Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill

I move, That the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

This bill reflects this Government’s commitment to strengthening the partnership between New Zealand and our Pacific neighbours. In particular, we want to recognise the close constitutional ties we have with the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, and the contribution people from these nations have made and continue to make to New Zealand. This bill enhances our already strong ties to these nations. By providing greater pension flexibility for people who wish to live in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, this bill reflects how we want to work together toward greater social and economic development in the Pacific.

New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension are our main forms of income support for older New Zealanders. New Zealand superannuation is payable at age 65 to any New Zealand citizen or resident who is ordinarily resident in New Zealand when he or she applies, and who has been resident and present in New Zealand for 10 years over the age of 20, and also five years over the age of 50. Veterans pension is the alternative pension for veterans and their partners who qualify for New Zealand superannuation based on veterans’ Qualifying Operational Service.

Current pension portability arrangements allow people to take their New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension to one of 22 Pacific countries and territories, including the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. The provision that makes this possible is called the Special Portability Arrangement. Under the arrangement, New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension is paid at a minimum of 50 percent after 10 years’ residence in New Zealand, rising to 100 per cent after 20 years’ residence. Generally, to be eligible under the Special Portability Arrangement, a person must be resident and present in New Zealand on the date of his or her application. An amendment to the Special Portability Arrangement introduced in 2015 allows people resident in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau to apply for New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension from the Islands, rather than needing to be resident and present in New Zealand at the time of their application. The intent of this change was to remove a disincentive for people to return to the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau to live. However, the change has had a smaller take-up than expected. It is now evident that the 2015 change, while removing some disincentives for skilled people to return to the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau during their working lives, did not really achieve the desired effect of encouraging people to move back to and remain in those countries.

The Governments of the Cook Islands and Niue have expressed concern that the five years over age 50 residence requirement was the reason for the low take-up of the amendment made in 2015. They considered that the five over 50 residency requirement was deterring skilled people from returning to and contributing to their countries. They also expressed concern that the five years over 50 residence requirement may actually induce some people to return to New Zealand in order to ensure that they will be able to claim New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension later on.

This bill will remedy these concerns by allowing the requirement that a person have five years’ residence and presence in New Zealand over the age of 50 years to be met instead with residence and presence in either New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau, or any combination of these countries. This Government also wants to ensure that superannuitants have as many options as possible as to where they choose to live, by allowing people to use residence over the age of 50 in New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, or any combination of these countries to qualify for New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension. This bill will achieve both these things.

The change is for the Realm countries, because this bill is about recognising New Zealand’s close constitutional relationships with these Pacific Islands—the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau—which do enjoy shared citizenship with New Zealand and unique legal arrangements. Tokelau is a non - self-governing territory of New Zealand. Both the Cook Islands and Niue have adopted constitutions enabling self-government and free association with New Zealand. Free association is a status distinct from that of full independence in that it allows the Cook Islands and Niue to maintain New Zealand citizenship while administering their own affairs.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill is also about ensuring the economic and social viability of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. Depopulation and its related social and economic consequences is a longstanding issue for the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. The current five years over 50 in New Zealand requirement has been described as a disincentive for Cook Islanders, Niueans, and Tokelauans established in New Zealand to return home before the age of 55. Removing this disincentive would potentially help boost economic development and human resource capacity in these islands through an increased return of experienced people able to effectively apply skills acquired in New Zealand in their home communities. People returning in their 30s, 40s, and 50s would have the capacity to contribute to the workforce up to 35 years in advance of the age of qualification for New Zealand superannuation.

I really want to acknowledge the support for this bill from members of the House. I also want to acknowledge the support for this bill from Realm countries. I particularly want to acknowledge the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands, who has been a strong advocate for this change to legislation and, in fact, was here with us during the first reading of this bill in the House here.

Can I also acknowledge the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who announced this alongside myself and the Prime Minister in the Cook Islands earlier this year. I really want to acknowledge the opportunity that we had to announce it there in the Cook Islands, which was a very special announcement given how many people have been fighting for this change over a long period of time.

I also want to acknowledge that this really is absolutely aligned with this Government’s commitment to a Pacific reset—a reset that will see us treating and working with our Pacific Island neighbours as true partners. And this is indicative of that, given that this is a request put to us—that we value the contribution that Pacific people have made in New Zealand, but we also absolutely respect the contribution that they should be supported to make in their home island countries.

I want to acknowledge the support for the bill across the House. I’m pleased that we can come together to support this bill and make positive changes for people in our neighbouring Pacific nations. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to take a call in the third reading of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. It’s a proud day for myself, being a descendant of the Cook Islands, and also too I want to acknowledge Poto Williams, the Assistant Speaker, who also is a descendant of the Cook Islands, as well. I want to acknowledge the Hon Kris Faafoi, who is a descendant of the island of Tokelau, and being that there’s no one in the House of Niuean descent, I might just claim that, because my wife is half-Niuean as well—from the beautiful island of Niue, the village of Mutalau, and from the Fuemana family.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: So is my son—from Mutalau.

Oh sorry, I want to acknowledge others on the other side that may have some connections, as well. Those three nations are acknowledged as nations of the Realm and they have a very special relationship. In fact, it’s so special that when people sing the national anthem, they may think that in the words where it says to “Guard Pacific’s triple star”, those are the three nations of the Realm that are regarded in that vein, because it is not only a protectorate relationship but also a provision of support right across not only the House but also too in our relationship throughout the Pacific region.

