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

Part 2 particularly refers to amendments to the War Pensions Act 1954, and to other consequential amendments. As we have heard from other members around the Chamber, many veterans in this country—over 6,000—will be affected by this bill. That is one of the reasons why National is supporting it—because we recognise the tremendous service over many decades that our service people have given for New Zealand. This Parliament is living testimony to the many wonderful deeds of our servicemen and women over the decades. The very least we can do is to increase their entitlements—as this bill will do. What worries me hugely is that the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act was passed by the Labour Government in 2001, Barbara White brought her petition to Parliament in 2002, and Mr Page—through Dr Nick Smith—took his case to the Human Rights Commission in 2004, but only now in 2006, 5 years later, has the Labour Government woken from its stupor to finally get on with passing this bill.

My colleague Anne Tolley from East Coast, an excellent member of Parliament—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: That she is, an excellent member.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON:—Yes, she is—brought out a very important point relating to the superannuation entitlement period of Volunteer Service Abroad people. Under this bill, they have been awarded a period of 3 years’ absence from this country, when all they requested at the Social Services Committee, apparently, was 2 years. I would like Mr Benson-Pope, a man of considerable largesse in this case, to take a call and explain to the House why that is so for Volunteer Service Abroad people—the over 65s apparently number about 40—who do wonderful work around the world, and who were given a hard time in the past because they had to come home within 52 weeks, but who now, quite appropriately, have had the time extended to at least 2 years.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: Who in the National Party ever cared about that? Who in the National Party, like the great Nick Smith, ever cared about the volunteers? Not a soul.

We wonder what Marian Hobbs is saying. I know she is very sore about the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary, because that mean-spirited Labour Government would not support it—and it did nothing about this bill for 5 years.

We had better get back on track. I ask the Hon Mr Benson-Pope to explain why he has granted largesse over and above what was requested by the Volunteer Service Abroad people but has taken 5 long years to respond to a very significant anomaly affecting many elderly people in New Zealand, including veterans. When we think that Mr Page was married for 70 years and then was told that the only way to receive the living alone allowance was to get a divorce—and that was 3 years after the situation had been brought to the attention of the Labour Government—we can understand why National is so concerned about the sensitivities of this almost stuporous Labour Government. Can Mr Benson-Pope explain why he has given largesse to the Volunteer Service Abroad people? It is quite right that they should be granted their request for 2 years, but why go to 3 years? Can he tell us how many of them do stay away from New Zealand for 3 years? I would think that very few indeed would do so.

However, the really important thing is that Labour has been so tardy for so long in bringing this bill to the House. We see Mr Benson-Pope sitting there, unprepared to answer a very serious point as to why he has not responded for all those years.

I rise to take a brief call on Part 2, which directly addresses the amendments to the War Pensions Act of 1954, and to go through just a couple of the clauses that have been amended. There was an alteration to clause 10 because the Government had made a mistake, so not only have we waited 5 years for the legislation but when we finally get it we find a mistake. It is a mistake in the definition of “partner”. Well, I would have thought that the Government had introduced enough legislation into this House not to get that definition wrong. However—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: They did.

It did, and the mistake is now being put right.

💬 Hon Member: What’s the meaning?

It is the same meaning as in the Social Security Act 1964—so this bill does not actually tell us; we have to go away and look it up.

The other clause to which I want to refer briefly deals with living alone payments. We on the Social Services Committee had quite a discussion about what qualified as a residence or dwelling for a living alone payment. In fact, we asked the officials to come back to us with information on that. On the one hand we did not want to be too restrictive, but on the other hand we wanted to make sure, again, that we were creating legislation that was easily defensible, clear, and transparent. The officials came back to us with some definitions, under clause 13, of what qualified as a residence or dwelling for a living alone payment. They told us that a person had to live in a house or flat, a boat or craft moored within New Zealand territory—which is very comforting for people up my way—a hotel room or motel unit, a room in a licensed boarding house, or a unit of accommodation in a caravan park. So that is what we are talking about as a principal place of residence.

