Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise in the second reading of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill and will put on record that National will, of course, be supporting this legislation in the second reading. There was, of course, a prime ministerial visit last year by Rt Hon Bill English to the Pacific, where he made the undertaking that this issue would be resolved. That’s why National is pleased to support this legislation. Unfortunately, there is a lot of legislation that is supported around the House that doesn’t usually make headlines, but I know this particular legislation will make a significant difference even though the media might not report it and be singing it from the rooftops.

This is about making the superannuation requirements fairer for residents of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. So it is, of course, nice that this is getting its second reading in Tokelau Language Week. But also, as the MP for Taupō, I have a significant Cook Island population, and I know this is an issue they’ve raised and this is an issue that will make a difference to them.

For those listeners or viewers who have just tuned in to this particular debate, there is a requirement at the moment, which came into effect in 2015, that has a New Zealand superannuation residence requirement of five years’ residence from the age of 50—what’s more commonly known as the five years after 50 rule. What it means for those in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, which we have particular constitutional arrangements with in New Zealand—a very special relationship—is that it was actually deterring skilled people from returning to those countries, which, in many cases, desperately need the skills of that population. Instead, it was kind of forcing them to remain in New Zealand, which had an economic impact on those home countries. So this is a practical and sensible change that, as I said, the former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Bill English had committed to in the Pacific in June last year. So I do want to commend the Government for making this a priority.

I was on the select committee that considered this legislation. It’s an interesting select committee. We have bills like this that are very simple and straightforward. There were seven submitters, and the submitters did raise a number of issues. The Minister has gone through those in detail, so it’s not my expectation to traverse that ground again. I do want to just say, though, if any of the submitters are listening to this debate or will read the Hansard subsequently, the issues absolutely were considered by the select committee. They were considered at length and discussed at length. The overall decision, though, was that the bill wouldn’t be changed as was presented to the select committee. And, as I say, the Minister who spoke before me, Minister Sio, I think traversed those issues well, and I don’t intend to do it. The Social Services and Community Committee has other legislation that is not quite so straightforward but is also unanimously supported, like child poverty legislation, that has taken a significant amount of work and cooperation to get back to this House.

So, in terms of this piece of legislation, the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill, it absolutely recognises the special relationship that New Zealand has with the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. While we welcome the right of people from these countries to live in New Zealand, it’s also really important that we give them the equal opportunity to live in their original Islands, and we don’t want to be imposing something that actually, by way of providing a superannuation payment to someone, is then detrimental to the home economies, and, at the same time, we are making sure that those individuals aren’t punished by not receiving or qualifying for the superannuation payment.

So it is a simple change. The cost identified to taxpayers is actually very little. One of the numbers that was considered, for example: it was thought that perhaps, if this wasn’t progressed, about 200 people would delay their departure back to the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau until they reached the age of 65. They would then have qualified for the residency and for the New Zealand superannuation and then travelled back. So it’s not a large number who are affected, but for those individuals and their families and the three countries involved, actually, it’s a significant benefit.

So, for those listening, it’s a fairly simple piece of legislation, but it will have wide-ranging impacts. I want to thank my parliamentary colleagues on the select committee for the work that was done on this, and to make sure that this legislation progresses with reasonable pace so that those individuals and families and the three countries of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau receive the adequate benefit. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Malo ni, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is with particular delight that I rise to speak in favour of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill, that will affect the people of Tokelau as we celebrate Tokelauan Language Week this week. I think previous speakers have outlined what this bill does in quite a lot of detail, so I don’t feel the need to go into too much detail, except to say that, of course, it is about greater pension flexibility for retirement. It alters some of the residential qualifications that allow New Zealanders and New Zealand citizens from the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau to retire in any one of those countries—including, of course, New Zealand—or in any combination of those countries, as well.

It’s an important bill because it responds to some of the concerns that have been raised by the Governments of those Islands as well in terms of the economic and social losses that they have experienced because, for example, of depopulation that arises from those residential qualification requirements. To be counted towards the New Zealand superannuation or the veterans’ pension qualification, the qualification requirement is for five years’ residence and presence in New Zealand after the age of 50. I just want to point out that the requirement for 10 years’ residence in New Zealand over the age of 20 remains a core entitlement requirement.

Now, of course, again—as has been mentioned previously as well—people born in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau share New Zealand citizenship. Therefore, New Zealand has an obligation to respond to the needs of these citizens as well, and this bill reflects those constitutional responsibilities that we have for the citizens of those Islands. This is a Government that is committed to a Pacific reset, and this bill contributes to the continued strengthening and the growing of that relationship that we have with our Pacific neighbours from the point of view, of course, that we are also part of the Pacific.

This is a good bill. It will help and will be particularly well-received by our Pacific populations here in New Zealand as well as those in the Islands, and it is with pleasure that I commend it to the House.

I think it’s appropriate to begin in the languages of the Realm, so kia orana, faakalofa atu, malo ni, kia ora, and hello. Look, it’s a real pleasure to speak on the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. A little bit like with a piece of legislation last evening, I don’t actually sit on the social services bill, but I’m speaking on this as I hold—

💬 Nicola Willis: Committee.

—two associate—sorry, on this committee, thank you. It isn’t a very good start, is it? Thank you very much. However, I now have nine minutes and 24 seconds to make good. I don’t sit on the committee. However, I have two associate portfolios—which is really going badly. I’m just so excited to get to talk about the Realm. It’s going to be great, particularly with Prince Harry and Meghan coming here—where could this go?