This bill is significant, and I want to commend the Government of the day for supporting this work, which actually began in 2014. At that time, the Hon Murray McCully had been petitioned for some time and he was asked about changes that could be made around the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act of 2001 and also the Veterans’ Support Act. He was asked if they could be amended, be changed, in order to give portability of the pension, especially around the issues of depopulation for those particular three Realm nations, where the impact to the economy and the impact to the social fabric of those communities and those very small Island nations was dependent on a return. That was the hope—that they would return back someday to their homelands. Unfortunately, that hasn’t been the case. So the hope of this bill, of this change, and of these amendments is to try and address those issues. I put that on record, and I think that’s critically important.

I also too want to acknowledge that the changes that were made in 2015—and I was fortunate to be able to chair the Social Services Committee at that time. I have to say on the record that I’m not sure whether in this Parliament we have actually ever had two heads of State—we had the Hon Henry Puna from the Cook Islands and the Premier of Niue, the Hon Toke Talagi, who came and presented their submissions to the select committee. Again, I think it’s a rare occasion, but on that occasion, they made their submissions, and their submissions were based on the principle that this portability of the pension would allow their people who have left the Islands to return back home and, again, bring back with them experience, expertise, and qualifications that would benefit the welfare, the well-being, the prosperity, and the peace of those Island nations as well. So that’s why it became critically important to us in this regard.

I think what’s also important, again, is that this relationship has been valued to the point that in 2017, the Hon Murray McCully actually wrote a letter to the Minister for Social Development at that time, and I actually think it might have been you, Madam Deputy Speaker, at that time, which—I’m not wanting to bring you into the debate. But it was to actually petition the cause that when the Act came into force in 2015, there was a provision to review that within two years. Now, the costing around that—potentially, it would have cost the New Zealand taxpayers around about $5 million. In fact, over two years, it only cost a million dollars. So on that principle also too, with added lobbying from the three Realm nations, it was felt by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time that we should actually make the changes to remove the ability to be present and resident in New Zealand, so that those of the Realm nations could return back, having served 10 years of residency and having been present in New Zealand, and could then actually serve the rest of those five years to be eligible for the superannuation in those realm nations—in fact, the bill actually states that it can be a combination of all three of those nations, as well.

So I want to state that I think and believe that that’s critically important, and this bill has had a long history. It’s a history that we would say can be shared right across the House now, because this current Government is now continuing on the roles that are really important in that regard as well.

I want to also too put on the record that in recent times, people have questioned the contribution of those in Pacific. In fact, not just in recent times but over a number of years, people have asked what is the contribution to the Pacific nations and what have they actually contributed to both New Zealand as a society and also its history and its heritage.

I go back to the fact that in 1917, and, in fact, in this very House—and the Hon Peeni Henare was here when we re-enacted the service that was held there in this House, in this Chamber, to acknowledge the Rarotongan regiment, the contingent, that first came through here. It was acknowledged—the fact of their contribution—when Sir Māui Pōmare realised after Gallipoli that there was a shortage of those who could contribute to the war efforts of World War I, so he went across to the Realm nations. He went to the Cook Islands, where they contributed up to 500 throughout that period of time over the next three years. He then went to the island of Niue, where they contributed over 147. So if one was to calculate per capita what the Pacific contributed, even though New Zealand contributed over 100,000 and lost 18,000 men and women over that period of time, the Pacific region, per capita, contributed more. I want to acknowledge that and I want to put that on record. So its contribution is actually one that should be noted, and it has contributed over that period of time.

In World War II, when there was a workforce shortage, again, it was New Zealand that went across to the whole of the Pacific region, and one will see that from the migrations from 1946 right through to the 1950s and 1960s, we had a number from the Pacific region who came and made a contribution. So we would say that at that period of time, the contribution to the workforce and to the development of New Zealand was contributed by our Pacific neighbours, who came along as well. So they certainly deserve to be able to be acknowledged and recognised, and this also recognises the special relationship that they have, as well.

During the submission process, it wasn’t all plain sailing. There were a number of submissions that actually started to question the impact that this would have. I want to note that from the island of Niue, one of the concerns was the fact that more Niueans may return back to New Zealand and serve 10 years after turning 50, which would adversely affect Niue itself. Niue has a population of around 11,000 to 12,000. There were concerns that they would return to New Zealand and that Niue would depopulate to the point where their public services would actually suffer, and so forth. However, what was confirmed with both the officials and with our response through our select committee report was that we didn’t believe those concerns would actually materialise, because we believed there were a number already here in New Zealand—Niueans who had come to New Zealand to gain qualifications, development work, and expertise—who would return there. In fact, that is currently the case. The population of Niue has stabilised and, in fact, has actually increased over that period of time. So we think that is an important contribution, as well.

One of the other impacts that was talked about was just in regards to other New Zealanders that were overseas that may have been from the three different nations of the Realm and what would be the impact upon them. The fact is that they had lived overseas over that period of time. What we can say from the officials’ advice that we’ve been given is that as long as they are in countries that have a reciprocal social security agreement, then their period of time of residency in those places will be counted in the 10 years after the age of 20 and before the age of 50, and then it could also be contributed to their five years after turning 50, as well. We wanted to put that on record so that it allayed some of the fears over there, as well.

