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

I am standing to speak to Part 1 of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill. It is nice when we have a bill go through that every political party in the House agrees with, apart from some minor changes that have been suggested, which we can talk about.

The purpose of this bill is to allow eligible persons who reside in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau to be able to apply from either of those countries or that territory for New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension, and be paid these benefits in either of those countries or that territory or other specified Pacific countries. Part 1 of the bill is really just outlining that purpose.

I actually think that many New Zealanders are not even aware of the fact that we have three countries that are not New Zealand—outside of New Zealand. They are three Pacific Islands that are part of the Realm of New Zealand, and therefore there is not necessarily an understanding or a knowledge of the special relationship that we have with these three countries, the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. I think that is a really important backdrop to discussing this bill, because it is important to understand not only the historical ties to these three countries but also the constitutional relationships we have with them.

Currently, eligible New Zealanders can receive their New Zealand superannuation or their veterans pension in the Realm countries, under the special portability arrangement that New Zealand has with 22 specified Pacific countries. However, under the current arrangement, people aged 65 years or older can only apply by being resident and present in New Zealand on the date they apply for New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension. This bill seeks to change that so that those residents of Cook Island, Niuean, and Tokelauan descent can apply from those countries rather than having to be resident in New Zealand.

Part of this outlines the fact that they need to have been resident in New Zealand for 10 years. What is being proposed is that at least 5 of those years need to have been spent here, in New Zealand, between the ages of 50 and 65. I guess one point of difference, when we are discussing eligibility, between us—some of the minor parties, I think—and the National Government is that we think that those 10 years of residence, of being present in New Zealand, should not necessarily have to be between the ages of 50 and 65. Currently, it is proposed that 5 of those years resident in New Zealand must be when a person is aged between 50 and 65.

One of the big issues that came up not only during the submissions but it has come up during my own experience when getting out and about with our Cook Island, Niuean, and Tokelauan communities, and also visiting the Cook Islands and Niue, is the issue of depopulation and the impact that that has had on these three Island States. I think one thing that we as New Zealanders do not recognise at all, or enough, is the fact that the issues of depopulation that those three countries face really are due to the constitutional arrangements we have with them, in that those people are given the opportunity to travel freely to New Zealand. That is seen as a positive thing, but also we have depleted those three countries of their biggest resource. We have been told that by the residents there, as they struggle to be economically sustainable. Their biggest resource is their people.

So one of the good things about this bill is that it will allow our Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau residents to return to the Islands to be able to contribute to the economic development and sustainability of their countries. When we say that they need to have been in New Zealand, resident here and present, for 5 of their 10 years between the ages of 50 and 65, I think we are actually attaching what really is an unnecessary condition, because 10 years should be 10 years, whether it is 10 years between the ages of 20 and 30 or whether it be 10 years between the ages of 20 and 50. I cannot understand why we need to stipulate that 5 of those years must be spent here between the ages of 50 and 65. We want to, as part of the good-faith relationship that we have here in New Zealand with the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, actually support our Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau people returning to invest in those Island States, if that is what they wish. We see the benefits for those Island States, for their communities, and for their families, but also the benefit to New Zealand because they are part of the Realm of New Zealand.

I need to note that in Part 1 we are talking about eligibility, but later on tonight during this debate we will be debating and discussing a Supplementary Order Paper that has been put up by New Zealand First that actually removes that condition for them to have spent 5 of those 10 years in New Zealand, present and resident here, between the ages of 50 and 65. As I said, we want to support them returning.

When we talk about depopulation, again, I do not think most New Zealanders are aware of the extent of the depopulation that has occurred in Niue, the Cook Islands, and Tokelau because of the right to travel freely between those islands and New Zealand. If we look at the population statistics, I think the latest ones for Niue show there is a population of about 1,200 Niueans in Niue, whereas we have 24,000, approximately, Niueans in New Zealand. We have, approximately, 14,000 Cook Islanders in the Cook Islands whereas we have 60,000 Cook Islanders here in New Zealand. There are, approximately, 1,400 Tokelauans in Tokelau whereas we have about 8,000 Tokelauans in New Zealand. From the time that constitutional arrangement was formalised with New Zealand they have all made a contribution to this country. Now, I think, is an opportunity for New Zealand to recognise that contribution and say: “Actually, we’re going to support these people—our Cook Island, Tokelauan, and Niuean people—to return to their own country and make an investment there.”