But, in all seriousness, it’s two associate spokesperson-ships that I hold in this area, and I’m delighted to talk on this social assistance legislation bill because, in effect, it’s a National Party bill. Actually, without throwing too many brickbats, it’s another example of legislation being put forward in this House—rightly under the new Government’s name but, actually, National Party originated—and this particular part is from the Rt Hon Bill English, or should I more correctly say now, seeing he is a knight of the Realm, Sir Bill English.

We’ll go through a little bit of the history in a moment, but this, as I say, is the second reading of a good bill. There were seven people who submitted and two who did so orally, and by that, I mean that they came to the committee and discussed matters. The report back from the committee—the Minister who resumed the chair earlier has traversed some of that, and it’s not my intention to do so. But, fundamentally, this is a progression in New Zealand’s laws. In this case, it’s around its superannuation and veterans payments, to recognise not only the rights, if you will, of those who reach retirement age to access their entitlements but, I think, importantly—and really importantly—actually, there are consequences of New Zealand being a realm.

It’s not always known, but some of the language in this House and otherwise can sometimes get blurred. We talk about New Zealand as being a State or as a country, but, actually, we are a Realm. We are a Realm because our head of State is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, and under that Realm, New Zealand sits as an independent country. The Cook Islands and Niue also share the Queen of New Zealand as their head of State and are in free association with New Zealand, and Tokelau is a dependent territory. Granted, they have sought referenda before to discuss whether to move into free association with New Zealand or, if they so chose, to go completely independent. They have, up to this point in time, not done so, and they remain, as I say, a dependent territory with, rather than under, the Queen of New Zealand.

So the Realm of New Zealand is actually larger than simply the North Island, South Island, and the Chathams and Stewart islands. It also includes the Cooks, Niue, Tokelau, and, actually—if it’s of the curiosity interest—the Ross Dependency. So New Zealand is more than what we initially think, and it makes a lot of sense to me that if we’re going to have a realm and if we’re going to engage under the same head of State, actually, the same rights and privileges are accorded.

I may go on a little bit further to see where these next expansions go, but, in terms of social assistance, up until 2015—well, actually, firstly, Madam Deputy Speaker, we need to acknowledge this as an omnibus bill. In other words—and as you would know—as an omnibus bill it’s affecting two pieces of legislation: obviously, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the Veterans’ Support Act, more recently updated in 2014. People, at this point in time, over 65 who are to become eligible have had to have lived in New Zealand for at least 10 years since they became 20. So people have to be resident in New Zealand, but, importantly, and as other speakers have indicated, you need to have lived in New Zealand for at least five years once you’re over the age of 50.

This is where the little complications began to kick in. So the problem we are seeking to solve is that New Zealanders who are eligible, or would normally be eligible, for superannuation: in New Zealand, everything was fine; those New Zealanders living in other parts of the Realm—obviously, the likes of Niue or Tokelau, for example—were not eligible. In fact, their living in that part of the Realm meant that they could not be seen as resident for five years. In a sense, to make matters worse, they had to, if they were in those parts of the Realm, come back to New Zealand to apply.

So in 2015 changes were made so that a New Zealander living, let’s say, in the Cook Islands would no longer have to come back to apply in New Zealand. So that was part of it: not only five years in New Zealand but you had to be in New Zealand to make an application. So we, in 2015, fixed that requirement. People were able to apply from the Realm, which makes sense, and this piece of legislation as agreed by the Rt Hon Bill English in 2015—no, it must have been nearer 2017; I’d have to double check those dates—said, “No; actually, living in the Cook Islands, living in Niue, living in Tokelau—that will count towards the five years over 50.” And I think that’s really, really prudent.

Again, I think, first and foremost, it’s good for the person who is going to receive the superannuation, of course. They want to receive the money. It’s their entitlement. They’ve worked hard for New Zealand. It’s obviously good for those parts of the Realm: the Cooks, Tokelau, and Niue. Those people are able to remain there, to be resident there, and to, obviously, spend their superannuation there. That’s a positive. Others have talked about keeping those skills there. I would add, on top of all of that, that there are just good social benefits as well. People do not like having to move around unnecessarily.

So that’s incredibly positive there as well, but I think, much wider than that, it sends an incredibly strong signal that New Zealand is a realm. The way that we are constitutionally structured is finally being reflected in our legislation—that, actually, these places, in free association or as a dependent territory, as Tokelau and Ross Dependency are, are part of New Zealand and they should be treated equally and as such.

Really, just to illustrate the point, up until this legislation goes through, living in the Cook Islands or living in Tokelau doesn’t seem to count, even though it’s part of the Realm, for that five-year entitlement. It would be akin to saying, “Well, I’m sorry. All of those who live in”—I don’t know—“Havelock North or Dunedin, sorry; you don’t count.” It’s as if we’re dividing up, I would argue, arbitrarily, where the lines go. And it’s a slight contradiction because, at the moment, things like our exclusive economic zone and our military and diplomatic capacities are based off those territories, off those areas of free association like the Cook Islands. There’s some element of connection already, and it makes a lot of sense to me that we continue to emphasise the importance of New Zealand’s constitutional structures. And one of the best ways to do that—other than, obviously, educating people—is to make sure that the constitutional actions and our laws reflect that: in other words, that there’s equality for all of those people within the Realm.

