Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill

I move, That the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider the bill. This bill seeks to provide greater pension flexibility for people who wish to retire in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. This Government wants to ensure that New Zealanders have as many options as possible as to where they spend their retirement, and we also want to make sure that those countries and territories that have close constitutional ties with New Zealand are recognised, and that their ongoing economic and social viability is supported.

Current pension portability arrangements allow people to take their New Zealand superannuation to one of 22 Pacific countries and territories, including the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. The arrangement also applies to the veterans pension, which is an alternative to New Zealand superannuation for eligible veterans. The provision that makes this possible is called the Special Portability Arrangement. Under the arrangement, New Zealand superannuation is paid at a minimum of 50 percent after 10 years’ residence in New Zealand, rising to 100 percent after 20 years’ residence. There are also general portability provisions that cover all other countries with which New Zealand does not have a social security agreement. The payment formula for the Special Portability Arrangement is more generous than the payment formula for the general portability provisions. This is because the Special Portability Arrangement is designed to recognise the contribution Pacific peoples make to New Zealand, and the inability of Pacific countries and territories to fulfil the reciprocal obligations necessary to conclude social security arrangements with New Zealand. There are currently nearly 650 people receiving their New Zealand superannuation in the Pacific, and nearly 300 of those people live in the Cook Islands.

To be eligible under the Special Portability Arrangement at the present time, a person must be resident and present in New Zealand on the date of his or her application. Consequently, people who wish to retire and receive New Zealand superannuation in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau are not able to leave New Zealand until they are 65, which is the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation. Should they choose to return permanently to the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau prior to age 65, they lose their ability to apply for New Zealand superannuation. This bill will remedy that situation by eliminating the resident and present in New Zealand requirement for the Special Portability Arrangement in respect of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. The bill will allow persons to retire to those islands after reaching the age of 55, and to apply for New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension from these Pacific islands at age 65.

Why are they able to retire to only the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau after reaching the age of 55? This is because there is a residence requirement for New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension that will still apply to these people. In order to be eligible for New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension, a person must have lived in New Zealand for 10 years since the age of 20, 5 of which must be after the age of 50. This provision applies to all applicants for New Zealand superannuation, and, therefore, it would not be right to remove it only for people who wish to move to the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau. The change is restricted to those three countries because this bill is about recognising New Zealand’s close constitutional relationships with these Pacific islands, which enjoy shared citizenship with New Zealand, and unique legal arrangements. Both the Cook Islands and Niue have adopted constitutions enabling self-government, in free association with New Zealand. Free association is a status distinct from that of full independence, in that it allows the Cook Islands and Niue to maintain New Zealand citizenship while administering their own affairs. Tokelau is a non-selfgoverning territory of New Zealand.

As I said earlier, this bill is also about trying to assist the economic and social viability of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. Depopulation, and its related social and economic consequences, is a longstanding issue for these island countries. The current resident and present requirement has been described as a disincentive for Cook Islanders, Niueans, and Tokelauans established in New Zealand to return home before retirement age. Removing this disincentive has the potential to boost economic development and human resource capacity in these islands, through an increased return of experienced persons able to apply skills effectively in their home communities. People returning at age 55 would have the capacity to contribute to the workforce 10 years in advance of the standard retirement age. As pension payments are paid in gross, it is expected that local income tax and value-added tax will be paid by returning migrants to contribute to services received.

The idea that otherwise eligible persons should be able to apply for their New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension from the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau has been around for some time. Pacific Island leaders view greater flexibility around pension portability as a driver for increased economic activity, and have sought changes to the New Zealand scheme for many years. The issue continues to be raised, in particular by the Cook Islands, at senior Government levels.

The issue of pension portability was also highlighted in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee inquiry into New Zealand’s relationships with South Pacific countries, which was presented to the House in December 2010. The committee noted the potential impact of experienced people with some capital on consumption, business development, and job creation in an island economy. The committee suggested that citizens of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, as New Zealand citizens, should be eligible for a New Zealand pension in the same way as New Zealanders living in the Chatham Islands.

Niue and Tokelau are facing particular depopulation problems and very limited options for development of a private sector economy. The committee favoured options involving the promotion of Niue as an attractive location for retirees, noting that they would bring steady cash flow, and contribute to stable employment options. Most important, they could contribute to the viability of businesses providing goods and services to residents and visitors. It is important to note that this change will not be restricted just to citizens of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. All New Zealanders who qualify for New Zealand superannuation will be able to make use of the provision, should they choose to live in those islands.

The economic implications of the bill for New Zealand are mixed. On the one hand there are fiscal costs to the Crown associated with payments to newly eligible superannuitants who have moved permanently from New Zealand before turning 65. In addition, in the future those people who choose to leave New Zealand at age 55 will create a likely loss of economic input to New Zealand due to that earlier emigration. There will also be ongoing administration costs. On the other hand a range of indirect economic benefits and savings may be derived by New Zealand from the proposal. The potential benefits include increased economic activity in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, leading to a reduction in remittance payments and private transfers from New Zealand. Savings could also be accrued as a result of a lower burden on some New Zealand Government - funded services, including reduced expenditure on health care. These benefits are difficult to quantify, however, and would depend on the response to the new arrangements.

Officials have tried to estimate how many people might benefit from the new arrangements. Immigration data suggests that 245 people who emigrated from New Zealand to the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau after the age of 55 would become newly eligible for New Zealand superannuation when the legislation is passed. The estimates also show that this is likely to increase by an additional 16 people in each subsequent year. This sounds like a relatively small number, but taken in the context of small populations, the implications of this are quite significant. I commend this bill to the House.

