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

On the National Party side there are those people who have campaigned over the years for nomination as a candidate and who have put up their Māori background, and one even has a Cook Islands background, as one of the reasons they should be chosen to give the party, narrow as it is, a greater diverse dimension. They did so on the promise to those people who backed them that when they got here they would actually do something—put up their hands for them on those occasions when they should show, because of their unique background as they claimed it, their special understanding of their needs. This is such a moment.

💬 Jono Naylor: Last time I checked it was a Government bill.

As for that member from Palmerston North, I say to him that if you cannot win Palmerston North when you have got a swing going with you, then I think it is time to not say much when you get to Parliament. I think it is not a time to get to Parliament and show off one’s ignorance. I am talking about those Māori members, and their names are Reti, Paula Bennett, Jami-Lee Ross—whose greatest contribution to this debate is to get up and seek to terminate it—Jo Hayes, Mr Korako, Hekia Parata—

💬 Jono Naylor: Where’s this in Part 2?

This is Part 2, where you get to the change to that critical clause that says that it is not just for those people who live in Tokelau, Niue, or in the Cook Islands—not as to 10 years but 20 years, which straightaway is prejudicial—but if you happen to be a European critical to the infrastructure, like heading the Companies Office, or like heading the Crown Law Office there, or like working for those critical Government departments like education, helping the local infrastructure, in that case you are to be forgotten. That is where it is in Part 2 of the bill, I say for the sake of the list MP for Palmerston North. Read the darn thing! I know that the Minister for Social Development has not read it, because the Minister got up and again parroted in her explanation how little she understood about this subject. She tried to make out that if you came from the Ukraine or Poland, you were the same as a New Zealander working in Tokelau, the Cook Islands, or Niue. This is so base and sad, but we know that one day soon it will change, because there will be support for New Zealand First’s amendment to the original bill and to this matter.

On the question of affordability, I say to the Government: do not allow 73,000 to come to this country and be here for just 10 years, have no requirement to pay tax, and then tell me that you cannot afford my amendment. Or is it that nowadays we favour some other country and not our own? We want the capital “S” put back into the special relationship between us and these three Realm countries. It is that simple. Do not tell us you cannot afford it, because 73,000 have done just that.

Of course, Government members remind me sometimes of that famous line in The Mikado—the idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone all countries but his and all nations but his own. That is about what you hear from them, day in and day out. They cannot explain themselves. They cannot explain why they are doing it, and they are following a Minister who cannot read the legislation herself. They are praising all centuries but this one and every country but their own. When it comes to their citizens, they have left them high and dry tonight.

I come back to Mr Ngaro because he is the one unique person there whose powers of—how shall I put it—evangelical persuasion should have convinced his caucus members a long time ago of the unfairness of what they were doing. It should appeal to a man of the cloth to reach down for the ordinary people, not the barons but the important people for whom the National Party is so famous—like the legislation earlier tonight where it backed Shell Todd Oil Services. I am not against the Todd family—the Government backed the Shell organisation, a big, huge multinational; it said “Jump”, and the Government said: “How high?”—but some ordinary New Zealand people who work in that part of the world just want a fair go so that they can stay there and not come back here for 5 years, dislocate their ownership, their businesses, their assets, and what they critically can do for the Cook Islands, some of which the Cook Islands cannot afford to lose, nor can Niue or Tokelau, and they will not move.

Let me say to those members, as Douglas MacArthur once said to the president of the Philippines: “There will come a time soon when your boss will want to talk to us and we’ll want to talk to him.” Make no bones about that, and we are going to remember those days. We will remember them very, very clearly and with great purpose, because it comes down to this question: can you be trusted with the needs, desires, hopes, and aspirations of ordinary people? And all we are hearing tonight is no. We have heard every reason except the right reason. If the reason is cost, then pray tell me how 79 or 100 people could be anything like the 73,000 thus far defended by them—73,000 as against maybe 100? Or is it because these Island nations are not unique? Is the small “s” to come back into the relationship?