So it’s my hope that as time goes on this is not the last piece of legislation we bring to the House that makes it really clear that all of those—all of us, in fact; all of us—who live in New Zealand, who live in the Ross Dependency or work down there, or who live in Tokelau, the Cook Islands, or Niue are all under the one head of State, and therefore we should reflect that, in a sense, uniqueness—because it is not all that usual. But that uniqueness should be reflected not only in social assistance but also in the areas of travel—how we actually move across those territories. That raises, obviously, much wider discussions around the freedom of movement, visas, passports, and so forth and what is required there.

I think too it ensures that we must have a mature conversation as, if you will, the one people in multiple areas within this Realm of New Zealand on how our relationship continues—importantly, together. If we wish to separate things out, I just think that’s fundamentally important.

So we are wholeheartedly in support of this legislation and happy that it’s processed through the select committee. It seems like a very robust process. I think the recommendations and the way that the issues have been articulated are particularly positive. I look forward to it progressing swiftly through the House and other contributions as we count down.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, I do need to put on the record a couple of things. It’s been very interesting sitting in here listening to some of the speeches from the Opposition benches, and I really do hate to upset the atmosphere of collaboration, cooperation, and mutual admiration that does seem to be befalling us right now, but one cannot let some things go by, particularly with this being the 25th anniversary of the birth of New Zealand First—well, not this day, but this year. Right from the outset, the Rt Hon Winston Peters has championed and advocated for this law change.

It’s been interesting listening to various National Party speakers talking about how they support this legislation and talking about how it’s good that this inequity, this anomaly, this injustice is now being corrected. The Rt Hon Bill English promised in 2017—he just happened to be on the election trail at that time—that he would correct this anomaly, this error, this inconsistency. I do recall that the Hon Murray McCully, likewise, whilst he was flitting around the South Pacific as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, having heard the representations from Pacific Island leaders, both here in New Zealand and back in the Cook Islands, in Niue, and in Tokelau, also promised to redress this anomaly.

I do recall very clearly, on 29 April 2015, as we debated the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill in its second reading, a speech from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, where he pleaded with the then National Government Minister the Hon Alfred Ngaro to accept his Supplementary Order Paper that would have redressed this very matter. And what happened? See, one would assume from all of the speeches thus far from the National Party that they agreed. Well, clearly, they didn’t agree, because that’s why we’re having to pass this legislation now.

It is just absolutely mind-boggling that the party that has opposed this tooth and nail, back as far as 1993 to now, should be asking everybody to recognise and applaud the Rt Hon Bill English, the Hon Murray McCully, and the Hon Alfred Ngaro, because this piece of legislation, apparently, my coalition colleagues, is a National Party - birthed child.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: Ah, that’s what they’re saying, isn’t it?

Apparently. Well, it is far from that. Then we go back to 29 April 2015 and read the words where the Rt Hon Winston Peters was pleading. He was saying, “We have a Supplementary Order Paper in respect of this bill, because this … bill”—being portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau bill, which was the National Party bill—“is extraordinarily biased and prejudicial towards Realm countries in the Pacific.” He said, “Minister of Foreign Affairs, Murray McCully, has continually emphasised the special and historic”—[Interruption] Here they go. They don’t like it up ‘em, do they? They don’t like it up ‘em, do they—“relationship of the Realm countries, and Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue, and Tokelau) Bill is doing just half the job.”, said the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

“We appeal”—now, this is us asking. I don’t want to say “begging”, because the Rt Hon Winston Peters never begs, but he does put a compelling case, and he does ask the people who say they’re going to do something to stick by their word and do it. So he said, “We appeal to the Minister to finish what he started and amend the agreement to exempt the Realm countries from section 8(c), and that is what our Supplementary Order Paper will be [all] about.” And—hello—what are we doing right now? We’re exempting section 8(c), and the audacity—the audacity, my coalition colleagues—is that that lot want to sit over there now and reap some sort of credit. Some credit? You have got to be joking me.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not.

Seriously, they—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not. Could you come to the bill.

Oh, Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you come to the bill before us.

I am talking to the bill—section 8(c).

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry, but you don’t argue with the Speaker. I have asked you to come to the bill. You’ve read something from years ago. I would like you to address the bill.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The bill, the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill—which we are supporting in New Zealand First—waives section 8(c), which is the five years after 50 rule. Why do we believe in doing that? Because it was wrong. It actually discriminated against people who are New Zealanders. It required these people to leave their Realm country and to come back to New Zealand to fulfil that five years’ requirement to qualify, and that is the very point that has been argued in this House for decades—decades.

It is nice to see that after 25 years, we are putting it right. It’s interesting that when we look at these people who have been simply asked as New Zealanders to be treated correctly—and I do say, we have to acknowledge that on this day of the second reading of this bill, a Mr Les Priest, who has represented in the Rarotonga and New Zealand superannuation lobby group of Cook Islanders and expatriate Kiwis, these citizens, for so long and so well. This has been a long battle for these people, fighting for many, many years. It is satisfying that we get to this point on the second reading with the unanimous support of the House, and I do thank the National Party for finally getting to this point.

But I do not think it’s unreasonable to remind the nation at this second reading of how good this bill is and the tortuous path that has been walked to get section 8(c) and the five years after 50 rule finally dealt with. It has caused inappropriate dislocation. It has caused disruption. It has caused relocation. It has caused a breakdown in the social cohesion of the countries involved. It has caused people who have returned to their land, having gained wonderful skill sets here in New Zealand in the decades that they’ve lived here and paid taxes, who’ve gone back, transferring those skills, taking money with them, and investing their time, their knowledge, their skills, their talent, and their money back in their countries, in their own islands—to have to then up sticks to come back here to New Zealand to complete those five years so that they might qualify for something that was always rightfully theirs. That another Government could not recognise that in the last term is very, very sad. It’s sad.