I think that, again, right across the House, we would agree that this is an important bill. It’s a bill that recognises for those small Island nations the importance of the roles and responsibility that they have.

In the last few speeches in this House over the last week, I’ve been noted to be able to bring a song with some words to the speech, and I want to continue that. I may not sing the song, but what I will do is—there’s a Cook Islands song that actually was brought to light and it was sung over many times, often at parties and in places, and everyone thought it was just a party song, a great love ballad, but, in actual fact, the song was actually written during World War I. It was written by a wife who was actually serenading her husband as he went off to war. The song talks about: “Aue tāku tane, aue taku ‘inangaro” [“Oh my dear husband, oh my love”].

So what it talks about is “Oh, to my beloved one. As you go out to the seas, we ask that you will return one day”. What they used to do in the tradition was they would have two leis that they would give—leis with flowers. They would put one on their beloved one and, as they went off, they would throw the other one out into the sea. The belief was that one day, if the other lei returned back, they would return back to them.

So this bill talks about the returning of Pacific nations, Pacific people, back to the homelands to contribute to the welfare, well-being, peace, and prosperity of the Island nations. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. I rise to take a brief call on the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. I’m heartened that throughout the entire process of this bill, the sentiment and the stories of history told in relation to the contribution of the Islands of Niue, Tokelau, and the Cook Islands to New Zealand Aotearoa, and of course the war effort, as mentioned by the Hon Alfred Ngaro. I think that serves as a timely reminder for one and all in Aotearoa New Zealand, and indeed across the islands that this bill pertains to, just exactly how we are joined together. We’re tied together by history, and in this particular bill, we are also tied together in the future prosperity, as the honourable member Alfred Ngaro has already mentioned—the future prosperity to allow our people, Pacific Island people of Cook Islands, Tokelauan, and Niuean descent, to return home.

I want to endorse the words of the Minister the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, who, in pointing out the parts of this bill, also talked about a broader agenda around the Pacific nations and the agenda of this Government. Indeed with the support of the relevant Ministers, we’re able to have these conversations for meaningful development in those islands, but just as much for in those islands, meaningful development of those communities here in Aotearoa New Zealand. So, look, without further ado, with support right across the House, I want to commend this bill to the House.

It’s a pleasure this evening to take a call on the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. As my colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro mentioned, today is, in fact, a good day. This moment is a good moment because we have, for the last few hours, been opposed to some legislation in the House, and at this moment the House stands in unison for this bill, which is going to make a fantastic contribution to the Islands but also New Zealand as well. The National Party certainly endorses this bill. We recall the former Prime Minister Bill English and his visit to the Pacific Islands late last year, in which he certainly endorsed this bill as well.

I’d like to acknowledge, first and foremost, my own family members who come from the Cook Islands: my half-brother James Asekona, and also my godson Zion Bidois and my niece Astyn Bidois—thank you there. I’d also like to acknowledge our colleagues from both sides of the House who have some connection to the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau: Poto Williams, the Hon Kris Faafoi, and the Hon Alfred Ngaro, to name all that I can that I have knowledge of at this stage.

The purpose of this bill is very, very simple. It is to enable the residency requirements for New Zealand super and for the veterans pension to be met with spending time in the Realm—that is, in Tokelau, Niue, or the Cook Islands. In terms of that requirement, it’s simply the 10 years over 20 and also the five years over 50 requirement. This is about fairness. It’s about making sure that those that are contributing to New Zealand’s economy are fairly rewarded. It’s also about flexibility and about fulfilling the requirements for the New Zealand superannuation in the Realm and providing that flexibility for people to do so. But it also is about the contribution that these people could make to the Realm in terms of their local activity, and also remittances as well.

I would like to acknowledge the Minister Carmel Sepuloni for her encouraging words in this bill and throughout the select committee process in the Social Services and Community Committee. It is, in fact, a really good bill to go through.

In the past, I’ve talked about the unique relationship that New Zealand shares with the Pacific. We are a part of the Pacific Islands. Historically that has been the case, and today, but also from a political perspective. From post World War II—from 1946—right up until today, we have had a political relationship, starting out with the South Pacific Commission and going right up to today as well. Then, finally, we have had an economic relationship, in terms of citizens who are from the Realm who come and contribute to New Zealand’s economy but also vice versa: New Zealand citizens that are in the Realm and are able to provide an economic contribution to that as well.

In terms of what this bill is trying to do, it’s really—when you are a New Zealand citizen and you move abroad, there are currently three ways that you’re able to obtain the New Zealand super or veterans pension. The first is through a reciprocal agreement, where a New Zealander moves away and receives the pension in the country that they move to, and the New Zealand pension, and that’s kind of a mixed scheme. The second is through a special portability element, which is where somebody who moves overseas from New Zealand is able to also claim the New Zealand pension, and that’s in a sense portable. And then the final case is through general portability, in terms of being able to get the pension wherever you move to as well.

The problem that this bill tries to solve is that those who are from the Realm who’ve moved to New Zealand, who have contributed to New Zealand’s economy but have a desire to move back to Niue, Tokelau, or the Cook Islands, are able to continue to fulfil the requirements for New Zealand superannuation and also contribute to the economy and also maintain a connection that they have as well.