It is my pleasure to rise to speak on behalf of the Labour Party on the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill, which we will be supporting at first reading and to the select committee. Before I address the content of this bill, I would like to take the opportunity to dedicate my first reading speech to some recently departed leaders of high standing from the Hamilton community, in both the Cook Islands and the Niuean communities. George Ford and Terry Chapman—both taonga and leaders in the Hamilton community for their respective Cook Islands and Niuean communities—actually, interestingly, died within a few days of each other about a year ago. It was a time of great loss and great grief for not only their communities in Hamilton but for the broader community in Hamilton because of the leadership roles that those two men had displayed in terms of the integration of their communities with the broader Hamilton community and in ensuring that people who were coming to Hamilton from the Cook Islands and Niue had a community to settle into and were well looked after. That benefited the rest of the community.

I raise this because it is interesting that when you know people in your community, sometimes you do not always know what a contribution they have made. It was not until I attended Terry Chapman’s funeral that I learnt and understood the amazing contribution he had made to Niue. He had been the primary public servant involved in drafting the Niuean constitution. He had come to live and work in New Zealand after making that incredible commitment to, and having that impact on, his own country. It was not until I was at his funeral and saw that the Premier of Niue had travelled to Hamilton to farewell Terry Chapman that I truly understood what this man’s contribution had been. Of course, that contribution, because of the connection between Niue and New Zealand, as the Minister has just said, is considerable for our own community because of the way in which that constitution was brought about. I do want to dedicate my first reading speech to those two very fine gentlemen who have made such a contribution to their own nations but also to the nation-building in New Zealand and to our Hamilton community in particular.

This bill is supported by the Labour Party because it actually helps people. As people know about the Labour Party, our view is that people matter most. This bill gives effect to the portability of the New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension to people who may wish to retire in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau, and it seems like a very correct and fitting thing to do. What a nice place to retire in—any of those places. Would that not be fabulous? If, in our older age, we were, perhaps, fit enough and we did not feel that we needed to be near a tertiary hospital or major health care services, any of those places would be a fabulous place to retire in, and this bill allows people to have that option. So it allows that portability. The aim of it is to allow eligible people who live in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau to be able to apply from any of those countries for New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension, and to be paid those benefits in any of those countries or in other specified Pacific countries.

This policy from the Government was announced on 9 August 2013 by the Hon Murray McCully, and it has taken some time to get to a first reading, but I am pleased that it has made it on to the Order Paper at this point in time. So, under the current rules, I think as the Minister outlined, people wishing to retire to the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau have to be resident and president—that is, present in New Zealand at age 65.

💬 Poto Williams: President would be fine.

Well, they could be the president as well. But, no, they are not required to be the president; they are only required to be present, so it is not so cumbersome. As we know, these are our Pacific neighbours. The people who are most likely to be using this probably are not people like me who think it would be a wonderful dream to retire in such a location. It is very likely to be people who are returning home—people who have come to our country, come to New Zealand, to contribute to our society, to further their own education, perhaps, or to further the opportunities afforded to their own families. They have worked. They have made a huge commitment, like the sort of contribution I outlined just before from the two gentlemen I spoke of, Terry Chapman and George Ford. They brought a huge commitment and skills to our country. Then, after having earned money here and earned the right to be paid New Zealand superannuation, they have earned the right to be able to retire in their homeland. I think that it is right and proper that we afford them the ability to do so.

Residents of those countries or that territory—as the Minister outlined before, Tokelau is regarded as a territory—would still need to qualify for New Zealand superannuation in the first instance. So they must have been resident and present in New Zealand for more than 10 years since the age of 20, including 5 years since the age of 50, for this new provision to apply to them. This means that people who are entitled to New Zealand superannuation, regardless of whether they are of Cook Islands, Niuean, or Tokelauan ethnicity, will be able to depart New Zealand to live in one of these three countries after the age of 55 and apply without returning to New Zealand for their superannuation once they turn 65.

One thing that I do notice—and I suppose it is more noticeable now because we have this tool that we use called Facebook, where we can see what people are up to—is that people from the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau in the Hamilton area are actually going back and rediscovering their roots. Some of these families—I guess it is the children of the people who first travelled here—are going back and reconnecting with their parents’ and sometimes their grandparents’ villages and discovering those roots for the first time. I guess I have had a little bit of experience in this myself, but what I notice when people go back and discover their roots is how much confidence it gives them in who they are and where they have come from. You absolutely notice that when people return, they have got that new-found sense of confidence.

I had a little bit of an experience like that myself. When I did my overseas experience—I think I was at the tender age of 18 or 19 at the time—I went to this foreign land called Ireland. It was a place I had never been to before and a place I did not know a lot about, but I have Irish ancestry on both sides of my family. That probably explains a little bit to my colleagues about me. I have Irish ancestry on both sides, so there is no escaping it. What I really was not prepared for was landing in this foreign land I had never been to before and feeling completely and utterly at home from day one. I imagine that that is something of the experience that people who are going back and discovering their roots in these three localities have as well—that, somehow, through DNA, I think it actually is transmitted that this is home; this is where you belong. So the calling will be strong for people from those three locations to retire there. This bill allows them to do that without losing the financial support that they have earned and gained from their time in New Zealand. It is a bill that is worthy of our support. I am very proud to have stood and supported this bill on behalf of the Labour Party, and particularly in memory of those two fine men—George Ford and Terry Chapman. Thank you.

Back in the year of 1952, my father came over here from the beautiful Cook Islands. He came from Aitutaki. His older brothers were already residing here; they were down in Tokoroa, in the Waikato. He went down to places such as Mangakino and worked in the forestry industry down there. He stayed there for about 3 years, and then made his way back up to Auckland, where he resided in Ponsonby.

