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

It is with great honour that the National Party supports this bill. I suppose the first thing we should say about Part 1 is that thank goodness we are here to have a debate and to discuss something that should have happened many years ago. It is quite disturbing and quite upsetting to hear that my colleague Nick Smith’s amendment will not go through, because it was when he brought this issue to the Human Rights Commission that we saw the Government finally do something about it. This tired Government finally felt that it might do something about this issue.

Dr Smith had a constituent whose partner was in long-term residential care. He was getting less money than if he were receiving a living alone allowance, even though the couple was not living together. It is a tragedy for the elderly people of New Zealand that they have had to wait so long for this bill. It is a tragedy that we cannot back-pay some of them so that they can see this happening.

Members opposite can sit there and make gestures and think this issue is not important, but it is incredibly important to a lot of people who are in the situation whereby they would have to divorce or declare themselves unmarried in order to be eligible for additional payment. This is one of those common-sense changes that needed to happen, and it is a tragedy that this Government has taken so long to make it happen.

I have been wondering whether perhaps the Government just did not think the money was important. In all respect, it is not a lot of money that we are talking about. Part 1, which we have changed, refers to a payment of some $20 to $30 a week to people. For elderly people who are living in their own homes, that can make all the difference for them to be able to get services they really need—for them to be able to buy bread each week, or the local paper, if they are looking for something a bit more. The situation in terms of Nick Smith’s constituent was that the wife was in a rest home and because the couple still recognised each other, the husband was not eligible to get the living alone payment.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: It’s appalling.

The member is right, it is appalling. Because the wife still vaguely knew her husband, even though the husband was living alone he was not eligible to get the living alone allowance. We are finally seeing some changes in respect of that.

The Hon Nick Smith needs to be commended for bringing this issue to the attention of the House. It is ridiculous that Dr Smith had to complain to the Human Rights Commission about this absolute miscarriage of justice as a last resort. A week later, interestingly enough, the bill was introduced by the Government. Government members now get to spout forth on how important this bill is and what a great job they are doing, but I point out that it has taken over 6½ years—6½ long, long years. As a new member I constantly hear about what the National Party did wrong in the 1990s, and about everything else. We are in a new century, and the Labour Government has had 6½ long, long years to bring this issue to the attention of members and to do something about it. Without any doubt, this issue has not been a priority for the Government.

Thanks to Nick Smith we are able today to look at this bill and to consider the issues raised. As a member of the Social Services Committee since the last election, I would like to say what an outstanding job the committee has done in bringing the bill together and writing it. The experts have put it together well and members have been able to understand it. The bill has been kept relatively simple, which I think is important. Simplicity is not something that this Government, in particular, is generally very good at. It normally likes to complicate things as much as it possibly can and make things difficult for people to understand, but in this case it seems to have got it relatively right because it has obviously listened to the officials.

This legislation should make it quite easy for people who are eligible for living alone payments. Clause 13 relates to a person who is not considered to be living alone if he or she shares household expenses with another person. That is where it all starts to get a bit confusing and that is where people have been let down in the past. That clause is about the sharing of expenses. The reality is that it does cost more to live alone than to live with someone else. When a person is living alone then he or she is the only one who is paying the power, and power use does not halve, which may be a surprise to some people. A couple’s expenses do not halve because one person has moved out of the house.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak to 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 think it is, once again, a great indictment on this Labour Government when we hear tonight that Nick Smith’s very sensible amendment to allow—

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

I was saying before the dinner break that I viewed with great concern the decision of the Labour Government, which I believe is very mean-spirited, to strike out the most appropriate amendment from the Hon Nick Smith. His amendment has two aspects to it: any person who applied for the living alone payment prior to 24 July 2004, but was declined on the basis of his or her spouse living in a rest home, shall be eligible for payment from 24 July 2004.

One might ask why I am concerned about the mean-spiritedness of this Labour Government. I go back to 2001, 5 years ago, when the Labour Government passed the superannuation legislation. It was only a year later that Barbara White brought her petition to Parliament, pointing out the anomaly whereby those who were living alone and whose partner or spouse was in long-term residential care were not eligible for the living alone allowance. That was 4 years ago. Nothing was done by the Labour Government—not for 1 year, not for 2 years, not until 2004. That was when Dr Nick Smith was approached by Mr Page, a 91-year-old whose wife with Alzheimer’s was living in long-term residential care, to see whether he could apply for the single living alone allowance. He had tried not once, not twice, but three times, and he had been rebuffed by the Labour Government. Dr Nick Smith took it to the Human Rights Commission, and it was only then, only after that long period of time, that the Labour Government finally decided to bring this issue to Parliament. Here we are now, 5 long years later, and the Labour Government has been moved out of its lethargy, out of its stupor, and has brought in this bill, which we indeed support.