In the select committee process, we received a grand total of seven submissions. We had two of those submissions that were oral submissions, but there were a number of issues that came up that I wanted to just outline for the people watching at home today, as I know many people do. The first is that this bill may, in fact, discriminate against those that are from the Realm, because it, essentially, provides a case where others can get it as well. I want to just say very clearly that this bill doesn’t discriminate against people from the Realm. It applies to New Zealanders who have spent time living overseas, and those provisions apply to those New Zealanders, as well as those that are from the Realm.

The second issue that was raised is that there was a concern that it would, in fact, unfairly advantage those citizens from the Realm. I just want to say that it, in fact, does not do that in this bill. In fact, anybody who is a New Zealand citizen who has lived abroad is able to, essentially, use this bill and go to any country in the Realm and fulfil their residency requirements. So it’s not just restricted to people from the Realm; it’s also much wider than that as well.

The final thing was that this bill may, in fact, take away economic value from these countries. I just want to say again that the advice that we’ve had, and it’s very clear to note, is that economic contributions to these countries will, in fact, increase because these people will be going back, taking the skills that they’ve learnt and they’ve honed in New Zealand back to their local economies. They’ll also be taking remittances back to these economies, so there’ll be other economic contributions in that front as well. So there we have it: essentially, the issues that were raised in the select committee process—I’ve been able to demonstrate that we’ve had a commitment that, in fact, this bill will not have anything amount to those in the bill itself.

So, in terms of final remarks on the bill, it is a very important bill because New Zealand is part of the Pacific, and I think we stand with our neighbours in saying that if you meet the residency requirements and the 10 years over 20, you’re able to do the five years over 50 and contribute as well. We also want others to be able to contribute to the countries of Niue, Tokelau, and the Cook Islands. Finding ways like this bill that encourages people to go back and contribute to their economies is, I think, a really important thing as well.

The final thing I’d like to say, certainly on the eve of Armistice Day, is that I’d like to thank all of our veterans for their service. I’m actually sitting next to one of my colleagues here, Chris Penk, who has served in the navy, but for everybody in my electorate of Northcote who has served, it’s quite appropriate because this bill does actually affect them as well. I just think it’s really important that we note on the eve of Armistice Day the service that these people have given throughout the years, which is a very important 100-years occasion since World War I. So I’d like to make that a final thing there, and I just want to say that this is a good bill. It’s something that is going to receive good support in the House, as opposed to the bills that we were debating earlier today, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. It’s a delight and a privilege to be here at this third reading of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill and to indicate to the House, as we have right from the outset, that New Zealand First will be supporting this.

I want to congratulate Minister Sepuloni for bringing this legislation through. It’s a piece of legislation that New Zealand First has campaigned on, I think, ever since the Rt Hon Winston Peters did the most sensible thing and left the National Party, formed New Zealand First, and set out his policy goals and objectives for a better New Zealand. I think a couple of things that stood out very clearly, given the rather interesting speeches tonight coming from the Opposition benches, is that this proposition was put up first in the coalition negotiations with National in 1996. They rejected it. This proposition, I have to say, was also put up during other coalition negotiations with another party and Mr Michael Cullen couldn’t see his way forward either. I have to say that we campaigned on advancing such a piece of legislation over many election campaigns only to be told time and time again “It’s unaffordable, unnecessary.”, and yet here tonight I rejoice in listening to the Hon Alfred Ngaro’s speech, where he gave all the compelling reasons as to why this legislation should be supported and indicated that he is very grateful and pleased to be supporting his whanaunga, in particular in the Cook Islands.

I’m very happy that the National Party has finally fallen in. I detected, reading between the lines of what he actually said, that he as a Minister in the last Government actually wanted this legislation passed. He did say that one of the reasons that it wasn’t put forward was because of the huge cost, which he then said in his speech—and I was watching him on the TV there tonight—was costed at $5 million. Then he said that subsequent to this bill being tabled by this very good Government and the select committee process, it was ascertained that the costs never reached that—that the costs were only $1 million. So it now begs the very interesting question, in the light of all the other wonderful things that have been said by the National Party Opposition, who were the Government who rejected the New Zealand First Supplementary Order Paper on 29 April 2015 to do this very thing—in fact, Mr Alfred Ngaro voted it down—what is the price of their value in the Realm States? Because now we know that the Realm States are not worth $5 million. We know that because Mr Ngaro said that the legislation—and he gave all the great reasons as to why it should have been supported, but despite all of that they rejected it because it was going to cost $5 million.

Well, there was a flag referendum, ladies and gentlemen, touted by that Government of the day around the country that cost $27 million as far as we can ascertain—because the full and direct costs have never come out. So, on the one hand, we stand here tonight and applaud ourselves and pat ourselves on the back for passing—

💬 Mark Patterson: What about the sheep in Saudi Arabia?

I haven’t even mentioned the sheep farm in Saudi Arabia. They saw more value in a sheikh with sheep than they did in the citizens of the Realm States like the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, who, he said, gave disproportionately in blood to the freedom of the world through their contribution in World War I. I detect the smell of a certain word that I will never utter in this House. But it actually says to me that the National Party put a price on the value of the Realm States and it was $5 million. And it tells me something else: see, in this Government, we get advice.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like you to talk to the bill.