My mother came to New Zealand in the year of 1953. She began to work as a cleaner. My parents met at the Orange Hall, which was one of the dancehalls that was open back in those days—and there were other places, such as the Rising Sun and the Reefcomber, which they used to visit. They then fell in love, and I was the result—the second of their five children who were born here. I remember growing up in Ponsonby, initially, and then heading out to west Auckland. The aspirations and dreams behind their emigrating from the Cook Islands to New Zealand were for the hope of a better future and a better life, and, more particularly, for their children—so that they would do well both in education and employment opportunities, and also that they would be the beginning of another generation.

I am proud to be able to speak on the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill. It is an important bill that acknowledges the journey and the stories of people, such as my parents and other parents from the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, who came here for a better life, but who, at the same time, wish to return in their older age—as Sue Moroney said, to go back not only to rediscover but to spend their final years resting back in their homeland. I must say, Sue Moroney, that the best place you could reside is probably the Cook Islands. I am not being biased here. I know there is a representative here from Samoa, and one from Tonga. My wife is Samoan and Niuean as well. But the Cook Islands were voted the eighth best place in the world to have a holiday. It is a beautiful place. Besides being a beautiful place, it is a place that has history and heritage. That absolutely is important, and we see that as being important for people such as my parents when it is time to return.

This bill has come out of a long period of inquiry into the importance of New Zealand’s relationship with these protectorate nations, and into how we can give something back to them. I think it is also important to acknowledge the fact that there has been a huge contribution by these communities to both the citizenship and the establishment of nationhood in New Zealand. Poto Williams and I have been working with the Cook Islands community as we enter the centenary commemorations for World War I. We know that during World War I Sir Māui Pōmare went out into the Pacific, and, because of the protectorate relationship with New Zealand, conscripted 500 soldiers into the Rarotongan battalion—which came across in three contingents—as well as 147 from Niue. They fought in World War I. Their contribution is significant and as important. So the payment formula for the Special Portability Arrangement is more generous than the general portability provisions, recognising the contribution our Pacific people have made to New Zealand, and the inability of Pacific countries and territories to fulfil the reciprocal obligations necessary for social security agreements.

I think it is important too to acknowledge the fact that in the regulatory impact report it talks about the aspect of depopulation. As a result of depopulation, we see youth, we see skill, and we see experience moving out of the islands. This legislation provides a great opportunity, because at the age of 55 you are still able to make a contribution to the Pacific Islands, and these islands need this. We know there are only an estimated 245 people—increasing by 16 per year—who will be impacted by this, so it is not a lot, but for those small Pacific nations it is quite significant, as is their contribution.

I think this bill will be important to those island nations. I was over at the South Pacific leaders forum, where this conversation was had with the Premier of Niue, Mr Toke Talagi. He talked about the importance of this reciprocal arrangement with the portability of the pension. The Cook Islands Prime Minister, Henry Puna, also acknowledged this as well. So I think this is good for our relationships with the Pacific. I think it acknowledges their contribution as well. I think these things are important. I also just want to acknowledge my colleague in the House, the Hon Todd McClay, who was the ambassador for the Cook Islands and Niue from 2000 to 2007, and served them in a way that really made a difference. So I think that is absolutely important. We have a strong relationship, a long-lasting relationship.

I think this bill will be a good bill. I look forward to chairing this in the Social Services Committee. It could be the beginning. I know there will be some conversations in terms of how we broaden that aspect of the relationship. There are other Pacific nations that made a contribution. I think this is a start. We need to start here. We need to acknowledge that contribution. In the future there could be the possibility that it could be extended. We look forward to that ongoing conversation. I look forward to seeing this bill in the select committee, to hearing submissions, and to returning it back to the House. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to support the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill, and to congratulate the Government on this particular bill. I recognise that this is something that the Pacific communities have asked for.

I recall that in the 1970s Albert Wendt wrote a book called Sons for the Return Home. That book captures the essence of the dreams and aspirations of our Pacific communities in that day and age. When the wave of Pacific people first landed on the shores of Aotearoa, there were jobs. In fact, my uncles used to joke about how they could quit one job in the morning and find another job in the afternoon. Unions were strong. They were well paid. They had State housing, and after a year or so in State housing, they were able to save some money of their own to buy their own house. At the time, there was a child benefit on which you could capitalise and which you could use as a deposit. In fact, the loan was guaranteed by the State at that time—a 3 percent loan for 30 years. That was how my parents got to own their own house. With dad working, mum stayed at home and looked after the kids. When we came home, there was a cooked meal prepared. Those were the days when that was available. There was full employment even—I think one Prime Minister said during that period that he could count the number of people who were without jobs. How times have changed—how times have changed.

Although I welcome the Government’s move in terms of this bill, I think our communities are not going to easily forget the things that have happened in the last 6 years. I will say a little bit more about that later on. But this bill is welcome. It is something the communities of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau have asked for. It is also something that other Pacific peoples are agitating for, and more recently so. There is a phrase in Samoan that I would use: O Tangata ua galo. It means: “These are the people who have been forgotten.” The reason for this is that we call the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau realm countries. They are New Zealand citizens. For some reason or other, we tend to forget that quite easily. So I welcome this move.

