Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: I move, That the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I wish to thank the Social Services Committee for its thorough consideration of the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. This bill amends the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954. The proposed amendments improve service for recipients of New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension who live alone.

The bill includes several changes. The first and most significant change simplifies the process by which older New Zealanders access the extra assistance that recognises the additional costs of maintaining a household on their own. We are making the process simpler and more streamlined. We want to make sure that older New Zealanders are not burdened by unnecessary bureaucratic processes, having to fill out additional application forms. It sees the current extra amount of $26.84 per week after tax, the living alone payment, replaced with a new single living alone rate of superannuation and veterans pension. This will, in effect, combine the single rate of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension and the extra living alone benefit into a single rate.

Currently this extra assistance, known as the living alone payment, is a separate payment. This means that the surviving superannuitant or veterans pensioner needs to make an additional application to receive it. The payment can be paid from the date of death of the spouse only if the application is received within 28 days of death. Otherwise, it is from the date of application. For some surviving spouses the stressful time of bereavement can mean they overlook completing the application. This sometimes means missing out on receiving the living alone payment from the date their circumstances changed. This bill means that no older New Zealander living alone is worse off.

This change will have two key benefits. Firstly, older people living alone will not have to make a separate application to receive their full entitlement. Instead, if their living circumstances change, they can let us know over the phone, by email, or by visiting a Work and Income office. Secondly, this bill will remove the 28-day time restriction, and with it the unnecessary financial hardship that might arise from overlooked applications. The bill provides for a new single living alone rate that can be paid from the day the superannuitant or veterans pensioner becomes entitled to receive it, and that is at it should be.

This change aligns with other operational changes led by the Ministry of Social Development to simplify processes and to improve services. In March 2010 the Minister oversaw the establishment of the dedicated senior service line, separate from Work and Income, to identify ways to deliver high-quality services to older New Zealanders. Since its launch in May 2010 online applications for New Zealand superannuation have become commonplace. Currently around 31 percent of applications are made online. We have reviewed how we process disability allowances and funeral grants, and have continued to grow the number of business partners offering commercial discounts to SuperGold card holders. It is an ongoing priority of the Minister that older New Zealanders can easily access their full entitlements to support and services.

The next change addresses the definition of a dependent child. The bill proposes to make the reference to a “dependent child” in the living alone provisions of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and in Part 6 of the War Pensions Act 1954 more consistent with the definition in the Social Security Act 1964 and the Income Tax Act 2007. Superannuitant parents will continue to receive the living alone rate of superannuation or a veterans pension until the end of the year in which the young person attains the age of 18 years, provided that the young person remains financially dependent and is attending school or in tertiary education. This is consistent with the original policy intent. This change relates to the situation where a child aged 18 years or older who lives with their superannuitant parent is financially dependent and is attending school or in tertiary education. This amendment will ensure a consistent definition of a dependent child across the social assistance system, reflecting that a young person who has attained the age of 18 years is considered an adult for most purposes.

I can assure you that this change will not mean any young person living with a superannuitant parent is left without adequate financial support. A fundamental tenet of the social assistance system is that the correct social support, where required, is applied to meet a person’s needs. Living alone assistance recognises the extra costs of maintaining a home on your own and is for a single superannuitant or veterans pensioner, including those who have a dependent child living with them. A person aged 18 or over, irrespective of their own or their parents’ living circumstances, can earn income from paid work. Others might receive a social security benefit, such as the unemployment benefit, or, for people with a temporary or permanent disability, a sickness benefit or an invalids benefit. Other financial support is also available—for example, assistance with accommodation costs or disability-related costs. The Government ensures this range of financial assistance is there for young people in times of need.

For those in tertiary study, a student allowance or a student loan is available. A student in full-time tertiary study aged 18 to 24 who is living at home is eligible for a student allowance, provided their parents’ combined annual income is under $83,449.01 before tax. Students in receipt of a student allowance, either the full amount or a reduced amount because of parental income, are able to earn up to $206.73 before tax per week before their rate of allowance is reduced. A student in tertiary study who is not eligible for a student allowance because their own or their parents’ income is over the threshold can apply for a student loan for living costs, course fees, and course-related costs. This is consistent with Government policy for all tertiary students.

The bill also contains an amendment of a technical nature. This sees the term “licensed boarding house” replaced with the term “boarding house” so that it is consistent with a recent amendment to section 66B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. In its consideration the select committee agreed to two minor technical changes to the bill, as recommended by the Ministry of Social Development. The first change extended the date of enactment for the bill to 6 July 2011, in order to account for delays in completing the first reading of the bill. As that date has now passed, the Minister will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee of the whole House to further extend the enactment date.

The second change agreed by the select committee expanded the transitional provisions for the bill. This change will enable a client who has been bereaved within 28 days prior to the enactment date to have their application for the living alone payment backdated to the date of death of their spouse or partner. This would allow people in this situation to receive the living alone payment from the date of death to the bill’s date of commencement, and the new single living alone rate thereafter.

The amendments contained in the bill will address issues with the current living alone payment. The Minister is confident that the amendments will ensure a fairer and more equitable experience for older New Zealanders who live alone. In summary, this bill is further evidence of the commitment by this Government to ensure that superannuitants and veterans pensioners receive their full entitlement without an unnecessary burden placed on them to apply for it. The Prime Minister has repeatedly assured the public that New Zealand’s superannuation settings and the age of entitlement will not be changed by this Government. The simple, common-sense changes in this bill streamline the payment. Finally, I thank, on behalf of the Minister, the Social Services Committee for its consideration of the bill and agreement to these arrangements. I commend the bill to the House.

