Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill amends the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954. The changes in the bill will improve services for New Zealand superannuitants and veterans pensioners who live alone and are entitled to receive the additional living alone payment. The changes before us fulfil this Government’s commitment to ensure superannuitants and veterans pensioners living alone receive their full entitlement without unnecessary administration and compliance burdens. This bill also builds on New Zealand’s commitment to superannuitants.

As the House is aware, the Prime Minister has assured the public that New Zealand’s superannuation settings and the age of entitlement will not be changed by this Government. Since National took office in 2008 superannuation has increased five times, giving a total increase of 25 percent. For a pensioner who is living alone the single living alone payment each fortnight has increased by $143. The living alone payment is a separate supplementary benefit that recognises that single superannuitant and single veterans pensioners who live alone face higher living costs, as they are unable to share the expenses of maintaining a household.

Because the living alone payment is a separate benefit, superannuitants and veterans pensioners who have become single, usually after the death of a partner or spouse, are required to make a special and specific application to receive it. The bill before the House today replaces two separate payments with one. Currently, a superannuitant living alone has to apply for two separate payments, both New Zealand superannuation and the living alone payment. The new living alone rate will ensure that single superannuitants and single veterans pensioners who are living alone do not have to make a separate application. It just makes sense, really.

We have done this to specifically address concerns from superannuitants and veterans pensioners. These groups are concerned because if people do not apply for the living alone payment within 28 days of the death of a spouse or partner, they then find that their living alone payments cannot be backdated. This can be a real burden on older New Zealanders, particularly if they have just lost a long-term partner or spouse. Also, because many are not aware of the payment, many do not apply for it and so miss out on their full entitlements. It is important that we amend this legislation so that older New Zealanders who suddenly find themselves alone do not struggle to pay their bills when they are entitled to get help. This bill will change that.

There are two key benefits for older people. The first is about access. Single superannuitants and single veterans pensioners will not have to complete a separate application form to get their full entitlement. They can just let us know over the phone, which I think is pretty exciting, or by email or, of course, by visiting one of our super-centres. This is something we know seniors want and it can make life a bit easier. It just simplifies the process. The second change I have noticed is about recognising the stress and burden that they can experience with the death or a spouse.

In summary, this bill ensures a fairer, more equitable, and more compassionate experience for superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are left living alone following the death of a spouse or partner. The changes are simple yet effective, and they provide older New Zealanders with better access to the correct rate of entitlement with the least amount of burden. I commend this bill to the House.

I am pleased to take a call on the final stage of this bill, the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. It has been a long time getting here. It is a sensible bill. There is no reason not to support it and every reason to support it. As Opposition members, we have worked together very well with Government members throughout the process in the Social Services Committee consideration to get to this point. The history of the need for this piece of legislation is important. It arises out of a Social Security Appeal Authority decision some time ago—a 2008 decision and the repeal against it in 2009. The issue was in regards to, as I understand it, a superannuitant who was enabled to receive the living alone payment, despite the fact that a 19-year-old university student was a dependent child living with the superannuitant at the time. The appeal authority decided that because that young 19-year-old fitted the notion of a dependant, the person was entitled to a living alone payment. That is the case from which the bill emerged, and from there the process was started, which has got us this far.

As the Minister for Social Development has just said, the bill makes important changes. I think the most useful one, the one that will have the most effect for superannuitants and those on a veterans pension, is to have a new living alone rate that applies to them. Then the next issue with that is whether there are any issues to do with the definition of who is a dependant. One of the compromises I think the bill has reached is that in those probably small number of cases—but perhaps increasing now with people getting married late and re-partnering with families, etc.—where there is likely to be, even when you turn 65, an 18-year-old still dependent, at what point, if the person loses a spouse, can that person be classified as living alone? So if there is an 18-year-old, the bill now says that up to the end of the year in which that young person turns 18, it will still not affect the status of living alone, which is a sensible way of doing that. So those two changes—one is the new rate for those living alone, and the second one is in respect of how to manage dependants.

We had a number of issues with this notion of who is dependent and at what age—indeed, we debated this in the select committee and also during the Committee stage of this bill, when we suggested through a couple of Supplementary Order Papers put up by my colleague Jacinda Ardern that we could be a little bit more flexible. There will be those special occasions when, either through disability or some special circumstance, a 65-year-old person on a veterans pension or a superannuitant will still have somebody dependent beyond the years of 18—maybe a 19 or 20-year-old. That should be factored in. We were not able to convince our colleagues in the select committee and in Parliament to go along with that, and that is a shame, because I think it could have been quite easily accommodated. The only explanation given by the Minister at the time was that that other person will have available to him or her a number of other benefits—it might be the unemployment benefit or what have you. Therefore, that young person could then pay—I assume that was the understanding—and, therefore, the 65-year-old person could not be classified as living alone. Or, indeed, there are those situations where a dependent person of 18 or 19 years returns home and spends 3 or 4 months there—they might be a university student, etc. We thought there was a case for linking those situations to the student allowance regulations, as to when parents are responsible and up to what age. But, again, we were not able to do that.

