New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill

I move, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I know that all members understand how important New Zealand superannuation and veteran’s pension are to older New Zealanders. This is a bill that emphasises and contributes to the sustainability of the core settings that are of greatest importance to older New Zealanders, while reflecting changes in how New Zealanders live and participate in the workforce across Aotearoa New Zealand today. It achieves this by moving towards basing entitlement to New Zealand superannuation and veteran’s pension on individual circumstances while retaining higher rates for single people. Alongside that, the bill also makes changes to several other superannuation and veteran’s pension settings to bring them into the present day and improve their clarity and consistency.

One of the bill’s more substantive changes is that it closes the option for superannuitants to include their non-qualified partner in their rate of entitlement. Superannuitants who are already including their non-qualified partner will be grandparented, so will be unaffected by this change. It’s important for me to note that this provision originated at a time when sole, mainly male, breadwinner families were more common, and mandatory retirement ages were an accepted part of working life. Before the breadwinner retired, the other partner would be expected to rely on his earnings, and, after he had to retire, they could be expected to rely on his superannuation. I’m glad to say that times have changed since then, and often our older couples are both in employment—compulsory retirement ages are a thing of the past, and both individuals in a couple can work past the superannuation qualification age if they are able and wish to. This particular change helps us to remove some of these antiquated assumptions about participation in the workforce and bring this legislation into line with modern New Zealand.

Complementing the closure of the non-qualified partner provision, the bill also removes what’s known as spousal deduction. The change will mean that superannuitants don’t have their own entitlement, including both their pension and their winter energy payment, reduced by their partner’s overseas pension. Spousal deduction was intended to ensure that all couples have the same level of Government-administered retirement income, but it’s come to be seen as unfairly impacting the rate of New Zealand superannuation based on their partner’s overseas entitlement.

In addition to these changes, the bill also includes a number of other minor clarifications. The bill expands eligibility to the single living alone rate to people in self-contained mobile homes. It also allows people who carry out voluntary humanitarian work overseas for a New Zealand charity or affiliated organisation to count this time toward the resident’s requirements for New Zealand superannuation and veteran’s pension. The bill ensures that people don’t have their superannuation affected by part of an overseas pension that’s based on voluntary contributions. It provides legislative protection for the current practice of setting net superannuation rates at no less than 66 percent of the average ordinary time weekly wage after tax. And it consolidates provisions relating to the special disability allowance paid to partners of people in residential care in the Social Security Act.

At the committee of the whole House, I will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper that will amend the commencement dates for the bill. This proposes that the bill commence on 9 November 2020. This has been necessary to allow the Ministry of Social Development to respond rapidly to COVID-19. I’d like to thank all the members of the Social Services and Community Committee for their attention to this bill and also to thank each of the submitters who took the time to write to and speak to the committee. I’m very pleased that the select committee has come together to make a number of important amendments to the bill that will see it work more effectively. One submitter drew attention to the anomaly that superannuation would still be affected by an overseas pension paid to or on behalf of a superannuitant’s dependent. This isn’t a situation that happens often—once in perhaps the last 10 years—but it’s still important to address. Under the current legislation, superannuation won’t be paid to provide for a superannuitant’s partner or their children just for the superannuitant themselves. So an amendment to stop these overseas pensions for dependents from affecting superannuation is a welcome addition.

There’ve also been some changes to help the closure of the non-qualified partner provision work as intended. These include amendments to help clarify what happens to the partner of someone who’s hospitalised for 13 weeks or more. The change is to ensure that when one partner has their super or main benefit reduced while they’re in hospital, their partner and the community always gets effectively the single rate of super or their main benefit. This is needed because the two Acts currently only cover the situation where both partners receive payments under the same Act, and, in future, we’ll see more couples receiving payments under different Acts.

There’s also a change to the income tests that apply to a beneficiary whose partner receives veteran’s pension. At the moment, that beneficiary would get a harsher income test than a beneficiary whose partner receives New Zealand superannuation. That doesn’t make sense. So I’m pleased that the committee has recommended improving the situation for partners of veterans so that they are treated the same as partners of superannuitants.