Narrowing down to the bill—this has happened to me before. One of the things that this Government did in making this decision—and Mr Ngaro is absolutely correct to point out that in the select committee process the costings were looked at. It turned out that the costings were nothing like those that were given to the National Government of the day. And I detect that he regrets listening to that advice, but that’s the difference between Minister Sepuloni and that Government.

Minister Sepuloni looked at the legislation, took the advice from officials, and had enough wisdom and judgment to see through advice to see exactly what it really would mean. That is the level of governance and the quality of Ministers one needs if one is to govern responsibly. And I really felt sorry for Mr Ngaro as he sat there in that select committee and heard evidence that totally contradicted the evidence that he received on this very same matter, on something that he actually wanted to do as a Minister but was prevented from doing. So I’m going to congratulate the Hon Alfred Ngaro for his speech tonight—for its honesty and for opening a window and allowing us to see inside of what actually happened in that administration with respect to section 8(c) of this Act.

The National Opposition—and, I would say, led by the Hon Alfred Ngaro—has come to exactly the right position on this piece of legislation, and on New Zealand First’s side we thank him for that. We genuinely thank them. We regret that it took three years. I know that the cost they predicted was huge. From 2015 to 2018, on their projections, on the advice they took, it stood to cost, what, $15 million? But I would propose—New Zealand First would propose—that even $15 million is a cheap price to pay for the loyalty and for the people of Tokelau, Niue, and the Cook Islands.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in the House on this bill. We support the legislation and look forward to hearing the votes on this, the third reading, and I finish by once again congratulating Minister Sepuloni for a wonderful piece of outstanding work. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. What we’ve just heard was, I think, a very good pitch for the deputy leadership of the New Zealand First Party. In his first minute, he managed to get the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ name in there. I guess maybe that’s part of what New Zealand First MPs sign up to when they become members of the New Zealand First Party. But let’s talk about the bill.

Unlike what the previous speaker, Ron Mark, was talking about, let’s talk about this excellent piece of legislation, which is being progressed through Parliament unanimously here tonight. If you’d just been listening at home to that speaker, you may have thought this was about something completely different, but this debate is about the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill, and it is about bringing equality to the Realm when it comes to the social assistance, the superannuation, and the veterans support benefits which are available to all members of the Realm of New Zealand.

I think it’s important at this point to note that New Zealand is a Realm under our Queen, Queen Elizabeth II, and the countries which make up that Realm are New Zealand and the two countries which are in free association with New Zealand—the Cook Islands and Niue—and Tokelau, which is a dependency of New Zealand. Those three countries, alongside New Zealand, are the Realm of New Zealand, and therefore we have a special relationship and a special bond with those countries, which I think is very important and something that this bill does a lot to secure and to solidify and to imbed further in as we look to the future of our closeness as countries.

So this bill here does some very important things. Primarily, what it does is ensure that those who are eligible for New Zealand superannuation have the same access to superannuation, not depending upon where they live. Currently, what is required of those who are born in the Realm countries—in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau—is that if they come to New Zealand and work for 10 years, they then become entitled to New Zealand superannuation, and then if they go back to their Realm countries and want to be able to secure that New Zealand superannuation, they must, after the age of 50, come back to New Zealand and work here or live here for another five years.

Essentially, what this bill does is it takes away the requirement for them to be in New Zealand for those five years. They are required to be in one of the Realm countries—it could be any of the Realm countries or it could be a mixture of the Realm countries—for five years before they are entitled to New Zealand superannuation at the age of 65. And what this does is it ensures that they are all on the same playing field. They have the same rights to the superannuation that they’ve worked for. And I think it’s important to note that these people have come to New Zealand for a variety of reasons, often to work, to raise money that they can send home to support their families and to support those back in their Realm country where they come from, to be able to send remittances home, and to be able to make a contribution for a variety of reasons. They come here to gain skills, they come here for education, they come here to contribute to New Zealand, and then they have the opportunity, under this legislation, to go home without being required to then come back to New Zealand and contribute or be here for any longer period.

And the important point that that makes is it means that those who do come here and do make that contribution to our country then have that opportunity to be able to retire back to one of the Realm countries, to be able to then continue that contribution back in their own country without having that disruption which is currently required by law part-way through their life or as they are planning their retirement—that requirement to come back to New Zealand, to be back in New Zealand society for five years. And often what we see is those people will stay in New Zealand rather than then return back as their intention might have been. Their family might be here, their employment might be here, their foundations for their life are further built here in New Zealand, which takes away the incentive to go back to Niue or back to the Cook Islands or back to Tokelau to retire there and be able to contribute back into the economy.

So what we see, then, are fewer people doing that and the populations of those countries continuing to decline. And what that means for their future, for their economic well-being, as countries in their own right, is it becomes more and more challenging as they seek to build their own prosperity and to build their own future as a country in this world. And so what the hope and the aspiration of this piece of legislation is is that this will encourage and incentivise these people to be able to go back to their country at an earlier age, to be able to build their lives, to be able to then retire in those countries, accessing the New Zealand superannuation which they have worked for, which they have contributed in New Zealand to, and which they are entitled to. And I think, as the point has been made, not only is it superannuation but it is the veterans support allowance as well. I think that’s a vitally important part of this legislation, because we do have to acknowledge those who serve in our defence forces and serve for our country, and if they serve in New Zealand, that also entitles them to be able to do the same.