I do want to say that we support this bill, and we support the purpose of this bill, but I want to outline our support for the Supplementary Order Paper that is being put forward by New Zealand First, which changes the eligibility from what the National Government has outlined in the bill that we have before us tonight. I do want to make one other point, and that is that we do support the Supplementary Order Paper that has been put up by New Zealand First, but I do want to acknowledge my colleague Poto Williams, who actually signalled very early in the minority report that was put forward to the Social Services Committee that she was going to be putting this Supplementary Order Paper up, but then one of our friends from New Zealand First—no grudges—decided that was such a good idea that they would put the Supplementary Order Paper forward themselves.

So we support this bill. As I have outlined, though, we do support the Supplementary Order Paper that is being put up by New Zealand First later on tonight to change the eligibility slightly, so that of the 10 years served, the 5 years of residing and being present in New Zealand do not need to be between the ages of 50 and 65. Thank you.

We do not want people rewriting history tonight. The reality is the “section 70s” and those people who are caught by this legislation were first promised to have it fixed up by New Zealand First, and no other political party. Those are facts. Go and look at the manifestos and you will see who it was—the political party New Zealand First—who realised that these anomalies are there for the “section 70s” and for the people of Tokelau, the Cook Islands, and Niue, and who set out to redress them.

If you look here, you will see that some people in the Government still do not get it, despite the fact that my colleague Andrew Bayly has been in the Cook Islands assuring all those people that he will give it his best intentions. He has given those Cook Islands people all sorts of assurances that when he gets back he is going to fix it up.

💬 Sue Moroney: Really?

That is what Mr Bayly did, yes. He went to the Cook Islands New Zealand retirement people over there and gave them that assurance, and my colleague the very esteemed Alfred Ngaro said as his excuse: “I wasn’t there.” Oh, really? So who cast his vote without his authority? I know my friend Alfred Ngaro is an honourable man, and I hope that Mr Bayly, from up Hunua way, is also an honourable man, and tonight they are going to say they will support the New Zealand First Supplementary Order Paper, because that is what they told the people in the Cook Islands down at the Swordfish Club. I have got the evidence. I do not blame them, because 5 years ago Murray McCully promised exactly that as well.

But, you see, you have got a Minister in the chair, Anne Tolley, who, on the question of the purpose, does not get it. If you look at the purpose clause, clause 3, and read it very carefully, and then you go to the Minister in the chair’s speech, she repeats this line on the question of the purpose: “We must also bear in mind that without the 5 years’ residence over 50 rule there would be nothing preventing a person born in New Zealand who then lived overseas for most of their life returning to New Zealand at 65 years and claiming New Zealand superannuation.” I heard that and I thought: “That sounds rather familiar.” Well, of course, it is on page 6 of the Ministry of Social Development’s February report. Page 6, there it is—the exact same words parroted from paragraph 5. She parrots the identical same words, and they are false, and that is my point.

My plea to the National Party is surely there is someone over there with some honour who could possibly do something to support those people it promised so much to before. When Mr Doocey was last on his feet on this matter, this is what he said: “What I must say”—this is on the purpose—

💬 Matt Doocey: I’m glad you’re listening.

I know it is laughable, but you should not laugh yet. [Interruption] Oh, we know it is laughable. This is what he said: “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.”

You know, they say in England that the malady of the ignorant is to be ignorant without knowing it, but I have got chart after chart here that will tell the Government precisely how many people in the last 15 years have done just that. The number is 73,985. [Interruption] And it is not a laughing matter, Mr Doocey, because your colleague Mr Bayly was down at the Cook Islands Swordfish Club promising these New Zealanders, who worked hard for this country and who are critical for the Cook Islands community and its infrastructure, that he would do something about it. What we do not like in New Zealand First is people who go overseas who are very fast on the lip and slow on the hip. He gets back home here, and he is not going to do a thing about it. Look, go to the library. All this information is here, Mr Doocey. So, next time, do some homework rather than coming down here and showing us all what you do not know.

Seventy-three thousand is a cost structure factor that the Ministry of Social Development keeps on telling a wayward Minister is a concern. I am talking about fewer than 100 people getting a fair go—I am talking about these people getting a fair go. One of these days I am going to tell you what is going to happen. New Zealand First is committed to fixing this, at the very first opportunity, and it is going to be very soon. If they do not see it our way tonight, I want to tell all those people in the Cook Islands listening as we speak, and I know they are—not all in the Cook Islands; they will be in Niue and they will be in Tokelau listening. I am going to tell them tonight that we will fix it up at the first chance we get. In fact, it will be a bottom line. We know it is not a great number of people—maybe only 79.