I’d only encourage those National Party members—and I congratulate them for voting for this legislation here today and on supporting it through to third reading—all to go back up to their Pacific Island communities and apologise. You know, certain National Party Ministers gained honours and recognition from these Pacific Island nations on the back of promises that they made and did not keep.

I think, in amongst all of this, the one man who has stood true to his word steadfastly for the last 25 years on this very issue, and who is now the Deputy Prime Minister and enjoying the pleasure of seeing it enacted—and I thank the Opposition party for coming along with us on this ride—is the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who made those points to, sadly, deaf ears on 29 April 2015. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand today in support of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill in its second reading. It’s a little bit of an anti-climax for me to stand and speak, considering I’ve just followed the deputy leader’s speech. It’s a great pitch, Ron Mark, and if we’re scoring you, you would be right up there.

💬 Hon Member: It was a challenge. He wants the job back.

We know he wants the job. We’ve had some very enlightened and sometimes irrelevant contributions on this bill during this round of reading, the second reading, but I will do my best to maintain my focus.

This is an omnibus bill and my understanding of the use of “omnibus” means that it reflects some changes in more than one bill, which this one certainly does, and it makes changes to the New Zealand superannuation and the veterans’ pension. The purpose of the bill is to allow people from the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau to be able to be resident in New Zealand for a minimum of 10 years after the age of 20 and five years after the age of 50 to qualify for New Zealand super—the bill will, in fact, mean that that New Zealand residency post-50, so the five years after 50, will actually apply in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau.

One of the main reasons behind this change is that there was concern in those Islands about the depopulation of those Islands to New Zealand in order to qualify for the New Zealand superannuation or veterans’ pension. By having those five years after 50, at that age people are probably well settled here in this country, there was less motivation perhaps to go back to the Islands for their retirement, instead preferring to stay in New Zealand where their families are. A motivator for coming to New Zealand in the first place, as we heard during the submission period, was to further education or to come here for work or to reconnect with family that were already resident here. So now this bill is proposing that, provided they have spent 10 years here in New Zealand after the age of 20, their return to the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau after the age of 50 for five years, will mean that they will qualify for New Zealand superannuation or veterans’ pension.

There were seven submissions made to the select committee; two oral submissions, including a very impassioned one from the High Commissioner from Niue. His submission was suggesting that the 10 years after 20 and the five years after 50 would apply in any of the countries of the Realm, and although it was quite an ambitious request, the committee and the advisers did suggest it was far outside of the scope of the intention of the bill.

There were concerns raised during the submission period that this bill was actually not complying with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act of 1990 and one of the submitters had actually taken a case to Human Rights Review Tribunal based on this, but the advice received was that this did appear to be consistent with the rights and freedoms as in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and so as a result there were no changes suggested.

My contribution to this debate is actually going to be about the suggestion one submitter had, which was that all of the Pacific Islands be included in this bill, which of course deemed it out of scope for the contribution. But I thought it was an opportune time to pay tribute to the other Pacific Islands, because I know from the area I am in, West Coast - Tasman, that the Pacific Islands and the contribution they make to our Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) schemes—and then, further, to the economic prosperity of not only the areas they come to work in here in New Zealand but their own country when their funds are able to go back—absolutely makes a different to us all. I think that partnership is invaluable to all of those Islands. There are 11,100 places available, as at the end of last year, for RSE workers, and I think it is a fine opportunity to pay tribute to them, and I’m sure the orchardists and vineyards around New Zealand would also accept that.

In coming to a close, I’m actually going to suggest that we shelve this bill. The reason for that is last week Mark Patterson from New Zealand First was fortunate to have his member’s bill drawn from the ballot; the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill. Now, I congratulate Mark Patterson. He’s been quite lucky in having that one drawn. I think he’s had two drawn in the short time he’s been here. He stated very confidently that he believes he’s going to get support across the House for his member’s bill. But what that will do is actually make the residency requirement 20 years here in New Zealand, so it looks like we’re going to be debating two separate bills that are conflicting in terms of the outcome that is required.

We have not had that discussion as a caucus, but that proposal was actually put forward, as the Hon Ron Mark has already mentioned today, by National, by Sir Bill English last year, in June, I believe it was. So it is a concept that National has supported in the past, but with two bills now, with two different time frames attached to them, it seems only logical that we should put this bill and this debate on hold while we see the outcome of this new bill that has been introduced into the House.

I will wind up my contribution by just talking to some of the other submissions that were heard by the Social Services and Community Committee. One of those was about the objectives around the constitutional arrangements that we have with Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau—[Visitors enter gallery] A colourful contribution in the House today!

One of the submitters, as I talked about before, said that this could apply to the other 22 countries in the Pacific, and our contribution back was that the provisions that are already in our arrangements around the 10 years after 20 and the five years after 50 was applicable to all of those other Islands, and that we would not be making any further changes to the bill.