We on this side of the House accept the Minister for Social Development’s explanation with regard to the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill and so Labour supports this bill. The bill ensures that single superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are living alone do not have to make a separate application to receive their full entitlement. Labour supports this bill, as it improves the lives of older New Zealanders by reducing the requirement to make an additional application to receive their full entitlement, and we agree with the mainly technical changes it proposes.

The Social Services Committee had a chance to receive submissions and has recommended some changes in relation to people who become entitled under the existing law to the living alone allowance before this bill’s date of commencement. There were only two submissions on this bill from the public. They were from the Dunedin Community Law Centre and Grey Power. There was no request to be heard by the committee, but these two submissions were considered. Both submitters gave general support to the bill, but both also expressed concerns with various clauses.

The Dunedin Community Law Centre expressed that “this change will provide some peace of mind for those who suddenly become single after the death of their partner.” It, however, expressed concerns that new section 4A “provides that a person is living alone only if he or she occupies a principal place of residence of a specified kind and does not share that residence, subject to 2 exceptions, with any person who is 18 years old or older. The first exception relates to the person’s dependent child who is 18 years old, is not financially independent, and is attending a school or tertiary educational establishment. However, the first exception applies only until the close of 31 December in the year in which the child turned 18 years old. The second exception relates to a temporary visitor …”.

The Dunedin Community Law Centre “foresee problems with Section 4A for superannuitants and veterans pensioners where their dependent child is enrolled in tertiary education.” It argues that “Children begin tertiary education when they are 17 or 18 years of age, a standard bachelors degree takes three years which means at the very least a child enrolled to do a nursing degree, a BCom, LLB, BA or BSc et cetera may not be financially independent until they are at least 21 years of age.” For other children it would probably be older.

Furthermore, it argues that today couples are having children at a later stage in their lives, and we now find parents are still supporting their dependent children in tertiary education as they move into or are in their retirement years. For example, a woman who has a child at 40 years old or in later years may be supporting that child when she turns 65 years old and her child is in their 20s. Similarly, if a man has a child when he is 50 years old, then that child will be 15 years of age when the father becomes eligible for superannuation.

The Dunedin Community Law Centre proposed that “it may be more prudent to have a 12 month clause rather than making this an exception ‘only until the close of 31 December in the year in which the child turned 18 years old.’ This clause means that a parent with a child born January is able to access the living alone payment for longer than a person who has a child who turns 18 in September.”

The Grey Power submission also shared concerns with the same clause. It submitted that “Some single parents may without alternative income or savings wish to support the child through the time that the child is receiving Tertiary Education and there could well be some cases of undue hardship which may need special support.”

Sadly the Government did not accept the arguments by Grey Power and the Dunedin Community Law Centre, and did not support these arguments put forward. The Government—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Do they have a Samoan wing of Grey Power?

Almost. The Government is adamant that other support is available for adult children and it says, besides, a child who turns 18 years old is an adult.

Here is where I have a problem. The Government says that an 18-year-old will have access to their own source of income, either wages from a job, a benefit, a student allowance, or a student loan. I would have to say that every single source of income that the Government has identified for 18-year-olds is drying up, and they are drying up under this Government’s watch. So I find the Government’s argument incredulous and out of touch with the reality New Zealanders are facing today, especially when we take in John Key’s promise to create 170,000 jobs. It failed. It failed, and instead we have 175,000 people without work.

The household labour force survey figures show that youth unemployment, ages 15 to 19 years, has gone up to 25.5 percent. For ages 15 to 24 years unemployment has gone to 17.3 percent. Overall since National has been in office, unemployment amongst 15 to 24-year-olds has increased by 16,500 since December 2008. The number of youth not in education, employment, or training overall since National took office—15 to 24-year-olds—has increased by 18,000. So when the Government says that 18-year-olds have their own source of income by earning an income through a job, benefit, student allowance, or student loan, I have to say that that is incredulous and most parents would say that is not good enough. Why would any parent want their child to work at 18 years, unless it is towards gaining a qualification? Why would we want our young people to work for 80 percent of the minimum wage? Why would we want, as a country, not to invest in our young people and ensure they have the best opportunities and are supported to gain a tertiary qualification?

Labour also has concerns about the bill, and we will be putting up amendments at the Committee stage. Our concern is that the provisions in the bill relating to dependent children may not take into account the diverse range of situations that superannuitants and pensioners may find themselves in when it comes to cohabiting with their children.

Currently a single superannuitant or veterans pensioner is eligible to receive the living alone payment only if he or she does not share that residence, the exception being where the other occupant is a dependent child. The bill will amend this exception to provide that a person who has a child living with them can receive the new single living alone rate only until the end of the calendar year in which that child reaches the age of 18. We are concerned that there will be cases where this distinction will have unintended and unfair consequences—for example, where a child is over the age of 18, but may have an intellectual disability and could still be classified as dependent, or when a child is temporarily unable to support themselves. Also, this policy is inconsistent with the student allowance policy, where a young person is still means-tested against their parents’ income until they are 24 years of age, thereby classifying them as dependent. New Zealand Labour does not believe that these issues were adequately addressed in this bill, so for that reason we will be looking to provide amendments in the Committee stage.

I want to take this opportunity to wish everybody a very merry Christmas. I know that in the communities in Māngere, throughout Manukau, this has been a really difficult year—and I sincerely mean difficult—because people have struggled to make ends meet, with high unemployment and with the cost of living. They have just struggled. I hate standing up in this House and supporting bills that this Government puts through, but as a responsible Opposition we do support this particular bill. But in terms of the range of other bills that this Government has put up throughout this year, I want to say to those members that they are hurting our communities—they are hurting our communities. There is no light at the end of the tunnel for hard-working communities such as Māngere, especially when you have a National Government in power. Merry Christmas.