When we look at why Dr Nick Smith’s amendment has been so cruelly struck out by the Labour Government, we see that the reason is that the proposed amendment would increase the Crown’s total operating expenses and decrease the balance by an amount of $600,000. If we put that in the context of the $1 billion this Labour Government has put into the interest-free student loan scheme, or the $1.5 billion—even more—this Labour Government has put into the Working for Families package, thus cementing welfare dependency even further into the New Zealand psyche, then we see that it is a very small amount indeed. It absolutely typifies the mean-spiritedness of this Labour Government towards the elderly of New Zealand.

I see the Minister for Disability Issues, Ruth Dyson, sitting in the chair. She is not taking notice of the fact that it is her Government that has dawdled for 5 years over a clear anomaly that affects a considerable number of our elderly in New Zealand. In fact, I think about 2,100 are affected by this anomaly. When this provision is put into place, it will mean about $60 more per week for those individuals. If they are on about $200 a week, then $60 a week represents a huge amount to them. It can make all the difference in terms of the little treats and even, I should say, the necessities of life that are so important for our elderly. It seems that it is quite mean-spirited of this Labour Government not only to have ignored these people for 5 years, to have ignored the petition of Barbara White for 4 years—

I am delighted to take a call on this bill, and for this reason. We see Government members come here fresh, bushy-tailed, and raring to go, and over time we see them get worn down, slide away, start to make mistakes, and ignore good ideas. That is what is happening with this tired, lethargic, hopeless Labour Government.

We have here a really good idea. Superannuitants, their families, and their grandchildren are crying out right across the country for this to happen—man and woman. They are standing up and saying: “Can you just make this little thing happen for my grandfather, for my grandmother, for my elderly aunt?”. That is all they are asking for—just a little wee bit—and this mean-spirited Government is not going to do it. It will not allow Nick Smith’s amendment. This Government is mean-spirited. It is typical of a failing Government that has to go.

Let us have a look at what this is about. Let us take the country through this, because it is really interesting. We have a system whereby this Government has been saying for years that if one’s husband, wife, or partner gets sick, it is too bad. The Government will give those people a single superannuation payment, and will not recognise the fact that they might have extra expenses. “Not us”, says the Labour Government. “Not us”, says Helen Clark. They are not going to do that. They are still going to make people pay. Well, finally, Nick Smith—and congratulations to him—has brought the Government to its senses, and finally it will recognise that there is a need. But it has taken too long.

But, even worse, the Government is using this thing called a fiscal impact report to reject Nick’s amendment that would have allowed anybody who applied since 2004, etc., to be eligible for the living alone payment. This country looks at claims going back to 1840 in some cases. There are people who are in this Parliament for that very reason—to make sure that injustices of the past are recognised. Here we have something that will cost less than $600 million. My colleague Dr Paul Hutchison talked about some of the things that this Government is prepared to spend money on. What about some of the things it wastes money on, like Te Wānanga o Aotearoa and things like that, which the National Party has exposed? Why cannot the Government put a little bit of money aside to help our elderly folk? The Government has mean-spirited people. It is typical of a Government that is going down the gurgler.

I want to say this about Nick Smith. He is the sort of genuine Kiwi who gets on to an issue and makes it happen. He is a guy in Opposition who is making the Government do its job. He is part of the National Party caucus, which finally has got this Government to start to do something positive for the people of New Zealand—not just the elderly but their families and their grandchildren, the whole of our society. I say to this Parliament: “Congratulations, Nick Smith. At last you have brought a modicum of decency into this Parliament through its legislation.” He has recognised something that this lazy, hopeless Government should have thought about so many years ago. How long? Is it 3 years, 4 years? It does not matter.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: 5 years.

That is disgraceful. It is hard to believe that people in this country who pretend to be parliamentarians do not care, for a whole 5-year period. That is amazing. I am shocked. I think I need a glass of water. I think my blood pressure is rising. I cannot believe this. How can anyone sit on that side of the Chamber and claim to represent the people of New Zealand, particularly the superannuitants, but then take 4 or 5 years to deliver?

💬 Anne Tolley: What about the veterans, though?

