of whether we are prepared to put it right for the likes of Mr Page. When I met with him in 2004 I was doubtful that he, at the age of 91, could wait many years to get justice on this issue. He promptly applied to the department for the living alone payment. I think it is right and proper that he be eligible from the date on which he applied, particularly as at that date the Social Security Appeal Authority had given its ruling and the department had to revise it. So my appeal to the Committee is on a matter of justice. Mr Page applied, and thousands of other New Zealanders applied, so should they not receive the living alone payment from the date on which they lodged their applications?

I say to New Zealand First members, Green Party members, and Māori Party members who are in the House today: “Will you today stand up for the likes of Mr Stan Page?” When Mr Stan Page’s case was highlighted nationally, a business person came forward and said: “This is so appalling. This is not the way that we treat returned servicemen, and this is not the way we treat senior citizens in this country. I’ll pay the living alone payment.” Mr Page, being of that decent generation, said he did not want to accept charity, and that it was the Government that needed to put this right—and that is what my amendment will do.

So I say to Labour members opposite, who have just heard Clayton Cosgrove say that his party will stand beside elderly New Zealanders, that this will test them. What good reasons can this Parliament give for Mr Stan Page not having the living alone payment backdated to the date on which he would have been eligible? Can any member—the Minister, or anybody else—tell me why Mr Stan Page, whose wife Nancy is in a rest home, should not be eligible for that payment from 24 July 2004?

What good reason has this Government had for taking 2 long years to get to this point when it knew about the situation for longer than that? [Interruption] As my colleague Paul Hutchison points out, the Barbara White petition was in 2002. I have been reasonably generous in saying that we will backdate it to 24 July 2004, the date of the Social Security Appeal Authority decision. I ask members of New Zealand First, the Green Party, and the Māori Party whether today is not the day to put this situation right. Is today not a day on which we can say to the Stan Pages of the world: “Parliament is going to put right this wrong. We will ensure that you’re eligible for the living alone payment from that date.”? It will be an interesting test for the Parliament. Are we truly committed to fixing this? Will Parliament be able to stand tall and correct this anomaly? It is a test for Mr Stan Page.

I see that Mr Clayton Cosgrove is doing one of those cynical grins that Mike Moore used to do. He is the guy who said that it was not sincerity in Parliament that was important; it was the capacity to fake sincerity. Clayton Cosgrove represents all of that. Let us test Mr Cosgrove’s sincerity and see whether he will vote for an amendment that gives justice to Mr Page or whether he will get to his feet and explain why Mr Stan Page should not receive the living alone payment from the date when the Social Security Appeal Authority gave its ruling. That is the right and just answer, and I say to this House that that is what we should do.

I also want to comment briefly on the provision in respect of Volunteer Service Abroad. I too have had constituents draw attention to this problem. I have two elderly constituents who are working for Volunteer Service Abroad in Bougainville. They are beavering away there, helping the community with its infrastructure and with its teaching facilities at a school in Bougainville, that war-ravaged land. They are ineligible for superannuation because they have completed a 2-year contract with Volunteer Service Abroad. I commend to the Committee clause 8, which will correct that anomaly.

Part 1 deals with amendments to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001. Indeed, I absolutely agree with my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith that this part will test the sincerity of Labour members of the Government. It will test the sincerity of Clayton Cosgrove, who waxed so lyrical about what he says is his party’s attitude towards the elderly. There is no doubt that in this bill before us there has been nothing shown but negligence by the Labour Government towards the elderly.

I certainly want to commend to the Committee the very appropriate amendment of my colleague Dr Nick Smith, which will address the anomaly that has been perpetrated on Mr Page from Hope, Nelson. It is very unfair that Mr Page, aged 91, who applied for the single living alone allowance in 2004, was totally ignored by the Labour Government. He was totally ignored by the Labour Government not just once but, I understand, two or three times, to the extent that it required Dr Smith to take Mr Page’s case to the human rights commissioner. The commissioner said: “No, this is an anomaly that the Labour Government has perpetrated.”, and the Government was finally shocked out of its lethargy. So the amendment we have before us is very right and proper, in that it would backdate the living alone payment to Mr Page, and to others like him who applied prior to 24 July 2004.

I, too, want to make the comment that this part deals with those aged 65 and over who are doing Volunteer Service Abroad around the world. Many, many New Zealanders, who do that fantastic work right around the world, often in very dangerous situations, have been penalised by that situation. I think we heard about Mrs Myrtle Whitehead, who had done some terrific work in Asia, but who had to keep on coming back to New Zealand in order to get her rightful entitlement. So, indeed, it is quite appropriate that this bill extends the period from 52 weeks to 156 weeks. That means that the over-65 category of superannuitants who are working for Volunteer Service Abroad—and I understand that something like 11 percent of Volunteer Service Abroad workers are in that category—will be affected by that provision, so it is appropriate.