It is a time of Christmas cheer, so I will not respond to that particular criticism of the Government, but it is a real shame—a real shame—that the Opposition actually feels that way, because it has opposed every single economic growth agenda that this Government has actually put up. If it wants growth and if it wants jobs, the economy has to perform better, and the Opposition has opposed every single way right throughout.

This bill, the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payment) Amendment Bill, is a great bill. It may seem that the bill is making minor changes, but they will be significant for the people who are affected by them. The system needs simplifying, and I support this bill.

It is pleasing to note that even though the previous speaker, Su’a William Sio, sort of talked as if he was opposing the bill, the Labour Opposition is in support of this bill, and so is the Green Party and, I think, the rest of the House. It is, actually, very pleasing to note that we are making things easier for the veterans and superannuitants.

The living alone payment is a separate supplementary benefit that recognises that single superannuitants and veteran pensioners who live alone are not able to share the costs of maintaining the household. This payment needs to be applied for separately, and this bill makes sure that it is all together. They will not have to apply for it separately. When veteran pensioners and superannuitants are faced with the loss of a partner or a spouse, they are going through the pain of their loss, and often they are not thinking how they are actually going to apply for a particular benefit. They may not even know that they could have applied for this benefit to help them through the difficult times. So this bill makes it simpler. This makes it easier.

As someone who has great friends who are, in fact, veterans—the K-force, the Korea Veterans Association, are very close to my heart—I do know that when they are grieving, sometimes they do not even know whether it is morning or night. For them, I am thankful for this bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

I was intending to take just a short call on this bill, the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill, but the derogatory comments by the last member, Melissa Lee, really open the field for a slightly wider response to what that member was saying. Melissa Lee was saying that this side of the House has not supported the Government’s growth agenda. Well, where is that growth agenda? What growth has been achieved? What that member refuses to acknowledge is that the country is suffering. There are people going into Christmas poorer and with little on the table. That is what my colleague Su’a William Sio was putting on the table, but that member chose to respond in that nasty kind of way. Really, what that member was not acknowledging is that the country is disappointed—is disappointed—in this Prime Minister and is disappointed in this Government because things have not improved. Things have been poorer—

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Concentrate on the bill.

The member should go back and have another sleep—because he was having one earlier, Mr Finlayson—rather than interjecting with his inane comments. Go back and have a sleep. That might be better, Mr Finlayson, because that is what the member was doing just a few minutes ago. For many in this country, these last 4 years have been years of crisis, I say to Melissa Lee, with 4 years of broken promises, 4 years of no growth, 4 years of more people leaving the country, 4 years of greater unemployment, and 4 years of our youth being just totally disenfranchised. So let that member think about that while she tucks into her Christmas dinner this year, because there will be many who will not be doing that. That is what my colleague Su’a William Sio was putting on the table. This bill is a good bill. We support it. It is largely uncontroversial, so there is no need for the member to invoke all of those nasty things about this side of the House.

The need for the bill arises from a decision of the Social Security Appeal Authority in relation to a decision of the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development. Really, although the amendments to the bill are relatively minor and technical, their effects will be significant on the lives of our most vulnerable—the elderly and those on other kinds of pensions, such as veterans, for example. Change for our elderly is trying, at the best of times. Whatever can be done, as this bill does, to make that transition easier is to be supported, which is why this side of the House has cooperated in the select committee process and supports this bill. To take that risk of trauma away from our elderly at this time is important.

The bill makes it clear that pensioners and veterans whose situation changes and who begin living alone will not be disadvantaged, and that the transition to their new status will be a smooth one and, really, can be effected immediately. That is a good thing. So the new single living alone allowance rate will apply to these two groups of people: pensioners and those on veterans pensions. Under the amendments contained in this bill there will now also be a simplified procedure—and that is quite important—for their status as living alone to be effected immediately and automatically. This is a sensible change. Clearly, there was a difficulty with the decision of the Social Security Appeal Authority that had to be fixed up. It has taken a while for it to go to the Social Services Committee and come back, but it is here now.

Another change has to do with the situations of those with a dependent child. My colleague Su’a William Sio talked about this at great length, and explained that the definition of a dependent child is brought into line with the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act. The change now enables a person going on to superannuation to still be living alone until the end of the 18th year of their dependent child. So until the end of the year that the child turns 18, the person can still, up to that point, be declared to be living alone. That is a sensible thing to do.

However, it does really raise problems. This is what my colleague Su’a William Sio was talking about. At the select committee we tried to have this matter addressed. In addition to what my colleague Su’a William Sio was saying, there are other situations that really are quite common now in New Zealand. We have talked about people having children later in life, and therefore reaching the stage of retirement when they still have dependent children. With the increase in the number of grandparents now having to care for grandchildren, the chances of that group of people having children dependent on them still living at home, even beyond 18, have not been taken into account. This is why we will introduce some amendments during the Committee stage of this bill.

In addition to what has already been talked about, there will be those who will have particular and additional needs, especially those with disabilities, so the cut-off at year 18 seems a little bit arbitrary for that particular group of people. There could have been some simple amendments made through this particular amendment bill that would have addressed that, but that opportunity was not taken. As I said, knowing that there is a growing need for grandparents who are on superannuation to take on the care and responsibilities of grandchildren, here we have an opportunity missed that we did not take that into account. We will be talking about that in some detail during the Committee stage, so that those kinds of changes can be made. This is what the Dunedin Community Law Centre people and Grey Power were saying—that this was an opportunity to do that. But we could not convince the select committee to go along with that.

The other changes, again, are technical. The bill does bring some definitions of licensed boarding houses into line with the Residential Tenancies Act. Although these changes are technical, they have real impact on the lives of our most vulnerable at a vulnerable time. I am pleased that the bill does make those changes for our elderly and those who are veterans, and makes that transition easier, simpler, and seamless. But it leaves a major issue unaddressed. I would like to hear what other members of the select committee who follow will say about that now, as to what were those ideas and how they could be addressed, because it still sits on the table, particularly at a time when it is much more difficult for many young people, especially those who are dependent because of disabilities, to get work and to become independent.

