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

Kia orana, fakalofa lahi atu, and taloha ni. It is a privilege to speak to this bill, the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill, and out of respect for our Pacific brothers and sisters to whom this bill relates, I greet this House in those three languages.

I want to start by contextualising this bill. Many New Zealanders are, actually, unaware of the unique relationship that New Zealand has with our Cook Island, Niuean, and Tokelauan nations. Those three Island nations have a constitutional relationship with New Zealand, which I am sure we are aware of but which many people outside of this House have no knowledge of. They are technically part of the Realm of New Zealand. As such, they have free association with New Zealand and are New Zealand citizens by right. They can move freely between their Island homes and ours. As such, we have a responsibility as a Parliament to make sure that we exercise the same duty of care to them as we do to New Zealand - based citizens.

It is appropriate to recognise the service of men and women from those countries to our country—particularly in light of the recent Anzac Day commemorations. Our Pacific Realm brothers and sisters fought alongside New Zealanders during World War I and World War II—many of them under our flag, the New Zealand flag. The contributions that they have made to this country, whether to our economy, our sports fields, our workforce, our academia, our arts, or through fighting for this country, are unquestionable. The Labour Party and, I think, this whole Parliament value the unique relationship that we have with these countries and will do what is required to honour that relationship.

In brief, this bill will give effect to the Government policy on portability of New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension to the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. This is an omnibus bill that seeks to amend the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, the Veterans’ Support Act 2014, and the Social Security Act 1964. The aim of this bill is to allow eligible people who live in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau to apply from any of those countries for New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension and to be paid those benefits in those countries or in other specified Pacific countries.

In August 2013 the Hon Murray McCully, Minister of Foreign Affairs, announced changes to the special portability arrangement that would allow eligible residents to apply for their pension or veterans pension from the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau. Under the current rules, people wishing to retire to the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau have to be resident and present in New Zealand at the age of 65. Residents of those countries or that territory would still need to qualify for New Zealand superannuation. 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 legislation means that people who are entitled to New Zealand superannuation, regardless of whether they are of Cook Island, Niuean, or Tokelauan ethnicity, would be able to depart New Zealand to live in one of these three countries after the age of 55 and apply for their superannuation once they turn 65 without returning to New Zealand. Currently, they would have to stay in New Zealand until turning 65 in order to qualify. The new policy would require legislation to be passed in the New Zealand Parliament, and is expected to apply from 1 July 2015.

We support this bill and believe it is a step in the right direction towards equal treatment of New Zealand citizens throughout the Realm. However, we take on board some of the concerns that were raised by submitters about the eligibility criteria. My colleague Poto Williams actually raised this issue in a minority report, and she alluded to a Supplementary Order Paper she was going to write seeking to remove the requirement to be resident and present in New Zealand for 5 years between the ages of 50 and the qualification age of 65. The purpose of that Supplementary Order Paper was to ensure that residents of the islands of the Realm would not be disadvantaged by being forced to absent themselves from family and work commitments in order to receive New Zealand superannuation.

New Zealand citizens, including those within the Realm of New Zealand, should be treated equitably, and Poto Williams’ idea, which she discussed in that minority report, would mean that we are more closely aligning the criteria for all applicants living in New Zealand and the countries of the Realm. I do want to say that despite the fact that Poto Williams went to great lengths to write a minority report that reflected her concern and also alluded to the fact that she would be writing this Supplementary Order Paper, one of our colleagues from New Zealand First decided to go and write the Supplementary Order Paper. We are not petty; we will still support that Supplementary Order Paper, but I do want to acknowledge my Cook Island colleague Poto Williams for the work that she did on the Social Services Committee, for the attention that she paid to the submitters, and for the fact that she has been pushing for us to actually take this point into consideration. I hope that the Government takes it seriously, including the chair of our select committee, who is our other Cook Island colleague in the House, Mr Alfred Ngaro.

I do want to share an experience I had a few years back when I was part of a group that travelled to four Pacific Islands as part of New Zealand’s inquiry into our relationship with the Pacific. One thing that came up time and time again when we were in the Cook Islands and when we went to Niue—unfortunately, we did not get an opportunity to go to Tokelau—was the fact that the biggest problem they are facing is depopulation. They talked about the fact that they have lost, and continue to lose, their biggest resource to New Zealand. And that resource, of course, is their people.

Sometimes I think that we take it for granted that we have people coming here, living here, and contributing to our economy, and I want to acknowledge our three Realm countries for the contribution that their people—their biggest resource—have made to this country. I think one way in which we can honour that relationship is to ensure that, yes, we all support this bill in the House, and also that we take into consideration the Supplementary Order Paper that has been put up by New Zealand First and that was proposed by my colleague Poto Williams. This is a bill that we think will be supported across the House, and we do not think there are very many party politics involved with this—except for, perhaps, a little bit of debate over who may have come up with the idea of a Supplementary Order Paper. It is really about doing what is right.

I hope that the Government will seriously consider supporting the Supplementary Order Paper that I have spoken about, because it is the right thing to do. I think, moving forward, that this is just one way in which we can honour the relationship that we have with the three Realm countries, and ensure that there will be other ways in which we can do that, other opportunities that will present themselves to us as a Parliament to honour that relationship. I think that it is important, first and foremost, to continually raise awareness with general members of the public that we do have this special relationship. Any measures that we put into place to honour that relationship are unique to our relationship with those countries, and may not necessarily apply to other countries. It is just part and parcel of the fact that they happen to be part of the Realm of New Zealand.

We support this bill, and we ask all of the other political parties in the House to support the Supplementary Order Paper that is being put up by New Zealand First but, of course, was proposed by my Cook Island colleague, Poto Williams. Thank you.

It is an honour to be able to rise and take a call on the second reading on the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill. First of all, to my Tokelauan colleague over there, Kris Faafoi, taloha ni. And also to my Cook Island colleague over there, Poto Williams, kia orana tatou katotoa. E te ora matoa o te atua. Greetings to you as well. Unfortunately, there are no Niuean colleagues here, but we do acknowledge Niue as well, fakalofa lahi atu. Kia matolo oti, because they are the three nations of the Realm of New Zealand. What people also may not know is that it has been said that when we sing the national anthem, “God Defend New Zealand”, and we talk about the triple star, it is a particular reference to the three nations of the Realm. In the national anthem we talk about defending them from strife and war. So there absolutely is a special relationship, which was signed in 1965. In fact, for the Cook Islands, this year is a celebration of 50 years of their independence. For those countries, to be in free association and self-governing is very much an important aspect of self-dependence and self-determination. We think that is absolutely important.