When this measure was promised by New Zealand First and taken up by this Government over there, it was to the New Zealand people who have spent parts of their lives serving those nations in the critical arrangement that we have with those three Realm countries. Is that too much to ask for? I am asking Reti, Bennett, Jami-Lee Ross, Jo Hayes, Korako, Parata—oh, and Simon Bridges. There is someone who discovered his iwi after he got into Parliament. What are they going to do? Are they going to say “We understand those people’s needs and we’ve something special to say?”, or are they going to be just thumbed down by the whip and by the Minister, misleading the Committee, as she has done?

Again I say to the Minister that if you go to the purpose of this legislation and then to the change we seek to make, you will see that it does not have the effect that the Ministry of Social Development has laid out. How many times have I seen certain ministries miswrite the facts—Treasury, countless times?

Treasury has been telling the Minister of Finance that this country is the best-performing country in the OECD. The sad thing about that is that he believes it. That reminds me of J P Morgan, who went, of course, to the American President one week before the great collapse of Wall Street and told him his country was performing unbelievably and that it had the greatest economy in the world. A week later the whole thing crashed, worldwide.

I want that Minister to explain to us why it is that those few people, often in such critical jobs—and I have seen them over there, heading up the law departments over there, acting as the Solicitor-General over there, acting as the head of the Companies Office, doing critical things in the health department and in the education department—would be punished by being omitted? We do know that when Mr Andrew Bayly was over there, he promised to take home their message and ensure that they got a fair go. When Mr Ngaro was over there—and it is not a matter of humour about Trader Jacks or the Swordfish Club; that was where those members were holding their meetings and where they gave this promise, unconditional, that when they got back, they would do something about it.

Mr Ngaro, you cannot get away with the excuse that you were not there that night, because these people are intelligent, they are bright, and they know that the proxy was left to vote it down. They know that. This time there is a chance to be, in a personal sense, self-redeeming. Just get up and walk across the Chamber at the critical time. No matter what happens in what looks like it might be a brief career, back home they will always have a job for him. More important, back home, because of our change, there will be superannuation when he gets to 65. This may not be very far away. The fact is that even if I can appeal to his narrow, greedy instinct—he has got to be personally a beneficiary. They say that in politics there is no sin like ingratitude. There is no sin like ingratitude. Mr Ngaro has got a chance to fix up all those promises he made and to ensure that tonight, his party, for the first time for a long time, does the right thing.

Members, we got ahead of ourselves prior to the Rt Hon Winston Peters speaking. The Committee moved and accepted a closure motion, and the question was not put. I am now putting the question, and the question is, That Part 1 stand part. Those in favour will say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it.

💬 Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could you clarify, then, what the vote was that was taken at the time—what did we vote on?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes—[Interruption] no, no—we had a closure motion, which the Committee accepted, but the Chair at the time did not put the question that Part 1 stand part. I have just put that question now, it has been accepted, and now we are back on Part 2. [Interruption] I am sorry—the member has just had two consecutive calls on Part 2—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no—this is Part 2 now—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is right, and you have already had two calls on Part 2. [Interruption] No, I am calling Poto Williams. [Interruption] Sorry, there is a point of order.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. I do not want to be difficult here. I understand the problem, but speaking logically, as a matter of logic, and chronologically, this is the first speech for Part 2 that I am seeking.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, we have already had two speeches on Part 2. What we had not done was actually vote on Part 1. I am calling Poto Williams.

I rise to take a call on Part 2. This is actually the most substantial part of the bill. There are a couple of things that I want to raise in this contribution. This part is about the kind of technical operation of the bill. One of the things that this bill does is provide for the mechanism to make the application for the superannuation a little bit easier, so that if you are actually already resident in the Cooks at the age of 65, which is the age at which you can qualify for and apply for the superannuation, you can do so from the Realm of New Zealand islands. You do not have return to New Zealand to make that application and have it accepted. You can also apply for the superannuation before the age of eligibility. It will not get paid to you until you reach the age of eligibility, but you can still have that application in place, ready for when you do turn 65.