We all believe in families. We believe that families ought to offer that kind of support. We have prevailed now upon our elderly, mainly grandparents, to take on the care and responsibilities of grandchildren, and when that is made more complicated because of the disabilities that exist in families, then I thought this Parliament would take the opportunity to address that through this particular bill, but it did not do that. There is an opportunity during the Committee stage. I hope members will consider the Supplementary Order Papers that are to come on that particular issue. If addressed, they would resolve a difficulty. This side is quite happy to support this bill, with that proviso.

Returning to what I started with, this is not the time, through this bill, to talk about this side’s response to what the Government is trying to do, because the Government needs to live on its own record over the last 4 years. That record has not resolved the misery of many families, and, as they go to Christmas, we ought to contemplate that. In the spirit of Christmas, may I finally also wish the House and members’ families a very merry Christmas. Please keep safe. Thank you.

I rise to speak to the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. This bill, as has been stated by others already, seeks to amend the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954. Currently, single superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are living alone are eligible to receive through the Work and Income process a supplementary benefit, which has to be applied for separately. This is in recognition of the extra costs of maintaining a household. This bill streamlines the system so that people will not now have to go through a separate application to be able to receive their full entitlement. It was great to hear the Minister of Defence, in introducing this bill on behalf of the Minister for Social Development, talking about the importance of people being able to access their full entitlements and to have that support of the State in their time of need, because that is a core principle of the Social Security Act. I would love to hear that kind of discourse more often in this House.

I would also like to reference the member Melissa Lee’s comments about grief and the importance of having a process that enables people to survive when they are not necessarily able to function in times of grief, how completely overwhelming and destabilising that grief is, how we want more for our old people or anyone in grief than to have to deal with bureaucracy to be able to feed themselves and care for their dependants in that time, and the importance of us as a country being able to support people through that grieving process as well as we can. They are, I think, very important values for us to be able to focus on. A very positive, wonderful thing for us to be able to end the year on is to think about how we can support others in our community in their times of need. So I am thankful to the Government for reintroducing this Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill on the last day of the House for this year, and to be able to focus on those values at this time.

I recognise that care for our elderly has been an important, I think, aspect of our society and that we have managed to avoid high levels of poverty within our older population in New Zealand because we have looked at having universal entitlements and streamlining access to income support. It is a very stark contrast, sadly, to the news we have had this week around the levels of child poverty, because in this area we do not have those systems of universal entitlements or ease of access to the existing entitlements. I would love to see some of the thinking behind this bill extended to more of our population to ensure that we can actually address the levels of poverty where they are greatest in our country at the moment.

I also note that some of the changes that happened with this bill within the Social Services Committee seem to be very sensible in terms of the transition periods, recognising that in relation to the dates of this coming in, people should not be unduly affected because of the commencement dates and also the change of the commencement dates. It has been 2 years. We had hoped to have, as the select committee had suggested, a commencement date of 6 July 2011, when it reported back. I like that we can talk about this on the last day before the holidays, but really I think it would have been better to be able to get this through the House, when we have so much support for it, a bit earlier so we could have made these changes as they needed to happen.

I would also like to acknowledge the Labour Party’s concerns that were referenced in the minority report, and I look forward to seeing the Supplementary Order Papers that it brings forward because this bill provides that support for people when they have dependants up to the age of 18, but there does not seem to be a protection or provision for people who are caring particularly for dependants over the age of 18. There is a significant chance that people may be caring for children with intellectual disabilities who may be older than that. I would not like to see them miss out on the opportunity of the streamlining support that this bill offers, so I look forward to that.

I do need to just say that although we really support this bill, yesterday I was in Auckland at the Auckland Action Against Poverty rally and I saw the impact it is having at the Work and Income offices in Onehunga. It has advocates from all around the North Island who are on the streets outside the Work and Income office there at the moment, where people going into Work and Income can sit down with them and talk to them about their case and find out what their entitlements are. I think 12 Work and Income officers have been designated to work on their cases. What they are finding is that most people have entitlements that they were not aware of—that they had not been informed of—until the intervention of these advocates, and that is as a result of our law at the moment.

Nothing that we have seen in terms of the welfare reforms this year has done anything to make our social security system more accessible. They have done nothing to help people get the entitlements that they need to be able to live and support themselves and their children, and I think that is a tragedy. When I was in Onehunga there were queues of people waiting to see these advocates, and we know that that could happen in any—any—Work and Income office around this country. People could turn up and queue to get advice about their entitlements, and they would find out they were entitled to things they had never been told about previously, and that is a shame on us at this time of year—at any time of year.

I would also just like to mention in relation to this bill that on the Order Paper there are many bills relating to social security amendments. Indeed, at the Social Services Committee at the moment we are considering another bill relating to social security, and I would just like to reference the submission made in that process by the Legislation Advisory Committee—the committee of the Attorney-General. It noted that the base legislation of social security is not in very good shape because there have been just so many amendments to the Social Security Act without anyone taking it in hand and making it fit for purpose. We keep on picking up these small aspects of it and trying to fix them, or going in with a piece of ideology and thinking and trying to reshape it to meet that. It has resulted in a huge amount of inconsistency and has made the Act really inaccessible.

Since the Act was introduced it has been amended 131 times. This actually matters because it means it is really hard for people to know what they are entitled to, and this is when it is about people surviving—people who are struggling to feed themselves—and it is important that they know what they are entitled to. So I am advocating for a complete overhaul of this Act. It would be lovely to see it more consistent with the thoughts behind this particular bill today about making sure everyone can get the entitlements they need and that they are supported in times of stress and able to look after themselves and their children as well as they possibly can. Thank you.