Also, I would just like to mention that the relationship is such that we are commemorating the 100 years of conflict for New Zealand, in regard to service and sacrifice. We have been working, Poto Williams and myself, on acknowledging the contribution that 147 Niuean soldiers made—and 500 Cook Islands soldiers as well. In fact, because of that relationship, Sir Māui Pomare, in 1915 through to 1917, visited those nations of the Realm, and through that, many of them came in the Rarotongan contingent—over five contingents that came across and fought in the New Zealand (Māori) Pioneer Battalion. That goes, I suppose, towards acknowledging the relationship of the nations of the Realm. Their contribution to New Zealand society as well, both in the past and also in the present—that becomes very important. Hence this bill becomes important to those nations, and in particular to myself—I am Kiwi born and of Cook Island descent, Mr Assistant Speaker.

I do not know whether you have been privileged enough to go to those Pacific nations, but—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I have.

You have. I am sure that you would have enjoyed it there.

To my parents, who are in New Zealand at the moment and are heading back home, it is a proud moment to be able to ensure that this bill actually has some significance for them as well. I think this bill is quite significant in that it does allow the opportunity for those three nations to have a special arrangement. That arrangement is not afforded to all of the 22 Pacific nations under the special portability arrangement; this particular arrangement is specific to those three nations. I want to make that point—that already, in particular with this bill, there is recognition of that relationship.

The other thing that I want to mention inside of this is the Supplementary Order Paper that was mentioned—and I will talk at a bit more length about the Supplementary Order Paper that has come through from New Zealand First. It talks about introducing a new section, which is 5(2), to replace section 8(c). I think it is particular to a number of submissions. There were 13 written submissions and six that were oral. In fact, we were very fortunate to actually have the Premier of Niue, the Hon Toke Talagi, come, and also the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands, the Hon Henry Puna, was present. It was quite an honour to have them personally present to us their submission in the select committee.

The three key objectives of the bill are, firstly, to improve ongoing economic and social viability for those three nations of the Realm; secondly, to recognise the close constitutional relationships; and thirdly, to ensure that New Zealanders have options for retirement, because this, actually, is an option not only for those descendants who may want to return home to their nations but also for other New Zealanders. In fact, there are a number of expats who are living in those countries now, who have gone back and said “This is a place where I want to retire.” This gives them that opportunity as well.

I want to make mention of a report, and I know that Carmel Sepuloni talked about the report, which was submitted in 2010. In fact, I have got the report here. She was a part of the inquiry into New Zealand’s relationship with South Pacific countries. In that report, it actually talks about Realm of New Zealand entities, and responsibilities to New Zealand citizens overseas. I think it is quite important because it does talk about the challenge of depopulation. When I think about one of the key objectives, which is improving ongoing economic and social viability for these countries, this bill attempts to do that. In fact, it talks about the statistics where in the Cook Islands alone it is depopulating by some 500 people leaving the country, and that is a real concern for it. In a decade it has gone from 18,000 to 12,000, which is now the current population, and that fluctuates during the holiday breaks. So this is becoming a real concern. This bill, then, is intended to ensure that it actually tries to address that issue as well.

The second thing about the bill is recognising close constitutional relationships. In fact, the report goes further in its recommendations, and, in its first recommendation, acknowledges that among the Pacific Island States the priority should be given to assisting those territories with which New Zealand has a special constitutional relationship. So, again, what I would like to commend is the fact that the bill is actually fulfilling some of the recommendations that are in the report. In fact, I want to go even further. On this, it talks not only about what this bill may fulfil but also about things that, under a National Government, we would also be able to do, like the Pacific Parliamentary and Political Leaders Forum, which was held in 2013. Again, other Governments have talked about this, but, actually, under a National Government, we have been able to deliver that—the first it has ever had. It is the same thing again: the priority over here is to support these Realm nations, and, again, under a National Government, we have been able to deliver on that.

I want to then address the issues of concern, because out of the submissions, probably the most telling issue of concern was around the 5 years over 50 rule. We know that, as it currently stands, a person may be eligible for superannuation if they, after 20 years of age, have served at least 10 years in New Zealand—5 of those years after turning 50 years old. I suppose Supplementary Order Paper 71 in particular has tried to challenge that—to see whether we can remove that and whether there is some opportunity for, I suppose, an equity of consideration in their regard. I just want to contend that under the current status that the special portability arrangement, for people able to take their New Zealand superannuation or old veterans pension—well, I mention the veterans pension here because it is part of that omnibus bill approach to this bill. I want to acknowledge Bill Framheim, for whom and for a number of cases even the Governor-General was a strong supporter in actually ensuring that the veterans bill—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

Sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): You just cannot bring him into the debate.

Oh, apologies. It is better not to bring him into the debate. There was a special annuity that was given for a veteran who had served faithfully. In fact, there were four tours of duty. He was one of only four New Zealanders in Viet Nam to have served four tours of duty. I think the fact that this veterans pension has been part of this bill—to acknowledge that and its amendments—will go some way towards acknowledging, in particular, the contribution of Pacific servicemen and servicewomen who have served faithfully and who wish to retire back in their Pacific nations.

Under that special portability arrangement for people to return, the arrangement is that after 10 years, there is 50 percent eligibility for their pension, and after 20 years, there is 100 percent eligibility. So the payment for special portability is more generous than for general portability. One thing about the 5 years after 50 rule aspect of the arrangement, and one of the reasons why that becomes important—and I want to touch on three—is that, first of all, this is equitable for all New Zealanders, irrespective of who has gone overseas. When you have been overseas and you have decided to come back and retire at home, you are still eligible under this criterion. In other words, you must still serve your 5 years. This is not discriminating against our Pacific brothers and sisters and those who are under the Realm, and I think that is really important.