I often ask myself why it is that a person living in the Cook Islands, Tokelau, or Niue has to come here to New Zealand to apply for the pension. When you think that the people of these countries, in addition to the many other Pacific people who came to this country and worked during the manufacturing boom, are also those who came and served in the initial New Zealand Expeditionary Force that went to Europe and fought in the wars on behalf of this country and on behalf of England. In fact, it was Māui Pōmare, who travelled to Niue and the Cook Islands explicitly to try to recruit people to fill the Māori Battalion numbers that were asked of Māori at that particular time. Since Māori themselves were still up against the wall in terms of how the Government of the day was treating them at that time, Māui Pōmare decided to travel directly to the Cook Islands and Niue.

Many of these people who fought on behalf of New Zealand died and are still buried overseas. There are other markers here in Aotearoa New Zealand of where some of these people are buried. The point I am making is that this move towards allowing people to leave New Zealand at the age of 55, to go back and reside in the islands and to then be eligible for the pension at 65, is a good move. It will be widely received by the Pasifika communities. But I think that as part of the work that the Social Services Committee needs to do, it needs to be asking whether these are still the forgotten people. Are there other things that Aotearoa New Zealand needs to do in terms of ensuring there is consistency? After all, these are people of the Realm of New Zealand. They are New Zealand citizens. They are not foreigners. Why do we then continue to treat them as if they are on foreign soil, when they are, indeed, part of the Realm of New Zealand?

In fact, Sir Anand Satyanand made a point at every speech he made of always greeting and acknowledging the languages of the Realm of New Zealand, which are Māori, English, Cook Island, Niuean, Tokelauan—and, I might add, that because Samoan is the second-most spoken language, it could also be argued that Samoan and Tongan are languages of the Realm of New Zealand.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: And sign language.

And sign language—that is right. Sir Anand never failed to use his sign language.

The select committee will probably need to ask about these issues and make sure that there is wide publication of the opportunity to make submissions on this. I suspect that when the public makes submissions, they will go beyond what this bill may entail. I would hope that the select committee does not just throw away the input from the wider community, but that it puts it aside and perhaps makes further inquiries as to the further work this Parliament must do in order to address those issues I would regard as O Tangata ua galo—the people whom New Zealand has forgotten. These are the people of the Realm of Aotearoa New Zealand.

It says in the papers that are available that they are still required to meet the criterion that is currently in place—the criterion being that they must be resident in New Zealand for 10 years after the age of 20, and 5 of those years must be after the age of 50. Yet the point I was making earlier is that if they are resident in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, is that not still part of the Realm of New Zealand? Are they still required to be resident here for the sake of meeting the old criterion, which does not change at all? What about those who are serving in the public sector in these realm countries? Are they not also entitled to the same treatment that public servants receive here in Aotearoa New Zealand, given that they are part of the realm? I would hope that the select committee continues to look at those particular areas.

I note that it is not the first time that this has been asked. In a recent meeting during the campaign both the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands and the Premier of Niue made the point—and I think they were feeling a little bit frustrated because I suspect there may have been promises made, but I am glad that if this is what they were looking for, then certainly they should be proud of the way that this Government is moving. But as I said earlier, in my opening statements, the fact that this is being done, the fact that I suspect the Pacific community would welcome this, does not release this Government from the poor standard of response that it has given the Pacific community of late, because in the last 6 years unemployment has continued to rise, and unemployment is at 11.4 percent.

In the last 6 years the income for Pacific people has been declining. The median income for Pacific people has been declining, and for Auckland I can say it was $455 per week at the end of 2008; at the beginning of this year it was $379. Child poverty is a significant issue that hovers over our community, not just the Pasifika community but communities right throughout Auckland. I would say that, currently, the single biggest issue that will have a rippling effect on the future of this country is the fact that we have unaffordable housing—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is not part of the bill.

—with people in situations of homelessness. The point I am making is that times have changed. When I told you about Sons for the Return Home—the book that Albert Wendt wrote—those times have changed. Today it seems as if one cannot help but wonder whether this Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill has been timed strategically to counter some of the negative impact of this Government’s policy on the Pasifika community today, not just what I have outlined but also the outsourcing of Pasifika programmes from Television New Zealand. That too is a strong signal that this Government does not care about Pacific people, so despite what it does with this bill—

The member’s time has expired.

I rise to support this bill and want to say a couple of things about it. Firstly, can I just address a couple of things that were raised by the previous speaker, Su’a William Sio, who talked about sort of broadening out the eligibility to all sorts of things for people who are residing in those particular islands that we are talking about tonight. I am just a little concerned that if we look to impose New Zealand laws right across those places, that I would actually have to start wearing a helmet or something when I am riding around on the Rarotongan island. I quite like the fact that you do not have to, so I would hate to see that we actually imposed all of the New Zealand laws that go along with the rights that go with those sorts of responsibilities as well.

I think it is critically important that we do continue to support these particular islands. They have a special constitutional arrangement with New Zealand and I think it is appropriate that we do bring in this regime. I have not been to Tokelau or to Niue but I am aware of the depopulation issues that they are suffering, and if there are some things that we can do to help support these nations then we must continue to do this.

I think it is great that people who are wanting to go back there to retire, if they are wanting to go back home to the islands to be able to participate in society back home, they will not have to wait until they are 65 any more. They will be able to go back a little earlier so that they can actually go back and make some useful contribution, which I am sure will be gratefully received back in those islands. I think it is a great move that we are moving forward on this. I am glad to see it happening and happy to give it my support.

I rise to take a call for the Greens on this bill. We will be supporting this bill because we see it as quite a sensible and positive step forward for the people of Niue, Tokelau, and the Cook Islands. It is really one of those bills where it is all in the title, basically. It is about the portability of social assistance for the people of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau.