We will give Mr Ngaro, this very esteemed representative from Auckland—a Cook Islander himself, no doubt—a chance to cross the House and show some courage. I know it is not easy. I know it is not easy, but come over for the fellowship. It is important, because this is a very God-fearing country and they do not like people who say one thing in the church and something else outside—or do one thing in the Swordfish Club, meeting all the members. Then he gets back home, and what is Mr Bayly doing tonight? Mr Bayly? Are you, Mr Bayly, going to support the Supplementary Order Paper from New Zealand First? [Interruption] Oh, that is sad. This is so sad. This is so sad, because what the National Party is concerned about, of course, is always numbers. If these numbers were big, like all of the beneficiaries falling through the cracks, they would read the stuff from Crosby/Textor and do something. But it is a small number, and so they think they can ignore them.

Well, let me tell the National Party this: there are backbenchers who are going to go down in the next campaign because of that behaviour—oh, big time. I have seen the latest polls. [Interruption] Oh yes I have. Do you know what they do say? Do you know what they say? There is one party that the people in this country trust more than any other party. It is the second-highest choice of all the people across the great divide—the second choice, which means we are the least hated of them all.

Make no bones about it. This is a very important bill. So, Mr Doocey, perhaps you could demonstrate that you have learnt something tonight and cross the House when it comes to the amendment, to ensure that New Zealanders who went across there to work as shipping people, to work for various official groups over there—as we once used to provide them with 4 years’ assistance as teachers—to do rural or island support over there, which means critical things will be done for the infrastructure, are not punished by people being too weak to honour what Mr McCully promised them 5 years ago in the Cook Islands, as my friend Alfred Ngaro knows; he promised them.

Before I sit down, I want to say that nobody is beyond redemption, and I want to give Mr Ngaro a chance tonight, knowing that all those Cook Islands people are listening—oh yes they are. He has got a chance now to stand up for them, to be able to say: “I was a person who ran for the National Party under the label of being a Cook Islander so that I would bring some ethnic diversity to the party. But, more important, I am going to make sure that they hear my people’s word.” Now tonight, Mr Ngaro, is a date with destiny. It is time to cross the House—and bring Mr Bayly, who was being so fast and loose at the Cook Islands Swordfish Club, with you. Then we will know that this Committee stage debate is not a waste of time.

Kia orana, Mr Chairperson. As the first Cook Islander to take a call on this bill, I just want to make a little comment that this bill is intended to support those people who want to return to the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. Even the esteemed member who just spoke before me, Winston Peters—he, too, can take advantage of this bill, return to the Cook Islands, and collect his pension. He, too, can be basking in the sun at the Swordfish Club, because this bill is about supporting people to return home for their retirement. But if this Government had taken note of the submitters, the bill could have allowed younger people to return home and contribute to the economy of the Cook Islands.

The purpose of this bill is to allow people who are eligible for New Zealand superannuation to collect it in the countries of the Realm—namely, the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. That does not mean just people who have a close affinity or have a blood connection to those islands of the Realm; that actually means each and every one of us as New Zealanders have that opportunity to do that. So the previous speaker is quite right in his assertions. This is an important bill for all people, and, in fact, when we were first debating this in the first reading, I know I made the comment that this would be something that I would consider doing myself. Given the opportunity, it is something that I would really like to do.

My colleague Carmel Sepuloni talked about what happened when we were given, as countries of the Realm, free association with New Zealand. What it means is that we have New Zealand citizenship. As people who are of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau descent, we travel on New Zealand passports. We are New Zealand citizens. What that meant, particularly when the first planes started to go to the Cooks in the 1960s, was that we could travel quite freely as Cook Islanders. And we did; we travelled freely. It meant that our home islands became quite “depopularised”, if that is a word. So now we are in a situation—

💬 Jono Naylor: “Depopulated” is the word.

—thank you—back in the home islands, where we have got low numbers of people to support the economy as taxpayers. This bill, when it was first promoted, was asking for people to return home to the Cooks, to Niue, and to Tokelau, not necessarily as older people in their retirement but as people who had built up some expertise and experience in this country, and, possibly, some backing in terms of their financial status—to take that back home to the Cooks, to Niue, to Tokelau, to set up businesses, to take their expertise back there, and to develop the economies back in the Realm Islands.

I remember that my own father used to take advantage of going back to the Cooks in the wintertime, to escape the winter here. Sometimes he would go without my mother, much to my mother’s distress, but he would do so for 3 or 4 months at a time. He would come back to New Zealand because there was the requirement that you could not be out of the country for more than 6 months. You needed to continue to reapply for New Zealand superannuation. What this bill does is it changes that eligibility requirement.

