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

We come now to the title discussion in this Committee stage 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 the key point about this bill is that it restores dignity for the elderly.

We had a situation, with regard to Mr Page of Nelson, where in order to get his single person entitlement under the legislation, he would actually have had to divorce his wife, who was in residential care. It really was a disgraceful situation that in order to meet economic needs, someone would have had to go to the length of rejecting—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is to debate the title.

Well, I thought this was an opportunity for free—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is a free-flowing debate, but the member is bringing another issue out.

I thought it was related to the bill, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): As long as the member relates that matter to the bill specifically, that is so. But the member must mention the bill and how it relates to it.

The point I was making was that that gentleman, Mr Page, was the driving force behind this bill being brought to Parliament. That is why we are here. The bill could be called the “Mr Page of Nelson Bill” because, as we know, he was the one who contacted his local member of Parliament, and that led to this bill being brought before the House.

I think the other point to note is that this legislation is way overdue. It was quite some years ago that Mr Page got in touch with Dr Smith. He went to the Human Rights Commission, and within a week this bill entered Parliament.

I go back to the point about restoring dignity, and I tell members that this bill affects one of the most vulnerable groups of people in New Zealand society: our elderly people. It also affects those who are probably the most honoured group in New Zealand society: veterans. I think we really owe an absolute debt of honour and gratitude to those people, who quite selflessly served this nation in conflicts overseas. The very least they are due is to be able to receive their veterans pension now without having to crawl on their hands and knees and beg the Government to make an exception for them.

This is a very positive day for older people in New Zealand, and it is certainly a positive day for war veterans. I know that a lot of people throughout the country will be celebrating this bill, and that a lot of those are actually people who have fallen, maybe, into a difficult period of their lives—a period when their lifelong partner, their spouse, may have been admitted to a residential care facility. But now this legislation gives them some hope, and that is something we should celebrate.

There was quite a lot of public outrage at the legislation as it is stood before, in relation to the sharing of expenses rule. One of the problems with that was that it was way too strict, and it was quite arbitrary. It was strict in the sense that any external contribution to a person’s income, whether it was a donation from a local group, from family, or from friends, actually compromised that person’s eligibility to receive his or her superannuation entitlement. But this bill now extends the eligibility for the higher single rate of New Zealand superannuation, the living alone payment, and the veterans pension to those whose spouse or partner is in long-term residential care, in hospital, or in a rest home.

The bill also increases the period of time that people who are overseas can receive their pension or war veterans benefit from 1 year to 3 years, if they choose to serve in Volunteer Service Abroad. I think, as I have already stated earlier in the debate, that that is absolutely an important contribution. It means that superannuitants are able to put something back, by serving their fellow human beings overseas as aid workers. So that is important and it will really make a difference.

The point I would make again, which has been said several times, is that Dr Nick Smith has been responsible for driving this legislation. The Government has picked it up very enthusiastically, and I believe that we are seeing that trend across Parliament in a number of cases regarding legislation. Presently however, in relation to the veterans pension legislation, people with spouses or partners—

I would like to speak to the title of this bill, the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill.

In fact, I was stopped short; I had wanted actually to speak to Part 2, “Amendments to War Pensions Act 1954, and consequential amendments”, but we now have to go to the title. I was quite puzzled by the conversation about why the superannuation entitlement of 52 weeks was being increased to 3 years for those superannuitants or veterans who go and work overseas for voluntary aid organisations such as Volunteer Service Abroad. It is a bit of a puzzle, and I would have liked to hear an explanation, but unfortunately none was forthcoming. So it is a bit of a mystery why, for that one thing, this Government will be giving more not less, and will be giving more than was asked for. It would be interesting to know the rationale behind that.

The veterans are an important group. I am not familiar with Volunteer Service Abroad or other voluntary aid organisations, but I am interested in the actual numbers of superannuitants or veterans who would want to work overseas for Volunteer Service Abroad or other such organisations. Are we talking huge numbers, small numbers, or what? I would like to know, just so that I can get a sense of the contribution those people make to voluntary aid organisations. I think they deserve to be saluted for the selfless work they do in Third World countries. My colleague Jonathan Coleman was talking about Vanuatu. I have not been there but I hope to go in the near future, and I will be looking at what those voluntary aid organisations do. Indeed, I will look at how this bill will help those superannuitants and veterans who wish to travel to distant locations to work for not 1 year or 2 years—which is what they actually wanted the superannuation entitlement to cover—but up to 3 years. It is very puzzling indeed.