Oh well! Do not get me started on the veterans! I would be here all night. I would have to have some oxygen to get through the veterans case. It is bad enough dealing with just this issue. At last the Government is finally doing stuff that Nick Smith has asked it to do. The National Party supports him. Thank goodness we are here!

What a fantastic contribution from my colleague Mr Carter, and how true his words are. It is a disgrace that it has taken this Government so long to bring this legislation to the House, and when it did it had the full cooperation of all the other parties to bring it through in a timely fashion, because we all knew that it made sense and that it was fair and just legislation.

But I just want to speak tonight about one little part of it that disturbed me throughout the whole process. I cannot see many of my colleagues from the Social Services Committee here, but it was very difficult for me to get to the bottom of this part of the legislation during the select committee stage. I refer to clause 8, “Absences up to 52 weeks with aid agencies”. In the information that was provided to the select committee, the case was made to change that 52 weeks because there were a reasonable number of superannuitants or veteran pensioners overseas undertaking voluntary work who were penalised for being out of the country too long.

I do not have a problem with that; the problem I had was that all the information that came to the select committee members talked about a 2-year period and about the fact that the request for an extension of this time was to cover the 2-year duration of a standard Volunteer Service Abroad assignment. I was actually very happy to do that. The case was made that some people have had to take a shorter assignment because otherwise they would be penalised. I agree with all the logic in that. The question I kept asking, however, was why in this legislation we do not see a 2-year period, as all the evidence and all the requests were about. No, we see a 3-year period. I do not have a problem with whether it is 2 years or 3 years, but I take passing legislation seriously, and as a member of Parliament I want to know that I understand the reason for all the legislation that I am involved with and that I have to defend out in the community.

Throughout the process I could not get a valid reason for having an extension to 3 years rather than an extension to 2 years. It was not that there was any great call for 3 years. It might be a pedantic point, but I think that legislation is an important part of the role of a member of Parliament. Legislation affects people’s lives, and we should have good reasons for passing laws in this country. We, as parliamentarians, need to be able to understand the reasons for them. At the very last minute, when we were getting ready to deliberate in the select committee, I was finally given a reason for the 3 years. It is because the term of our representatives overseas, our ambassadors, is 3 years. In actual fact, that is quite a different issue from what is raised in this legislation. I thought we were talking about volunteers working for recognised aid agencies overseas. That has nothing to do with people working in the diplomatic service; that is quite another issue altogether.

Because I had made considerable attempts to get some rationale behind the 3 years, I did not want to pursue it anymore. I must confess I gave up, but I did say that I was going to raise it during the debate. There is still not a good reason for extending it to 3 years. If there is a good reason, I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Ruth Dyson, to take a call and explain to the Committee why there is this extension to 3 years rather than the 2 that was requested, which was backed up by the information that had come in to the select committee. Why we are we now passing something that was not called for? I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to tell us whether the answer is, as some of her colleagues are suggesting, something that we should know.

It is a pleasure to be speaking in the Committee stage of this New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I note that no member of the Labour Party has yet taken a call, so it is really quite hard to believe that this is a Government bill. It might be a Government bill in name, but it is quite obvious that it has actually resulted from the efforts of Dr Nick Smith, the MP for Nelson, who has had the gumption to bring this bill to the House. [Interruption] We now have the member for Wellington Central—perhaps for not much longer a member of the Labour Party—Marian Hobbs, starting to chime in. If she would like to get up and take a call on the Labour Party’s behalf, the contribution would be most welcome.

This is common-sense legislation, and it has been put forward by the party of common sense, the party that has the interests of ordinary New Zealanders at heart: the National Party. It really is a crime that it has taken 6½ years for this bill to come before the House. Dr Smith was approached by a constituent, a Mr Page, who could not get a living alone payment because his wife was in a rest home. That really highlighted quite a bizarre anomaly. While Mr Page, who has paid taxes all his life and who is now a retiree, was living at home, his wife was in the rest home. If Mr Page had actually divorced his wife, he would have been eligible for the living alone allowance. Mrs Pettis is shaking her head over there, so I hope she will be taking a call soon, too, because she has had a lot to say during this debate about her own pension being cut.

💬 Jill Pettis: No, my mother’s.

Oh, her mother’s—I am sorry, I thought it was Mrs Pettis’ pension. I apologise to the former member for Whanganui.

This bill is all about dignity, and it is the National Party that is giving New Zealanders back their dignity. I think it is just very sad and disappointing that Mr Page had to go to his member of Parliament, who in turn had to go to the Human Rights Commission, just to get the basics Mr Page was entitled to as a taxpayer—the dignity of being able to claim, as a superannuitant, that single person’s allowance.