Some people who have contributed to New Zealand’s economy throughout their adult lives are originally from these islands. These islands are nations of the Realm of New Zealand, which means that these people who have been working in our country, in New Zealand, are our citizens—they are New Zealand citizens as well. So what happens now is that they cannot return to their home countries and access a New Zealand superannuation benefit unless they are 65 and are already receiving it. They cannot do that. But the changes in this bill are very positive, although it does not go as far as some people would want—in fact, there are some problems around that. The changes are that a person who has worked in New Zealand from one of those nations who has worked here after the age of 20 for 10 years—and 5 of those years have been after the age of 5—will be able to access the New Zealand superannuation from their home country if that is what they want to do. It means that they can basically move back to their home country as long as they have been “resident and present”, which are the exact words that are in the legislation, for the requirements as I have outlined—10 years after the age of 20 and at least 5 of those years after the age of 50.

My understanding is that this is not going to impact on a lot of people. In the regulatory impact statement—and the Minister for Social Development in her introduction referred to it as well—it suggests that there are around 245 over-55-year-olds who when this bill is passed would be eligible to access New Zealand superannuation from Niue, Tokelau, or the Cook Islands, and that only a further 16 or so per year subsequently from that would actually be able to do the same. But it does mean that these citizens—citizens of New Zealand, citizens of these island nations as well—will be able to go back to their home countries earlier than what they have done previously.

It has been suggested that this bill might go some way towards addressing some of the concerns that those small island nations have had around a shrinking population. That is particularly of concern for Niue and the Cook Islands. In the existing situation there has been a disincentive for older citizens from there to go home after they have worked all their lives here, for example. It has been difficult for them to return home at a younger age. This bill will actually be more beneficial to them because they will be able to go home earlier. Let us face it: why would you not want to retire to a lovely, beautiful Pacific island? It is one of the problems we have on Waiheke, actually. It explains why we have a high number of retirees where I live as well.

It also makes sense to me that as you get older there is more of a compelling desire to return to your home nations, to go and spend that time, your last years, with the people whom you have grown up with. That was certainly the reasoning that I heard from a man whom I know who lives on Waiheke. He is in his early 60s, so he has not been eligible. He is from the Cook Islands originally, and he moved to New Zealand as a young man and raised his family here. He has had a hard life of hard physical labour. He described to me his yearning, of wanting to go back to his ancestral lands. When this bill comes through, he will be able to do that. I can understand that kind of attachment—the call of your whakapapa, the call of your whenua to come back home—so it is going to be great that he will be able to do that. It is a shame that he was not able to do it when he was a more active man. However, he will get there before 65 if this bill goes through, and I am sure it will, as it seems to have cross-party support across the House.

I guess the point that the Governments of these countries have been very aware of is that bringing those people back to their small island nations will help the economy. There was something that was written in the regulatory impact statement that really resonated with me, which was New Zealand’s commitment to those countries to help support them economically. I will quote from the general policy statement, and it says: “The changes take into account New Zealand’s close constitutional ties with the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau and are part of New Zealand’s commitment to support their ongoing economic and social viability.” So basically it is hoped that this bill will enable those islands to attract capital and skills from people who are able to contribute to these island nations’ economies, and potentially from other New Zealanders who, if they fit the citizenship requirements there, would be able to retire there too.

We will be supporting this bill. It is good to see the Government actually wanting to assist our smaller island nations. We could be doing a lot more, of course, especially in the area of climate change impact, because it is these smaller island nations that are most affected by the impacts of climate change—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

I am coming back to it, Mr Assistant Speaker. I was just giving examples of other things that this Government could be doing to assist island nations that fits with our nation’s requirement to honour our special relationships with these island nations. They are the ones that are most affected by climate change and that have contributed the least emissions to the global carbon emissions, so I think maybe we have a duty for that. In the meantime, we support this bill. We acknowledge that it is a very tight and finely nuanced amendment to the legislation that is being called for here, and we recognise that there may be submissions that are wider than what is in in the bill so that it could apply to a few more people. I hope the Social Services Committee will actually take those submissions on board when they come in, and that we may see further amendments to assist more people. Thank you.

I rise to discuss a bill on behalf of New Zealand First for the first time in this House. I am very happy to do so with this bill, the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill. New Zealand First will support this bill to go through the first reading, but we are not confident that it actually addresses, or goes far enough to address, all of the real issues that have been raised with us by these communities. New Zealand First already has a strong policy, which we have in our manifesto, that stems from the same intent that this bill suggests it has. We want to be assured of the promise that is made in the bill: “The amendments in the Bill have been the subject of a long-standing request from the leaders of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, who view greater flexibility around pension portability as a driver for increased economic activity in those countries and that territory.” We are hoping that that promise is actually delivered, because that is what New Zealand First policy would do.

We also note that the bill’s explanatory note neglects to point out that the residents of those countries and the territory would still need to qualify for New Zealand superannuation and they must have been resident and present in New Zealand for more than 10 years since the age of 20, including 5 years since the age of 50. This information is pivotal to the understanding of the bill. As this bill identifies, we have a unique and very special affiliation and relationship with these islands. In fact, Tokelau, as we have heard, is a territory of New Zealand. We have a free association with these island nations where we act on behalf of these nations on defence and foreign affairs issues. It is one of these pillars of this special relationship that we hope this bill goes some way to address. Again, I will quote the bill: “The changes take into account New Zealand’s close constitutional ties with the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau and are part of New Zealand’s commitment to support their ongoing economic and social viability. The changes will allow the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau to attract capital and skills from their citizens who have moved to New Zealand, as well as other New Zealanders who may choose to spend their retirement years in either of those countries or that territory.”