I think it is also time to acknowledge—my colleague Jonathan Coleman was absolutely correct—Barbara White, who brought a petition to Parliament, and was instrumental in this legislation coming forward. She got 1,500 signatures or thereabouts. Her petition was to broaden the eligibility criteria. The bill was considered by the Social Services Committee, and its report was presented to Parliament in May. So Barbara White needs to be acknowledged for her contribution to this legislation, as well as Mr Page, who went through a lot of grief, at the age of 91, when he was denied a living alone payment because his wife in care still recognised him. That was just bizarre—a bizarre situation. As my colleague Jonathan Coleman pointed out, for Mr Page to get a living alone entitlement that couple would have had to divorce—which is just crazy—or to be de facto. As I said before, if Mrs Page had been in prison, or if the couple had been gay, there would not have been an issue. It was quite bizarre, outdated legislation, and it is right that the new provision should come into Parliament and become law.

The sharing expenses rule was a great cause of concern and distress among the New Zealand public, and it is good that it has been remedied. There is no such bias any more for people who receive income from a family member or some other source. That is fair enough.

I think that, overall, this is a fair bill. It brings balance back. It acknowledges the fact that it is more expensive to live alone, and also acknowledges the extra costs involved in looking after a loved one. It is very stressful having a partner or spouse in long-term residential care, and this bill goes a long way to help the emotional state of the spouse or partner not in care. I agree wholeheartedly with that, and I think the 2,000 Mr Pages in this country would agree.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: That’s for sure.

Absolutely. We have to thank Nick Smith. He was instrumental in getting this bill to come to this House. Mr Page went to Nick Smith and lobbied him. Nick Smith then went to the media, but he got no traction on the issue, and he had to go, on Mr Page’s behalf, to the Human Rights Commission in order that we could debate this bill here today. It will be passed, and that is a very, very good thing. This bill is for the 2,000 Mr Pages, and for all the superannuitants and veterans who want to do volunteer work in distant countries, in Third World countries, and give back something of what they have been given. Members must remember that these people have served their country, either as veterans—

I wish to take a call on the title clause, and draw to the Committee’s attention the fact that the bill is actually called the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill—which in itself is rather a mouthful.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Sorry, what was it? I missed that!

I will not repeat that for the member; I am sure she is able to read it. But I just make this point: I am not sure that we have the title quite right. Somewhere in the title we should have the words “Thank Nick Smith and Mr Page.” Those words should be in the title, because this bill would not be here if it were not for Nick Smith and the work he did on this whole issue. Nick Smith needs to be congratulated for making it happen. So I would suggest that the first thing we need to consider is whether we have the wording right in regard to saying that it is just about New Zealand superannuitants and New Zealand superannuation. I would suggest that if members had listened to this debate—and I have listened very closely—they would have heard that our members and others who spoke, referred to the very, very good work that our colleague Nick Smith did, and the way in which he defended his constituent Mr Page. So that is the first thing we need to put into the title, to ensure we have that aspect right.

The second thing we really need to add to the title are the words “Lazy, Tired Government.” That is what should be in there: “Lazy, Tired”—and what about “Hopeless”, as well? We could put those words into the title, because they describe what has happened with this bill. How long has it taken for this Government to get around to doing this tiny, little thing that is so important to so many people in New Zealand?

💬 Lindsay Tisch: How long? Tell us how long!