The other point I want to make is that in the Age Concern New Zealand submission on the bill, the one major problem its people had was that the bill did not address the fundamental issue—which is that many older people currently do not receive adequate financial assistance from this Labour Government. I think that that is the nub of the issue because, as we all know, superannuation is indexed to the average weekly wage, and we have a Labour Government that came into power in 1999 when the economic growth rate was 4.9 percent—[Interruption]

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know that Mr Benson-Pope, who is a relatively new Minister, is in the chair, but there is a longstanding rule from Speakers that the Minister, who has preferential access to the microphone, should not be able to interject in the way he was doing. I suggest that you bring the Minister to order.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for raising that. Dr Smith is absolutely right, and I dealt with that matter just before the member raised it.

I am very glad to hear that, because I was making the point that this Labour Government came into power in 1999 when the growth rate was 4.9 percent. But what is the growth rate now? It is 0 percent. If we did not have the situation where over 600 New Zealanders are departing these shores every week for Australia, perhaps things might be different. But we have a legacy from this Labour Government that the growth rate in New Zealand has not been sufficient to make sure that the elderly of our nation have sufficient financial assistance to ensure, in the words of Age Concern, that poverty does not predetermine their health and well-being. What an indictment against this Labour Government! If we look into the future for the next few years, we can see that the economic growth rate under Labour will fall—it is estimated that it will be between 0 and 1 percent—and that is very serious for the elderly people of this country.

I rise to speak in favour of this bill. It is interesting to note that we always seem to make assumptions about the way people live their lives. We have made a lot of assumptions about elderly people who are living together, are sharing a home, and have been married for many, many years. I think back to my grandparents, who were married for 71 years, and I am sure that from time to time my wife thinks: “Hell, I can’t take another 45 years of this!”.

Fortunately, we as a family did not have to go through the situation of that couple being separated. But through my work as a funeral celebrant I have come across this situation on many, many occasions. A couple may have been married for 60 years. The wife is in the home looking after dad. Dad is starting to lose his way a little bit and she, through loyalty and commitment, does all she can for him—covers the tracks, makes little excuses, and changes the sheets, or whatever, when there have been problems. I can think of one particular lady, who I buried about a year ago, in exactly that situation. For years and years she looked after her husband; she did not want him to go into a home. Eventually, it had to happen, and by the time he got to that home she was absolutely wrung out. She was a spent force. She passed away not very long after he went to the home, and he has survived her.

There have been inequities around that situation for many, many years, and they extend right back to a time that we are not really allowed to talk about. It is quite interesting, but as soon as National members start speaking about this sort of situation, people from the other side yell out: “What about the 1990s?”

💬 Peter Brown: Yeah, what about them?

That is a valid point—what about the 1990s? But if we go back a little bit and start talking about the 1980s, then we are told that that is ancient history, and that no one wants to know anything about that. After all, the Prime Minister apologised to Labour people for the way the Labour Government dealt with them during the 1980s. But a lot of those people knew, and Mr Brown would know—because he had less grey hair in those days; he could concentrate on what was happening on the wireless a little more easily, I suppose—the situation we found ourselves in, in the 1990s. It led to some of the decisions that have been thrown back at us across the Chamber tonight, but those decisions were actually being cooked up through the 1980s. I do not know where members on the other side were during the 1980s; maybe some of them were asleep or in some sort of self-induced coma. But some of them had very high positions in the Labour Government, and they were part of that situation. When National went into the 1990 campaign the Minister of Finance was saying that there was a $2 billion surplus, then we won the election and found that in actual fact there was an $8 billion deficit, so I ask members what the hell we were supposed to do. People did it hard; we know that people did it hard. But there is no point in trying to pretend that the situation extends back to only 1990. This Labour Government forgets that Labour has been in Government for 12 of the last 22 years, and it is time it started carrying the can for that. But all its members do is swim like a crayfish whenever that issue is raised—“Oh, no, Chester! That is ancient history.”

The fact is that Labour has people who have been living with inequity for a long time, and it would have been good to have dealt with that through the 1990s. It would have been good to have dealt with that in the last week of 1999, or it could have been dealt with in, maybe, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, or—here we are—2006. Labour cracks on that its members are so articulate, that they know what is going on, and that they have a finger on every button, but it was not until the matter was raised by our colleague Nick Smith that they had any intuition it was going on.