It did disappoint me to see the Minister of Defence spend his seven or eight minutes in the House trying to score political points rather than trying to talk about the important facts that this bill does in actually allowing those who have served in the Defence Force to be able to go back to the islands. [Interruption]

💬 Chris Penk: Oh, they’ve woken up!

And yes, I think it’s an important point that Mr Penk just made. They have just woken up across on the other side of the House. It happens once or twice a day but we enjoy it when it does happen, because there’s really not a lot of spark on the other side of the House these days. I mean, it is Guy Fawkes at the moment, but just not much spark on that side of the House, which is a little bit unfortunate.

💬 Hon David Bennett: That fella from New Zealand First—I can’t remember his name—he’s pretty sparky.

Yeah, I can’t remember his name, either, and I don’t want to remember their names. There are so many other, more important things to remember around this place, David Bennett, rather than remembering the names of people in the New Zealand First Party.

So I think this bill does an incredible job in trying to build that relationship to solidify our place in the world, supporting our Realm countries and ensuring that we aren’t continuing to allow the depopulation of these countries. We are sending a message that we want to support them economically. We want to ensure that those who come to New Zealand have a pathway back to their Realm country to be able to continue to live there, to support their families there, to be able to contribute to the economy of those Realm countries, and to ensure that we, as New Zealand, are able to play our part in that.

So I’d like to, in conclusion, acknowledge a few important people. I’d like to acknowledge Sir Bill English, who started the process, and who, as the Prime Minister at the time, travelled to the Cook Islands and Tokelau and Niue and made this commitment. I’d like to acknowledge all members of this House, who are all voting for this bill. And I think it’s important to note, despite the interjections from the other side of the House by someone who used to be a member of the National Party—a branch chair of the National Party, I actually understand; he was quite an important office holder in the National Party. I think, from the interjections that he’s making, he’s obviously quite disappointed and he’s still going through the grieving phase of leaving. But, you know, he’ll get over that, but he’s not welcome back; so that’s OK.

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: He wasn’t good enough to get pre-selected.

He wasn’t good enough to get pre-selected, which Chris Finlayson said.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come to the bill. Come to the bill.

But the point I was trying to make, Madam Deputy Speaker, before I got interjected on rudely by the other side, was that this bill is being passed unanimously in the House. And, I think, when we do come together as a House to make a change to our law and we do it in a unanimous way, that’s something that should be celebrated. And I think that too often people look at this debating chamber and they listen to the interjections and they hear the comments that have just been made, but what is true is that so many times Parliament does come together in a unified way to pass legislation not only for the good of New Zealand but for the good of our Realm, to make a real, positive difference. This bill is one such bill. I commend it to the House. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is with a sense of privilege and joy that I rise to offer the Green Party’s support for the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. This is a piece of legislation that is long, long overdue, and it’s really nice to be able to stand in support of it in the House this evening.

I don’t think I feel compelled to keep on drawing out my speech; it’s actually quite a simple piece of legislation. What it does is it enables New Zealanders who have spent 10 years here, after the age of 20, to spend their last five qualifying years before they can get access to superannuation or the veterans pension in any of the Realm countries—so that’s the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, or New Zealand. So it’s just building in that consistency and making sure that we’re treating all our citizens fairly and consistently.

This is something that’s been called for by the leaders and the people of those nation States, who are really struggling to bring people back to be able to keep their countries thriving. These are beautiful, amazing countries and communities who are very small. The populations of—I think Niue is around 1,600 people, Tokelau around 1,300, and the Cook Islands is only around 17,500 people as a population. So when you think about those numbers and the tasks involved in running an economy and looking after families and, indeed, the Governments in those countries, you can see how important it is that we support them in bringing their people home. So this is a really important and simple measure on that basis.

I do just want to congratulate the Government for making this a priority. This was announced by the Prime Minister on the Pacific tour in February or March this year, which makes this one of the really early acts of this Government, and it sends a very clear message, I hope, to people in the Pacific that we are listening, we have been listening for years, and we are prioritising this work because it deserves to be prioritised. Kia ora.

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Along with my colleagues all around the House tonight, I stand in support of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill in its third and final reading. I believe that it’s a privilege for me to be speaking to this third reading in appreciation of the years of discussion and consideration that this concept has had around the portability of New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension.

I do acknowledge the early work of the former National-led Government and the support that was given to the background of this bill by our former Prime Minister Sir Bill English when he made his announcement in the Pacific in June of last year, and that was well articulated this evening by the contribution of the Hon Alfred Ngaro.

At this time, I’d also like to acknowledge the work of the Social Services and Community Committee. Generally, this is a very good working group of people. It’s very well led by Gareth Hughes, very conciliatory chairman that he is. He has guided us through some fairly tricky pieces of work through that select committee—this one not so tricky, but I do acknowledge the work and the contribution of all of those members.

Now, I would imagine that some people who are watching this debate tonight may be wondering why we are granting this portability of pensions to the people from the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. The reason is quite simple: it’s because those people are also New Zealand citizens, and so we do have a constitutional responsibility for all of our citizens in the islands and here in New Zealand, including those in the Pacific countries.