The second thing that I think is also important to consider is the arrangement with other countries where there is a special social security agreement. There is a reciprocal arrangement, financially, that those countries can pay back. So there is an issue here, and the reasons we considered in the committee and the advice that was given is that there is a reciprocal arrangement that can be made with those other countries. In those Pacific nations, in particular, they are not able to make that financial contribution or reciprocate that financially, and hence the reason why we think this legislation is important. We believe that the bill is actually equitable. We believe that the bill gives consideration to the special arrangement, and we believe that that is critically important for what we are doing to try to achieve that. We know that the costs are achievable for us. If we were to remove that, not only would it be inequitable for other New Zealanders, who still have to obey the 5 years after 50 rule, but also it would mean that it opens up quite a precedent for us that could, actually, broaden both the cost and the ability to be able to administer that back in the Pacific as well.

I round off my speech by saying that it is a privilege to be able to speak on this bill. I look forward to it going through the Committee stage. We believe that we have struck the right balance for the acknowledgment of the special arrangement with the Realm of New Zealand nations. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr Assistant Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to greet the families and the people watching at home. Kia orana kotou katoatoa na roto i te aroa maata o te Atua.

I rise with great pleasure to take a call on this bill. Most of my references will be due to the fact that I do have Cook Islands heritage, but I was born in New Zealand, as Mr Ngaro also previously stated. I feel very deeply the desire of the people of the Cooks and of Niue and Tokelau that we do the right thing by them with this piece of legislation, because for me it is about nationhood. What is the quality of nationhood? We are members of the Realm of New Zealand. We have New Zealand passports.

There is a reason that it is important for us to support the Realm countries, because travelling on New Zealand passports has been one of the most significant reasons our home islands have become depopulated—because of that ability to travel so freely. So in that regard, as the big brother in this context, we have a responsibility to those home islands to support them in their initiatives to ensure that our populations can return home and contribute to those home islands.

It is about the quality of our citizenship. To be a New Zealand citizen should be the same regardless of whether you were born in Rarotonga or in Auckland. The quality of the citizenship should be the same.

What is it about being a New Zealander? I was born in New Zealand, but I am very much a Cook Islands girl—but I am a New Zealander as well. When you travel back to the Cook Islands, its people are very much part of the wider context of this nation. What they have done in terms of their contribution to this country has been extraordinary, and we should recognise their full rights of citizenship. It was one of the issues that was raised by the contributors and the submitters. They were asking: what does citizenship mean and what does it mean when we allow our sons and daughters to pay the ultimate price for this country?

This country has been supported throughout its primary industry by people from the Cooks and Niue and Tokelau. It is no secret that there are quite large populations of Cook Islands people in Hawke’s Bay because they helped with the picking of the fruit. There are large populations of Cook Islands people in Tokoroa because they contributed to the forestry industry. People from the Cooks and from the other Realm countries have supported the economic development of this country. They have supported and contributed to the culture of New Zealand.

Auckland is the largest Pacific city in the world. Where would we be in New Zealand without such festivals as the Pasifika Festival and ASB Polyfest, which really show the richness of our country and our heritage. Cook Islands people have a special kin relationship with tangata whenua. We have a shared migration history. Our history is interwoven with the people of Aotearoa New Zealand, over and over and over again. Let us not forget the 500 soldiers who fought for this country in World War I under the New Zealand flag, some of whom perished, and the servicemen and servicewomen who currently serve for New Zealand.

Labour supports this bill and the proposed changes, but we believe they should go further. We are very supportive of the administrative changes, which mean that when you are ready to apply for superannuation you can do so from the home islands, as long as you have met the criteria. We are also very supportive of the fact that you no longer have to return to New Zealand to keep that application and those criteria alive, and that that provision has now had some changes to it to make it easier for your status to remain active.

We are very supportive of the other changes that have happened, but there are a couple of things that we believe this Government should actually take into consideration. This piece of legislation, after going through the Social Services Committee, has come through literally unchanged. So although Mr Ngaro can talk about what National has done, it has done nothing in terms of listening to those submitters, two of whom were heads of State—

💬 Alfred Ngaro: Not true.

It has done nothing in terms of listening to them around their major concerns. The major concern is the 5 years after age 50 clause. When the officials were asked what the financial contribution was going to cost if we removed that clause, their answer was “$9 million to $21 million.” In terms of the value of the contribution of the people of the Realm to this country, I would say that that is fairly small change—$9 million to $21 million.

There is also another consideration. One of the submitters asked me whether I realised that if a person stays in the Cook Islands for 5 years, that stay is part of their eligibility criteria to become a citizen of New Zealand. So if you can be resident in the Cooks for 5 years and that is part of the eligibility criteria to become a citizen of New Zealand, how can you not then have the 5 years after 50 as a resident in the Cooks? That was the key consideration of all of the submitters, bar about two or three.

What does that mean in terms of what can happen in the home islands? This is something that I need to correct Mr Ngaro on, in a couple of points you made. One of the points you made was that you only need to be resident and present in New Zealand for 10 years after the age of 20. That is incorrect because this bill clearly states that in order to attract 100 percent of your superannuation and have that portable to the Cooks, Niue, and Tokelau, you actually have to be resident and present in New Zealand for 20 years. If you are here for only 10 years after that, you are entitled to only 50 percent, so I think you had better actually correct yourself—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

Excuse me, Mr Assistant Speaker—Alfred. I think you should correct that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Mr Ngaro, or Alfred Ngaro, or something like that—thank you.

I am sorry again, Mr Assistant Speaker—I am getting a little bit emotional about this.

The other thing that is really important about the removal of the 5 years after 50 clause is that it would encourage people to move to the Cooks earlier. The whole reason that we want to look at removing that clause is that if you are already established in the Cooks, as a person, say, in your mid-40s establishing a business or working there, and you have got your families organised, the requirement to come back to New Zealand to do the 5 years after 50 means massive disruption to you. You are already contributing to the home islands, but then you are required to return. We think it makes much more sense to be encouraging people to move to the Cooks at a younger age, as many of my cousins have suggested that they will do. They have done a lot of work in their careers here and are feeling like they can contribute to their home islands.

I realise that I am just about to finish up my 10-minute call here, but I want to just remind the House that 2 weeks ago there were crosses on the front lawn of Parliament with the names of Cook Islands men who fought and died for this country. For 3 days those crosses were on the lawn of Parliament. If that is not enough to encourage the New Zealand Parliament to support this bill and Supplementary Order Paper 71 to remove 5 years over 50 clause, I do not know what else is. Thank you.