I note that it is quite interesting that this legislation, put forward basically by Dr Smith, really follows a similar pattern to what we have been seeing: the National Party gets behind a piece of legislation, and suddenly it becomes Government policy and a Government bill. It is a bit like the situation where revenue from the petrol tax is now going to be put into roading. That is National Party policy, but we heard at the launch of the last Budget that the Government will be doing that. Of course, we know that before the next Budget and the next election, Labour Party members will be talking about tax cuts, because those members are on the back foot now. They are on the run, and National is dictating the agenda. I note that Mrs Pettis has no answer to that—no answer at all. The interesting thing is that when the working people of New Zealand get that tax cut, the pensioners of New Zealand will actually benefit. If people had received those tax cuts National was going to deliver at the last election—

💬 Jill Pettis: Well, why didn’t they vote for you?

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN:—Mrs Pettis should just listen; she will find out about her own pension—pensioners would have been better off by $1,200 a year, in the hand, because the pension is based on the average take-home wage. So if the Labour Party were really serious about doing something practical for the working people of New Zealand, and also for superannuitants, it would have embraced tax cuts. That is a little bit of a digression, but it is absolutely true.

The public, in regard to this bill, were outraged with the sharing expenses rule. How that worked was that if someone had fixed costs—as we all do—in running a household, those fixed costs were not taken into account when considering the level of allowance the person should have been paid while his or her spouse or partner was in a rest home. So this bill will extend the eligibility for that higher single rate of New Zealand superannuation, for living alone payments or veterans’ pensions, to those whose spouse or partner is in long-term residential care, a hospital, or a rest home. We in the National Party think that that is absolutely just. The Labour Party has had well over 6 years to do something about the situation, but it has actually taken Dr Smith’s initiative to get the bill through.

It is with absolute pleasure that New Zealand First supports 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. As has been pointed out, the bill affects a significant number of our seniors; Dr Paul Hutchison mentioned that the number of people was in excess of 2,000. We definitely want to see the bill passed through Parliament quickly, particularly as every speaker to date has supported the bill. New Zealand First is 100 percent behind the bill, and we want to see it fast tracked through. We do not want to see it delayed, in any way. We know that developed countries around the world are assessed by how well they care for their seniors, and we must ensure that our seniors here in New Zealand can live well in their golden years.

The changes that are outlined in the bill are absolutely essential. This is fair legislation, and I know that that has been mentioned by every speaker to date. So we all want to see the bill passed. New Zealand First members are very pleased that this bill removes the anomalies that exist with the living alone payment. The amendments mean that eligibility for the living alone payment will be based on actual living arrangements rather than be influenced by whether another party is making a contribution. We hear so many sad stories when someone’s partner ends up in care and the remaining partner is left to cope. Unfortunately, those people are living single lives at home but they still have all the responsibilities and costs that come with a household. It is time that this issue was clarified, because we believe that people have been let down totally in this area in the past.

Of course New Zealand First wants to see fairer treatment for our senior citizens, and we are pleased that this is the second change we have seen in this Parliament. The first change was the raising of the superannuation rate to 66 percent of the net average wage, which we applaud. Our next change will be the introduction of the golden age card for senior citizens. New Zealand First members know that our seniors are actually waiting for that change. We know, too, that the issues that are dealt with in this bill are urgent, and people need to have them sorted out so they can get on with their lives.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Keep waiting!

I know that the National member on the other side of the Chamber is also waiting for his golden age card. I can assure him that after the next election he will more than likely be eligible to apply for it. So I ask him to support the golden age card at this point in time. We are looking forward to the implementation of the golden age card, and we know that that is coming through as a result of our confidence and supply agreement.

We must acknowledge that this bill also deals with veterans, and we need to remember the enormous sacrifice veterans have made on behalf of all New Zealanders. We owe those people a great deal. I thought that speeches made by some National members in this debate were a bit rich, considering that successive National Governments would not recognise some of our veterans and would not give them medals—veterans like Nancy Wake and Des Scott—but I have heard that Sergeant Mānahi will be recognised. There is also Lieutenant-Colonel Maloney. The Viet Nam vets have been striving for a long time to have some settlement over agent orange, and of course there are also the nuclear test vets. They are all people to whom we owe a great deal. It is worth saying that the veterans of overseas service need to be recognised, and we want to investigate ways of achieving that recognition. With the Year of the Veteran now upon us, I know that one of our priorities in that area will definitely be met. We need to ensure that veterans and superannuitants have the best possible living standards, and we do not want to see them disadvantaged, in any way. This bill goes some way towards actually ensuring that.