I am pleased to support this bill, the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. It makes some small but important changes to a couple of pieces of legislation to allow single superannuitants and single veterans pensioners who are living alone to not have to make a separate application for their entitlement to be fully seen in their pockets, and it also makes some changes to the definitions around dependent children. It is good to see that the House is supporting those changes.

I simply cannot sit down without acknowledging and answering the comments from Rajen Prasad. I know he is still living in the good old days of when he was a Families Commissioner. He may never reach those lofty heights ever again, but if he wants to talk about records, let us talk about records. This Government is happy to stand on its record on jobs, which he and Su’a William Sio were referring to, where 13,000 jobs have been created through our 90-day trial—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: How many are going to Australia?

—and where, Mr Prasad, we saw 6,000 people who would leave the unemployment market if Labour’s policies were implemented. We are happy to see the 3,000 people who gained some jobs through The Hobbit legislation we passed. We know that 9,000 young people, under Labour’s record, ended up leaving the employment market because of the youth minimum wage changes that it made. So we are happy with our record. If Rajen Prasad wants to talk about records and lost jobs, he should look at Labour’s own records, because we have got a record we are proud of. We are happy to say that we have had economic growth policies that have always been opposed by the Opposition but have always been good for the country, and the country knows that, Mr Prasad.

Talofa lava, malo le soifua lau afioga i le fofoga fetalai. Thank you and good health to you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this bill, the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. First of all, I say to Melissa Lee that it is wise not to make assumptions on how the political parties on this side of the House are going to vote before we have even had the chance to contribute. This bill was introduced to the House in the previous term, and therefore New Zealand First did not have the opportunity to contribute to its first reading debate. If we did, there would have been some improvement to the bill in order to address a few loopholes it currently has. So although the National Government continues to perform like a pessimist who sees difficulty in every opportunity, New Zealand First is more optimistic in seeing opportunity in every difficulty.

The current bill aligns itself with modern norms and values that capture the actuality that pensioners are confronted with when making two separate but similar applications for living alone payments. The bill recognises that the stakeholders concerned deserve one simple application, which is indicative of ensuring that pensioners have easier access to what they are entitled to. The current bill now has some teeth behind its lip-service. I want to acknowledge the minority view report by the Labour Party, which raises some very valid points.

The main benefit of the bill is that it simplifies accessibility to, and increases the utilisation of, entitlements through the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act and the War Pensions Act, for the sole purpose of making one application. The interrelatedness of the two bills recognises the cross-cuts of eligibility in order to receive a supplementary benefit for individuals who live alone. It also recognises the need for greater emphasis on simplifying social assistance procedures for entitlements, so that pensioners may go about their daily lives without fussing over making another separate application. Well, why did it take the National Government over 4 years to do something right? Perhaps the National Government was too busy cutting funding to the 24/7 victims’ helpline. Or perhaps the National Government took too long to realise that it just cannot justify punishing these respected citizens who have sweated blood and tears for us to be where we are now. After all, these are the same citizens who suffered in the gruesome labour force of the past and made sacrifices for our generation, and yet they have not asked for more than a helping hand.

The proposed changes in this bill are in tune with what pensioners need, and indicate a shift away from bureaucratic red tape—a change that New Zealand First firmly supports. It is not every day that we agree with the National Government, or see eye to eye with it, but New Zealand First recognises the importance of this Government’s duty to properly determine the genuine needs of those who are deserving of welfare, especially when it comes to superannuitants and veterans. Emphasis should also focus on a sustainable increase regarding the payment rate, to make a more effective and positive impact on the lives of many pensioners. Concerns over its capacity to benefit different living arrangements and its traditional, cloudy perception of dependent children have been remedied, and we are very pleased about that.

“Living alone” is now defined as a person who occupies a principal place of residence of a specified kind and does not share that residence with anyone aged 18 and over. We acknowledge that exceptions are applicable to pensioners who live with a dependent child or a person who is not financially independent and is attending an educational institution. However, we are mindful that the bill still has conflicting consequences for the dependent child upon assessment for the student allowance, and that ought to be addressed further. The definition of a dependent child reflects its modern interpretation and understanding through the Social Security Act, and also that of place of residence, by including boarding houses as a form of residence through the Residential Tenancies Act. The main concern is over its potential overlap with the other entitlements that a dependent student may be confronted with due to his or her living arrangements, which should be considerably important also.

Similarly, there need to be greater clarity and informative measures that allow pensioners to gain greater, shall we say, understanding about their rights and entitlements. This responsibility should be placed on the staff who process these applications, so that there is transparency and communication regarding the well-being of pensioners. Making this a priority will foster more effectiveness and promote better respectability being shown to pensioners.

New Zealand is becoming increasingly more diverse, with different and often conflicting hegemonic ideals that directly affect pensioners. This should not be viewed in a negative way. Instead, this should encourage greater emphasis on providing possible alternatives to meet the pace of a changing society. With this bill, I suppose you could say that it is a step in the right direction, because we believe in supporting good legislation and opposing bad legislation. It might not be excellent legislation, but it provides a slightly better opportunity for our citizens. The positive aspect of the proposed changes is that they afford pensioners the same definitive classification of a dependent child as working-age beneficiaries have. The bill also accepts that there is no unitary residence, and avoids using a one-size-fits-all definition regarding pensioners’ place of residence. This bill can also potentially become futile if it is not dealt with in an appropriate fashion. Egalitarian values need to be open to different circumstances, and policies should also reflect and respond to these differences with urgency and respect.