Our difficulties were in talking about what was defined as a residence or dwelling in relation to granny flats that are almost but not quite attached to a house, and the distinction between sharing expenses and being deemed to be living alone. In fairness to the select committee, I think that that was where most of the concern around the definition arose—so that we did not have people claiming they lived alone when, in fact, their arrangements were quite different.

The intent of the legislation in the changes we are making in Part 2, as in Part 1, is that the primary place of residence of the partner must be in the nature of a house or a flat, with a kitchen or kitchenette of some sort, a bathroom, a toilet, and sleeping arrangements. Consequently, if someone has exclusive use of a residence for living and sleeping—a residence that contains adequate and quite distinct areas for those activities—it will qualify as the person’s principal place of residence in order to determine whether that person is eligible for the living alone payment.

Finally, the last little piece discussed during the select committee examination of Part 2 was clause 14. My colleague Judy Turner raised the issue of whether, by allowing pensions, lump-sum payments, and allowances to be increased by Order in Council, there was any possibility those payments could, equally, be decreased in that way. I thought that it was a very reasonable question to want to be reassured on, because “by Order in Council” means that the provision does not come before Parliament and the gaze of parliamentarians.

Although we did not have a great deal of time on this bill, the select committee did spend a good deal of time looking at some of the individual clauses and their effects. It tried to make sure that the legislation was clear and transparent.

I will not take up a great deal of the time of the Committee, but like a lot of listeners I am growing somewhat tired of the cant we are hearing from Opposition members. [Interruption] I will articulate and explain in a moment, ladies and gentlemen. I guess no one should be surprised at National’s fascinating reinterpretation of history. This afternoon in the House we heard National members pretending they had not sold 13,000 State houses. Well, we know how to spell “crocodile”, and no one for a long time has believed that any of the tears on the faces of National members were other than hypocrisy.

I would like to say to Dr Hutchison in particular—who spent a great deal of time talking about how tardy this Government was in correcting this unfortunate situation—and to his little acolytes, that the history goes back somewhat further than he is remembering. I am not surprised institutional memory does not exist in his party, given its various electoral results in recent times, but I say to Dr Hutchison that he needs to get his research unit to work because he will be interested to know—

💬 Dr Jonathan Coleman: What’s that got to do with the bill?

You are about to find out if you would just listen, big-ears.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Peter Gresham, who was a National Government Minister in 1995—I say to Dr Hutchison that it was in 1995—had this policy issue investigated. Mr Gresham costed the correction this Government is now putting in place—apparently supported by the National Opposition, although that is hard to believe when we hear the nonsense we are hearing—and he decided, in 1995, not to do anything about it. I say to Opposition members that if they really believe that this is a policy step they need to do something about, they should stop rabbiting on about it and support what is happening right now, 11 years after their own member refused to take this step. I think that says the whole story.

It is good to take a call on Part 2, “Amendments to the War Pensions Act 1954, and consequential amendments.” I was very much a passenger during the process of this bill through the House, but I must admit that the way that the Minister approached his opportunity to articulate the meaningfulness of this bill brought to my memory some of the arguments made earlier on, when it very much came down to a situation of tit for tat.

When I look at Part 2, I see again that the Labour Government has been caught short while sitting on its hands, and it has been judged wanting. When we look at the issue of the veterans, we see this Labour Government has brought forward a generation of people in New Zealand who do not have a passion or a respect for the contribution that servicemen and women have made to New Zealand. It was an immense privilege to be present this year at Gallipoli, and to experience the passion and the sense of nationhood that arises from being present at that ceremony. I would recommend that to all New Zealanders.

However, one cannot see past the fact that it is important to address the anomalies. There is very little difference between the circumstances of the case that Nick Smith took to the Human Rights Commission and the conditions we see amongst our veterans today. Those men and women are aged; they are getting on in years. No doubt at times they feel that we have forgotten them and do not value their contribution. It is interesting that in Marlborough the average age of our population is higher than normal. When elderly people come to see me, they want the simple things to be done: cataracts, hips, and knees to be operated on, and footpaths to be straightened. Those people were prepared to pay the ultimate price and put their lives on the line. The least that we can do for them is to treat them with the dignity they deserve and the respect they have earned.