It is a great honour to rise for the second reading of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill. Can I say kia orana, taloha ni, and fakalofa lahi atu. I do hope I have got that right, with my southern accent. I must say that I have a connection to the Cook Islands—not in the sense of ancestry, but I did propose to my wife in Rarotonga. Many people go there for weddings. I went to spend some time there for a friend’s wedding, and looked at the beautiful country, and I thought “Here is a good place where I would very much like to propose.” My wife is actually from a landlocked country so I thought what a great opportunity it was to propose to her on a beautiful island. I can fully understand why not only people from Niue, Tokelau, and the Cook Islands would want to retire there but also all New Zealanders. It is great that this bill will give them the freedom and the choice to retire there without being resident and present in New Zealand at the age of 65.

This bill amends rules for payments for New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. Currently, people have to be resident and present in New Zealand at the age of 65 to apply for their New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions. Individuals need to have spent 10 years here since the age of 20, and 5 of them after the age of 50. The change will allow applicants who live in the Cook Islands, Tokelau, and Niue to apply for their New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions from these places rather than from New Zealand. The effect is that people will be able to leave New Zealand and go to live in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau after the age of 55, rather than having to be in the country at 65 to qualify and collect their pension. This bill has been a longstanding request from leaders of the Cook Islands, Tokelau, and Niue. We had over a dozen submitters to this bill, all favourable. As my colleague Alfred Ngaro mentioned, we had some from dignitaries as well.

I want to mention one group of submitters, if I may, and that was the Concerned Community Collective. The Concerned Community Collective is an informal group of Christchurch community leaders who are descended from people from the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, and who came together in December 2014 purely for the purpose of this bill. It was great to receive their submission. Their membership consists of approximately 30 people, with the ages in the group ranging from 28 to 75, so it just shows you the appeal of this bill and the people wanting to submit. They all came from diverse background cultures, and it was very important and valuable for them to be part of this process and submit on the bill. The Concerned Community Collective said that it supported the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill and the changes it makes to the existing rules for applying for superannuation.

The Concerned Community Collective and some of my parliamentary colleagues this afternoon have also talked about the unique relationship with peoples of the Realm of New Zealand, with the foundation of this relationship being defined by New Zealand citizenship and nationality of these countries. They were not too happy, though, they say here, that despite this, those from these countries of the Realm have been categorised as Pacific migrants and afforded the same conditions as 19 other Pacific nations whose citizens are not New Zealand nationals. But, altogether, they supported the bill and its intent.

We also had another submitter, the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association. If I can deviate slightly, it is the first time I have been able to speak in the House since Anzac Day, and I will just acknowledge the sacrifice of the young men from my region of Waimakariri and, of course, Canterbury, New Zealand, and these countries as well, who paid the ultimate sacrifice for the freedoms and the choices that we have in New Zealand today. As a young backpacker I was very fortunate to travel to Turkey and the Gallipoli peninsula and spend some time at Anzac Cove in reflection and also spend some time up at Chunuk Bair, which we held for some small amount of time. It really hit home to me the great lengths our young people went to to protect this country, and the great lengths that we must go to to ensure that they are remembered for another 100 years. I was very fortunate to be part of the preparations, which included the opening of the new building for the Christchurch RSA, the oldest RSA in the country; and the opening of the educational wing at Rannerdale Home and Hospital. [Interruption]

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Coming back to this bill, ultimately this bill reduces the need for individuals to be resident and present in New Zealand, which is a requirement for this special portability bill and very much feeds into the National Party value of freedom and choice. But as Alfred Ngaro mentioned, this is not just for people from these three countries but also for all New Zealanders, who will be able to go out and qualify for New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension at the age of 65. I am thinking very much what a great place to go and retire. It could be like the Algarve or the Benidorm of the Pacific, and it is great that these people will get the freedom and choice to retire to these countries. We are not talking about a large number here. It is a small number of people involved. Tokelau and Niue each have fewer than 1,500 in their population. We are looking at a number of only 650 people who are receiving New Zealand superannuation in the Pacific, and 300 of these people are in the Cook Islands themselves. The forecasted numbers for this benefit are about 245 people, with an increase of about 16 per year.

This is acknowledgment of the constitutional arrangements and that these countries are of the Realm of New Zealand. We are removing the barrier that exists for these people who have to be resident and present in New Zealand to apply for their New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions. It gives these retirees a lot more flexibility and it is also about supporting the economic and social development of these countries. We have heard this afternoon about the effects of depopulation, and it is great that these individuals will be able to retire and take their income with them. We also know about the hardship that it currently causes for people who have spent their 5 years after age 50 in New Zealand and have to return to New Zealand at age 65, and the upheaval that that causes as well. This will also be about individuals taking their cash flow to Niue, Tokelau, and the Cook Islands. They will be able to spend this and contribute to a range of local businesses and help to support employment. Also, it is about skills and experience going back to these countries. We know for New Zealand that a lot of young people go and do their OE, gain international skills and experience, and bring those back to this country for our benefit as well.

I must just challenge the minority view of New Zealand First. Really, it has no shame, to say “Compare this to the generosity of giving full New Zealand Superannuation entitlement to non-New Zealand citizens from non-reciprocal pension countries after just 10 years’ residency.” I would challenge New Zealand First to stand up and show us the data for that. Normally, individuals have to spend 10 years here to get 50 percent and 20 years to get 100 percent. This is just typical migrant-bashing by New Zealand First—absolutely appalling, and especially so with a bill like this.

If I could conclude, this bill is about freedom and choice, this bill is about countries of the Realm of New Zealand, and this bill is about supporting the economic development and social development of these countries. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

I rise to take the second call for the Greens on the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill. We support the bill on the basis that it is a step in the right direction towards ensuring the citizens of the Realm of New Zealand countries—Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau—who are also citizens of New Zealand, have better access to New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension. But we have the same sort of concerns that have been raised by previous speakers on this side of the House, particularly Carmel Sepuloni and Poto Williams, about whether this bill goes far enough. Certainly, the opinion that was coming from the submitters was that this bill did not go far enough.

Under the current system, people wishing to access New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension have to be resident and present in New Zealand at the time of applying for the payments. As well as that, they must have lived in New Zealand for at least 10 years as an adult over 20—if it is 10 years, they can access 50 percent of the payments later on, and they must have lived here for 20 years to get the full payment of superannuation—and they must have lived in New Zealand for at least 5 years since the age of 50.