Although we are cautious about the potential cracks and shortfalls, New Zealand First supports the bill. We support it because it contributes toward securing the needs of retired New Zealanders regarding easier accessibility. It also minimises rules and provisions around defining a dependent child and place of residence. If my interpretation is the same as that of the Minister for Social Development and her National Government, the proposed changes allow superannuitants and veterans pensioners to receive the living alone allowance. This is beneficial because it excludes the restrictive and insensitive nature of the 28-day rules that govern entitlement when a person experiences the grieving process of losing a loved one. All New Zealanders should be afforded the same degree of respect and dignity, which are principles that underpin our egalitarian values. Equality measures and sustainable schemes should be open to how we live our daily lives, and not be misinformed by how we ought to live our lives. This requires tuning in on how New Zealanders go about their lives, and is symbolic of better governance practices. The intended outcomes of things should have a positive impact on the lives of pensioners in reality.

In the next 30 years 26 percent of the population will be over 65 years old—going from 550,000 to well over 1 million New Zealanders receiving a form of retirement income. The challenge now is to maintain immediate certainty whilst planning for long-term security with additional measures in place. I ask the National Government not to be afraid to take one large step with the bill, because you cannot cross the chasm in two small leaps. The enhancements in this bill reiterate the importance of minimising bureaucracy and maximising the full enjoyment of entitlements. Pensioners are afforded less time worrying about living alone payments and more time spent in enjoying their retirement.

New Zealand First supports this bill in its second reading, with the view of making some minor amendments in order to address some of the loopholes. Allow me to wish all the residents of Manukau East, every member in the House, and, of course, all the SuperGold card holders a very merry Christmas and a safe and pleasant New Year. Thank you.

Currently under the regime the living alone payment is a separate benefit, so superannuitants and the recipients of veterans pensions who have become single, normally after a death in the family, then have to make a specific application to receive the additional supplement. The amendment in this Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill corrects that, so now at the worst time in a person’s life, when they have just lost probably their lifelong partner, they no longer have to think of having to go down to the Work and Income office and make an application. That is done automatically. That is just such a good measure on behalf of this National Government. I totally support it.

It is a bit like the measure that this Government brought in with the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill, where this Government also gave permanent excusal to those people over 65 who consider that, for whatever reason—normally infirmity or distance from the court service—they do not wish to be part of the jury service. It is ironic, is it not, that the members across the House are falling over themselves to support this bill, and yet they opposed what they called an ageist measure in the jury service bill? Well, just get a bit consistent, you guys. I mean, this Government is very clear on the fact that we support older New Zealanders and will bring good legislation to this House to support older New Zealanders. You cannot cherry-pick this stuff like they do across the House.

💬 Hon Member: Clear about what?

Well, Labour does, New Zealand First does, and the Greens do—they are absolutely falling over themselves to support this bill. But let us bring just a little bit of consistency. I think New Zealanders are looking for that, and they get it from this National Government. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. As a couple of members of the Labour Party who have already spoken in this debate have said, Labour is supporting this bill. We recognise that the living alone payment allows people who do not or cannot share costs to apply for this special allowance if they are over 65. At the moment, as the previous speaker said, one has to apply for it when one becomes single, usually on the death of the partner, and this bill simply allows that to happen automatically, so someone who has been through a bereavement will not necessarily have to go through the bureaucracy. Obviously that will be a difficult time for someone who has spent many, many years with their partner, and at a time when there has been a bereavement the last thing you necessarily want to do is to go through the paperwork in order to get a little bit more assistance.

I cannot let some of the comments that have come from the other side of the House go without comment. Melissa Lee in her contribution to this debate had a crack at this side of the House because we did not support the Government’s growth agenda. Well, if there was one, we might support it, because the only growth that we have seen to date of any note is the growth in unemployment—the growth in unemployment. So Melissa Lee did not mention that. It is up to 7.3 percent. That is the worst unemployment rate since 1999, which I believe was the tenure of the last National Government. So when Bill English was last finance Minister, that is when unemployment was at its worst, and again we are back up to the high highs of 7.3 percent.

Then Jami-Lee Ross got up and said: “We are happy with our record.” So this National Party is happy with 52,000 Kiwis leaving every year—1,000 a week—for Australia, because that is where the brighter future is. Maybe that is what National should have said back in 2008: “We’ll give you a brighter future by giving you better opportunities and more motivation to go to Australia.” If you on that side of the House are happy with that record, Mr Jami-Lee Ross, well, you know, the people of New Zealand might have something to say about that.

Is he happy about the record that it has got, of having the worst economic record in 50 years? Is that Government happy about that record? Also, is that Government happy about the record where 50,000 more people have become unemployed in the last 4 years under its watch? Is it happy with that record?

Then the very good chair of the Law and Order Committee, Jacqui Dean, said: “Well, you guys over on the other side should be consistent.” Well, yes, that Government would know about consistency, because this year it has been consistently awful—consistently awful. Whether it be privacy leaks at the Inland Revenue Department, whether it be Novopay, or whether it be larger class sizes, that Government would know a thing or two about consistency in 2012 because this is a Government that has been consistently awful over the last 12 months.

I will just go back to the bill now, if that is all right, just to give a bit of context—just blowing the system out before we go on holiday. Just looking at the context of these payments, I understand from the regulatory impact statement—and I am very glad that they have given us a table—that about 555,000 people are getting some form of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension, 73,000 are single and not getting the living alone payment, and 151,000 are single and receiving the living alone payment. So we are not talking about an insignificant number of people here who come under the changes that are within this bill.

As of 1 April 2010 someone who is married, in a civil union, or in a de facto relationship receives $244, I think, after tax per week; those single and not receiving a living alone payment get $293 a week; and those single and receiving the living alone payment are getting $318 per week. This is as of 1 April 2010, but there may have been changes since then. It is making a difference, this little bit of extra money. I think my calculations say that it is roughly about $25 more per week for these people after tax. So just for those at home who might be listening to this with great interest, there is quite a bit of money involved here for those people who come under this bill.