💬 Jill Pettis: So why did you cut their pension in 1991?

That is a very interesting question. When one goes into an election being told there is a $2 billion surplus, and then looks at the books and finds there is an $8 billion deficit, one realises somebody has cooked the books and so does the fiscally prudent thing. I encourage the member to narrow down her comments to the bill, as I will do.

The interesting aspects that are coming in include the provisions relating to absences for up to 52 weeks with aid agencies. It is very appropriate to extend that period, even though the honourable member Anne Tolley made a very fine point when asking why the amendment was for a period of over 2 years. I was quite comfortable with a period of 3 years, but I did not sit on the select committee. I found the arguments put forward by my colleague Anne Tolley very informative, and on that basis I bow to her experience. When the Minister takes another opportunity to get to his feet and speak, I ask him to address the bill and to explain to us where the period of 3 years came from.

It is interesting also to note that section 74H of the principal Act states that the chief executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade must determine any question that arises as to whether an aid agency fulfils the qualifications set out in the legislation. So, when the Volunteer Service Abroad people go across the seas, they still have to get approval. It makes me wonder whether, if they have approval, we should limit their time at all. I think that anybody who is prepared to leave these shores and serve where the need is great, where education is short, where a country’s economic well-being is tipped upside down and in turmoil, is very similar to the veterans who have served our country so well and who will do so in the future.

It gives me great pleasure to support this part of the bill. I take great comfort and support from the information and knowledge that has been so very evident on the Opposition side of the Chamber, and lacking on the Government side.

It is a pleasure to speak on Part 2, which deals with amendments to the War Pensions Act of 1954 and consequential amendments to that Act. It is quite appropriate that Part 2 will deliver something in this, the Year of the Veteran. Veterans have made a major contribution to New Zealand society. They are people whom we should honour and cherish right through their old age and until their dying days.

I also want to acknowledge a lady who has not been mentioned so far in this debate—Barbara White. She is a lady who brought a petition to the Social Services Committee, I believe it was 4½ years ago. I must say I think the Minister missed a splendid opportunity, as the sponsor of this bill, to pay tribute to that lady because it takes quite some bravery for a member of the public to come before a select committee and present a petition. I think we should acknowledge her contribution.

I was disappointed that when the Minister spoke on this bill he did not take the opportunity to say something positive and Labour members degenerated into a stream of bile directed towards the National Party. This is legislation that all the parties are supporting and it will deliver something positive for New Zealanders. In the spirit of that legislation, this is a good opportunity to say something positive. I note, too, that this bill deals with Volunteer Service Abroad issues. I have had the honour over the past week of going on the Pacific mission with the Minister of Foreign Affairs up to Vanuatu—an area of the Pacific that is really—

💬 Christopher Finlayson: Did he behave himself?

Well actually, he did behave himself. He represented us with dignity. It was an insight into the workload of Ministers. I see one Minister over there reading a newspaper. I thought Ministers would be working all the time on the plane on the way up and they would have a big red box full of papers that they would be wading through. I would like to report the Minister watched Wedding Crashers on the way up—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order, that has nothing to do with the call.

—and did the Cook Islands Times crossword on the way back.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order, or I will terminate the member’s speech.

To get back to the subject of Vanuatu and Volunteer Service Abroad, Vanuatu is a region totally dependent on input from volunteers, and there are a number of older New Zealanders who are putting something back into the community in their retirement years by serving in places like that. It gave me great pride as the member of Parliament for Northcote to be up there for the opening of the tuberculosis ward of the Vanuatu Hospital—a hospital staffed by Volunteer Service Abroad people in part. Members from my electorate were there and they had done a tremendous amount of work—including Mr Ron King from Birkenhead—in establishing that tuberculosis ward. It brought me a great deal of pride to be present as a member of Parliament at the opening of the ward, but I digress slightly.