Now, the main change that this bill addresses is the requirement for residency. Currently, anyone from the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau must reside in New Zealand for 10 years after they reach the age of 20, and then after 50 they must also have been resident for five years in New Zealand. Now, the rationale, I imagine, for that requirement was so that they had made a contribution to New Zealand and that they also had a legitimate connection to this country. So the residents of any one of those islands who may have spent time here in New Zealand, perhaps to further their education or training, who had accumulated 10 years of residency here after the age of 20 could go back to the Islands and take their skills with them and support their homeland to prosper and to make a contribution to the economic viability of the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau.

But one of the challenges of the requirement of five years after 50 was the risk of the depopulation of those islands, and we heard that from some of the submitters who came to speak to the select committee. Having to come back to New Zealand for those five years after 50 was meaning that they were also bringing their skills and their training away from the Islands. Simply coming back to New Zealand for that provision, to qualify for the five over 50, was simply to qualify for superannuation, and so it disrupted the residency that they had in those islands.

This bill will mean that those people who are eligible for New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension can now remain in those islands and contribute to their local economy without having to return to New Zealand simply to qualify for New Zealand super or a veterans pension. So it does help to mitigate the risks of depopulation in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau by allowing the rule of spending five years after 50 to be spent in any of those islands.

This was a real challenge to the Islands in the past, because there was a deterrent to having skilled people returning to and contributing to the Islands after they had been here for those five years after 50. I have to say that, you know, from my own experience, once you get to that age and you settle somewhere it’s very difficult to uplift yourself from family, etc. So this is a very common-sense and convenient way of ensuring that we support, in an ongoing way, the population to be maintained in those islands.

It is a real issue, because back in 1960 in Niue, the population there was around 5,000 people, but by 2006 the population had dropped to a little over 1,600, while the New Zealand census recorded at the same time that the number of people who associated or claimed to be from Niue was nearly 24,000, and 79 percent of those were actually born here in New Zealand. So there was a real issue with depopulation, and I believe that this bill will go a long way to mitigating that issue.

There were concerns that we’ve spoken about and that were raised during the submission period about whether this bill actually did comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. That was really strongly argued by one of those submitters, who had actually taken a case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. But the advice that the select committee received was that this bill does appear to be consistent with New Zealand rights and freedoms, and so, as a result, we made no changes to the bill.

One suggestion that another submitter had was that all of the Pacific Islands would be included in this five over 50 requirement, and that that could be spent in any of the Pacific Islands. Unfortunately, it was beyond the scope of the bill at the time, but I thought it was an ambitious suggestion to make.

One other submitter also pointed out to us about the growing fiscal risk from immigration to New Zealand in later life. I have to say, I did have some sympathy for the submitter, because if we’re going, as it were, to have to spend five years after the age of 50 back here in New Zealand, what we were doing was encouraging people to come back later in life. As we know, the risk of health issues and more dependence on the health system accelerates as we age, and so this requirement to come here after 50 for five years was also bringing in some significant fiscal risk. So I think that in terms of mitigating that, this bill actually does address that issue as well.

As I said in my second reading speech on this bill, I actually thought that we may have delayed the final reading of this bill, given that Mark Patterson from New Zealand First has actually had his member’s bill drawn from the ballot, and it is in conflict with this bill that we are debating here for the last time tonight. Now, Mark Patterson’s bill, which is named the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill—what that bill actually suggests is that the residency requirement be extended to 20 years after the age of 20. That bill is going to be debated in this House before too much longer, and it’s going to be in conflict with the bill that we have already been debating here.

This bill is unchanged from the original. Even though we did have great contributions from our submitters, we have not made any changes to the bill. It was so well-written in the first place, and I commend it to the House.

Kia orana katoatoa. Fakalofa lahi atu. Malo ni. Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It is an absolute privilege to stand here tonight to contribute to the third reading of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. It would be remiss of me not to respond to the last speaker, Maureen Pugh, where she acknowledged the dinosaurs who are no longer in this House and who took their time to make a decision on this very important bill.

I’d like to acknowledge the leadership of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni on the journey of this very important bill, as part of this coalition Government’s Pacific reset. Why do I say that? Why do I acknowledge the leadership of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni? Well, her leadership in navigating this bill in terms of courage—courage to do the honourable thing. If we say that people in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau share New Zealand citizenship, then why shouldn’t every New Zealand citizen that qualifies receive this very important opportunity where, in doing so, it seeks to provide greater pension flexibility for people who wish to retire in any of those islands—the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, or New Zealand for that matter?

So this is not just for the citizens of Tokelau, Niue, or the Cook Islands; this is also for the citizens of New Zealand. On that, on behalf of all the citizens, I want to thank the leadership of the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and the member the Hon Carmel Sepuloni. In the languages, I would like to say whakawhetai koe, which is in Te Reo; Fakaaue, fakaaue lahi koe, which is Niuean. Fakafetai is thank you in Tokelauan; and meitaki maata in Cook Islands Maori. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to take a short call on the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill at this third reading. Like my colleagues on this side of the House, yes, we do support this bill. It has been a long time coming, and I admit that, but I think the work that Sir Bill English did while he did his tours last year to the Cook Islands was the setting of this particular bill, and it was some of the hard work that went in behind it. It’s all very well having a bill come, but it needs a whole lot of work done behind the scenes, and this is what this side of the House did pre-election.