Initially, you need to work in New Zealand for 10 years—that is the first part of the qualification—in order to gain 50 percent of the New Zealand superannuation. Then, in order to have 100 percent of superannuation, you should work for 20 years. But then there is another requirement: post the age of 50 you should be resident and present in New Zealand for 5 years. What that means is that you may have already returned to the Cooks, you may have set up a business—and there are lots of young and not-so-young entrepreneurial people in the Cooks, particularly, who are working in the tourist industry, and who operate businesses like the Swordfish Club, or diving operations, or hotels and motels. If they want to collect their New Zealand superannuation, which they are entitled to do as New Zealand citizens, and, having met the earlier eligibility requirement, they then have to return back to New Zealand for 5 years. That makes no sense whatsoever. They have to leave their businesses, they have to leave their jobs, and their families, and return to New Zealand for a period of 5 years.

Some of the submitters told us that they were leaving jobs behind, coming back to New Zealand, and going on the dole. That makes no sense at all. The submitters were very, very clear about this particular point. It would make a huge difference to them if that criterion was not required, if they did not have to do those 5 years post the age of 50. It would make a huge amount of difference.

It is such a significant clause in the bill that we had an extraordinary thing happen. We had two heads of State come and present to the select committee. Both the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands and the Premier of Niue, as well as Ministers of their Cabinets, came and presented to the select committee to say: “If there is one thing we would change about this bill, it would be to remove that requirement of being resident and present in New Zealand for 5 years after the age of 50.” It would make a significant difference, and this is the issue addressed by New Zealand First in the Supplementary Order Paper it has put up. It would make a huge difference. It was such a significant clause that members of the select committee asked the officials to go away and ask how much that would cost. What would the cost be to New Zealand if we were to take that eligibility requirement out? The answer to that is between $9 million and $21 million. In terms of a flag referendum, that is peanuts. And it is significant because a small amount, between $9 million and $21 million, would make a huge difference to those three Realm Islands—a huge difference.

💬 Louisa Wall: What is the benefit?

Well, the cost benefit to New Zealand is that people would move to the Cooks, to Niue, and to Tokelau earlier and they would no longer be a burden on the health system. In terms of New Zealand aid into those Realm Islands, they would be developing businesses and supporting the economy back in those Realm Islands, and they would no longer be a burden on the New Zealand taxpayer. So for a small amount of money, it would have made a significant difference to those Realm Islands.

The other thing that I want to say about this, and I have a lot to say on this topic, is that what this bill points to as well—the unintended consequence of this bill—is about the quality of citizenship. The people from the Cooks, Niue, and Tokelau are New Zealand citizens, but by having this eligibility requirement it means that these citizens are treated differently from other New Zealand citizens. I was at the Christchurch citizenship ceremony last night and we played a video from the Governor-General, who said that when you become a citizen of New Zealand, you are entitled to all the rights and responsibilities of New Zealand citizens. That includes eligibility for your New Zealand superannuation. Did you know that if you are resident in the Cook Islands for 5 years, that counts towards your citizenship application to New Zealand? So this bill actually says that being resident in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau means nothing in terms of your New Zealand citizenship.

So if there is one question I would like to ask the Minister in the chair, it is why do we have this eligibility requirement? I would like the Minister to explain why she believes that this eligibility requirement is required, because it clearly makes a huge difference to the people of the Realm Islands and it does set up a different class of citizenship. It is evident that if that was not the case, the benefit to New Zealand would be greater and, in fact, it would make it much fairer. It would actually align the other citizenship requirements for this country.

I want to be really clear about what the submitters said. There were, I think, somewhere in the region of 13 or 14 submitters. Every single one of the submitters bar one, who spoke about the war pensions—

I am very happy to rise to my feet and answer the question that that member, Poto Williams, has asked. In fact, this bill is bringing into line the people in those countries with every other New Zealander. That is the whole point. The member talked about the quality of citizenship. That is the purpose of this bill because, currently, those people in those three countries have to be resident here to apply. We are removing that requirement and we are bringing them into line with every other New Zealander, and that is the whole point.

The difficulty of acceding to the wishes of the Supplementary Order Paper would be that we would be putting in place a set of circumstances for this group of people that was different from every other New Zealander. So, at the moment, if you are born in New Zealand and you go away, you have to come back, and in order to make sure that there is some sort of connection to New Zealand you have to have that requirement of having lived here for 5 years from the age of 50.

The purpose of this bill that we are talking to tonight is to bring those people in those three countries of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau into line with every other New Zealander with regard to the 5-year requirement. I would suggest that there are members over there who do not understand that that is what we are trying to do.

It is my pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Correct the Minister, Darroch.

—to talk on—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Correct the Minister.

—yes, yes, I will get there—the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill. Speaking specifically on the bill’s purpose, unfortunately I think the Minister the Hon Anne Tolley is mistaken. That comes out in the purpose, it has come out through the select committee, and it has come out definitely through the departmental report.