To support the Pacific area, we need to support our Volunteer Service Abroad workers. Many of those people are retired and I think it is a very positive thing that this bill will increase the entitlement for superannuitants who want to work in Volunteer Service Abroad from the current 1 year to 3 years. That is something pretty positive. But I want to make the point that has been alluded to previously, that Mr Nick Smith has made a significant contribution in making sure this legislation came before the House. When we were talking about Part 1—

💬 Jill Pettis: What took him so long?

Sorry, it is Dr Nick Smith. What took him so long? We have heard what took the Labour Government so long to get this here. We have covered that well, I say to Mrs Pettis, and this will not affect her pension entitlements.

💬 Jill Pettis: Good.

Good, I know the member is very pleased about that. Dr Smith was a driving force in bringing this before the House and getting it here today. The point I made was that this was a National Party driven bill, and it has now been picked up by the Government—very much in the same way that the National Party was going to take the petrol tax and put it straight into roading, and, lo and behold, that is now Government policy. Very much in the same way that at the next election tax cuts will be Government policy as well. This is another example of National driving the agenda.

I make a further point that if we had been able to deliver those tax cuts, superannuitants would be better off by $1,200 a year in the hand. The reason for that is that the pension is based on the average wage. We know that with the tax cuts that National will deliver for all New Zealanders, the average wage will go up. [Interruption] I say to you, Mr Benson-Pope, that with your eligibility for a pension in 4 years, your pension will go up as well. So you will benefit, and when you support tax cuts at the next election, you will find that you will be better off too.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order, you are bringing the Chairman into the debate.

I rise to talk to Part 2 of the bill. In particular, I want to talk about the removal of the reference to shared household expenses.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: That’s a good point.

It is a very important point, because removing this provision is extremely important for those elderly couples one of whom is living alone, who have been struggling as costs continue to increase. Removing the reference to sharing household expenses in terms of the living alone payment will increase it, for those single people, by $20 a week. The projected cost is only $135,000 in 2006, moving out to $150,000 in 2008.

The significant issue, I believe, is around the submission received from Age Concern New Zealand, which stated: “While we acknowledge the proposed amendments through the bill improve the situation and make it fairer, the changes do 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.” We have seen interest-free student loans and Working for Families happen, and the elderly, over-65 superannuitants and the war pensioners have just been forgotten. This bill is finally progressing through the House now, after 6 long years of National supporting it. It has taken 6 long years for this Government to get the bill to the House.

I also touch on the voluntary work overseas of the Volunteer Service Abroad people, who do a fantastic job. There are about 40 of them, I believe, who work overseas and do a fantastic job—

💬 Marian Hobbs: Why are you quibbling, then, about extending it to 3 years?

We have been waiting for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Ruth Dyson, to take a call on this issue, because we are unsure about it. The Minister has been silent on this issue, I say to Ms Hobbs. We have been trying to understand and get the Minister to talk a call as to why it has increased to 3 years. Submitters were happy for it to be extended from 52 weeks out to 104; instead, it is going out to 3 years. We would like the Minister to take a call so that we can understand exactly why that is so. The projected cost—about $266,000 in 2006, moving out to about $300,000 in 2008—is fantastic, but we are still unsure why on earth the Government has chosen to move it out to 3 years, when submitters came in and made submissions on extending it out to 2 years. We are still waiting for the Minister to take a call on that.

This bill will allow about 2,000 eligible people to age with dignity. It is great that the member for East Coast, Ms Tolley, has outlined some of the grey areas, such as whether the residential home can be a granny flat. I heard her mention it could even be a caravan, or a boat moored in seas within the New Zealand jurisdiction. This bill has taken 6 long years but finally it is here. National is here to support it after the good work that the honourable member from Nelson has done and the many other National Party colleagues who have spoken here tonight.

I move, That the question be now put.