This bill obviously ensures that single superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are living alone do not have to make that separate application that I spoke about before. This bill will make sure that it is much more streamlined for them when they become single. There are also a number of technical changes within the bill that Labour is not opposed to. But there are some things that we will want to look at changing during the Committee stage, by putting forward some Supplementary Order Papers.

We do have concerns that there are provisions in the bill relating to dependent children that may not take into account the diverse range of situations that superannuitants and pensioners may find themselves in when it comes to living with their children. The bill will amend this exception to provide that a person who has a child living with them can receive the new single living alone rate only until the end of the calendar year in which that child reaches the age of 18. I think there will be a Supplementary Order Paper, and I am looking at Dr Rajen Prasad and he is nodding to that effect, to make sure that is fairer—for example, where a child is over the age of 18, but may have an intellectual disability and still could be classified as a dependent, or when a child is temporarily unable to support themselves. But on the whole we think this is a relatively sensible bill, and that is why we will be supporting it, with some changes to be looked at.

💬 Hon Member: What a wise old member.

Someone has got a bit of Christmas cheer over there, I see. Su’a William Sio mentioned that there were only two submissions to the Social Services Committee. One was from the Dunedin Community Law Centre, where it did “foresee some problems with Section 4A”—as I have mentioned before—“for superannuitants and veterans pensioners where their dependent child is enrolled in tertiary education. Children begin tertiary education when they are 17 or 18 years of age, a standard bachelors degree takes three years which means at the very least a child enrolled to do a nursing degree, a BCom, LLB, BA or BSc et cetera may not be financially independent until they are at least 21 years of age.” It proposed that “it may be more prudent to have a 12 month clause rather than making this exception ‘only until the close of 31 December in the year in which the child turned 18 years old’.” This clause meant that a parent with a child born in January is able to access the living alone payment for longer than a person who has a child who turns 18 later in the year.

Grey Power’s Roy Reid, a very good man who has helped us with our asset sales petition, also highlighted this point in the submission from Grey Power. Grey Power said: “It must be recognized that many Parents do have Children born much later in life than used to be the norm. Some single parents may without alternative income or savings wish to support the child through the time that the child is receiving Tertiary Education and there could well be some cases of undue hardship which may need special support.”

So I just highlight those two submissions from the select committee deliberations. We hope that there will be a few Supplementary Order Papers that may be able to address some of those concerns. With that, I will just say that Labour will be supporting the bill, but with some concerns, and I wish everyone in the House a very merry Christmas.

I think 2.6 percent growth in the economy is actually a pretty good result, when you look at what is happening in economies globally. It has been a good debate. I must admit that I was a bit disappointed with Dr Prasad’s comments, with the unfair and unjust attack that he made on the Attorney-General. I think that is really throwing stones when you live in a glass house, because I am sure that if Dr Prasad was to prescribe his speeches, they would be a very good cure for insomnia.

I have to say that this bill, the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill, addresses this issue at a festive time of the year, and it is very, very appropriate that we recognise our seniors. This bill addresses two issues with regard to the current living alone payment to ensure superannuitants and veterans pensioners living alone do not have to make a separate application to receive their full entitlement. This is important, because it cuts down compliance demands on seniors.

My colleague Jacqui Dean made the very good point that when a senior does lose their husband, wife, or spouse, there are a lot of other things on their mind in the days that follow other than having another thing to deal with and new forms to fill out and submit, and all the compliance issues around that.

We are adamant that this group of New Zealanders should not face any unnecessary difficulty in obtaining what they are rightfully entitled to. These changes will ensure a fairer and more equitable experience for single superannuitants and single veterans pensioners who are living alone. This is a very good bill, and I recommend it to the House. Thank you.

This is a split call.

I am happy to take a short call on this bill, the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. I do not think there is anyone in this House—and the speeches that we have heard this morning have indicated this—who does not think that it is a very sensible idea for us to enact this legislation. It will make life much easier for many people. I think there is no one in this House who thinks that elderly people who find themselves in circumstances where they need to receive the single person’s allowance need to go through any bureaucratic hassle in terms of accessing that payment.

Labour is happy to support this bill, and it is happy to congratulate the Government on what is sensible legislation, and to make sure that this is no longer an issue for our elderly people. It is really good to see that we have taken this sensible approach and that our elderly are protected, and that we have policies in place that have ensured that we have seen the hardship rate for older New Zealanders in fact remain relatively low and relatively flat. So it is not only the relatively low bit but also the relatively flat bit that means we have not seen hardship increasing for our elderly people. The hardship rate has remained relatively low and flat at around 4 to 5 percent.

Unfortunately, this has not been the case for children in our country. Their hardship rate has risen from 15 percent in 2007 to 21 percent in 2011. So we would actually like to see sensible approaches that would address issues that would mean that our children were not living in hardship. It is a matter of working together, like we are seeing with this legislation.

We have heard some chipping across the House—I guess it is the last sitting day for the year—and we have been accused of cherry-picking legislation and told that we must have some consistency on what we support. Well, there are a couple of responses to that. One is that we are the Opposition. We are not going to agree with everything you do. Secondly, we are happy to support sensible legislation when you put it up. In fact, we would welcome you putting up more sensible legislation—Mr Speaker, we are sure you would put up only sensible legislation. We would welcome the Government putting up more sensible legislation that did address many of the hardships we are seeing in this country. We would welcome the Government putting up legislation that did something to address the ever-climbing unemployment rate we see in this country. Unfortunately, too many New Zealanders are heading into this Christmas period with no job and they are not seeing a merry time for themselves and their families. And they have a Government that has done nothing over the last 12 months to address those issues.