The Minister always talks about the inequalities and about making things equal and equitable between New Zealanders, but the point that New Zealand First is making—and I know that the other Opposition parties are making it also—is that, yes, there is a difference with those three countries. That is the point. If the Minister is trying to compare the New Zealanders who are citizens of New Zealand, holding New Zealand passports, living in the Realm of New Zealand in those three islands with New Zealanders living in England or Australia or elsewhere, then, yes, it is different and we understand it is different and we are saying that it is different. That is why we need to change the legislation that the Minister is trying to push through.

If I can put it into some context, if you look at the explanatory note where 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.”, then that blows it out of the water if you put the stipulation that they are different, or if you are trying to say they are the same as all the other New Zealanders around the world. You have just isolated those three countries specifically, as part of the purpose, and now you are backtracking and saying: “Well, we are making it because it is the same for every New Zealander who is living overseas.” That does not make sense.

💬 Jono Naylor: You don’t make sense.

Sorry? And that is why New Zealand First has put in Supplementary Order Paper 71. That is why the Opposition parties are going to support the Supplementary Order Paper, because it is common sense. That is what the problem is with this amendment bill, and that is why the National Government knows—even through the select committee process, Alfred Ngaro was nodding along. The majority of the submissions that came through to the committee were all on the 5 years over 50 rule. The reason why is that it is the most important part, which affects the viability of this entire piece of legislation and the viability and the credibility of this Government and of the Minister when she stipulates what the very purpose of this bill is. It undermines the entire process.

What we are looking at is a very unique situation, where one of the submitters was actually the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands himself. I think that highlights the importance of the issue. What he brought up was the 5 years over 50 rule. The Government and the Minister cannot continue to ignore that point that we are trying to make. We are trying to push through, with this Supplementary Order Paper 71, the changes that we need to have the support of the National Government on. I know that Jono Naylor agrees with me—

💬 Jono Naylor: Yeah, that’s right!

—yes—with regard to the 5 years over 50 rule. So what is happening with the situation now? At the moment we have—and it is part of the New Zealand First minority view that we put through—New Zealanders living in the Cooks who are born and bred Kiwis. So, for example, one worked in New Zealand for 29 years, with 26 of them after the age of 20. He does not qualify for New Zealand superannuation because he returned to the Cook Islands when he was 46 years of age. So if you compare this with the generosity of giving full New Zealand superannuation entitlement to over 65,000 non - New Zealand citizens from non-reciprocal pension countries after just 10 years of residency, where is the fairness? Where is the equitability that the Minister was talking about in the purpose of this bill?

Those who enter under the parent category have no requirement to contribute to this economy, but we have got people who have worked here for 25-plus years who have paid their taxes and have decided to move to one of these three Realm Islands, who are holders of our passports and are citizens of this country, and who do not meet the requirements, according to this legislation, for New Zealand superannuation payments. That is outrageous, and that is why we have put forward the Supplementary Order Paper.

I rise to take a call on this bill. First of all, I just want to be really clear: I absolutely support this bill as it stands and as recommended by the Social Services Committee to return to the House. Secondly, I do not support—and the Government does not support—Supplementary Order Paper 71, which the Rt Hon Winston Peters has lodged. He has talked a lot about the Swordfish Club or Swordfighters Club—I am not sure which one it is. I have not been to that club—sorry, I have been, but I have not frequented it as much. I think Trader Jacks is where the Rt Hon Winston Peters has actually been. He knows Trader Jacks very well. There have been very many great conversations with expats who live over there, and I imagine that they have talked about this. I think this is a great opportunity, because I know the Rt Hon Winston Peters probably has more stamps from the Cook Islands—from Rarotonga and even Aitutaki—on his passport, even as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, because such is the relationship that he has. Irrespective of the wine box and all the other things that have gone on previously, he has a special relationship with the Cook Islands, so this is a great opportunity to be able to ensure that he can reinforce that relationship.

Let us get to the crux of the bill, in the first part. There are a couple of points that have been made. Let us talk about these 5 years, because those have been the contention. There were 13 submissions, 12 of which talked about the issue of the 5 years and were looking for an exemption from those 5 years. Here are the reasons why. Some members may not have read the regulatory impact statement or the disclosure statement, but they are very clear. First of all, there are social security agreements with other countries, such as Canada and the UK, and in these agreements, there is a reciprocal arrangement. Under that reciprocal arrangement, what it means is that if there is a New Zealander who decides that he or she wants to retire back to one of these countries, they still have to do their 5 years in order to receive that pension. The reciprocal arrangement is that New Zealand will pay for their pension—their superannuation—back in the Cook Islands. So the question is this: who pays for the superannuation of Cook Islanders or Kiwis from here if they decide to return to the Cook Islands, Tokelau, or Niue? Who is it? It is New Zealand that pays for it. If, in return, people in the Cook Islands decide that they want to return to New Zealand and live here, could the Cook Island, Niuean, or Tokelauan Governments pay their superannuation? The answer is no, they could not. That is what you call a reciprocal arrangement—a social security agreement—that could not be met. It is very simple. It is very clear.