For the people from the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau who have lived and worked in New Zealand as adults for 10 years, or 20 years, this bill will still require them to live here for 5 years after the age of 50 to be eligible for the payments, but what this bill does change is that they do not have to be resident and present after that. They can access superannuation and the veterans pension from their home island countries. It means that older people from these island communities can return to their homelands, access those pensions—which, by the way, they have contributed to as residents and citizens of New Zealand—and it also means, and this is a point that was made by the previous speaker, Matt Doocey, that other New Zealanders who meet the eligibility requirement for residency in those Realm countries can also stay in those islands and access superannuation or the veterans pension there.

But the common concern from the submitters was around that 5 years after 50 rule. It was a very unusual step for the Social Services Committee to hear submissions from the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands, the Hon Henry Puna, and the Premier of Niue, the Hon Toke Talagi, and, again, their concern was expressed particularly around that 5 years after 50 rule. I understand—and it says this in the regulatory impact statement, as well—that this bill has been the result of Government to Government discussions for quite a long time and that the Realm countries have been asking for this for a very long time. So they were very clear that they were appreciative of the effort that was being made to clear this up, but, again, they did express their concerns.

We heard from them how the current system has been a disincentive for people wishing to return to the islands of the Realm and we also heard firsthand about the issues of depopulation and the subsequent problems that it can cause for these small island economies. By enabling these citizens to live in the islands from, potentially, the age of 55 and still be eligible for superannuation, it removes that disincentive a bit, although it will mean that there may be disruption for people if they have met the criteria and have returned to their home islands before they have hit the 50-year age bracket.

I just want to acknowledge, as previous speakers have done, the contribution that the people of the Realm countries—from the Cook Islands, from Niue, and from Tokelau—have made to our nation’s economy. And I take the point that Poto Williams raised earlier about the service that those citizens have also provided in terms of our armed forces. They have provided to the social and the economic well-being of our society, and by allowing for this easier portability and ensuring that people can move back to their home countries and access superannuation and veterans pensions, it means that we are reciprocating and that we are helping with the economic development of their countries, which I think is fair enough.

We will be supporting this bill. I will be interested to see what the Supplementary Order Papers are like. At this stage, from reading the report from the select committee and the minority views, we are fully supportive of the efforts that the Labour Party is making to extend the eligibility so that we can remove further disincentives to people returning to those depopulated islands where they really need them. Thank you.

I rise to speak in support of the second reading of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill. I would firstly actually like to acknowledge some of what Carmel Sepuloni said in her opening remarks about the importance of this bill in opening New Zealand’s wider view on the special relationship that exists between New Zealand and Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. Look, I have to be honest and inform the House that my understanding of the special relationship is relatively limited, and through this select committee process I guess I have had my own eyes widened to that. Perhaps it is because in Tauranga Boys’ College the history was very European and World War II - focused. We did not have a lot of Pacific Island history, but it is certainly something that I have enjoyed being part of on the Social Services Committee.

As we have heard already in the conversations around this second reading, we had a number of submissions, with six submissions turning up or being presented verbally and, of course, 13—just over 12—submissions in all. They all were broadly supportive. Some of the views that we have heard expressed here tonight around some of the areas of concern have, I think, been given more weight than is due relative to the perspectives that were shared, certainly when I was listening on the select committee.

I do think it was quite amazing, actually, that we had a visit from two heads of State, Prime Minister Henry Puna from the Cook Islands and the Niue Premier, Toke Talagi. Initially, I thought that this was perhaps a symbolic gesture, but certainly, again, that perhaps talks to my newness to this particular topic and the relationship that we have with these three countries, because it was clearly far more than that. You could see it in the import that they brought to the conversation, the historic ties that they wanted to reference in their submission, and the importance that they saw this particular bill was going to provide for their communities.

So it is, in my view, absolutely right that these three countries have the opportunities that are outlined in this bill, particularly the opportunity to return home from the age of 55 and, when they get to 65, to apply from their homeland for the superannuation—should they wish—to have it paid there, and, of course, to take their qualifying veterans pension with them, too. Freeing these people from the obligation to be resident in New Zealand at the point of application for New Zealand superannuation will I think provide significant flexibility and opportunity for these communities.

We have heard already this evening, as we have stepped through this conversation, the feedback that we have had from a number of submitters on the opportunity that they think it will bring their communities. When you have had the population drift that has occurred from these three countries to New Zealand, the opportunity to provide a mechanism to enable them to return home to their original homeland and contribute from the age of 55, when they still have so much energy and capacity, it is very powerful, and I believe that it will be taken up in larger numbers over time than perhaps what is initially suggested, which is just under 250 initially.

There was clear feedback—and we have heard about some of that already this evening—that the cut-off at 55 years should be made earlier or even removed altogether, but that challenges the overarching residential qualifications for New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions, and, from my perspective, that would certainly be more than a step too far. It is really important, though, that we acknowledge that that was pretty consistent feedback from those who made the submissions.

In terms of the opportunity to go back and contribute to their societies, I would like to spend just a moment reflecting on a Niuean friend of mine who is currently a schoolteacher. I happened to have a conversation with him about this particular bill and what this could mean to him and his broader family. He was open with me that he has not really historically considered going back to continue his educational contribution in his home country, but this particular provision is something that means he will now reflect on it. I hope that he does consider it. He is a renowned educator, and the opportunity to go back to his homeland and contribute in his area of passion and to then be able to be supported in terms of New Zealand superannuation is, I think, a really positive step forward. We have heard that it will not just be examples like my friend that we will see; we will see a whole lot of different people—not necessarily those who were born in the islands—take up this opportunity and perhaps see a change in the course of their life to head back and spend a decent part of their lives back in those three particular countries.

I would like to spend just a moment reflecting on the veterans component of this bill. They obviously spoke with some passion about the changes that they think should be considered. I think that the way we have this bill written is fair. It is consistent with the position we have taken and the changes we have made recently, and I think that, on balance, they will see that it still is a step in the right direction. Like my colleague Matt Doocey, I would like to spend just a moment acknowledging their sacrifice, particularly those from the Realm countries who not only gave their lives in support of the values that underpin our collective countries but, out of all of the populations, for them to move from the Pacific to fight in those world theatres must have been extraordinarily daunting. Certainly, the feedback that I have had as I have studied this a little bit more over the last few weeks is that they found those conditions quite appalling and really suffered tragically from it. So I do want to acknowledge that, and I do want to acknowledge my own RSA in Mount Maunganui and the 10,000 who turned up at the cenotaph. It was quite an extraordinary outpouring of public support.