The other thing this bill provides for is the checking mechanisms. In one of my earlier contributions I talked about how my father would winter sometimes in the Cooks and would be required to come back to New Zealand, and that was part of the old checking mechanisms for New Zealand superannuation. With this bill you are now able to remain resident in the Cooks, Niue, or Tokelau and the ministry can check with you—usually by writing to you—that your eligibility requirements are still in place, so it makes it a lot easier. It also provides for the application to stay live for a longer period of time, because, let us face it, there are constraints around having documents sent in the mail, etc. So it just clears up some of those difficulties that some applicants may have had in the past.

But also in Part 2 are those contentious eligibility requirements, which we have already traversed quite a bit in the first part of the Committee stage, but they are very relevant. I want to reiterate what I see as the huge inequity in this. To qualify under this bill for 100 percent of New Zealand superannuation, you have to do twice as long a residency in this country as any other New Zealander. Under current superannuation laws you can be resident in New Zealand for 10 years after the age of 20 and qualify for 100 percent of your superannuation. However, if you are going to apply from the islands of the Realm, you have to be resident in New Zealand for 20 years to qualify for 100 percent of your superannuation. That is inequity No. 1, as I have already described.

Inequity No. 2—the whole crux of Supplementary Order Paper 71, and the really difficult part, which is actually the part that the National member from the Cook Islands could carve out as his contribution to our country. This is the nub of the matter, which is that you have to come back to New Zealand after the age of 50 and do 5 years’ residency here in order to qualify to collect your superannuation.

When I was talking to members of the Cook Islands Government about this earlier in the year, they asked: “Why is that the case, when in order to qualify for New Zealand citizenship, you can be resident in the Cooks for 5 years?”. In fact, I met a gentleman who was doing just that. In order to qualify for his New Zealand citizenship, he was resident in the Cook Islands. It makes no sense to me that you could have that requirement for New Zealand citizenship, but you could have a completely different requirement in order to collect New Zealand superannuation when you are already a citizen of this country. The Minister in the chair, Anne Tolley, did not explain well enough to me why that is the case. I do not understand why that is the case. It is blatantly unfair for someone who holds a New Zealand passport as a New Zealand citizen to be treated differently from another person who holds a New Zealand passport and is a New Zealand citizen. That is the crux of the argument on which the members of the Opposition have so much disagreement.

The rest of the bill we completely agree with. The rest of the bill is great, and it actually provides an opportunity to have a discussion in this most important year for the Cook Islands, when we celebrate 50 years of being self-governing in free association with New Zealand. This a great year, an important year, and I suspect the reason that we are actually debating this bill in the House is that it is a gift to the countries of the Realm to have those things passed. However, would it not be wonderful if we could actually do something that made a difference, by removing that requirement for residency of 5 years after the age of 50?

There are a couple of other parts of this bill that have caused the veterans some difficulty. That was the other submitter on the bill—the only one who did not submit on the residency clauses. The submitter who spoke about the veterans pension said very clearly that it was his belief and the belief of returned servicemen that veterans pensions were not superannuation and that they should not be covered under the same bill. They should be treated separately because a veteran attracts the veterans pension because of the service that they have given to our country and because they have put themselves at the ultimate risk in terms of fighting for our country. I have to say that no one has actually picked up that part of the submissions tonight, so I want to honour that submitter who made that submission and say that I understand what you were saying in that submission. That submitter was wanting to differentiate between someone who collects a pension because they are of an age and someone who collects a pension because they have provided service to their country.

I just want to say in conclusion that this is an important piece of legislation for the countries of the Realm. I would again ask the Minister to please explain why, in terms of our citizenship, there is different treatment for people who want to collect their superannuation in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. We are citizens of New Zealand and we do hold New Zealand passports. Thank you.

I rise to take a short call in support of the bill, along with my colleagues. I acknowledge that we are in the Committee stage on Part 2, but as the Chair will be aware Part 2 contains almost all of the operative provisions of the bill and therefore it is appropriate, I think, that we are able to traverse in reasonable breadth the guiding principles of the bill and the way it will be implemented. The first point that is germane to Labour’s support of this bill is that it pertains to residents and citizens of the Realm of New Zealand. The Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau are not entirely separate constitutional entities; they are part of the Realm of New Zealand. So when we go back to first principles, we ask ourselves whether it is appropriate that they should enjoy the rights of other New Zealand citizens to pension entitlements. Then in principle there is a very strong argument that they should.