The bill will provide relief to superannuitants who are affected by their partner’s overseas pension, some of whom currently receive no or very little New Zealand superannuation as a result, and a number of whom shared their stories with the committee. The closure of the non-qualified partner provision and the removal of spousal deduction emphasised the core settings for New Zealand superannuation: that it is available from age 65 for citizens and residents who meet the residents requirements, that rates maintain a relationship with wages, and that it is not subject to an income or asset test. Those settings are certainly worth protecting. So those are what we’ve chosen to emphasise in this bill—the outcomes that we want to endure for the future. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s been said that when you grow old, three things happen. The first is that you lose your memory; the second is that you lose your memory; (c) you lose your memory; and, of course, fifthly, you lose your memory. But something else happens in New Zealand as well, and that is that you qualify for superannuation and, in the case of some New Zealanders, you also qualify for the veteran’s pension. This piece of legislation—on which I’ll put members out of their misery and say that the New Zealand National Party will continue to support—does some very worthwhile things in clarifying and simplifying the entitlements for those who are able to receive New Zealand Superannuation.

The Minister for Social Development has acknowledged the work of the Social Services and Community Committee. I was not privileged to be a member of the committee at the time that the submissions were made and the hearings were taking place and the consideration of the bill also took place, but it’s obvious from reading the report that they’ve produced that considerable work, and care and diligence has gone into producing that. The Minister has acknowledged a number of amendments that the select committee has recommended and we think that those are sensible as well.

It’s an omnibus bill, Madam Speaker, as you’re well aware, but of course, I’ve got to continue to speak as I’m speaking to you—part of the fiction of this place. But anyway, the omnibus bill, it will amend a number of different Acts: the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, the Veterans’ Support Act, Social Security Act, Income Tax Act, and Tax Administration Act.

I do want to acknowledge, in relation to the veterans aspects, that today is the 70th anniversary of the commencement of the Korean War, and I note that in this Chamber we have, among other memorials, one dedicated to the Korean War, sometimes referred to as the “Forgotten War”, but, of course, by remembering it on every occasion that we are able to, we shall not forget.

The legislation does some pretty complex technical things, but all quite logical when you think about them in relation to a person who’s entitled to receive superannuation and has that entitlement affected by other people in their lives—often, well, roughly speaking, we could say “loved ones”, but there’s different categories of partner, of course, and also dependants. So I’ll take a little time to walk through the most relevant ones of those for the benefit of the record and to explain why we in the National Party believe that this legislation continues to be worth supporting.

One of the main ones is that the person who is able to receive superannuation will have a clearer path to having the rate calculated. So the bill takes away the non-qualified partner rate, the NQP rate, so that’s where a person until now was able to choose a higher rate if their partner, as in their life partner, doesn’t qualify in their own right. So there’s a simplification exercise whereby we’re saying that the each of those persons will be entitled to receive what they are able to receive, notwithstanding that the person who is subject to the provision of the bill is affected by the fact that they are in a relationship with someone else. It’s all pretty clear if you read it, I can assure you.

The effect of this isn’t retrospective, and I think that’s important for the sake of fairness. If a person who has already elected to choose the NQP rate—that’s the non-qualifying partner rate—has already entered into that regime, effectively, before the commencement date of the bill, then they’ll be entitled to proceed along the same lines. So that seems a reasonable kind of provision in our view.

Spousal deduction is something that the Minister’s mentioned. Sounds like something that Sherlock Holmes would have been checking up on his wife, but, in fact, deduction in the sense, obviously, meaning the reduction of a pension—superannuation or a veteran’s pension—whereby a partner receives an overseas Government-administered pension. I think it’s probably recognised right across the House that there’s an element of unfairness whereby a person, or—actually more to the point—a couple could receive less than what would be the standard amount as a result of the fact that one of them is in receipt of a benefit of some kind from overseas. And the bottom line really must be that there shouldn’t be less entitlement for a New Zealander who is otherwise able to gain their full superannuation simply because their partner is overseas and in that kind of category.

So too we are no longer penalising a person, effectively, for having been overseas outside the New Zealand qualification requirement where they’re there doing humanitarian work, and that’s a pretty broad definition, I think, appropriately so. Similarly, for those who are living in self-contained mobile homes, well, we don’t say that that’s the kind of accommodation that would disqualify them from the living-alone rate. In other words, there’s a bit more breadth and a bit more generosity about the kind of person—person’s activities, really—that allows someone to continue to receive the superannuation at the full relevant rate.

The bill contains a number of different subtle details, which I’ll just go through reasonably quickly because there are a large number of them. But I think it’s worth noting that a person’s partner might change in status—for example, the bill gives a particular example from a de facto to a spouse in the more traditional sense of that phrase. That doesn’t prevent a couple from continuing to receive the NQP rate that they’d opted into before the commencement date. However, if the partnership changes—as in if there’s a breakup and in a new partner enters the life of the relevant person—then all bets are off in the sense that the person doesn’t have the ability to say, “Well, I’m going to go back to being in the pre-Act position of claiming the NQP rate anyway.”