The specific submissions—if I could spend just a couple of moments reflecting on them, particularly the 5 years over 50 rule, I have to acknowledge that most submissions raised feedback about the application of that particular rule and extending the coverage to all Pacific countries and also improving the existing provisions of the existing veterans pension. The 5 years over 50 rule was introduced in 1990, it has been in place for 25 years, and it replaced an even more stringent 7-year residency rule before that. I think it serves the right purpose, which is essentially that you need to have had a recent engagement with, or a contribution to, New Zealand society and the community before you are eligible for that particular superannuation. I think that is appropriate, and it would raise a whole lot of other equity issues if we started treating particular subsets of New Zealand superannuation applicants differently from others. In terms of the extending of the coverage issue, I think it is appropriate that we hold the line there, and that certainly is the feedback that we have had from a number of submitters.

I do want to talk just briefly about implementation. That was raised quite a number of times by submitters. We are obviously going to pass this measure. This is going to come in. It is going to be a great change for these countries. The risk here is that those who are available—

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kia ora mai tātou. Tēnā tātou katoa. Members, when we broke for the dinner break, we were debating the second reading of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill. Todd Muller has 55 seconds remaining, should he wish to avail himself of the opportunity.

Well, that has changed, actually. It was 29 seconds, we thought, just before dinner—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Grab it while you can.

—but I suspect it is now down to 40.

But, in conclusion, this is a phenomenal piece of legislation, which needed to occur. We have heard from a number of speakers that it has broad support within this House. I do want to acknowledge my friend and colleague Alfred Ngaro as the chair of the Social Services Committee, who has reflected and deliberated on this bill. I think there is no better person to chair this debate and to be participating in it today. I am sure, as he said, he will get a lot of satisfaction in seeing it ultimately pass through this House, and it is a good gift for his mum and dad, who are hopping on a plane tonight to head back to the Cook Islands. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I call Jan Logie. This is a 5-minute call.

I rise to take a short call in this, the second reading of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill. The Green Party is supporting this bill as well as Supplementary Order Paper 71. That has been presented, I understand, by the Rt Hon Winston Peters to address the concerns raised by submitters—including most notably two heads of State—regarding the requirement of 5 years of residence post the age of 50, which has also been raised by other members of this House.

For people listening, this bill, basically, improves the access of people who live in the Realm of New Zealand to superannuation. The Realm countries are Niue, Tokelau, and the Cook Islands. This bill sits on the precipice of resolving long-outstanding concerns that I am sure many members of this House have had raised with them over many years. It will enable people from Realm States who are living in those States to access 100 percent of superannuation if they have spent 20 years in this country. It will enable them to access 50 percent if they have spent 10 to 20 years on these islands as long as—and this is our problem—5 of those years have been spent in New Zealand post the age of 50.

Realm countries are part of our constitutional arrangements in this country. In Tokelau, for example, the New Zealand - appointed representative in Tokelau has the power to overturn rules that have been passed by their General Fono, which is, in effect, their Parliament. The economy of Niue is funded significantly by the overseas development and aid budget from this country. They have a population of under 1,600 people living on those islands, whereas there are 24,000-plus Niueans, I understand, living in this country. The Cook Islands obviously are in a different position, but, as with all Realm countries, their past and future are inextricably linked with ours. As has been noted in this House earlier, many men from the Cook Islands died in the First World War. We saw the crosses on the lawn in their remembrance recently. People from the Cook Islands contribute significantly to this House. People from all the island States have contributed to our economy and our society. Where I live in Porirua there are wonderful rare moments where we get to hear the Cook Island drums rousing us to action from the streets.

The people covered by this bill have spent decades in this country providing labour, wisdom, and culture, and paying tax. It should not be seen as an act of beneficence to ensure that they can access the fruits of those labours. The Government has skirted the real issue of justice and the long-held concerns in this bill, sadly, by keeping in that requirement for 5 years of residence in New Zealand post the age of 50. I think we see this most starkly in the presentations and the submissions that asked for that to be taken out, including submissions from two heads of State.

If we look at the example of Niue, where there are fewer than 1,600 people living on those islands, there is a call for people to come home to be able to participate in the building and functioning of that country. This bill, by requiring people to spend 5 years in New Zealand post 50 and break their participation if they have gone back earlier, or just calling them out, is not actually in the interests of Niue, nor is it in the interests of this country and our overseas and development aid budget. There are good reasons for this but most of them, I think, are that people have paid and contributed through their taxes and years of work in this country. They are part of our Realm and they deserve the recognition of easy access to superannuation within the Realm countries.

I call Jenny Salesa—5-minute call.

Kia orana. Fakalofa lahi atu. Taloha ni. It is my pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the Labour Party in support of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill. However, before I address the contents of this bill, I would like to first off acknowledge and honour the thousands of New Zealanders and Māori who were joined by 500 Cook Island soldiers, over 100 Niuean soldiers and a number of Tokelauan soldiers, Samoan soldiers, and Tongan soldiers during World War I. They committed themselves to the service of Aotearoa New Zealand and for so many of these soldiers there would be no return. They gave all that there was to give: their lives. No sacrifice could be greater. It is especially fitting to honour and remember them at this time because so many of these people who will benefit from the changes proposed by this bill or their ancestors have fought for New Zealand, leaving behind their loved ones in the Pacific Islands.

We support this bill because it is the right thing to do. It is indeed a step in the right direction towards equal treatment of New Zealand citizens throughout the Realm. However, we should ensure that those who reside in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau are not disadvantaged by the requirement that they need to be resident in New Zealand for 5 years between the age of 50 and the qualification age of 65, or disadvantaged when they are forced to leave their families and work commitments in order to receive New Zealand’s superannuation. A number of countries are already exempt from this 5 years over 50 years of age rule—for instance, the UK, the Netherlands, and Australia. It is only fair and equitable to allow New Zealand citizens from the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau to have this same privilege.