The bill as it’s been presented to the House is unchanged from the original, and even though we did have some very good contributions from our submitters, I think that we’ve found a good place. I think also that if the House is of the opinion that we should delay having any further debate on this bill while we see what the alternative bill of Mark Patterson’s comes to, then I think that would be a very appropriate outcome. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you. Kia orana. Fakaalofa atu ki a koe. Malo ni, tau huhuga te Takitaki Fono. It’s a great pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party and offer our support as well to this second reading of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. I will just say upfront that I’m not feeling compelled to draw this out for the full 10 minutes, because this is actually quite a simple bill. We have debated this, and the community has been calling for this for a long time, and there is unanimous support, thankfully, in this House. The Green Party has long supported this change, possibly not as long as New Zealand First, I hear, but still quite a long time. It’s great to see us get to this milestone in the House and get unanimous support for it.

For anybody who may be listening that is new to this, what this legislation does—the purpose is to alter the residential qualifications for New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension to allow the requirement that a person also has five years’ residence and presence in New Zealand over the age of 50, to be met instead with residence and presence in New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau, or any combination of these countries in that territory.

The reason for this change is to take into account those close constitutional relationships with the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. As it is really important to note—and I think the Premier of Niue was pointing out quite strongly—we do need to remember that often people from those countries feel as if it’s often forgotten that they are indeed citizens of New Zealand. This bill reflects that constitutional responsibility that New Zealand has for all its citizens living in those Pacific countries in that territory.

The current settings shift it from needing to have five years after the age of 50, being here, to being able to be in any of those areas, which I think is great. It specifically addresses the concern that while people may come to New Zealand to connect with wider family and look for further education opportunities or particular career prospects, often there’s a significant group of people who may at the age of 50, or around then, look to be returning to their home base and wanting to bring those skills and that knowledge back home. And the current policy settings that we have at the moment are preventing that. That’s been a real challenge, in terms of those communities at home, where they have—and I remind New Zealanders about some of the challenges for those communities of populations. I think, in Niue, the population right now is only 1,626, from the last count; in Tokelau, 1,325; and in Cook Islands it’s around 17,500. You need all your people on board, and you need as many people with skills as you can get to be able to get your community functioning well and building business and contributing to the running of the State. So it’s been a real shame that our policy settings here have acted against people returning home to contribute and to support those communities and countries. It’s fantastic to see this shift back.

I want to thank the Social Services and Community Committee, actually, for their report on this bill. It’s one of the more plain-English reports that I’ve seen that directly responds to the concerns that people raised. They didn’t recommend any changes to the bill, but they explicitly outlined the concerns that people had raised through their submissions. And there were only seven, and only two oral submissions, but they went through those concerns and addressed them in a committee report, which is not actually that common—in my experience—to see it so clearly outlined. I really appreciated it, as not having been part of that process.

They pointed to some people having a concern that maybe this set up different requirements for residency for people who were born in New Zealand versus the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau, around the 10 years after the age of 20. We’ve had that clarified by the officials: that that isn’t the case; that that is the same for somebody who is born in New Zealand as it is for people born in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau. Also, there was a bit of a concern that maybe this could have an impact on economic activity in Niue, and people thought that maybe it would reduce the incentive for people to return to New Zealand in order to satisfy the requirement for five years. They suggested that full entitlement to New Zealand super and the veterans pension should be extended to all citizens living in Niue, which shifted the settings so that it would be different to what it is in all of the countries. So the advice that was offered to the committee—and accepted by the committee—was recognising that it’s trying to get the consistency across, and recognising, as well, that the constitutional arrangements in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau mean that each realm is responsible for their own tax and welfare system. So that is up to that point of superannuation—that it seemed to be consistent.

There was the suggestion of extending the changes to all other countries in the Pacific. And I think, fairly, it was considered by the committee that the purpose of the bill is an acknowledgement of the special relationship and the fact that we all have New Zealand citizenship. So that is the reason for this specific focus.

There were concerns raised about the implementation, and assurances have been given that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade will be working closely in-country to support people to be able to access this support. So, in conclusion, the Greens are, again, very happy to support this.

Malo ni, tau huhuga te Takitaki Fono. Madam Assistant Speaker, happy Tokelauan Language Week—just had to get that right. It’s a pleasure to speak to the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. I’d like to apologise to all the people of Tokelau for my poor linguistic ability. I’ll stick to English, which is my mother tongue, for the duration of this speech.

💬 Hon Member: Among many other things.

Ha, ha! I was also reminded, with the colour that was just in the House about five minutes ago, that it is also appropriate for me to say “Happy Diwali.” For everybody in New Zealand, it was a fantastic celebration last weekend, and I’ll be continuing to celebrate that this weekend. I’ve got about 2,000 people in my electorate of Northcote who celebrate that, and it’s just a fantastic celebration.

It’s a pleasure to talk to what is an important bill today. The purpose of this bill, and the way I see it, is threefold: the first is around flexibility, the second is around fairness, and the third is around contributing to local economies in the Realm. We are very happy to support this bill because it allows people who are from the Realm of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau the ability to come to New Zealand and contribute to the New Zealand economy, but also to go back to their home countries—or their countries of origin—and continue to contribute to those economies and, at the same time, fulfil their residency requirements for New Zealand super or for the veteran’s pension. It’s also about fairness, and it’s about those who contribute to New Zealand and who have the ability to access their New Zealand super also being able to access super wherever they are in the Realm.

Finally, it’s around contributing to our local economies. I see this as actually a very important bill for helping to provide remittances back to these local economies, to provide the skills and expertise of all these people who have worked here, who have got New Zealand connections and expertise, to go back to their home countries once they’ve turned 50—or are over 50—and be able to contribute to their local economies. I would certainly love to acknowledge, Madam Assistant Speaker, your origins, in coming from the Cook Islands, and also our colleague on this side of House, Alfred Ngaro, because both of you come from the Cook Islands as well.