The second thing is that there was a point that was made by Poto Williams with regard to citizenship. Let us also remember this: the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau are three nations of the realm. When we are talking about “the triple star” in our national anthem, what we are talking about is this: they are self-governing and have free association. So, yes, they have the rights of citizenship but they are self-governing. In other words, there is a difference. You cannot say that they are one and the same. If you do not know that, then you may need to research a little bit about self-governance—OK? You may need to research a little bit about self-governance, so that you get the point. That is why it becomes very important. There is no discrimination. There is no Outrageous Fortune by Mr Darroch Ball about this bill. This is a good bill.

The last point that I want to make is this: Minister McCully talked about the fact that he was making a commitment to those three nations and that he would put this through. Let us remember: no other nations have this special dispensation—not Samoa, not Tuvalu, not Kiribati, and not Tonga. There are only three nations that have this special dispensation: these three nations. So when you say that there is discrimination, there is no discrimination. In 2011 when the earthquake happened in Christchurch, Minister McCully said this: his commitment was that this legislation would go through; however, because of the cause of the issues in Christchurch, we had to meet our obligations there, first and foremost. However, the question you ask, and those who are listening ask, is this: has he kept his promise? The answer is yes, he has, because here we have a bill, and I would like to challenge the member over there. When it comes to voting for this bill, you may not get your Supplementary Order Paper, but I will ask you this question: will you vote for the bill? You have put your minority report in, you have made your assertions, you have talked about discrimination, but the question is: when it comes to the bill, will you vote for it? That is really where the answer will lie, because this bill is a good bill. This bill is a bill that no other Pacific nation has the opportunity for. You do not have to be present and resident in this country. At the age of 55 you can return back to your nation, you can serve your country for another 10 years, and you can apply from there.

So I have got to tell you this about the report that was committed in 2011 by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—and Mr Winston Peters will know this. I will call him the honourable John Hayes. The honourable John Hayes had this report, and the report said this: our commitment and our responsibility back to those Pacific nations relate to the issue of depopulation. In some cases—in the Cook Islands, for instance—up to 500 people were leaving the Cook Islands per annum, so this was a way of keeping up that commitment. In honour of that report and the research that was done, this was the commitment. I commend this bill. I am happy to go with the Rt Hon Winston Peters to the Swordfish or Swordfighters Bar, or whatever you want to call it, or to Trader Jacks to sit down with the expats and give them the facts—not the semi-facts, not the sort of shady facts in a box called a wine box; no, no, no. We will put it straight to them. I will be happy to stand there and be able to present them with the facts and the reasons why. I think that once they hear those, they will see that this bill is common sense. I commend this bill to the House.

Well, we heard in an earlier speech in this House that they call them the Brown-Blues, or the Blue-Browns, and now I think we know why. Now I think we know why, after that very disappointing speech from that MP, Alfred Ngaro, who came into this House because he was going to speak for his people, the Cook Islands people. Here we see him instead this evening, when he has got the very best opportunity—the very best opportunity—to do the right thing by the Cook Islands people, he is going to vote against a Supplementary Order Paper that is actually going to remove the situation whereby Cook Islands New Zealanders have a different standard for their right to have superannuation than other New Zealand citizens—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: It is not.

—and there is no other way to hide that, Minister. What other New Zealand citizen is going to have to prove that they have been here for 5 years between the ages of 50 and 65 in order to get their superannuation? Who else is going to have to do that? I am not going to have to do that, so what the Minister said before is clearly wrong and, unfortunately, she seems to have pulled the wool over the eyes of some of her colleagues. It is disappointing to hear that Alfred Ngaro and, apparently, Andrew Bayly have been in front of Cook Islands communities pledging that they would fix up this part in the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill, and then when it comes to the voting action, clearly they are not going to honour that, and I think that is deeply disappointing.

💬 Hon Member: Get some guts.

Yes, it is shameful, because one of the things that this Government has become known for is to say one thing outside the debating chamber and do another thing when it gets inside in the debating chamber, and that is not going to enhance the reputation of that Government, or of the New Zealand Parliament, actually, if it continues to do that.