Sometimes we pass rules in this Parliament for good reason but they have some perverse consequences, and there is every likelihood that with this particular one, at the most vulnerable time for our superannuitants and those on veterans pensions, there will be this other consideration in their minds—the consideration being that you have to be careful if somebody over 18 returns home and lives with you, because you are likely to lose your living alone allowance. That problem still exists. Government members were convinced that we ought not to address that, but this side of the House felt that that was quite important.

The other issue—and I think that the select committee, with advice from officials, found a very useful way out of this—was how to handle this transition period between these provisions, the current provisions, and when a catastrophe occurs in a family and what to do. I think the provisions at the moment are quite useful and that, indeed, the transition is quite a simple one now. I think that is a very good provision, again, at a vulnerable time in the lives of our older folk. It ought to be a very simple provision—that they can go from being on a couple superannuitant rate to a living alone sole rate, the new rate, and do that rather seamlessly. I think that it is a good provision and a good amendment that the select committee made. I thought it was a good one. The other very useful thing the select committee has done is to make it very clear that even in this transition period, the superannuitant and the veterans pensioner will actually qualify from the day the catastrophe occurs—the day they became sole. At the moment, they have to wait. They have to apply within 28 days, and if they have not applied within 28 days then it can be paid only after that day. The provision the select committee came up with was to say that it will actually apply from that particular date. So I think that was a useful provision here as well.

I think we worked very well through the issues that were raised as a result of the Social Security Appeal Authority decision. There were not many submissions on this particular bill—I think there were only two, as I recall. They raised the kinds of issues that I have been talking about. We were able to work through those provisions. We were able to work through sensible ways of making the transition. We were at least able to debate and discuss the issue that members on this side of the House had about this situation, when somebody dependent is over the age limit but still living with somebody older, but, as I said, we were not able to convince our colleagues. The issue remains that there may be some unintended consequences of this particular bill, but here is a good provision. We have been happy to support it. It is a provision that applies at the most vulnerable time in the lives of elderly people, and it is a transition that can now be made quite seamlessly and smoothly. For those reasons, this side has supported the bill. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to speak in the third reading of the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. It is a pleasure because this bill will ensure that single superannuitants and veterans pensioners, as my colleague Paula Bennett has said, who are living alone do not have to make a separate application to receive their full entitlement. The bill really addresses two issues with regard to the current living alone payment, to ensure that those superannuitants and those veterans pensioners do not have to make those applications.

We on this side of the House are adamant that this group of New Zealanders should not face any more unnecessary difficulty in obtaining what they are rightfully entitled to. These changes will ensure a fairer, more equitable experience for single superannuitants, as well as those single veterans pensioners who live alone. It is important because it is a separate supplementary benefit that recognises that single superannuitants and veterans pensioners who live alone face higher living costs, as they are unable to share the expenses of maintaining a stable household. So a single superannuitant who has been granted this living alone payment receives $25.56 more per week after tax than a single superannuitant who is in a shared accommodation arrangement. Because the living alone payment is a separate benefit, superannuitants and these veterans pensioners who become single, usually after the death of a spouse or a partner, are currently required to make this specific application in order to receive it. In addition, they will need to apply for a living alone payment within a given time period—28 days—in order to get it backdated.

These requirements can be a real burden on older New Zealanders, particularly when they have lost that spouse. Also, because many are not aware of the payment, they do not apply for it, so they miss out on their full entitlements, which, again, can create unnecessary hardship. So it is important that we amend this legislation so that older New Zealanders who suddenly find themselves alone do not struggle to pay their bills.

Very quickly, the second main purpose of the bill is to amend the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954 to update the definition of a dependent child. That definition is to be aligned with the provisions of the Social Security Act 1964 as well as our income tax legislation, the Income Tax Act 2007. This amendment means that single superannuitants and veterans pensioners with dependent children will receive the new single living alone rate until the end of the calendar year in which the child turns 18, as long as the child is at school or in training.

This is a necessary and an essential piece of legislation and will bring certainty and ease to some of our more vulnerable citizens as they look to live out their lives in peace and harmony. I commend this bill to the House.

Unlike the previous speaker, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, I will take a full 10-minute call on this bill, the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill, as a responsible Opposition member. Labour will support this bill, so I am happy to make a contribution on the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: Good on you. That’s responsible.

We are a responsible Opposition. We will hold that Government to account. We will hold that Government to account, but we will give credit where credit is due, and on this particular bill we think that it is sensible. Of course, it is sensible because you have an Opposition that has contributed to the making of the final draft of this particular bill.

💬 Melissa Lee: Ha, ha!

Melissa Lee might laugh, but that is exactly why a Government is only as good as the Opposition here. All right? OK? So as a responsible Opposition we will—[Interruption] Well, that is right. Unfortunately, the Opposition is a little bit better than the Government, but hey.

Labour will support this bill. We think that it is worthwhile because it ensures that superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are living alone will not have to make a separate application to receive their full entitlements. It improves the lives of older people—[Interruption] Absolutely. It will be the older people who are struggling to see whether they can continue to support this Government, particularly in light of what it continues to do with old people nowadays. We believe that these changes will reduce the burden of compliance on single superannuitants to receive their full entitlement. Of course, the Social Services Committee has had a chance to look through and hear the submissions. Unfortunately—or fortunately—there have been only a couple of submitters, one from the Dunedin Community Law Centre and the other from Grey Power.