The second argument that we have considered is the fact that those communities have made a significant contribution to New Zealand and that large parts of their historic populations and high proportions of their current population are ordinarily resident in New Zealand. Therefore, the productive lives of many of their sons and daughters have been spent in New Zealand and have enriched our country. Therefore there is an argument—I think a very powerful argument—that it is appropriate that both those sons and daughters and their parents ought to be able to enjoy the benefits of a funded retirement in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau.

Thirdly, I think it is germane—and, as a former health Minister and immigration Minister, I am informed by past practice and precedent here—to note that New Zealand’s economic interests are probably well served by this bill. The reason is that we all know that there are significant advantages to ageing in place. We leave aside for a moment the issue of being trans-border; we know that our own senior citizens often prefer to live in their own homes for as long as they can before health issues overtake them and they need to move into a retirement care facility. In the same way, there are distinct advantages to people being able to live in the Islands if that is where they have grown up and they have had their families and their memories. It also means that they probably will be a lower economic cost to the New Zealand health system based in those Island countries. Although there is an upfront cost to making the pension portable, there is a downstream saving to our health system.

Those upfront costs are significant but they are not insurmountable, according to officials’ analysis. We are looking at roughly an extension of around $4.5 million to $5 million per annum by 2016-2017, with administration costs to the new legislation of between $70,000 and $137,000 up to 2016, declining to $66,000 thereafter. In terms of the broad numbers, those are not huge numbers. Given the principles that we have enunciated at the start, which are the contributions of those peoples to New Zealand and our close constitutional relationship with those parts of the Realm, it is certainly our view that those costs are well warranted and indeed offset by savings to the health system.

Let me note in relation to this part another set of interests that are well served. New Zealand is historically located in the South-west Pacific. This is our strategic front yard. Those parts of the Realm of New Zealand, as the world becomes ever more complex, have never been more important for us to hold close, hold dear, and hold intact. That is a contribution to New Zealand’s national security that is not to be underestimated. Therefore, this is one of those happy coincidences of both principle and interest. It is principle because of the considerable contribution that residents of those parts of the Realm of New Zealand have made to the broader New Zealand society and economy. It is a contribution that is well known to those of us from west Auckland, which has a high population of peoples of those communities.

Part 2, as my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe was saying, seeks to make amendments to the enactments that enable us to carry through the purpose of this bill, basically. I do want to just say that it really would not be that difficult to amend the enactments that are relevant to this particular bill, those being the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act, the Veterans’ Support Act, and the Social Security Act. It really would not be difficult to extend the amendments to actually include the provisions of Supplementary Order Paper 71, which has been put up by New Zealand First.

I just want to refer to that particular Supplementary Order Paper in relation to the enactments that would need to be amended and make a point of highlighting something that the Minister said earlier. She said: “Why would we exempt these three Realm countries from the 5 years over 50 rule when that does not apply to other countries?”. I just need to clarify with the Minister that actually it does apply to other countries because we have reciprocal pension agreements with countries like Australia, the UK, and the Netherlands.

There are provisions there that may differ from what we are seeking to have here with the three Realm countries, but, as has been pointed out by my colleague Poto Williams and some of our New Zealand First colleagues here in the Chamber tonight, the exemption that we are seeking for citizens of the Realm countries is something that is unique, and actually our constitutional arrangement with those three countries is unique. As has been touched on by my colleague Poto Williams, not only are the citizens from these three countries entitled to free association with New Zealand but a really important point is that they have also fought under the New Zealand flag.

Not only have we a problem here with regard to the depopulation that is happening across the Pacific in these three Realm countries but we actually have had citizens, residents, from these three Realm countries die while serving under the New Zealand flag. So if ever there was just cause for an exemption, I think that is justification for an exemption.

I would like the Minister for Social Development to respond to what I have just said with regard to the countries that do have an exemption from the 5 years over 50 rule—those being Australia, UK, the Netherlands, and I think there are others. I want the Minister to explain to us why it is OK that those countries are exempt but why the three Realm countries that have free association with New Zealand, that have given us their biggest resource, that being their citizens, who have fought under this flag, are not entitled to the same exemption that those countries are provided with.