Of course, we cannot underestimate the importance of our relationship with the Cook Islands, Tokelau, and Niue, both from a historic perspective, dating back somewhat to 1946, in terms of the South Pacific Commission, but also the political and economic relationship that we share together today. It really is by way of a constitutional relationship. The people in these countries are New Zealand citizens, and this bill extends the same level of rights that they have in order to get access to the pension.

So what is the policy problem that this bill is trying to solve? Well, certainly, it’s around the 10-year residency requirement for pensioners to get the pension. I would like to acknowledge the fantastic contribution from my colleague Maureen Pugh, who outlined that there is a member’s bill that will, in fact, extend this requirement to 20 years. So if that progresses through the House, then we’ll need to discuss the implications for this bill. It’s also around the next requirement, which is around the five years above 50—this idea that you have to stay in New Zealand over 50 years of age in order to qualify for the pension. This bill, essentially, does away with that so that people from Niue, Cook Islands, or Tokelau may go back to their countries, contribute to their local economies, and also fulfil the requirements for the New Zealand super or pension.

Now, other options were considered in the select committee process. The option that was really chosen by the select committee was an option that removes the disincentives for people to move to the Islands and to contribute to their local economy. It’s also the option that retains the core principles of New Zealand superannuation, which means that you must stay here for a certain number of years and work here in New Zealand and you also must work in these countries in order to satisfy the requirements. Because of our special relationship, it is believed that if you’re in the Realm, no matter where you are, you’re fulfilling the requirements for this bill. So that was the option that the select committee chose for this.

I do want to go through some of the submissions from the select committee. Essentially, we did receive seven submissions in total—not a lot but certainly very substantial and high-quality submissions at that. Two of those submissions were received orally, and I was there at that meeting when we heard them, one of them from the High Commissioner to this area. Essentially, there were three key arguments that were raised against this bill. The first was that there is potential to discriminate in this bill between those who are from this Realm versus those who are not from this Realm. I want to assure the submitters that this bill doesn’t in fact discriminate—that anybody, no matter where they are from, can move to these countries after they’re 50. Perhaps you’ve come from South Africa, for example—we’ve got a lot of South Africans in my electorate. You’ve come from South Africa at 45, you work right up until 50, and you decide, “Well, Niue, Tokelau, and Cook Islands—they’re beautiful pieces to live, and maybe I’d like to retire there.” So it actually gives these people the opportunity to go to these countries and also fulfil the requirements for the New Zealand super or veterans pension. So, in fact, it doesn’t discriminate.

The second point that was raised in the select committee submissions was that there would be an unfair advantage for people from those Islands. I’ve just demonstrated that there will not in fact be an unfair advantage from these Islands.

The final thing that was raised was around the economic impact of this bill, and there was a sense that—[Bell rung] ha, ha; Madam Assistant Speaker was so engrossed in my speech that she forgot to do the buzzer—the economic value would actually be harmed by this bill. I want to assure the submitters that I actually think the opposite: this bill has the potential to add a significant amount of economic value to these countries through remittances and also through the economic activity of these people in these countries while they’re fulfilling the requirements for their pension. So there you have it: those are the major flaws that were raised in the submission process, and I’ve managed to dispel some of them.

I’d like to spend the last kind of minute just talking about the select committee, and I’d like to thank all the members on the select committee for their tiresome work in hearing the submissions. There were—

💬 Brett Hudson: Tireless, I think you mean.

Tireless—tireless. Thank you to my colleague Brett Hudson. It has been a long week. I’d just like to say that this is a good bill, and it’s a good bill that I believe is going to get—

💬 Hon David Bennett: It’s a good bill.

—bill?—a lot of support in the House, and I’m looking forward to seeing all of those people who contribute to New Zealand’s economy also being able to access New Zealand super. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

I understand this is a split call. Greg O’Connor, you have five minutes.

Madam Assistant Speaker, I’m confident you won’t have as much difficulty concentrating on my presentation as you did on the last.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I wouldn’t back myself on that, Mr O’Connor.

I’ll just say that—sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I said I wouldn’t back myself on that, Mr O’Connor.

Well, I’ll do my best, Madam Assistant Speaker, at this time of day.

I’ve been a part of the Social Services and Community Committee that has considered this bill. It is a very collegial select committee and, like many select committees, we have considered many aspects of this bill. You come into the House to speak, and you think you’ve pretty much covered it. We’ve had the benefit of the Hon Ron Mark, who has filled in many of the details that we weren’t aware of, and I think it’s very good that we know much more background to put things in perspective. However, it is late on a Thursday afternoon, and I think it’s probably apt that in that spirit of congeniality we continue.

I think everyone’s sort of claiming some sort of credit for this bill. There’s an old saying that success has a thousand fathers; failure is an orphan. In this case, I think if there were to be a paternity test, I’d be confident that this side of the House is where the results would lie positive.

However, to the bill itself—a lot of the commentary around this bill has been talking about some sort of social benefits. I was looking at some of the comments made by a prominent broadcaster who was lambasting this as being another way that we are throwing money at the Pacific—an unfortunate comment. I just want to share with you a very good example of how this is benefiting both countries economically. I speak of a relation of mine who is married to someone who is actually a Cook Islander, who was very successful in business in New Zealand—ran a home-kill business. After success, he and his father went back to the Cook Islands and have re-established a similarly successful business. They now are most certainly into their over-50s and are over the qualifying period, and now seek having to come back to New Zealand to close down their business, so they will qualify for the pension under the old regime. However, this allows them now to ensure that they are able to maintain their business, that they do employ people there. So this has a direct economic benefit. So I think those of you who are watching, those who think this is another sort of handout something we’re doing—this is very much part of being New Zealand.