The bill will amend the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954. There are some technical changes—two technical changes—in terms of redefining the definition of dependent child for determining eligibility for the new single living alone rate, and the definition of boarding houses.

I get tired of getting up on a Thursday evening, when most people are preparing for Easter, to debate these bills that are low level in many respects, when there are still very serious issues out there that our community throughout New Zealand is encountering. One wonders that surely there is something better that the Government can address at this particular time. But, never mind, National is in Government, and, unfortunately, some Governments do better than others.

I want to talk just a little bit about the effect the new definition of dependent child will have. We were advised by the Ministry of Social Development that the change will have no impact on the New Zealand superannuitants or veterans pension clients currently receiving living alone assistance who live with their child over 18 years of age. The bill will make the definition of a child aged 18 years or older for the purposes of determining whether that child living with the living alone pensioner is eligible for that assistance consistent with the Social Security Act 1964 and section 1 of the Income Tax Act 2007. The Ministry of Social Development advised that a child who turns 18 is an adult, and that living alone assistance is for people who do not live with another adult, and it claims that other support is available for adult children. The exception to this is for children who are still at secondary school who do not have their own income or access to support in their own right.

I want to point out for the House that this was an area that the two submitters, the Dunedin Law Community Centre and Grey Power, had concerns about. In recognition of those concerns, my colleague Jacinda Ardern developed amendments to try to, in our view, improve the legislation. Unfortunately, the Government, as is typical, did not listen. I want to point out that the Dunedin Community Law Centre said in its submission that it foresaw “problems with Section 4A for … pensioners where their dependent child is enrolled in tertiary education.” It argued that “Children begin tertiary education when they are 17 or 18 years of age,”. It also argued that a “standard bachelors degree” for most people takes either 3 or 4 years, whatever the degree might be. So that child, if they start tertiary education at 17, will still be dependent at 21, or 22 if they start at 18. The problem that we now find in this current economic environment is that you have graduates who are struggling to find jobs. It may take them 6 months or a year to find jobs. There are cases where some of the graduates from our tertiary facilities are waiting around, looking for work, for 2 or 3 years. So if you take all of that into consideration, a parent might have a dependent adult child living with them up to the age of 24 or 25.

Furthermore, the Dunedin Community Law Centre said that couples today are having children at a later stage in their lives, and find that parents “are still supporting their dependent children in tertiary education as they move into, or are in, their retirement years.” They give examples. One example is a woman who has a child at 40 years or later. She could still be supporting that child at a tertiary level when she is 65 years old and that child will be in their early or mid-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. So there is genuine concern around that aspect of the bill that this Government did not see fit to improve on.

The Grey Power submission also raised concern on this very matter. It said: “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.” We did not make that up. We did not make our requests for this Government to improve the bill by addressing that, and so we put up the amendments that were needed for this Government to do that. Unfortunately, it refused, but is that not typical? It refused to improve the bill, particularly when the Opposition was recommending it. As a responsible Opposition we will question and oppose what we believe is not right, but we will support something that we think is appropriate.

The Ministry of Social Development also said that at age 18 a young person has this range of opportunities to earn an income, and it said there are wages from work, a benefit, student allowances, and student loans. Well, the issue I have with that is that at this very moment we have the highest unemployment rate for young people aged 18 to 24. Many of that age group are looking to go elsewhere. Not only have we got high unemployment but this very Government has cut wages for youth to 80 percent of the minimum wage. So how on earth, then, can it expect young people to be able to support themselves and become financially independent, when this very Government is again shutting the door on them? You get a young person dependent on a benefit or dependent on a student allowance who might then jeopardise the ability of their older parent, or older adult whom they are relying on, to receive the living alone allowance.

The last thing I want to say is that the Government recommended that 18-year-olds find financial independence by getting a student loan. That is unbelievable. That is bizarre that this Government would ask that—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.

It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of my colleague Jan Logie to take a call on the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. I begin, as some others have done this afternoon, by wishing Roland a happy birthday. Speaking of getting older, I say that the Green Party will continue to support this bill and to vote for it at its third reading. We believe it is a sensible change or sensible couple of changes.

In particular what it does, I think, is it adds to administrative efficiency, which is something that we could all support in Government department services, but also it adds to flexibility. It is sensible to collapse these two categories of assistance into a single one and to make payment of that automatic rather than requiring some process. As Sam Lotu-Iiga referred to, the reality is that many of those who needed these payments and who were eligible for them were missing out because they did not know that they needed to apply and nobody told them about them. So it is a sensible measure, as I say.

It is a little frustrating that the Government did not agree to the changes that were proposed by Jacinda Ardern in the Committee stage. They would have increased the flexibility that this bill actually provides by addressing one of the other aspects of the situation of these older people living alone in relation to the dependants. So it is frustrating that the Government chose not to take up that opportunity to actually better realise the principle that was motivating this bill in the first place.

The other point I would make is that the complexity of the process around living alone payments, which this bill seeks to address, and the situation of people who are eligible for, and entitled to, assistance and are not being made aware that such assistance is available is not isolated to this situation, and it would be good to see the Government moving to address those problems more broadly.