As you know, the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau are Realm countries, and we have a long shared history with them. We value the relationship that we have with these countries. The arrangements in this bill would make it easier for them to access superannuation and the veterans pension. It is a very important step that recognises the special relationship that we have with them. In addition to the people who have been recruited by New Zealand to fight in our Defence Force, many Pacific people, including residents from the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, migrated to New Zealand during the economic boom, and they have worked really hard in this country.

Labour shares the concerns that were raised by many submitters to the Social Services Committee about the eligibility criteria requiring people to be resident in New Zealand for 5 years between the ages of 50 and 65 in order to qualify. We believe that New Zealanders should be treated equally and equitably regardless of where they are based—whether they are based here in Aotearoa, based in the Cook Islands, based in Niue, or based in Tokelau. We in Labour support the removal of the 5-year resident and present status.

From a health point of view, of course, it is definitely much warmer in the Pacific, which means it is less likely that pensioners and retirees will be in hospital for asthma or respiratory reasons as often as they might be if they were here in Aotearoa New Zealand, particularly during the winter months.

Labour supports strengthening the relationship with our Pacific Realm countries. This bill will support the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. All of them are currently facing depopulation. By allowing residents in their senior years to return home and invest their time, skill, expertise, and experience, we would be helping the local economies. Let us do the honourable thing for the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. Our Pacific neighbours gave wholeheartedly during both World War I and World War II and also during the time that New Zealand needed them, when they came here and helped to serve.

I hear so many stories in my electorate of Manukau East from Pacific people who want to return home to retire. Despite the many achievements they have gained, as well as making New Zealand their home for many decades, there is usually still that conversation about returning home to retire. The frequent visits that they make to the islands are an indication of how important their lands, their culture, and their roots are to them. Labour supports this bill because it is about people. Hard-working and deserving New Zealanders should not be denied their right to draw a pension, whether they are here or in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau. Thank you so much.

It is with pleasure that I rise to speak to support this bill, the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill, in its second reading. Eligible New Zealanders can receive New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau under the special portability arrangement. However, under this arrangement the eligible people are required to be resident and present here in New Zealand at the time of applying for those benefits. This bill is to remove that requirement of people being required to be resident and present here in New Zealand at the time of applying for those benefits. This amendment will allow eligible people to apply for their New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension from any of these three island countries—the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau—at the age of 65.

Currently, there are around 650 people receiving New Zealand superannuation in the Pacific. Out of these 650 people, around 300 are in the Cook Islands. It is estimated that with this amending legislation going through there will be around 245 people who may benefit and there will be an additional 16 people per annum. If you look at this number of 245 people becoming eligible straight away after this legislation has gone through and then the addition of 16 per annum, it does not look like a big number, but if we look at the population of Niue or Tokelau, then it is a significant number.

Some of these people from these island countries have a strong desire to go back to these island countries when they retire. What happens currently is that they live here in New Zealand until they are 65. They apply for these benefits and after that those who wish to go back return to the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau. They do not want to go back to these islands and, once they have reached the eligibility criteria, have to come here and apply at the age of 65, because that causes disruption in their lives, which is understandable. If they leave New Zealand permanently to go to any of these three island countries of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau before the age of 65, then they lose their entitlement to receive New Zealand superannuation. So the thinking behind this bill is that those people who wish to return to any of these three island countries before the age of 65 in order to contribute to their island countries should be able to do so, and they should not be required to wait until the age of 65. By the time they reach 65, even if they had decided originally to go back to their island countries, they may be unable to do so because of so many other factors kicking in like the age factor.

So this bill is actually going to fix this situation. This bill is going to remove this requirement of people having to be in New Zealand at the time of applying for their New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension. Currently there is a residence requirement. For people to be eligible for New Zealand superannuation they should have lived here in New Zealand for 10 years since the age of 20, including 5 years after the age of 50, which means that people can go back at the age of 55. That is what this bill is about. After this bill goes through it will make it possible for people to return to these three island countries at the age of 55, and they can then apply for their New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension at the age of 65 from any of these three island countries.

This change will not be restricted to only citizens of these three island countries of Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. Other New Zealanders who are eligible for New Zealand superannuation can also go and retire in any of these three island countries and then apply for New Zealand superannuation when they reach the age of 65. So the question that comes up is why this provision is available to only these three island countries and is not extended to other island countries. As other contributors have mentioned, this is because of the special close constitutional ties with these three island countries of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, because of which they enjoy shared New Zealand citizenship and unique legal arrangements. The Cook Islands and Niue have adopted constitutions enabling them to have self-government in free association with New Zealand. This allows Cook Islanders and Niuean people to share New Zealand citizenship while they run their own affairs, whereas Tokelau is a non - self-governing territory of New Zealand.

Another concern that came up was about the depopulation of these three island countries. That is, again, understandable because young people and people with special skills are always looking for opportunities, and to get those opportunities they migrate to New Zealand, but then these island countries want to get these people back because they are facing this issue of depopulation. With this amendment people will be able to return to these three island countries at the age of 55, so in a way we will be able to help these island countries with this problem as well.

In the Social Services Committee we received and considered 13 submissions. Six submissions were heard orally. There were some high-profile submitters, as we heard before. I am really grateful to those submitters who took time to make those submissions, those who came to the select committee and made their concerns heard.

One main area that was very widely discussed was this rule of 5 years after the age of 50. Today also we have heard about this. There is this Supplementary Order Paper 71 from New Zealand First and I understand that the Labour Party also has that concern about the 5 years after the age of 50 rule. This came up because these island countries would like to see these people return to these island countries of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau before the age of 55 so that they are able to effectively contribute to the economy of these three island countries. But even New Zealanders who go overseas and then come back are also required to fulfil this condition of 5 years after 50, so it would be unfair to remove this condition only for people who want to go back to the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau. It would be inequitable to remove this requirement for these three island countries only.

It is hoped that these changes will benefit these three island countries. It is very difficult to quantify the benefit that these three island countries will have in dollar terms and it is also difficult to quantify the cost of this amendment to us here in New Zealand. As I said before, we know that it is estimated that 245 people will be benefiting from this legislation going through. There will be this cost of paying superannuation to these 245 people. Then there is this rate of 16 people per annum who will be added to the list, so there will be that additional cost to the Crown. Also, it is likely that more people will be returning to these island countries because after this legislation goes through they will be able to go back at the age of 55. This money that is paid in New Zealand superannuation will not be in our economy’s circulation; it will be in the circulation of their economies, so that will benefit those island countries. That is another cost to us. It is very difficult for us to calculate the exact dollar value of the benefit for these three island countries or the cost to us here in New Zealand. Overall, this bill is a positive step towards our relationship with these three island countries. I support the bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

I want to state categorically for the House how proud I am to be a New Zealander, but that I am also equally proud of my Samoan heritage. I want to place that before the House tonight as we debate this bill with reference to the people of Niue, the Cook Islands, and Tokelau.