But like my colleague did, after talking about some of the broader issues of our economy, I will return to the legislation and the reasons why we are happy to support it. We are happy to support it because what we have seen is a good approach to it, and we have also seen that some of the concerns that have been heard at the Social Services Committee need to be taken into account. We have heard that there are real, practical things we can do to improve this legislation.

One of the issues we have heard about is around student allowances and the way in which we need to clear up whether there are distinctions that will have unintended and unfair consequences. We need to take a very practical approach to that, where, for example, a child is over the age of 18 but may have an intellectual disability and could be classified as dependent, or when a child is temporarily unable to support themselves. Also, this policy is inconsistent with the student allowance policy, which I mentioned earlier, where a young person is still means-tested on their parents’ incomes until they are 24 years of age, thereby classifying them as dependent. We do not believe that these issues are adequately addressed in this bill. We would like to see some of these other issues addressed. We also have some other concerns about this bill and we are putting forward amendments at the Committee stage. The issue of student allowances is one of them, but we are also concerned that a provision in the bill relating to dependent children may not take into account the diverse range of situations. But on the whole Labour is happy to support this sensible piece of legislation.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I am going to take a very brief call on this bill, the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill, which originally came before the House more than 2 years ago. We are supporting it because this anomaly, amongst the many anomalies in the Social Security Act, needed to be amended for the benefit of the people being affected, as described by other speakers very clearly. We support all beneficiaries, including seniors, being treated with respect and dignity, with full disclosure of their rights, and with a recognition of their particular circumstances, no matter what their age or circumstances. We believe that social assistance should be fair and transparent to all citizens. Consequently, this bill addresses some of those citizens in a fair and transparent way during times of difficulty and complexity for them. For that reason, we are very pleased to support it.

However, we would like to see a recognition that not just our seniors but particularly our children are entitled to the best possible life and the least possible stress in their access to the basic material needs. Unfortunately, as other speakers have said, we are struggling in this country to meet our fundamental obligations to our children, and they will one day be seniors and their lives will be affected by what we are prepared to provide them with now in terms of their well-being as they go into older age. So it is very important that social security is for everybody. That was what it was designed for. However, under the Victorian ideology that has affected a lot of the Social Security Act, there is a concept called the deserving poor: the goodies—the good people—who deserve to get social assistance, and the bad people who do not. It is interesting when Parliament sets up a moral framework based on Victorian values, and we are having to fight that framework with monotonous regularity in 2013—a long time since Queen Victoria was on the throne—arbitrating between the good people and the bad people.

Of course, people’s lives are very complex: widows, veterans, grandparents caring for children, people with disabilities, people caring for people with disabilities. As someone who has worked as a beneficiary advocate, I have seen that complexity and I have seen how easy it is for the system, with its confused and complex legislation, to judge, and to judge wrongly, and to make mistakes, and to refuse to give clear information about entitlements. So we are very pleased that this bill clears up, for some of those people, the matter around entitlement, which needed to be cleared up. It will not put them under additional stress. We would wish that all bills related to the amending of the Social Security Act were this coherent. Indeed, I support my colleague Jan Logie in her call for a review of the Social Security Act. However, it is very important that at the end of the year we note that welfare has had a terrible year. Welfare has been made more complicated, more punitive, and more difficult. While we see 15,000 children going to school without food and while we see people suffering degrees of poverty and inequality we have not seen before, it cannot be a happy moment.

However, I want to end on a positive note and say that, particularly for people caring for young adults over 18 with learning disabilities, this bill will be useful. I have been perhaps the sole champion of families caring for people with disabilities in this Parliament who is prepared to say that those carers should receive a proper living wage for their work. We had to go to the court system and we had to fight the Ministry of Health for 10 years to get that decision, and this bill does not cover that decision. Well, I am ashamed that it has taken so long, and I am ashamed that when I held a forum on caring for families with disabilities, no one except the Green Party would support that. I am proud of those families and those carers who stood up in the High Court and managed to get that decision after 10 years, and they are still waiting for the payment.

However, alongside that cause, for which I have been a champion, I would also like to acknowledge that the welfare system and this bill will be useful, and wherever it is useful we need to stand up and be positive. That is what MMP is. MMP is about everybody recognising that, no matter who puts up an idea, if it is a good idea we should support it, and if it is not we should challenge it. That is what an MMP Parliament does, and it is great to see that the New Zealand public have supported MMP and affirmed it so that we can do that.

I would like to end by saying well done on getting this bill through at this time. We needed it done. It has been a long time coming. It will benefit some people. I would like to see next year that welfare legislation reflects the right of all people who need social assistance to get it. My best wishes to everyone in this House for their hard work. No matter whether we agree with the outcomes or not, we all work hard here and we need to have a good break. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

There is plenty I would like to talk to with regard to the last member, who has resumed her seat, Catherine Delahunty, but suffice it to say that some brilliant work has been going on in the welfare space from this Government. Rights are very much a part of the equation; we are just factoring in a bit of responsibility and obligation in there as well, which is a nice thing.

The core purpose of the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill is amending the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954 so that single superannuitants and single veterans pensioners living alone do not have to make separate applications. It is pragmatic. It is quite a simple bill.

The member from New Zealand First Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor asked why the National Government had not done this earlier. Well, one reason is that the National Government has been adopting 132 recommendations of the Law Commission report on the War Pensions Act 1954, costing some $60 million over 5 years, increasing entitlements across the board, extending services to some 3,000 more veterans—actually looking after the people who have served this country to ensure that we have the democracy that we enjoy today. So that is one example of what this Government has been doing, and I thank the member for New Zealand First for giving me the opportunity to talk about that. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.