The next point I want to make is in relation to the timetable. This bill has been a long time coming to its third reading. The Social Services Committee reported back to the House on 15 April 2011. The select committee’s report actually had amended the bill to change the commencement date to 6 July 2011. Here we are, 2 years later, practically, with a pretty straightforward bill and a pretty straightforward set of changes, and I wonder whether the incredibly slow progress of this bill is indicative of a lack of urgency around addressing this kind of problem. I think it would be sad if indeed better addressing the income security needs of older people was a low priority for the Government.

I want to just briefly reflect, as we do sometimes at third readings, on some of the context to our income support for older people, and in particular to quote Michael Joseph Savage from the 1930s as New Zealand’s social support mechanisms were largely being created for the first time. He said: “The honourable gentlemen”—they were in those days—“on the Opposition benches want to turn back the clocks. I want to know why people should not have security in the evening of their days. What is there more important in Christianity than to be our brothers’ keepers in reality?”. I think Savage’s words have motivated a spirit in New Zealand, in all of those intervening years, of commitment to supporting our older people. This bill, which we sign into law today, is a good step towards enhancing and consolidating the support that we provide for older people. In general, we have a good record of keeping older people out of poverty.

But the last point I want to come to in this contribution to the third reading is that we do not, in fact, follow that principle through to other groups who are in need. While we pass this into law, we have some 270,000 children in this country living in poverty. As Jan Logie said, when will this House, when will this Government, turn the same attention and the same principles—the good principles that sit behind this bill—to addressing the needs of children who live in poverty, to addressing the greatest support to those who have the greatest need? That is what the Green Party stands for. We continue to support this bill. We will vote for it.

It is a great pleasure to rise in support in the third reading of the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. This bill is about making things simpler for our older folks—older New Zealanders—at a time when they suddenly find themselves alone after the death of a wife, a husband, or a partner. Those are difficult times. It replaces the living alone payment and the two current rates of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension with a new single living alone rate and a new single sharing accommodation rate. The changes—and previous speakers have also talked about this—may seem very minor but they will be significant for the people affected by them. The system needs simplifying, and the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill will do just that.

At the moment the living alone payment is a separate benefit and it has to be applied for. It has to be applied for within 28 days in order to get the payment backdated. This places an unnecessary burden on older New Zealanders, particularly at a time of great loss. Often when they are in grieving mode they may not be motivated to get up and go and apply for a supplement income that is available to them. They may not even be aware of it. Removing that 28-day time period will be very helpful for older folks in New Zealand.

As I said, some older people may not even know that they may be entitled to the payment, creating unnecessary hardship and stress. We do not want single superannuitants and single veterans pensioners who are living alone to have to make a separate application for the extra payment that they are entitled to. This bill also means that superannuitants will not need to visit a Work and Income office to make that application. This can be hard for some older New Zealanders, and we need to make the process a lot simpler.

The new single living alone rate will be paid from the day that the superannuitant or veterans pensioner becomes eligible. It recognises that living alone means that you—not you, Mr Deputy Speaker—are not able to share the cost of maintaining a household, and living costs are higher. A single superannuitant who has been granted a living alone payment receives $25.56 more each week after tax than a single superannuitant who is sharing accommodation. At the date of the enactment of the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill, all recipients of the living alone payment will be transferred to the new single living alone rate of superannuation or veterans pension, and it will be paid from the day that people become eligible for it.

The Opposition has talked a little bit about the definition of a “dependent child”. The purpose of the bill is to amend the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954 to update the definition, because different Acts have different definitions of what a “dependent child” really is. The amendment to the bill means that single superannuitants and veterans pensioners with dependent children will receive the new single living alone rate until the end of the calendar year in which the child turns 18, as long as the child is at school or in training. It will also ensure a consistent definition of an 18-year-old dependent child across the social system. If the child remains in the household after he or she turns 18, the superannuitant will receive the new single sharing accommodation rate. These changes will make it simpler and fairer for all single superannuitants and veterans pensioners who live alone.

This bill is another example of this National Government simplifying processes. The changes may seem small but for our older New Zealanders they will be very significant. We do not want them facing unnecessary difficulties in obtaining what they are rightfully entitled to. Finally I would like to echo the House’s congratulations to Roland—happy birthday. I would like to wish you all right across this House a very happy Easter. God bless you all.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this bill, the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill.

💬 Mike Sabin: That’s right.

Not on behalf of Mike Sabin but on behalf of New Zealand First. New Zealand First has always done what it stands for, and that is putting New Zealanders first—something that Mike Sabin has failed to do since arriving in this House. This bill, which is here before the House for its third reading, to some extent does just that: it puts older New Zealanders first.

I believe that it was Albert Einstein who said that knowledge is realising that the street is one-way, while wisdom—are you listening, Mike Sabin—is looking in both directions anyway. New Zealand First acknowledges that this bill recognises that we need to guarantee that future generations, our future leaders, are well prepared in order for them to take up leadership in the future, especially for our nation. But at the same time, there is also a need for us to ensure, for those who have created the foundation for them to actually become leaders in the future, that the foundation is maintained and sustained and that the people who created it are rewarded and acknowledged for their service to this country.