So we want to see the bill passed quickly through this Parliament—we do not want to see any delays—and we will be supporting it every step of the way. I know that my colleague from Hamilton East, David Bennett, will definitely be very happy to see the bill passed, too.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. Tēnā tātou katoa. I will make a brief call to reiterate the Māori Party’s support for the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill.

Ever since the beginning, elders have had a special place in our family, in our extended family, and in our community. Against all sorts of odds we are still fighting hard to keep that situation going. The key thing for us is to make sure that our elders have the opportunity to play a role in the lives of their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. That is obviously why we support the bill—so that they can have a fair means by which to enjoy their later life and times.

In fact, it was respect for elders that created the kōhanga reo movement in 1981, which saw for the first time a whole-of-New Zealand movement whereby Māori respected and followed the wishes of their elders. All over New Zealand kōhanga reo were created, quite independent of Government or any formal organisation, simply because the elders who had gathered decided that it was a good initiative that should be followed. So that is a modern example, if you like, of the status that our old people hold in our lives.

I point out that although we support the initiatives of the bill—to extend eligibility, etc.—we hope the Government is also taking the responsibility to consider other amendments, in respect of the distribution of superannuation, that take into account the disparities evident in life expectancy. For example, Māori men will die 8.2 years earlier than non-Māori men, and Māori women will die 8.8 years earlier than non-Māori women. So that means that Winston Peters, Mahara Okeroa, Ron Mark, and a few other colleagues will not be around for as long as some other members. As in so many areas of our social policy, those predetermined, arbitrary age limits, which seem to be set for fiscal reasons, generate inequities. We challenge the thinking behind those age limits, in that it creates the disparity. That is why, prior to the election, the Māori Party came out and said we should perhaps consider providing superannuation earlier to certain people, if it could be shown that those people had a shorter life expectancy.

The Māori Party supports the bill. We would also have supported the amendment for back pay—had it not been thrown away—the amendment to go back to that time when people applied for back pay and were declined, and so on. But we support the bill.

I rise in support of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. It is good to hear that the Māori Party would have supported Nick Smith’s amendment, which has, unfortunately, been vetoed. I think this is a callous Government that has actually—

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: It’s a rebuff.

That is exactly right. That amendment should have been allowed to go through. Fundamentally, it should have been in there. It is good to see that the Māori Party is supporting National in that matter.

I was also interested to hear Mrs Stewart, from New Zealand First, talk about the golden age card that will come in soon. I think we are all waiting to see exactly what the golden age card will deliver. Will it deliver cheaper petrol or power for those who are over 65? We will wait and see.

I am from Kapiti in Horowhenua and, as members know, that region has the highest number of people over 65, per capita. We have an ageing population in Horowhenua and Kapiti, and this bill will help those people.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Including my mother.

That is exactly right. The member’s mother, who resides in Ōtaki, may well be listening this evening, and I think she will be delighted with this bill.

To understand more about the bill, I recently went out with some caregivers in Ōtaki. They are doing a fantastic job in looking after war veterans and people who want to age with dignity in their homes, but they are not being very well rewarded. It was interesting to see exactly what caregivers do. They are friends of the people they care for. They clean for them, look after them, and get their groceries for them. They are a point of contact for them. It was great to see in the Budget that some money is to flow through to those caregivers—they are to get 50c an hour. How pitiful is that for caregivers who look after those superannuitants? An hourly rate of 50c equates to about $1,000 a year. Petrol is the biggest issue for caregivers who look after elderly people in their homes. We all know that it now costs about $100 to fuel up a car. Caregivers of aged people living at home have their own vehicles to look after. They have to provide their vehicle’s warrant of fitness and pay for its repairs and maintenance. Caregivers are being unfairly treated—just like superannuitants with this bill.

It has taken 6 long years to get this measure through—6½ actually, but who is counting? I guess caregivers are wondering whether they will have to wait that long before they get fairly remunerated and receive some assistance towards costs, for looking after superannuitants who live in their own homes.

I believe that about 2,000 superannuitants aged over 65 will qualify under this bill, which is fantastic. It will be only a small drop in the bucket, though. My arithmetic is that they will benefit by only about $20 a week. That is about $100 a month. Is that enough? I guess it is a start, is it not? It is a start in relation to rewarding those people who have been unfairly treated by an old, tired, dilapidated Government that is on its last legs.