The people in the Realm—and one of the previous speakers, my namesake in fact, described what the Realm is. I won’t go through that. Essentially, Cook Islanders, Niueans, and Tokelauans are New Zealand citizens, but there is still a qualification. They still have to have been in New Zealand for 10 years, and they have to also—this is a very important part, particularly for those listening at home. The five years qualification can only be in one of those Realm countries. It can’t be anywhere else in the Pacific, and that’s a very important part. So it’s not as though they can take off, live anywhere else—live in Germany, live anywhere else—it has to be in one of those Realm countries. So it is to the benefit of all. And it means that, socially, this is very much a win-win situation.

So in the short time allocated to me, I just want to make sure that people understand that this is very much not only fair—and there’s been all sorts of adjectives, all sorts of descriptors of this—it actually makes economic sense as well. So this is a very important bill. It is something that, again, I can see why those opposite would be very keen to put their fingerprints on it—their DNA, or whatever it is. I can understand why they’d want to do that, because it is an excellent idea, and I’m very, very proud to stand here and commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Mr Greg O’Connor, who just sat down, was complaining, I thought, about the limited amount of time that he had to speak. He left a minute on the clock, and I was just about to jump to my feet at the end of his speech and seek the leave of this House to give him an additional five minutes, but I’m not sure whether that would have been granted.

But it’s a pleasure to take a short call for five minutes on the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill at its second reading. I do note that I wasn’t on the Social Services and Community Committee, which heard the submissions on this bill, but I do just want to congratulate the select committee, and in particular the chair, Gareth Hughes, for the good work that he’s done, working hard as the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee. It is an important select committee here in Parliament, doing good work, and, in this instance, progressing legislation which was put forward initially by the National Government and by our good friend Sir Bill English—the Rt Hon Sir Bill English, actually. I should be correct in the titles that I give to former members of this House.

This bill makes a significant change in terms of our superannuation and veterans pension entitlements for those living in the Realm of New Zealand, those who may have been born in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, and who then have moved to New Zealand and spend 10 years here—they are New Zealand citizens by birth, but then move to New Zealand and contribute to New Zealand—and then look to go back to where they came from to retire. This ensures that they will no longer be needing to spend five years between the age of 50 and 65 in New Zealand in order to maintain that entitlement, but will be able to spend those five years in any of the four countries within the Realm—whether that be New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau.

So I think this bill does a number of important things. I think, first and foremost, it builds on the incredibly important relationship that we have within the Realm, and that we have as New Zealand citizens, and that these shared benefits are shared benefits of being New Zealand citizens. But I think it’s important to distinguish between our superannuation scheme and what entitlements they would have if they were to live their entire life in their home country. It is important to note that our tax system and our superannuation system are a benefit of contributing to New Zealand for that period of time—for those 10 years.

That is the requirement which is in place in order to be entitled to New Zealand superannuation, and that entitlement is therefore required as a way to ensure that economic contribution to New Zealand through work, through study, through whatever that might be, is something which is required in order to be a beneficiary of the superannuation scheme that we enjoy here in New Zealand. If people in those islands, whilst New Zealand citizens, choose to remain in their home country, they will not be entitled to New Zealand superannuation because they haven’t contributed here but will have contributed and be entitled under their own schemes in their own country.

So I think the important benefit really is economic from this: economically to New Zealand by continuing to allow people to come here to contribute to New Zealand, but then an economic benefit back to the Islands, in terms of the money that they send to family back in their home country while they are working in New Zealand. I think that’s a hugely important role that many of these people do play while they are in New Zealand—sending money back to support their families. But also the important benefit it provides by encouraging and allowing and making it easier for them to actually retire back in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau, and that will provide huge economic benefit, as they have New Zealand superannuation while they are retiring. So I commend this bill to the House. We look forward to it going through the process.

Sorry, I cut the last person, Simeon Brown, off. I didn’t mean to do that. I apologise for that. I was—

💬 Simeon Brown: Eager.

I was eager—that’s exactly what I was. I just want to stand and contribute to this piece of legislation. It is a good piece. It has wide support around the House. I think that all of our previous speakers have rattled through all of the components of the bill. It is the second reading, so there’s still the committee stage to go, but I just want to acknowledge an article about the Prime Minister’s visit to the Cook Islands earlier this year. She was given this responsibility by the Prime Minister over there, said that actually this was an issue that needed to be dealt with, and, as a Parliament, we have debated this and been through it and, actually, have all decided that it’s the right thing to do, just to swing in and, obviously, support it. I’ve got nothing too much left to say about it, other than the fact that I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand to speak on this bill that everybody is supporting in the House, to do with the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. I am very much like the previous speaker, Tamati Coffey—with the purpose of the bill being well traversed in the House and with me being just about one of the last speakers. I’m really pleased that this bill will actually allow whānau within the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, and those that live in New Zealand, to actually remain in their respective Islands without having to travel to New Zealand to qualify for superannuation and the veterans pension.