This bill will empower superannuitants and veterans pensioners to be independent. I acknowledge that that has also been mirrored by both sides of the House. It enables them to get the benefits they deserve without having to deal with a process that creates confusion, delays, and a loss of opportunities. The way this country treats our widows, veterans, and superannuitants is a reflection of how developed we are as a nation. Superannuitants and veterans pensioners should not be perceived as a burden on our society but rather be recognised as those who have helped create the foundation of this nation, the foundation from which we have been fortunate enough to expand and also develop further as a nation. We are talking about senior citizens who have worked hard and laid down infrastructure so that we could build a prosperous nation and establish and develop assets, not for the Government to sell off without people’s permission.

This bill will aim to offer superannuitants a “no muck around” approach, and offer support to those living alone. The new single living alone rate of superannuation and the veterans pension is intended to eliminate the requirement to make separate applications to receive the full entitlement. Why should they have to be made to fill out extra forms and more applications? When I think of retirement I think of a less busy life, with the freedom to enjoy it without bureaucracy and red tape.

💬 Colin King: What about grandchildren?

New Zealand First—I can hear you, Colin King—has raised concerns over the bill’s capacity to benefit different living arrangements, because our elderly are not uniform, nor do they all fit into one category. One of our main concerns, though, is the bill’s definition of dependent children as those who are 18 years of age and under. We still have those concerns. The Government has failed to take this into consideration.

Although the bill defines living alone as a person who occupies a principal place of residence of a specified kind and does not share that residence—I am quoting that from the actual bill—there are expectations that are applicable to pensioners who live with a dependent child or person who is not financially independent and is attending an educational institution. However, that exception will expire on 31 December in the same year when that dependent child turns the age of 18. It is a common trend nowadays that most tertiary students begin university life at the age of 18. No student is expected to complete any undergrad degree in 1 year. The minimum is normally 3 years. During the Committee stage of this bill I raised a serious concern around this area. The way this part of the bill was written failed to accurately reflect the fact that undergraduate degrees do take up to 3 years. This relates to the years that they will be considered dependent occupants. New Zealand First is very concerned with how these amendments may conflict with the dependent child’s ability to get a student allowance once he or she is assessed. Our concern is over the bill’s potential to overlap with other entitlements that dependent students may be confronted with due to his or her living arrangements, which should be considerably important as well. This can become problematic if it is not carefully structured, and may create more hassles for not only the dependants but also the elderly citizens who live with them at the same place. If the intentions of this bill are true in wanting to make it easier for our elderly citizens to attain their rights and entitlements, then let us do it right first time, every time. Let us do it right.

Similarly, there needs to be greater clarity and informative measures that allow pensioners to gain greater understanding about their rights and entitlements. This responsibility should be placed on staff who administer these applications. Transparency and clear communications regarding the well-being of pensioners should be fostered with respect. New Zealand First would like this bill to deliver a long-term scheme free from political tampering and based on principles of fairness. It must incorporate dignified living standards and represent our nation’s national interest.

It is predicted that in the next 30 years 26 percent of the population will be over the age of 65—from 550,000 to well over 1 million. Those New Zealanders will be receiving a form of retirement income. That is quite a high number of people. This bill should reflect the Government’s intention for the future well-being of our elderly citizens. All New Zealanders matter. We should not have to pull out statistics. We should not have to look at statistics to remind us of that. This bill must ensure that our pensioners and superannuitants receive what is owed to them.

The success of this bill will also rely on its ability to correspond to the success of the SuperGold Card scheme. It is no secret that the SuperGold Card scheme is now revolutionising the way our pensioners and superannuitants live. To recap on the success of the SuperGold Card, its initiation into society has proven beneficial amongst the holders, especially for travel on public transport. New Zealand First encourages greater entitlements in this area, maybe for power, food, health, and rates in general. I can see that Mike Sabin is looking a little bit confused. This would enable pensioners and superannuitants to enjoy a more dignified life, something that the National Government has often overlooked. It will also signal to the rest of the world that this Government is actually doing something right. We owe it to our pensioners and superannuitants to make life easier. It is time. It is time for us to acknowledge our senior citizens. They need us at this time, and what better way is there to respond and say thank you? Thank you.

I rise to take a call on the third reading of the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. First of all, Mr Deputy Speaker, can I start by wishing you a happy Easter, and also all of our colleagues and parliamentarians in the House, and the rest of New Zealand.

Yes, Easter is a time of rest and relaxation, but it is often a time of reflection. It is at these times that those who are vulnerable and deserving in our communities—our elderly, those who have served, who have saved, and who have given their life to civil society, to contributing—may reflect. And at these times, when they do reflect, I think the question that will be asked is how this bill has made a difference in their lives, and whether it can make a difference. We would like to say that it does.

In the words of Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor, the previous speaker to this bill, let us do it right. Well, we are. There may be minor changes in this bill, but they are major in regard to the impact and effect on the very people we want to serve. As the previous speaker said, let us take care of those who have cared for us. Over many years they have paid their taxes, and they have contributed in voluntary ways to our society, to our communities, to our families, and to our homes. That is what this bill does. It does two very simple things and it addresses two issues.