When I spoke on the first reading of this bill, I paid homage to two very fine Cook Islands leaders in our community who had not long passed when we were debating the first reading of this bill: Terry Chapman and George Ford. I want to just pay homage to them again in the Committee stage and Part 1, when we are debating the purpose of this bill. I am sad to say that they did not live to see the day when they could have taken advantage of this bill. I am sure it would be something that they would have considered doing, because they both felt very strongly about not only the Cook Islands community and supporting it in Hamilton but also about making sure that they kept very strong connections with the Cook Islands as well. I feel very honoured that, in fact, that speech that I gave on the first reading was shown up and down many Cook Islands churches right throughout the country, and I feel very honoured that that was the case. But I hope also that the Cook Islands community will show the speech from Alfred Ngaro that he just finished in their churches as well, because I think that speech deserves an airing in front of the Cook Islands communities. It is no good, Mr Ngaro, saying one thing outside the debating chamber and saying quite a different thing when we come inside the debating chamber.

💬 Alfred Ngaro: Really, Sue?

Yes, really, Mr Ngaro. Are you ashamed that that speech would be shown in the Cook Island churches?

💬 Alfred Ngaro: What have you ever done for the Cook Islands community?

No, he is happy for it to be shown, so I think it should be and I will be—

💬 Alfred Ngaro: Oh really? Is that the greatest thing you could ever do?

I will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 71, Mr Ngaro, ahead of you. So let us just see. If you feel proud of the speech, please make sure that it gets played in the church services in the Cook Island churches—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Come back to the bill.

—up and down the country this Sunday. I think it would be very fine if you did that.

This bill is a step forward, but it could be so much better if the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by New Zealand First—I think it is in the name of Winston Peters—was to be supported across the Committee, because we actually do have unity across the Committee on every other part of this bill. The purpose of it is a fine purpose. I find it interesting that when we are debating the bill, we almost debate it as if we assume that it is going to be people of only Cook Island, Niuean, and Tokelauan descent who are going to use this bill, but, in fact, the way I read the bill any of us could use it in this way. We could be resident in the Cook Islands—would that not be lovely—in our later years and use our New Zealand superannuation, which I imagine would support quite a pleasant lifestyle in the Cook Islands or in Niue or in Tokelau. Certainly, I think that is an opportunity.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I am taking just a quick call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill. It has been an interesting debate so far, and there seems to be some confusion. Let us just talk about the confusion from the Government benches’ side. On one hand the Government benches are trying to say that the relationship with these three islands is special, it is different, it is recognised as such, they are members of the Realm, they are islands of the Realm, and then on the other hand the Minister has stood up and said that they are to be no different. So on the one hand they are special and on the other hand they are to be no different.

If I was to pick up on the Minister’s comments about their being no different from any other New Zealanders, and speak on the purpose, the purpose that has been described inside the bill—what if we just actually used a bit of forethought and expanded on the purpose? What would happen if the Government did support Supplementary Order Paper 71, which the Rt Hon Winston Peters has placed on the Table to remove the 5-year restriction? What would happen to that purpose, which is about allowing the Cook Island, Niuean, and Tokelauan New Zealanders to be at home on their islands? I cannot imagine that Mr Alfred Ngaro does not understand the concept and the reasoning as to why these people want to go home in their final years, why they want to go back and put money into their communities, to spend their pensions on those islands, creating a whole other level of industry on those islands, for example. There would need to be aged care. There would need to be some expansion of the hospital services. They could take their skills back in those last years and add to the increase in those services. New Zealand currently provides aid into the Pacific. Is this not another way? Instead of providing money in one way, between $9 million and $21 million, it could be provided directly through what are eligible New Zealanders with their pensions.

The Prime Minister of the Cook Islands himself came to express at the Social Services Committee what he understood was promised to him and his people by that Government. He came to express it. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands is a highly intelligent man. I do not believe he misunderstood conversations had with him by members of the Government. He understood, as 12 out of the 13 submitters understood, that there would not be this restriction.

Should these islands be treated differently? We believe that they should. We believe that they are special. We do believe that there is a special relationship here. Does that then open the floodgates for Canada, as Mr Ngaro said, or any other nation? No, it does not. We would suggest that this Government adhere to its word, the word behind closed doors, the word in the Swordfish Club, the word taken by others to the Cook Islands community. The Government knows what the Cook Islands community, the Tokelauan community, and the Niuean community were seeking from it with this legislation. Half-pie is not ka pai. This is not good enough. This is another half measure by this Government that short-changes these New Zealanders.