It appears the intent of the bill is to ensure that the people in these islands do not have to relocate when they are 65 and be here in New Zealand living as a resident in order to apply for and claim New Zealand superannuation. However, we hope that during the submission period the effect on New Zealand residents and citizens who wish to retire to these islands will become clearer. Do the people of these islands still need to relocate? Will they still need to be resident in New Zealand during that time? And does it solve the real issue at all? When these people need to be in New Zealand or are required to return to New Zealand, the islands lose much of the needed skill, knowledge, and momentum that these people bring to and invest in their nation. These nations can ill afford to lose these skills, and ultimately it could still cost them. In our view, this bill still hampers the need to have these skills and these professional people cemented and working in their nations. We need the flexibility with policy that will allow the value and history of our responsibility for, and relationship with, these nations to be rightly acknowledged.

Compare this with our current situation, where people from other countries that have no affiliation, special history, or relationship can come into our country, not pay any tax for 10 years, and still receive the full New Zealand superannuation. We still have current legislation that affects some of the closest Pacific nations and New Zealand territories. We put restrictions on them that do not promote success in their own economies, social pathways, or foreign affairs. Nor do current policies support positive, progressive pathways that the Government could take in relation to the planning and retention of these essential people. In the end, we are talking about a very small number of people who reside in these nations and identify these islands as their retirement choice, and whom we actually need to do the right thing to look after as part of our nation’s responsibility. In fact, we have a situation where 95 percent of Niuean people live in New Zealand. We are talking of a very small number, compared with nearly 70,000 immigrants from other countries who are in line for our full superannuation scheme.

We do agree with the bill’s intent. It details and addresses the issues that mean the people who will be applying for New Zealand superannuation from these Pacific islands will not have to be in New Zealand as a resident in order to be eligible. We also support the fact that the changes go some way to take into account New Zealand’s close constitutional ties with the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, and are part of New Zealand’s commitment to support their ongoing economic and social viability. The bill also mentions the need for the individual who applies—being someone who makes an application to be paid superannuation in a specified Pacific country—to be resident in one of those three islands on the date of the application; to meet the residential qualifications for New Zealand superannuation; and to be resident in one of those countries when each payment of the superannuation is due to be paid.

We note that the purpose of this bill is stated as to allow eligible persons who reside in those nations to be able to apply from either of those nations or from a territory for New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension and be paid these benefits in either of those countries or that territory or in other specified Pacific countries. As I have stated, New Zealand First supports this. It is the detail and the level to which it goes that New Zealand First hopes to be fleshed out at the select committee stage. New Zealand First will support the bill through its first reading, but we will be noting through the select committee process whether it truly meets the needs of those Cooks Islanders, Niueans, and Tokelauans who have worked hard for New Zealand and deserve their pension.

I am delighted to stand here in support of the introduction of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill. It is a great to be talking to a bill that has got such cross-party support and clearly it is going to deliver significant value to the communities of Tokelau, Niue, the Cook Islands, and, of course, the community of broader Aotearoa.

I strongly support the fact that it actually gives portability to New Zealand superannuation and war pensions. I think that has been well covered. It is great to hear that this has been a longstanding debate and discussion, which finally this Government is giving effect to. We are obviously very supportive of that. It reflects our longstanding and close constitutional ties with those three countries. It acknowledges their contribution to New Zealand. I think that has already been well canvassed on both sides of the House this evening. But it also reflects this Government’s commitment to ongoing economic and social development.

I think this will be a popular bill, particularly across those three communities. It is something they have wanted for a while, and we are now giving effect to that. I think the opportunity to be able to return home, for those communities, from the age of 55 and be able to then, of course, call on superannuation at 65 and in the meantime be able to contribute their skills and expertise is going to be of real benefit to those three countries. Of course, it has to be noted that for those communities who currently live in the Bay of Plenty electorate, it is highly unlikely they will take up this opportunity because when given the opportunity of Tokelau, Niue, and Cook Island beaches, versus the beaches of Papamoa and Mount Maunganui, I do expect that ultimately, upon consideration, they will stay in the Bay of Plenty.

💬 Kris Faafoi: Oh, I don’t know about that.

I am very sure about that. You need to come to Mount Maunganui and see it for yourself.

But in all seriousness I do have a good friend of mine who is an educator and teacher from Niue, who has been over here for a number of years. He is Niuean born. He tends to go back to his home community every 2 or 3 years. I know specifically in respect of this, the opportunity for him, when he gets to the age of 55, to be able to go back to his home community and contribute in a more meaningful way, with the potential of that portability from the age of 65 onwards, I know will be attractive to him. Hopefully, many others like him will see the opportunity to potentially move home, but do so at a time when they have still got the opportunity to contribute significantly to the economic development and community development of their home countries.

It is great to be able to support a bill like this. I look forward to supporting it and to the further discussions that will occur in the Social Services Committee. Thank you.

I rise to take a short call in support of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill. I want to frame most of my speech around an example that was reported in the New Zealand Herald in 2012, of a Cook Islands - born man, Bill Framhein, who is now in his early 70s. He had paid tax for 34 years in New Zealand, while never being out of work while he was in this country. He had served in the New Zealand Army in Malaya and Borneo, and served four tours of duty in Viet Nam as a scout, who is the person who goes up front and finds explosives and mines. This man, after all of that commitment to New Zealand, is not eligible for a war pension or superannuation because he does not meet the criteria on two bases: firstly, that he was not living in New Zealand—that he has already returned to the Cook Islands; and, secondly, that he has not lived in New Zealand for 5 full years since the age of 50. Even with the passing of this bill, Bill, who had served four tours of duty in Viet Nam, served in Malay and Borneo, and paid tax for 34 years, still will not be eligible for New Zealand superannuation.

💬 Alfred Ngaro: He’s already got it. He actually got it in 2013.