I’m going to traverse another area of whakapapa, and I’m talking about the whakapapa of Cook Islands—of your whānau, Madam Assistant Speaker. I think it’s really interesting that whenever we travel overseas to the Islands and whenever we meet as Māori and Pasifika, we always treat each other as brother and sister, and never more so than with the Cook Islands community and whānau there. Why do I say that? It’s because we share a common ancestor. We share a common ancestor in Paikea. Paikea’s name was actually Kahutia-te-rangi—was his real name—and he was an ancestor of the Cook Islands people and lived in the Cook Islands. So if you asked a Cook Islands person about where Māori come from, they would respond by saying “Nō konei”—in other words, “from here; from our islands and from Kahutia-te-rangi.”

So what happened with that whakapapa—Madam Assistant Speaker, I know that you’re well aware of it, but the members of the House may not be—was that Kahutia-te-rangi had a brother, Ruatapu. He was of lower rank to Kahutia-te-rangi, and so he hunted him down. He hunted him down because Kahutia-te-rangi was an excellent fisherman, and, because the younger brother was jealous, he hunted Kahutia-te-rangi down and tried to kill him. But Kahutia-te-rangi did an incantation which brought forward the southern humpback whale, of which Kahutia-te-rangi jumped on the back, and voila—he ended up in Aotearoa New Zealand. Therefore, the iwi of Ngati Porou and Ngāi Tahu were actually born. That is why, when I am down in Ngāi Tahu and when I’m up in Ngati Porou, I see the whakapapa of Paikea: Paikea on the walls of schools, at Waitākiri School and other schools. I hear the kōrero about Paikea, and that is what actually links Māori and Pasifika together. That and many other—a lot of people call them our “legends”, but they are our history. They are the things that bring us together.

So when I look at this particular bill, this bill where New Zealand has constitutional responsibility for the Islands, I am very proud that we can go across all political realms and actually come together and support this bill. I know that this bill actually started under a National-led Government, and it was led out by the Rt Hon Sir Bill English, because he had that passion there and he wanted to see that our constitutional responsibility for the people of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau was being upheld. So I am really pleased that I can stand here and say well done to everybody in this House for supporting this particular bill.

I want to also mention the select committee and the process that they went through. I no longer sit on the Social Services and Community Committee, but I think that the work that they have done on it has been really good. Even though there haven’t been any changes to it, I think that it has been well traversed and well debated in the submissions that have actually come forward to the select committee. I do look forward to the committee stage. I think it could be quite a quick committee stage and then a very quick third reading, because this is a bill that we all support.

I just want to acknowledge all of the residents within the Islands and within New Zealand. I don’t really have a lot more to say about this bill, just that I do support it. I think that if we can have more bills like this—my colleague Maureen Pugh talked about the bill that was in the ballot that has been drawn out, the Mark Patterson bill, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill, and about extending the time of residency in New Zealand. I think that the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau people have, actually, nothing to worry about, because, like Māori, they don’t travel that far—we stay fairly close to home. So I think that this will have no impact on them.

So without any further any ado—it is always the hardest part, to be one of the last speakers, because everybody’s said everything—I’m very proud and very honoured to support the bill. Kia ora.

In contrast, it is a privilege to follow Jo Hayes, because there’s still so much more to say on the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. It is my privilege to stand here and speak in support of yet another marvellous Government bill, and something else that’s going to bring some equality into a system that—over the last nine years, one might think that the previous Government might have wanted to make some changes. But, no. This Government, within its first year, sees an issue where there is some unfairness and looks to address it.

Under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the Veterans’ Support Act 2014, eligible New Zealanders can receive the New Zealand superannuation and the veterans’ pension in what has been known and referred to tonight as the Realm of New Zealand. As a committed republican, I don’t like using that term, so, of course, specifically we’re talking about the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. Of course residents of these Islands, who are also residents of New Zealand, should have equitable access to the New Zealand superannuation and veterans support. But at the moment they do not.

If they were to work in New Zealand as citizens of New Zealand but residents of those three islands for 10 years and then go back and spend the remainder of their time in those islands, they currently would not qualify. We say that’s unfair.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: It is unfair.

It is unfair. If they would otherwise qualify and they are New Zealand citizens living in those three Islands, why should they not qualify for this?

I commend the National Party—it doesn’t happen often—but good on them for supporting this bill.

💬 Jo Hayes: It’s our bill.

I acknowledge Greg O’Connor and the comments that he made about that—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: So was the last one, and you opposed it.

💬 Jo Hayes: It’s our bill. You’re just picking it up and carrying it on.

Claiming the bills, left, right, and centre. Thinking about the good old days—the good old days a few years ago, when they were in Government. They’re not now, and they’re slowly getting used to it.

This is, essentially, about fairness. Just looking at the details about this, it actually struck me—why hasn’t this been done earlier? Why hasn’t this been done earlier? I wonder if it’s a case of previous Governments perhaps—and this isn’t a dig at any particular party—not necessarily having representation within them that can bring these issues forward. I acknowledge our Pasifika caucus in this Government as well—staunch advocates for their communities and the issues that face their communities.

Of course, it’s also beyond fairness; it’s about relative issues around depopulation as well, as the populations of these Islands—the Cook Islands, Tokelau, and Niue—decrease relatively and, of course, the diaspora in New Zealand continues to grow. We only need to look at the previous images of the last weekend’s game of rugby league, Tonga versus Australia. Wasn’t it wonderful to see a proud Pacific Island community in this country standing there in support of their home nation playing against Australia?

We have a proud history in this country and a proud connection to the Pacific, particularly the three nations that we’re talking about here today whose citizens are also New Zealand citizens. This bill addresses the inequities in the previous system, and I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.