The bill addresses the issues in regard to the current living alone payments to ensure that superannuitants and veterans pensioners living alone do not have to make separate applications. I know that has been repeated over and over again. In other words, in plain English, it simply brings the two into one. It makes it easier, and therefore they do not have to go and reapply. In fact, on many occasions they do not know to apply for the living alone payment and to do so within the given time period of 28 days. So, in fact, they often do not claim it. They often do not access this. What this bill will simply do is give an easier sense of access to allow them to access the support that they need in this regard.

I think this is a caring bill. I think this is a bill that actually shows that to the rest of New Zealand, especially those who, at this time of reflection over Easter, will simply say that they may not understand all the complexities of this bill, but what they do understand is it has made things easier and more accessible in a very small way, so that the vulnerable who need support—in this case, our elderly, our superannuitants, our veterans, and our war pensioners—will receive the support that they absolutely need. I am proud to commend this bill to the House.

It is a pleasure to take a call on the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. Like the previous speaker, Alfred Ngaro, I appreciate that we are debating a very important piece of legislation—very important for those who stand to benefit from it. As Mr Ngaro himself acknowledged, they are the people who have in large part made a significant contribution, whether as people who have retired—they are superannuitants—or as veterans. They have made a significant contribution.

We are debating this measure on this, the cusp of the break for Easter, itself a significant period, a significant time, a time for reflection, and a time to reflect on the Resurrection. It is, of course, an important occasion, so we understand the magnitude of the time, but also of the issue.

In a spirit of reflection, when we might otherwise pat ourselves on the back, let us also reflect that the issue that underpins this legislation was first brought to the attention of the Government in 2009. It came back to the House for consideration by way of legislation in 2011. Much as each of us here in the House today may in our hearts value and cherish the contribution of those who will benefit from this legislation, we might also be honest and ask ourselves why it has taken 4 years to act on a problem that we knew of in 2009 and, indeed, why it has taken 2 years to come back and deal with the report from the Social Services Committee. But notwithstanding that—this is not a time to be churlish and combative; we have had that earlier in the week—let us not brush under the carpet the fact that there has been some delay in bringing a resolution to this issue back to this House for passing.

As the other members who have already spoken have indicated, this bill does do a very important thing. For many superannuitants who find themselves living on their own because of bereavement—the loss of their partner, their significant other, or their spouse—they are faced with many things at that time, sorting out the affairs of the estate of their spouse, dealing with family members, and dealing with issues that in many cases they are not used to dealing with. The last thing they want to do is have to trot off to the local Work and Income office and fill out more forms that entitle them to a higher payment.

So this bill is a good measure in that respect—this is a good measure—and it saves superannuitants who are in that position and who might otherwise feel a sense of indignity at having to put their hand out to the State, which has already offered to support them, for a little more. Now that change will be automatic. Frankly, in this day and age of information, data storage, and data gathering, notwithstanding the issues that that has clearly caused in the last couple of years, that ought to be a reasonably easy process. So it is good that this legislation will enable that to happen. It will be good for those who are in receipt of superannuation or a veterans pension to not have to go through the process of applying for a payment that, under our social security scheme, they are properly and fully entitled to.

In relation to the part of the bill that deals with dependent children, and particularly as it applies to superannuitants, there are some issues about that, and I think the plea from this side of the House is that flexibility is shown. We know that for young people who are still dependent after the age of 18, who may well be students and those who are still undergoing training perhaps into their early 20s, it is possible that the bill as it presently is does not afford sufficient flexibility. We know that there are young people who have as parents superannuitants—and I was one of them. In the first couple of years when I was at university I would go home for the Christmas break for work. This present arrangement—

💬 Mike Sabin: Empty out the cupboards—raid the fridge.

Yes. I worked on the Think Big projects. I understand about the satisfactory use of our gas resources. I was not quite sure of the economics of the Think Big projects at the time, but they have been transformed. They have been transformed, at least the synthetic fuel plant—we are no longer producing synthetic gasoline at great net cost to the nation but with great returns to Mobil, which provided the technology and had a win-win agreement with the Government. We now produce methanol, which provides returns both to the owner and to the community.

But putting that aside, I was one of those people who would routinely return to my parents’ home—they were both superannuitants—but for a student returning to a superannuitant living on their own, this causes some inflexibility if they are sort of moving in and out of different categories and have a different status for qualification for payment, and, actually, the economics of the household do not change a great deal. If a student returns home for 10 or 15 weeks over the Christmas break, the economics of that household do not change for the superannuitant who runs it and owns it. So there does need to be some flexibility in there, which was the purport of the amendments in the name of Jacinda Ardern.

So addressing those two situations—the situation of the superannuitant who, generally through bereavement and very rarely through decisions of their spouse, finds that they are living alone and are, therefore, entitled to a higher payment, this legislation will make it easy. On the changes in relation to the definition of a dependent child—of course we understand the need to do that in light of the decisions taken by the Social Security Appeal Authority, but the solution that we have put up is needed to recognise the most common situations that will be faced, without compromising entitlement to the living alone payment for superannuitants and veterans who would otherwise be entitled to it under this provision.

So with that, we have no qualms in supporting the legislation at this time, understanding that it is going to be a constant process of ensuring that our social security system maintains its currency and that it meets contemporary needs. Ours is the party of social security. Ours was the party that was the architect of social security.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Tell us more.