He got it in 2013, I hear. So how was that, despite not meeting the criteria? [Interruption] I welcome hearing about that. I look forward to that discussion in the select committee. I found his example really moving—the media reporting of it, around how it was not possible to break the rules for one person and how he had been coming back to New Zealand for 6 months in every year just to be able to try to meet the criteria, despite having deep-vein thrombosis, and it being quite risky for his life to be doing all that travel. He made the point in that situation, and this does apply to everyone to whom this legislation will apply, that he was not angry, just a bit sad. It hurt him to realise that he was no longer treated like a New Zealander, because he thought a Cook Islander was a New Zealander, and for him to now be treated as a refugee, when he had signed up for national service, accepting the fact that he owed that duty as a New Zealander, was hard.

That does seem to hold quite a deep truth in terms of the relationship New Zealand has had with the realm countries over the last successive decades or generations. Those people from the Cooks and Niue and Tokelau, who felt and feel as New Zealanders, were called upon as New Zealanders to act, and, yet, so many conditions were put on the basic entitlements that we all consider do come with our citizenship that it meant they were not able to access them, despite the commitments they had made to this country.

I do just want to touch on some of the benefits of this scheme being able to encourage people to get back home at the age of 55 when they still have plenty of life and skill to contribute to countries. I think that will really help stimulate the economies. Niue is an example where the population is estimated to be now down to about 1,500 people and where most of the economy is reliant on remittances and aid from New Zealand. So to be able to enable people to go home and actually participate in the economy will be of benefit. I just hope it does not result in a reduction in aid from New Zealand. We support this bill.

I stand to support the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill. Labour supports this bill, particularly because it does intend to honour the constitutional relationship that we in New Zealand have with our New Zealand territories, those being Niue, the Cook Islands, and Tokelau. What is proposed in this bill makes sense. At the moment, we do have the Special Portability Arrangement; however, what we see at the moment, and what this bill addresses, is the fact that Cook Island, Niuean, and Tokelauan residents need to be present in New Zealand on the date of application to be able to access those benefits.

We do have a commitment to the three realm nations to ensure that we support their economic and social viability. In order to do this we need to be supportive of the idea that their people may decide to go back and invest in their own home countries. We have seen it many times across those three countries, and actually across some of the non-realm countries as well, but particularly the realm countries, where we hear over and over again that the biggest problem facing those three countries—the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau—is depopulation. If we can encourage some of our Cook Island, Niuean, and Tokelauan residents, in their senior years, to go back and invest—in some cases, set up businesses—in order to support their families there, and to look for ways that their families can be self-sustainable, then we have an obligation to support that, and this bill does do that. It does support those who wish to go back, live there in their latter years, and undertake whatever initiatives they are interested in doing when they do move back there.

While we are talking about honouring the relationship between New Zealand and the realm countries, though, we cannot help but reflect on this side of the House on some of the ways we have not honoured that relationship recently. This legislation is one way we can do that—by supporting those who are retiring to be able to go back to their Pacific countries and invest. However, we need to think much more widely about how we as a country, and our Government here, invests and supports our realm countries, so that we are honouring that relationship. At the moment, we have situations, such as with Television New Zealand (TVNZ), for example, where we are not honouring that relationship. We have TVNZ, which felt comfortable with the Government of the time, a National Government, and felt comfortable that it was the right environment to be able to cut funding to Māori and Pacific programming, to reduce the content, and to outsource anything, other than Te Karere, that had Māori and Pacific content.

Given the special relationship that we have with the Pacific region, we feel, on this side of the House, that as a country not only do we have an obligation to make sure that we honour the Treaty of Waitangi, and honour our tangata whenua, but also that we honour the Pacific region and all the indigenous knowledge and all the indigenous people who are part of it. And at the moment, we are failing, under this National Government, to do this.

As I said earlier, depopulation is the issue that was brought up the most by the three countries I have been to, particularly during the time when New Zealand undertook its inquiry into New Zealand’s relationship with the Pacific. Depopulation was mentioned over and over again by the Niuean, Cook Island, and Tokelauan Governments. It was really interesting, because here we are at the moment with a high rate of Pacific unemployment, with high levels of underachievement for Pacific peoples in our schools, and very little being done by the National Government to address those things. But what we have been told by our Niuean, Cook Island, and Tokelauan people is that they have lost their biggest resource to New Zealand—their biggest resource being their people.

I just want to end my speech by saying that this is recognition of the special relationship that we have with our Pacific countries, particularly our realm countries, but on this side of the House we would like the National Government to think more broadly about that special relationship that we have with those Pacific countries, and look at ways in which they can honour that relationship. Thank you.

I rise to support the bill. This bill takes into account New Zealand’s close constitutional ties with the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. These Pacific Islands share unique legal arrangements with New Zealand and, as the Minister for Social Development said, it is part of New Zealand’s commitment to support their ongoing economic and social viability.

This bill will help these island nations to attract capital and skills from citizens who have moved to New Zealand as well as other New Zealanders who may choose to spend their retirement years in these countries. As covered by my colleagues, it is about greater pension flexibility and about recognising hard work. It is also about recognising the contribution these communities are making to New Zealand. In Mount Roskill the communities from these Pacific Islands definitely view greater flexibility around pension portability as a positive step in support of the economy in those countries.

The proposed amendments are clearly beneficial for people wishing to move back to these island countries, and they acknowledge New Zealand’s special relationship with them. So I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Kia orana, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a real pleasure to take a call this evening on the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill. In this regard, I will be speaking about the experiences that I know of within the Cook Island community.