The purpose of this bill is “to alter the residential qualifications for New Zealand superannuation and the veteran’s pension”—as mentioned before—“to allow the requirement that a person also have 5 years’ residence and presence in New Zealand over the age of 50 years to be met instead with residence and presence in New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue, [and] Tokelau, or any combination of those countries”.

I think this is a very good bill in that it recognises our relationship with those Pacific nations, with our Pacific brothers and sisters from the Cooks, Tokelau, and Niue. It also recognises that, yes, they are also taxpayers of our system as well, and that they too should also have access to our New Zealand superannuation. I guess what I’m saying here is that even though there are the time frames of 10 years’ residency over the age of 20 years of age to be able to move back to the Cooks or Niue or Tokelau, spending five years post 50 years in those particular countries and Islands will qualify them for New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension. It actually shows the relationship and the closeness of that relationship between New Zealand and those Islands.

Very quickly, I just want to talk a little bit about the couple of options that were considered by the Social Services and Community Committee, who did a very good job on this. It was option one, where “Applicants who move or return to the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau after … 10 years residence in New Zealand can be eligible for [New Zealand super] after completing five years”—as I’ve said—“over … 50,”. Option two, though, which was never considered for many reasons, was that “Applicants would need 10 years residence in New Zealand over the age of 20, if applying from the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau.” There are some slight differences around that: “In this instance the ‘five years over 50’ rule would not apply to residents in the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau, and 10 years in New Zealand would be all that is required.”

So when we start looking at the two options, it was obvious that option one was going to be considered the best option. It was fair, it was affordable, and it reflected the contribution of people, which I talked about just before, who have connections to New Zealand and the Cook Islands and Niue and Tokelau. The core residence rule of New Zealand superannuation would not be compromised. These were some of the tests that actually chose option one. Option one would also address the problem by making it easier for people to receive New Zealand superannuation in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau.

As some of my colleagues over here have also said, a person who has accumulated 10 years’ residence in New Zealand after the age of 20 years would be able to live in the Cooks, in Niue, or in Tokelau, and would be able to use the residence after the age of 50 in those particular Islands to allow them to also qualify for New Zealand super, thereby mitigating the depopulation of those Islands that they were suffering through the previous rules. So once this bill reaches its Royal assent, then these rules will start to set in, and the families or the members that will qualify for superannuation or the veterans pension will be able to stay in those Islands, thereby mitigating depopulation.

So I too on this side of the House support the bill. I think that it’s good that the member the Hon Carmel Sepuloni has been able to pick it up and carry it through and that the Social Services and Community Committee have been able to shepherd this right through to this stage. So it is my pleasure to say once again to you that I wholeheartedly support this bill and commend it to the House. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s always good when you have a bill that everyone in the House supports—and I’m sure that those at home are thinking that, as well—especially one that is seriously recognising the importance of those constitutional relationships between New Zealand and Niue, the Cook Islands, and Tokelau. This feels to me as if it is a real recognition of those constitutional relationships. It is also a genuine recognition that depopulation and its social and economic impacts are a real issue for those nations as well.

The only other point—I can’t really add to all of the good words that have been said on this bill tonight, but I do want to just point out that those changes that were made in 2015 to the special portability arrangement were really important. I acknowledge the work that was done by the previous Government on that, but the take-up of that wasn’t as high as expected, and that’s why this change is so important. It is important because it allows people over the age of 50 to remain in the Islands when they need to in order to be entitled to those social supports, and that’s the bottom line. So it feels as if we’re doing the right thing in the House tonight, and it’s going to make a difference.

I acknowledge the work by the previous Government. I acknowledge absolutely the work by my colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni and also the very strong commitment by this Government through the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister to the Pacific reset, and this is a manifestation of that.

Mr Speaker, I don’t mind queue-jumping. It’s a delight for me to take a call on this bill. I want to begin by acknowledging the Rt Hon Winston Peters for his Pacific reset. It was an excellent move and it has got huge support amongst the Pacific nations that we are so close to in so many ways. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni and the work that she has done to bring this bill to the House, and it’s so rewarding to see the across-the-board support that the legislation has gained, primarily due to the hard work that she’s put into it.

In this Parliament, when we were all sworn in, I think we had seven languages used, which is a bit of a tribute to the increased diversity of this House. But I want to particularly acknowledge Poto Williams and the Hon Alfred Ngaro for their Cook Island connection. They’re both very proud Cook Islanders and they demonstrate that frequently in this House. Without wanting to bring family members in, I can do so because the Hon Alfred Ngaro did acknowledge his wife is Niuean, so I want to recognise that connection as well. We have our Tokelauan brother, the Hon Kris Faafoi, and the Hon Carmel Sepuloni also has a family connection to Niue. So this bill has personal relevance and, I guess, is more passionate as a result.

So with the Pacific’s triple star, the Realm nations of the Cooks, Tokelau, and Niue, the change that we are introducing in this legislation will, I’m sure, be very welcomed by them. It has been a long time coming. For those people that will now be able to live in any of the Realm nations or New Zealand after they turn 50, this will be warmly welcomed. So I don’t want to delay its passing. I commend its progress to the House.

Bill read a third time.