Again, there is a Supplementary Order Paper sitting on the Table under the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, one of the few members inside this House who advocates for and truly understands these islands and the purpose they are seeking from legislation here. He is an advocate for them and has been so for years. New Zealand First will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper. We understand that the rest of the Opposition will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper. It will be the Government members who fail these people. It will be the Government members who fail these New Zealanders, who fail to see an opportunity to partake and participate in the future of these Pacific Islands through a very small measure for a very small number of New Zealanders who could do so much good if the Supplementary Order Paper were to be supported. Kia ora.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on this bill. I think this is another indication, somewhere else, where the National Government has come out and shown its mean-spiritedness. It is short-sighted and mean-spirited. In actual fact, looking around the Chamber tonight, we are hearing a lot of support for the intent of this bill, but having that eligibility clause in there, Mr Doocey, has some serious implications and some unfairness for New Zealand citizens. Mr Doocey, I have to say you have got a chance to “Doocey” some homework and “Doocey” something about this, instead of just sitting there playing on your phone right now. The reality is that this piece of legislation, if we unite together as a Parliament, can actually make some serious changes for those people who need some help.

New Zealand First knows, like the rest of the parties in this Chamber understand, that the populations in these small minority islands are actually on the decline. To not accept Supplementary Order Paper 71 will actually just enhance that exit migration that is happening in those islands. Who is going to be picking up the pieces in the likes of these small islands of the Realm? It is going to be New Zealand. The fact that it was pointed out that they are in governance of their own shows that they are doing everything they can to minimise the impact on the costs that New Zealand is putting forward in aid of, and support to, those island nations.

We heard Anne Tolley stand up and speak for a very brief moment when she was comparing apples with kiwifruit. The reality is that they have no similarity when we are talking about other parts of the world that we want to compare these islands with that are part of our Realm. What we should be specifically talking about and comparing them with are the other islands that are surrounding New Zealand—the likes of Stewart Island, Matakana Island, Great Barrier Island. Goodness me! Are we going to start disenfranchising those New Zealanders as well? They are adding to New Zealand’s currency, they are adding to New Zealand’s popularity, and doing everything they can to add a wider diversity to this country. To disenfranchise those islanders for the simple reason that they live so far away on an isolated island—we should be seriously looking at that Supplementary Order Paper. [Interruption] You can sit there and laugh all you like, but the reality is that this is very serious for those people who grow up in these Island nations, all right?

If we could just get rid of this mean-spiritedness that this National Government has shown us time and time again—you know, everything it can do to rip a little bit away—then I think we could actually all get along. Like Cadbury’s said, wouldn’t it be nice if the world was made of chocolate? But would it not be nice if you could seriously see the sense in the Supplementary Order Paper that the Rt Hon Winston Peters had put forward to actually make a difference to those Island people living so close but yet so far away from New Zealand? Yes, the intent of the bill is absolutely supported because it does make sense, but you are missing a key point. You are putting a condition on it that should not be put there for those disenfranchised people who do not specifically live under the roof and umbrella of New Zealand. Thank you, Mr Chair. That is all I have to say at this stage.

I move, That the question be now put.

I just want to respond to the member Alfred Ngaro, the only other Cook Islands member in the House, because as he took his seat after his last call, he pointed to the badge on his chest. In my first reading speech I told the House about the sacrifice that the Cook Islanders had made for this country in World War I. A hundred years ago 500 Cook Islands soldiers marched under the banner of New Zealand for this country. Their sacrifice is what Mr Ngaro referred to when he pointed to that badge on his chest. I have to say that it causes my heart deep mamae to see that in this House, without him then making the absolute commitment to the people of the Cook Islands and crossing the floor to support the Supplementary Order Paper that will actually fix that clause that causes inequality for the people of the Cooks, Niue, and Tokelau in terms of their citizenship under the New Zealand flag. That one change would make a huge difference.

We are unequal as citizens. We are. There are two parts of this bill that demonstrate that inequality and inequity. If you are a person from the Cooks, Niue, or Tokelau there is that 5-year requirement after the age of 50. But there is also the requirement to actually undertake 20 years of work service or residency in this country to qualify for 100 percent of the superannuation. As a New Zealander who just lives here you need to be here for only 10 years, but as a Cook Islander, a Niuean, or a Tokelauan you need to be here for 20 years. There are two parts of this bill that show that this Government does not care for the people of the Cooks, Niue, and Tokelau. If Mr Ngaro wants to point to that badge and talk about the sacrifice that our people gave to this country, then I have to say I am ashamed to see that in this House tonight, Mr Ngaro. I am angry, because our people died for this country. Yet you will not support a Supplementary Order Paper that will change this bill to make it equal for all New Zealanders—all citizens with a New Zealand passport, Mr Ngaro. That is all I have to say.

I move, That the question be now put.