I do want to refer to a meeting that a member on the other side of the House, Alfred Ngaro, talked about—the work that we are doing with the wider Cook Island community to honour those soldiers from the Cook Islands who fought for, and on behalf of, New Zealand in World War I. I raise this in the context of this particular bill because 500 young men were recruited from the Cook Islands to fight for New Zealand in World War I, and they gave the ultimate sacrifice to this country. So the relationship that we, as Cook Islanders, have with New Zealand was forged through the blood of our young men nearly 100 years ago. I feel it is a significant point to make, and I will be referring to this a little bit later in my discussion around this, because it does mean a lot to us, as Cook Islanders, that our relationship with New Zealand is honoured in this way.

Cook Islanders have played a significant role in building this nation. My parents came out here in the 1950s, as did yours, Alfred Ngaro, and, like many people from the Pacific, and also like Māori who came into the cities from the rural areas, they came to take advantage of the work opportunities that were here. We from the Pacific, and from the Cook Islands in particular, became the grafters, I guess. Wherever there were primary industries, wherever there was horticulture, wherever there was agriculture, wherever there was fruit to be picked, Cook Islanders were there. Wherever there was manufacturing, wherever there were aluminium smelters, steel mills, and other huge industries, Cook Islanders were there. Wherever there are service roles supporting communities, supporting elderly people, looking after the ill and the infirm, Cook Islanders are there. We have a relationship with this country that goes beyond being just members of the realm. Our relationship is one of service, of hard work, and of sacrifice.

My father was here in the early 1950s, and he worked for at least 30 years until he retired in the 1980s, or thereabouts. My father and my parents were true-blue Kiwis. They supported the All Blacks—

💬 Tim Macindoe: Oh, true-blue voters.

True blue in that regard.

💬 Tracey Martin: You don’t own the phrase—come on.

Yes. My parents brought us up to be decent and hard-working New Zealanders. They paid their taxes. We bought a home. They raised their children, and all of us in our family strive to serve this country well, as I hope we have done.

This Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill talks about the close constitutional relationship that the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau have with New Zealand. Next year, for the Cook Islands, it will be 50 years of that close constitutional relationship—50 years of self-governing. It is a significant event for us, and I know that many in this House will be celebrating with us next year.

I refer back to the Cook Island soldiers of World War I—and, of course, next April we are going to commemorate 100 years of their service. They fought alongside New Zealand Māori. As Su’a William Sio has already described, when New Zealand could not recruit any more of its own, Māui Pōmare was dispatched to the Pacific to find young men to fight for New Zealand. We fought largely alongside Māori. We fought together with Māori because Cook Islanders have a very special kin relationship with tangata whenua. We have a relationship that we refer to as tuakana teina. I often talk about this when I am discussing this relationship with Māori people—that, perhaps, we are the elder auntie or the elder uncle in the relationship. I often joke that we have seniority in those terms. But we have a relationship that is forged through a common migration history, as well as sharing lots of kin relationships.

There are proposed changes to the way that current eligibility rules apply. It used to be that you had to be present and resident in New Zealand at the age of 65, or when normal eligibility occurred. Those changes now mean that it is possible for you to have lived and been a resident in New Zealand for 10 years from the age of 20, with 5 of those years being from the age of 50. So it is possible to be resident within the Cook Islands and be eligible for the pension—or the war pension, as well—at the age of 65, and to apply from those home islands.

I refer also to some of the discussion that has happened during this debate—when members have referred to what is in the regulatory impact statement—about depopulation, and about how that has had an impact on the home islands. What has occurred, of course, with our being able to enjoy New Zealand citizenship and the benefits of being New Zealand citizens, and our having the ability to travel on New Zealand passports, is that we have travelled from the Cook Islands, from Tokelau, and from Niue to take up residence here in New Zealand. We have taken full opportunity of the opportunities that this country presents to us, and we have not had the ability to return home and be able to have the type of income to live well in our home islands. So this legislation, we hope, will actually address some of those issues of depopulation, returning senior citizens of some note—people who have had opportunities here for education—who can take their skills and their experience back to their home countries.

However, the legislation actually presents opportunities for all New Zealanders, as well. It has been several years since I was back in the Cook Islands, but when I was last there, it was the first time I actually felt I could live there. I actually felt I could live in the Cook Islands. You know, I may, God willing, if I actually get to the age when I can retire, actually take advantage of that myself.

But I want to get back to the issue of relationships. My colleague Carmel Sepuloni raised a very salient point about the relationship between New Zealand and these realm countries, and that is that our contribution to New Zealand actually has to count for something. I know that having the ability to get your superannuation back in your home island is great—it is fantastic. I am very supportive of this bill, but there is an awful lot more that this country can do to support those people—my people—who not only have given of their industry and their hard work but, in the case of our soldiers, have given of their lives and their sacrifice.

The relationship actually needs to be one of mutual support, and when, as my colleague so aptly discussed, we do not see ourselves fully represented in this country—when we know that our programmes on television are going to have their production outsourced—it actually flies in the face of the sacrifice that we have made for the benefit of this country.

New Zealand does provide aid back to our home countries, it provides work opportunities, and our home countries have provided labour. They have provided their culture—the Pasifika Festival is one of the most celebrated festivals around the world—but not only that, we have also provided our blood and our lives on the battlefield, and I would hope that this country would acknowledge our special relationship into the future. But I do commend this bill to the House. Thank you very much.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just bring up that while my colleague Poto Williams was speaking, the level of chat on that side of the House was—

I am the one who determines that.

It is with pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

Members, this debate is concluded. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it. The question is that the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill be considered by the Social Services Committee—[Interruption] Order! When I am announcing the provisions, there is silence.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Social Services Committee.