Members, we move to the vote on Part 2—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Hang on. Sorry, can I—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I was sitting here patiently. I thought it was high time we got to the relevant Supplementary Order Paper that we have put up in our name. I just want to make a very quick statement on the Supplementary Order Paper 71, the second paragraph of the explanatory note. There are two different categories there. They are plain as daylight, and I refer them to the Minister for Social Development in particular. It says: “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.” Then it goes on to say: “Many countries enjoy an exemption from section 8(c) because they are countries that have a reciprocal pension agreement with New Zealand, for example Australia, United Kingdom, and Netherlands.” Minister, with respect, nothing that has been said by you or your ministry is actually in any way relevant on this subject. It is that plain.

These people are from three special Realm of New Zealand countries. I am talking about New Zealanders, who are mainly European but some are Māori, who went to serve in various institutions and various official positions and in various ways in business in the Cook Islands, Tokelau, and Niue, and, frankly, their being there is not something of little moment. There is the view that no one is indispensable. Well, I am afraid that in some of these Island populations, being as small as they are, some people are indispensable. If they were not there, then things would not operate because they are so widespread in their talents, able to do all sorts of electrical, carpentry, roofing, and mechanical work. These skills in any small community are very much needed, and the smaller the community is, the more important they are. At the higher levels of government we have sent people over there to act as advisers for their Treasury. We have sent people over to act as advisers for their tax department, for their companies office, for—dare I say it—their shipping service, and their shipping flag register operation. If they are not allowed in, by our Supplementary Order Paper to change the present legislation and replace section 8(c) with what we have got there, then they are plainly going to be missed out and for no sound reason at all.

It cannot be cost, because the National Government members are saying that 73,000-plus acquiring superannuation full entitlement after 10 years whether they have paid tax or not is OK by them. So what could it be based on? That somehow we will allow a flood in from other parts of the world? No, we will not, because the requirements are that you have to be and have been a New Zealander who has worked in New Zealand. So, in short, the Government has been caught out, because I suppose people in the Government have decided to take officialdom’s advice and just dig in and say there is something wrong with the Supplementary Order Paper. Well, frankly, there is nothing wrong with the Supplementary Order Paper. We believe that the numbers are small—we do not know whether there are 79, 89, or maybe slightly higher—but it is such a small number as to be able to say that we can allow that, given how generous we have been, how extraordinarily generous we have been, in respect of these people who are coming in from other countries, in particular China, massively, and India.

When I see someone like Lincoln Tan writing for the New Zealand Herald—and Lincoln Tan is someone who is sympathetic to the Asian cause—saying that ageing China migrants are a major concern and writes article about it, then it ill behoves members over there to jeer at New Zealand First seeking justice for a small number of New Zealand citizens working in these offshore islands whilst doing nothing about this unfairness that they so willingly condone here. All we ask is for those members is to let this Supplementary Order Paper stand tonight. And when you consider how much money is being tossed around like an eight-armed octopus on so many unworthy causes, this one has as its merit that it is right and that it is fair. That is all we ask, because it will be only a few months before the tide of New Zealand politics changes. We do not think this Government will make it to November 2017. We think it is terribly shaky now, and he will be the first guy to go—the one who is two in, whom nobody knows. [Interruption] Boy, have I seen that laugh before, and it never lasts long. I would say to him it would be very wise to pay attention to these sorts of issues because in the end, this is what politics is like. You get in all right, and you have got a truckload of supporters at the back. But every corner you hit hard, you are seeing people being tossed off and, boy, they are being tossed off real fast now. I was up in Northland recently in a by-election. Boy, did they come off the truck fast then—each corner—and most going over a single-lane bridge first. Let me say to that member: be careful here.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Those were the days.

Well, you know what they say, Mr Cunliffe: bragging might not bring you happiness, but no man walks home, having caught a big fish, through the back alley. I want to say to those members over there: pay attention, because one of these days, ignoring this matter will come to visit you big time.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 71 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to clause 5 be agreed to.