💬 Dr Jackie Blue: They’re running out of ideas.

That is exactly right. Government members are running out of ideas, so it is great to see that this bill has come into the House because National and the Hon Nick Smith—who has worked hard for people in his electorate of Nelson—have forced the Government’s hand. It has taken 6½ years to get the bill to this stage.

It is also nice to see, in relation to eligibility, the extension of time from 1 year to 3 years for those who do voluntary service abroad. That is fantastic, but I am still waiting, as is the member for East Coast, Anne Tolley, for the Minister to take a call to explain why the extension to 3 years was introduced through the submission process, when there was already a huge amount of support for the eligible period to go to 2 years. Why has it been extended to 3 years? Let us hear from the Minister. The challenge is for the Minister to take a call on that.

💬 Dr Jonathan Coleman: We haven’t heard from anyone in Labour.

That is right.

💬 Dr Jonathan Coleman: Get Jim out of his newspaper.

NATHAN GUY:They are not interested. The Government is old and tired. This bill is all about allowing those people who are over 65—those war veterans who have served this country—to age with dignity. Those people have looked after us and after this country.

I am delighted to speak to 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 would like to reflect on how this bill came into being. I think it is important that we go back in time and think about how it got to be here in the Committee of the whole House today. For that, we cannot look any further than the Nelson MP, the Hon Nick Smith. We have “Nick for Nelson” to thank for this bill, through one of his constituents, a Mr Page—an elderly gentleman; I heard tonight that he was 91—who did not need all the grief he got. Mr Page’s wife, Mrs Page, was in residential care, but Mr Page was not given the living alone payment, because his wife recognised him. If Mr and Mrs Page had been a de facto couple, or even a gay couple, or if Mrs Page had had dementia or had been in prison, then Mr Page would have qualified for the living alone payment. It was just a bizarre set of circumstances.

So there we had Mr Page, an elderly man with an ill wife in long-term residential care, going to his MP, the Hon Dr Nick Smith—“Nick for Nelson”—who brought the situation, finally, to the attention of the media. He took it further than that; he took it to the Human Rights Commission. It took Nick Smith’s efforts to get this legislation into the House, and it is Nick Smith that we and Mr Page have to thank for that.

In fact, as I heard tonight, there are over 2,000 “Mr Pages” living in this country. Those people have been sadly neglected, and it has taken 5 years for the legislation to get to this stage. This bill recognises that it is more expensive for people to live alone. In addition, the bill recognises and acknowledges that more incidental costs are incurred when a person’s spouse or partner is in long-term residential care. Those costs include travel and the other little extras incurred in making sure a person’s loved one is well looked after. So this bill acknowledges the extra expenses involved when a spouse or partner lives alone and looks after a loved one who is in a long-term residential care situation.

This bill will also improve the lives of the veterans we have in our society. This year is the Year of the Veteran, and we have to acknowledge that. Veterans have played a huge part in developing this country. They have served their country and contributed to it. Veterans, of course, have been a dwindling part of our population since World War II. They are diminishing in number. I went on a search and did a calculation to find out how many veterans we have in New Zealand. There are about 16,600, and we have to salute them. They have worked hard and served our country well.

While I am on the subject of veterans, I want to talk about Nancy Wake. I am terribly disappointed that this Government did not recognise Nancy Wake in the recent Queen’s Birthday honours. She is a New Zealander—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member has to address the bill.

This bill is about fairness. For partners or spouses who have loved ones in long-term care, there is an added emotional and physical burden, so I am pleased that this bill will, in many ways, help ease their financial burden.

Clause 5 amends the sharing expenses rule for the living alone payment, so that the entitlement to the living alone payment is based solely on actual living arrangements, and not, as previously, on income testing or on contributions to household expenses from others, such as family members or other sources. That is fair, and I am very pleased that the sharing expenses rule has been amended. It is now fair and just. There was a lot of negative criticism about that particular rule, and I am pleased it has been amended in Part 1.

I have done some calculations, as well. I have worked out exactly how many extra dollars per week and per month veterans will actually get, in real terms. My calculation is different from that of my colleague Nathan Guy. I calculate that it is $24 per week, not $20. But he is right: it is about $100 a month, so I am not sure where we went wrong on the calculations, to differ slightly on the weekly allowance.

💬 Nathan Guy: Inflation.

That is right. That money is a start. It is not a huge amount of money, but it will go some way to helping. We have to acknowledge that it is a start.

I move, That the question be now put.