The Samoan in me would also like to say to members of this House how proud I am, as a New Zealander of Samoan heritage, that when it comes to things of the Pacific, it seems there has been a shift over the years. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that as a young man in the 1970s I hated Parliament, particularly the Government of the time and what occurred during that period. But over the years there has been a shift. I want to commend that shift, which has also included the will of members of Parliament, throughout the various political parties, to come together, united, around supporting the people of the Pacific.

With reference to this bill, however, although the Labour Party supports it, as my colleagues who spoke earlier, particularly Poto Williams, said, the Government could have done more. It has not done what I believe is the right thing to do with reference to the people of the Realm of New Zealand. In my earlier speech in the first reading, I referred to the people of Niue, the Cook Islands, and Tokelau as the forgotten people. I think they are the forgotten people because most New Zealanders have very little, if any, understanding that these people are New Zealanders. We are talking about New Zealand citizens who live on soil that is referred to as the Realm of New Zealand.

One has to ask, if we are limiting their rights as New Zealand citizens by placing this 5-year condition on them, what the difference is between people living in Niue, the Cook Islands, and Tokelau, referred to as the Realm islands, and those living on Waiheke Island and Stewart Island. What is the difference? The Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau use the New Zealand passport, they use the New Zealand dollar in their economies, and although they are, fortunately, bilingual, English is the predominant language. So why is the Government wanting to continue to treat these New Zealanders as if they are not full New Zealand citizens, as if they are second-class citizens? That is the argument we will continue to push this Government on, because, although, yes, it is welcome that the change in this bill allows people from these Realm countries to return to the islands once they have been able to meet the criterion of 5 years after the age of 50 and to receive their pension at age 65, why must they be forced to do that when they are New Zealand citizens living on soil that is regarded as New Zealand soil?

I note that the Cook Islands became a British protectorate in 1888, and Niue became a member of the New Zealand Realm in 1901. Tokelau became a protectorate of the United Kingdom and a territory of New Zealand in 1877. So it is not something that just happened overnight. The UK took over and gave the Cook Islands protection because it was afraid of what the French might do. If you look further, New Zealand had a role to play in the 1800s when the United Kingdom, Germany, and America were trying to divvy up the Pacific. New Zealand left Samoa to the Germans and took over Fiji. Then in 1914, at the beginning of the First World War, New Zealand landed on the shores of Samoa and took control of Samoa. So this is not a one-night stand, if you like. It has been like this for some years now.

I think that the House needs to be quite clear in its thinking that we are talking about New Zealand citizens living on New Zealand soil, not on a distant island that is not part of the Realm of New Zealand. I can accept that for Samoa and Tonga, despite what they might wish. But, firstly, these are forgotten New Zealanders, who must be recognised and acknowledged as full-bloom New Zealand citizens.

Only a few weeks ago the country celebrated Anzac Day. It seems like new information to many New Zealanders when we say to them that 500 Cook Islanders volunteered to fight for the empire on behalf of New Zealand. They fought in the First World War and the Second World War, and 150-plus Niueans fought in the First World War. That is why they were often forgotten in the action—they were either small in numbers or were referred to as Māori because Sir Māui Pōmare was trying to raise the number of Māori for the Māori Battalion. At one time, and rightly so, some Māori said “Why should we go over and fight in the war when we are treated differently here?”. Therefore, it was Cook Islanders and Niueans who were brought on board to fill the Māori Battalion. I have to say I also want to acknowledge the numbers, although very minor—33, I think, from Samoa, and individuals from Tonga and Fiji—who also took part in that war.

The point I am making is that I am glad Parliament, this House of ours, is united in terms of the Pacific. I wholeheartedly, along with my colleagues in the Labour Party, support this bill. I want to say to the Government that it can do more, but it first needs to recognise that this is not a different group of people. They are not foreigners. They are New Zealand citizens living on the soils of New Zealand, in the Realm of New Zealand. I think there was room for the Government to seriously consider the removal of the condition it had placed. There is a Supplementary Order Paper, which will be introduced by New Zealand First, that I look forward to debating.

I think it was Poto Williams, in one of the select committee sessions, who asked how much it would cost if we did away with that condition. I think it was to the tune of $9 million to $21 million. I followed it up with a question. I asked the officials “How much would it save New Zealanders if we allowed that to happen?”—if we allowed people in Niue, Tokelau, and the Cook Islands full rights to receive the full pension. They could not answer that—they could not answer. I have to ask why the Government did not do any work in terms of identifying the ongoing savings if this took place, and the long-term benefits to the relationship of New Zealand and these Pacific Islands, which are in the Realm of New Zealand and whose people are New Zealand citizens. I think if the Government seriously looked at that, it would find that there would be savings in more people returning to retire in the islands, in the same way that Aucklanders retire to Waiheke Island in the Hauraki Gulf.

It is a pleasure to speak on the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill. I would like to start by mentioning what my colleague Su’a William Sio was just talking about across the House in regard to the only really successful landing that New Zealand did in the First World War, on 29 August 1914, when we landed in Samoa without a shot being fired or a life being lost. We ran the Union flag—as it was in those days—up the pole without any resistance whatsoever. So we do have a special relationship with our Pacific Island neighbours, particularly the three nations of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau that we are talking about this evening.

I think we were reminded earlier this evening by Alfred Ngaro that the triple star in our national anthem actually refers to those islands, which I suspect most people do not realise. I think that is something that we should actually ponder from time to time, because it is quite important.

Despite what is being said around Supplementary Order Paper 71 around the 5 years after 50 stipulation, I think it would be quite wrong to fix an inequity by creating another one, because, effectively, no New Zealander is allowed to come home without meeting that 5-year rule and then claim superannuation, even if they want to live here. So we would be creating another inequity in order to fix one.

I am getting the signal, so it is with great pleasure that I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.