I look forward very much to the day when Labour members start casting their eyes around the other inequities that exist within our welfare system and start to deal to some of those, too. And, yes, I would like to think that they had been dealt with within the term of the National Government, but it did not happen. Well, now is Labour’s chance—its chance to accentuate just how on top of it Labour is. Let us see Labour deal to all those inequities—just let us see it. I will look forward to seeing that happen.

The other provision I am pleased to support is the ability for people to spend 3 years overseas, working with Volunteer Service Abroad or other aid organisations. That reinforces our role as global citizens, and it enhances the cultural values of New Zealanders who have been working overseas for many years. I was speaking to a constituent only yesterday who on a regular basis travels up into Cambodia to train people in optometry.

It is with pleasure that I rise to support Part 1. I say to my colleague over there Clayton Cosgrove, who was kind enough to mention me on more than one occasion in his last speech, that he should think about two things when he comes to this Chamber. The first is his predecessor in Waimakariri, Mike Moore, who I believe represented the true values of the Labour Party and cared for poor old people like those we are speaking of in this legislation. The second point that that member should remember and take on board is that it is no good standing up in this Chamber and running the 1999 campaign now. It is gone. Labour won in 1999 and it has had 6 years to fix up some of these problems.

Tonight we are debating an issue that has been around since 2001, in fact. The original New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act was passed in 2001, and that is when this Government made a mistake. The question I put to Labour members and to the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, is how that mistake happened. How did this inequity come about, and why, once the issue was raised, did this Government take a minimum of 4 years—maybe longer—from the first time it was notified of this inequity to do something about it? Why has it taken the Government so long to come around to the conclusion that this needed to be fixed up?

I will look at Part 1, because I know that the Chairperson is anxious that somebody does so at some stage during this debate, and at the amendment put forward by my good colleague Nick Smith, which was a result of the case of Stan Page in Hope, Nelson—not Hope, Arkansas, which is where President Bill Clinton is from. I know that Labour members have a fixation on anything that comes out of the United States at the moment, but I am talking about Hope, Nelson. That is for their information, just in case they get confused about that. Looking at that particular case, and at others like it, I understand that 2,000 people are potentially affected, to the tune of $60 per week, by what has been an inequity over all this time. That inequity is from a Labour Government that campaigns every time on social policy.

I was pleased to hear the comments of my colleague Chester Borrows from Wanganui when he said that not all of the problems within this country were caused by the last National Government. In fact, going back to the genesis of some of this inequity, it most certainly started in the 1980s under the Labour Government of the time—Helen Clark was a senior Cabinet Minister in that Government, and so too was Michael Cullen and a number of other members of the current Government. We should not forget that. In fact, there may be one or two members sitting over there who had a fairly senior role in the party during that time, as well. So it is a very good point to raise at this stage in the debate.

Not all of the problems that we face today came about in the 1990s. This Government has had 6 long years since the 1999 campaign, when it campaigned against that stuff. Further, it has had the best economic circumstances in a generation in which to fix up some of these social inequities. Tonight we heard from the member Clayton Cosgrove about what a dreadful bunch of uncaring people the former National Government members were. Well, that member should take a close look at his own track record and that of his party.

I also say that it is a great thing that tonight, with this amendment, we are finally recognising those people who are willing to do voluntary service abroad. The fact is that we have a huge number of people with a huge amount of institutional knowledge, in a whole range of areas, that is useful to New Zealand, not only from a public relations point of view but also from an economic market access point of view and a humanitarian point of view—from the point of view of any kind of good work one can think of. They are willing to give up their time, go off to countries that one could describe as being not as pleasant to live in during one’s twilight years as New Zealand is, and give their services and expertise that has been built up over many, many years of experience in their field.

I also say to the Government members that it is an absolute indictment on them that it took a group of elderly people, led by Barbara White, to bring a petition to this Parliament to finally get them to do something. I am pleased that the Minister David Benson-Pope is finally standing to take a call.

I am hoping a lot of older New Zealanders sitting out there, wherever they are, are listening to this debate tonight, because, like me, they will be absolutely gobsmacked by the sanctimonious, self-serving nonsense they have heard from the benches of the Opposition. Just to remind the members of the Opposition of matters that they have not covered, I will talk about Labour’s record of achievement for senior citizens. It was this Government that reversed National’s cuts to superannuation and restored the pension to not less than—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are in the Committee stage of Part 1 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I am looking at the details, and we have made many speeches and have wanted some answers from the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope. There are issues of living alone payments for people in residential care, and also of people on Volunteer Service Abroad. I think it would be helpful for the Minister actually to address those issues rather than give us a lecture in ancient history.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is not a point of order. I am sure that the Minister was coming to that. He was fully entitled to range over a few issues, because he and the Government had been under attack for some time.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.