Well, I am happy to give you the history of it. Let me go back to the 1935 election, when people gathered in the streets on election night in 1935 with a sense of hope and a sense of determination because they knew that life would change. There were people there, pensioners and those who had suffered great hardship, who knew that a newly elected Labour Government was going to do something good. It has done it, and it did happen. Something new did evolve. In 1938 the Social Security Act was passed, and social security has been a mainstay of New Zealand—the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand society—ever since. That is why it is important that every time this House comes to consider social security legislation we get on board, we modernise it, and we keep it contemporary, but at the heart of it, it is looking after our most vulnerable and looking after good, hard-working New Zealanders in their time of need. This legislation does that yet again, and for that reason we in the Labour Party are proud to support it.

I am pleased to take a short call on this particular bill, the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. We have heard some consternation, from the other side in particular, about the fact that this bill has languished on the Order Paper since 2009, but that seems to run in conflict with the need for some members to take exceedingly long calls and find ways to run their speeches sort of on loop. The cynic in me says that possibly it is because they would like to stall and delay the path of legislation, but I would not like to take a cynical view.

The reality is that much of the delay in terms of this matter coming to the House is due to the global financial crisis, the Canterbury earthquakes, and a massive legislative programme that is about keeping the focus on managing the Government’s finances, on ensuring that we are building a more competitive and productive economy in Better Public Services and significant reforms going on there, and on rebuilding Christchurch. So for the members who may concern themselves as to why this has taken so long, those are four very good reasons that we may reflect on.

Coming back to the bill, it is a pragmatic and sensible bill. Although there has been some comment made across the House, I think we can all share in the pragmatism reflected in the amendments that effectively see the New Zealand Super—what are we talking about here; let me reflect on it—

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Superannuation.

—superannuation, that is the word I was looking for; I was getting tangled up with superannuitants—New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act and the War Pensions Act 1954 ensuring that single superannuitants and veterans on the pension who are living alone do not have to make dual applications. That seems infinitely pragmatic.

Also, the bill’s second main provision is that it is updating the definition of a dependent child. It has been well canvassed and I do not intend to traverse it too much more, other than to say that what it will do is provide that single superannuitants and veterans on a pension with a dependent child will receive the new single living alone payment rate until the end of the calendar year in which that child turns 18 if they are in school or in training, and if the child remains in the household, the superannuitant will receive a new single sharing accommodation rate.

I think I have pretty much traversed the extent of my notes. I am very happy to commend this bill. I must acknowledge the members on the other side for managing to fill up a full 10 minutes. They are an outstanding bunch on the other side in terms of their capacity to filibuster. I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call. Kris Faafoi, for 5 minutes.

Five minutes—it is a shame I do not have 10 minutes to fulfil the needs of Mike Sabin around the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. During the Committee stage the member who has just resumed his seat, Mike Sabin, said that this bill basically succeeded in the Government’s pursuit of creating conditions for businesses to create jobs.

When we look through the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill I do not see much that helps any businesses to create an environment that creates jobs. In fact, this is the kind of bill that gets introduced to the House when the Government has done exactly the opposite and has not done anything to try to create conditions to create jobs. That has been borne out by the unemployment rate, which has stayed high under the current Government.

If you want to have a look at a subset of the unemployment rate, the Pacific unemployment rate—and I think Asenati Lole-Taylor will probably want to concur with me on this—it is close to an all-time high at around 16 percent. This piece of legislation does nothing to address that issue, especially dealing with unemployment for a vulnerable part of New Zealand’s communities, the Pacific Island community.

In respect of Mr Sabin’s comments in the Committee stage of this bill, I would have to question the validity of that statement. I am glad he did take the opportunity just to take stock of what bill he was talking on, because for the 3 minutes prior to that I did not know what he was talking about. I did not know at all what Mr Sabin was talking about. This is the bill that he said, in previous readings, created the conditions for businesses to create jobs, which is certainly not what is done here. Labour is not supporting this bill, as the three previous Labour speakers on this side of the House have said, because we do not believe it does anything to address the issues that have been identified as barriers to work, and they are the creation of jobs and the availability to work, childcare costs, and whether an individual has the necessary skills required. In those three respects the Government has failed quite miserably.

I have already talked about the Government’s lack of action on creating an environment to have more jobs. But in the area of childcare costs we are seeing a stick approach from the Government. It will punish those beneficiaries who do not get their children into childcare. Early childhood education is something that is very much valued on this side of the House, and that is why we want to make sure we get as many of our young people as possible into early childhood education centres with 100 percent qualified teachers. But what this Government has done has not created the number of places in early childhood education centres to meet the numbers required under this piece of legislation. In terms of that aspect of this bill, it is a hollow attempt and a hollow promise to try to get the rates of early childhood education lifted. And where do we start, with the Government struggling to get the people with the necessary skills in this country?

I believe it was about 3 years ago when the Government cut a considerable amount of funding from trades training. What that has meant post-Christchurch is that we do not have enough properly qualified builders, plumbers, and sparkies there to help in the rebuild.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Gasfitters and drainlayers.

Gasfitters and drainlayers—a very interesting group at the moment.