Well, at the moment I am not sure. I heard 2 years, then I heard 3 years, and then I heard 6½ years. I think it is probably around about that time. So somewhere in this title we need to put in “Lazy, Tired, Hopeless, 6½ Years of Socialist Government”. That is what we should be putting in the title, because those are the sorts of words that people, when they pick up this bill, will need to identify it by. That is the easiest way by which people will identify it. If we are to be accurate in this Parliament—and I suggest that the National Party wants us to be—then we really need to describe what this bill is about. It is describing the inadequacies of this Government and the fact that its members do not care about our elderly folk. They seriously do not care. There they are—we have had to railroad them, force them, and drive them to take this stance on this bill. If it were not for Nick Smith and the National caucus, the bill would not have happened; we would not have been debating it today.

It is a good thing that this country has the National caucus here at all. Otherwise, there would be some very distraught, distressed elderly people, as well as their children and their grandchildren. It would be a terrible place without this National caucus. We should probably put that in the title as well, actually, when I think about it. We should put words in the title such as “Thank Goodness for the National Caucus”, as well. That would be appropriate. We could fit those words in.

My mother is overseas at the moment, but I know that she will be listening to this debate. She will have her earpiece in, over in Brisbane where she is with my sister, listening to this debate closely and saying: “There’s my boy, working for me, along with his colleagues from the National caucus. Thank goodness for the National caucus.” She knows that none of those socialists over on that side of the Chamber will get this issue sorted. It is only us who will do it. We are getting it sorted out for the elderly folk in this country. Elderly folk will be in their wheelchairs and their rest home beds tonight saying: “Thank goodness for the National caucus, thank goodness for Don Brash, thank goodness for Nick Smith—thank goodness for the National team.”

Do members know what will really disappoint our elderly folk at the end of the day? When we finally put this bill through, it will be called only the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. Well, that is just not good enough. Seriously, if we have a title—and the title is meant to explain what this bill does and what we are debating—we need to add the words “Nick Smith”, we need to add the words “National Party”, and we need to add the words “Don Brash”. That would then appropriately reflect what this bill is all about.

I am just following on from the very valid contribution from the member for Northland. I am speaking to the title, and there is no need for me to read it out, is there?

💬 Lindsay Tisch: No, but what does it mean?

There is no need to, I do not think. I think the amendment should be exactly what the member for Northland has just talked about—the great work the National Party caucus has done in bringing this bill to the House. It has taken 6½ years for this Government to get the bill to where it is today. If it were not for a constituent in Nelson and a very hard-working National MP, the Hon Nick Smith, doing great work, these changes would not have been brought to where we are at today.

This bill is all about allowing the over 65s to age with dignity. There are about 6,000 war veterans in this country, many of whom will be eligible for this measure when it comes through the House. There are about 2,000 over-65-year-olds who will qualify for this measure when it goes through. It is all about long-term residential care, whether it be in a hospital or in a rest home. These people are the forgotten sector of our society—they are the people who have been forgotten. Often they have served our country by going to war, and then have been forgotten. I will be interested to see, when we get to the next election—either in 2008, or before—whether the Labour Party will consider buying this sector of votes as it did with the Working for Families package and interest-free student loans.

But these are wise folk. These are people who have worked hard in New Zealand and they deserve to get something better than what they are getting now. We will be interested to see and hear about the golden age card that New Zealand First is proposing, and whether it will make an iota of difference. This over-65s group are wise people. They are a bit cynical about any sort of a golden age card—whether it will deliver cheaper power or a reduction in fuel costs.

💬 David Bennett: What power?

That is exactly right—what power? We saw the crisis yesterday in the top half of the North Island. The power supply was diabolical, because of a dilapidated infrastructure investment over the last 6½ years. Many of our war pensioners have been shivering in their homes because of a shonky Government not investing in infrastructure. There are some big issues that we will have to address when we get on to the Treasury benches in the next term.

So, just to sum up, this bill is about allowing the aged sector to age with dignity, with the support of this bill. It is a shame it has taken 6½ years to get here. These people deserve better—the ones who have gone to war for this country, and those who have been forgotten and neglected. This bill goes some way to addressing that—it provides about $60, when I look at this chart here. It is interesting, is it not, that one now has to be married or in a civil union. The chart shows that the net wage for a married or civil unionised couple—that is very modern language—will move from $203 to $263. That is an increase of $60, which is fundamental for a sector that has been forgotten. I am happy to support this bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.