So the Government has not addressed the aspect of making sure we have got enough trained and qualified people out there, with the right skills, in the workforce. We have got Christchurch screaming out for skilled labour, and we have not been able to deliver that, because this Government, in its first term in office, considerably cut the budget for trades training. As I said, this—

💬 Mike Sabin: That’s a long 5 minutes.

I can get hotter if you like.

As I said, this bill takes a stick approach to beneficiaries and brings in some social obligations. The introduction of obligations implies that parents who are getting Government support are poor parents. We believe that this is both wrong and unfair, but I am sure you will hear the next speaker from the National Government saying that that is just. The use of sanctions—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

Thank you very much. I wish everyone a happy Easter.

Likewise, I wish everybody a really good break and a good holiday. It is an opportunity to reflect on our own privilege that we enjoy in this House because we are on really good wages, paid for by the taxpayer, and I think we are all aware of their expectations of us. It is also good to acknowledge what privilege gives you, and recognise that sometimes privilege puts you in a bubble and it is easy not to understand, in a bubble, what it is like for other people. We meet a lot of people, but we do not walk in their shoes—we do not have to. Some of us have walked in those shoes, but that is why this bill, the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill, is important, because it does address some aspects of the shoes that people have to walk in.

It does not go far enough in terms of amending what is a fairly chaotic, now ancient, piece of legislation. I enjoyed hearing from the earlier speaker Andrew Little about the history, because I think it is good to remember that the Social Security Act was once a vibrant, transformative, and liberating piece of legislation, heralded around the world, and greeted by my own ancestors with great enthusiasm—Irish poor, who never ever could afford to build a house until the 1950s, even though we have been here since 1864. So the Social Security Act has always been a very important part of the definition of a civilised society, but, unfortunately, it has become an uncivilised piece of legislation.

This bill, however, will improve it. We are supporting it. We believe that the two changes are going to be good. We believe that it is important to try, even though it is pretty chaotic in there, to simplify the way in which Work and Income deals with vulnerable people. Let me tell you—sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I keep dragging you into this; let me not tell the Deputy Speaker, I am sure he does not need to hear this—that being dragged into Work and Income makes you vulnerable. It is a very vulnerable place.

I worked for a number of years on the East Coast as an advocate for people on benefits. This included veterans, it included elderly people who were in the categories described by this bill, some of whom were on the living alone benefit, and it included also people with sicknesses, people on the invalids benefit, sole parents, disabled people, and people with disabled children, all of whom were vulnerable when they walked in that door. Unfortunately, unlike this bill, the ethos at Work and Income is not: “What can we do for you and how can we facilitate your life to be easier?”. It is a punitive experience. Watching people crying, getting angry, shutting down, and panicking is a normal experience for any beneficiary advocate. I really believe this bill will help one group of beneficiaries. We are all in some ways a beneficiary, whether it is a beneficiary of clean water, whether it is a beneficiary of high wages, or whether it is a beneficiary of decent laws. We are all beneficiaries and we are all entitled to the rights of citizens. This will help a certain group of people.

The second part of the bill, relating to dependent children, will not affect a huge number of people, but every bit of law that works is good law, and it is good that superannuitants with dependent children will get an easier ride. I do want to go back to the point about the importance of collapsing the living alone benefit and making it simpler for people who are vulnerable. Obviously, when you have lost a lifelong partner or family member, you are vulnerable, and the bureaucracy is absolutely impregnable. It is absolutely unintelligible, not only for the elderly but for virtually anybody who does not work with it. Going into Work and Income is interesting because the staff do not look at the people; they look at the screen. The people do not know what the screen means, because it is all written in jargon. The whole thing is set up to make it very clear to people who walk into that place that they are no longer empowered citizens; they are actually second-class.

I support the legislation because it allows some people to get a better opportunity to have an easier ride through the Work and Income labyrinth, but that labyrinth is not just for the so-called deserving poor. It is for everybody, because there but for the grace of God goes every single person in this House. One day we may need the support of the social security system, and we would want to be treated with the same respect, the same clarity, and the same facilitation as this bill does for the elderly in our community.

I also commend Kevin Hague’s speech, because if we cannot look after our children, then the care for our elderly becomes a little bit contradictory. I am sure, as a grandmother, like many people here, we believe that our children need exactly the same care as our vulnerable elders. If we cannot commit to that through legislation and through social security, we need to have a good look at ourselves. We do support the bill. Thank you very much.

Although I acknowledge that those who seek assistance from the Government can find it difficult, can I also, I suppose, counter that by saying that the people of Work and Income do a fantastic job. As someone who has worked within the Ministry of Social Development in its different branches, I know from personal experience the enormously hard work that the people of, say, Work and Income or Child, Youth and Family do to support the most vulnerable in New Zealand.

💬 Tim Macindoe: And they deserve our support.

And they do deserve our support; I think that is quite correct. So I want to acknowledge them.

This Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill has been well discussed in periods of 5 minutes and 10 minutes and other succinct contributions. I just want to say to those who do live alone, those on war pensions or on superannuation who in age find themselves alone, that, from this House, and certainly from me, they are not alone; they stand with us in this community. As we approach this weekend of Easter and as we move to pass this legislation, they are not alone. They live with us in our community, and we support them. I want to wish them, and the House, a very happy Easter.

Bill read a third time.