There’s a lot actually in the bill as well that’s quite laudable that actually just simply clarifies the position. It doesn’t actually change necessarily the status of people to be able to claim superannuation, but does make things clearer, and that’s actually a useful thing in itself. The change of pension type, for example, in relation to those who switch between New Zealand superannuation and the veteran’s pension—these provisions are sequential; they are next to each other and in the same Act, so that’s clearer.

I’ve been part of the process where the same committee, actually—the same select committee—has been considering in relation to another piece of legislation which is considering, more particularly, the situation of veterans. One of the themes that’s emerged from that is that the lack of clarity about what’s available to these fine Kiwis—the lack of clarity is often actually quite a challenging thing itself. So for this piece of legislation actively to be seeking to make the situation clearer for the benefit of those who are eligible to receive these various kinds of benefits, that’s a worthwhile thing.

We talked before about spousal deductions; well, so too, for dependents who are living overseas and receiving a benefit or pension. Likewise, they shouldn’t be in the position of penalising a person who would otherwise be receiving a full superannuation. So that’s a good thing. Similarly—well, not similarly, but a sort of a similar kind of theme, albeit that the details are different—is that if one’s partner is hospitalised, then the effect of the amendment that the select committee’s proposing is to say, well, for that period of time that there’s a long period of hospitalisation, then the person who is the subject of the Act would not be receiving superannuation—it’s reduced—as though they had a partner. It’s a little bit like saying that we’ll treat them as though they are a single person for that period of time. While in some senses that would seem, I suppose, anomalous, because the fact of the partnership remains, in practical terms and in terms of the support for a person who is living by themselves, we can say that for someone who has a partner who is hospitalised, in effect, that’s a pretty similar thing to being single for certain purposes, at least.

The final point that I would make, again, in support of the bill, is to say that there’s a principle at play whereby those who receive veterans’ pensions shouldn’t be having a more onerous income test than those receiving the more ordinary form of superannuation. That’s something that the committee spelt out quite clearly and explicitly, and I thank them for doing that. So for all those reasons, on this side of the House we continue to support the bill and we look forward to its continued passage on that basis.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to rise and take a call on the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. The purpose of this bill is to simplify and modernise the New Zealand superannuation and veteran’s pension schemes which provide financial assistance to our older people.

It was an absolute privilege to be part of the select committee that considered this bill, and can I at this point, given that this is a second reading, just acknowledge and thank all those who submitted to our Social Services and Community Committee. I also acknowledge the officials who provided us with advice, and I also commend the Minister for Social Welfare, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, for her work on this bill and, more broadly, within the social development space as well.

Now, the Minister has mentioned a few amendments that were suggested and that have been passed through the select committee as well. This is, basically, at the heart of a bill that hopes to improve the system and to make it a little bit fairer. I’m not going to go into all of the changes that have been proposed, or the changes, actually, that this bill will make once it’s passed into legislation, but I will draw attention just to the fact that it stops the spousal deduction off the New Zealand superannuation or the veteran’s pension. Currently, what happens is that the amount of the person’s New Zealand superannuation or veteran’s pension could be reduced if their partner receives an overseas Government - administered pension.

This is a change that many in the sector have called for for a long time, and I’m incredibly pleased that this bill will make that change. I commend the bill to the House.

Could I congratulate Priyanca Radhakrishnan, because that speech was one minute and 40 seconds long, and she is part of the Labour Party’s “class of 2017”, most of whom, tonight, have taken calls of between two and seven seconds. The intriguing thing about that is it’s been their finest work in their, to date, fairly undistinguished parliamentary careers. Certainly, they have been their most memorable, and, yes, Kiri Allan has been one who has done that, and Dr Deborah Russell has taken several. I have no doubt at all that she will look back on some of the previous speeches she made—and I’m making a serious point here—during the—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it about the bill?

Yes, well it’s relevant to the bill, Madam Speaker. You know me—it’s always relevant to the bill. Ha! I’m not quite sure what the body language is, Ms Radhakrishnan, but the point I’m making is that if they hadn’t spent 2½ years filibustering in the most ludicrous way, they wouldn’t be now in the position of having to rush this bill and many others through the House.

Those who are seasoned watchers of Parliament will know that we are sitting tonight under urgency considering the second reading of this bill, which they could have got on with some considerable time ago, and then they wouldn’t have had to take two-second speeches in which they say precisely nothing; they could have indeed paid some attention to the important aspects of the bill, because there are some significant aspects, and I would like to acknowledge—I’m going to look in this direction, because one cannot bring the Speaker into the debate, but, in all seriousness, I want to acknowledge the member for East Coast, the former Minister for Social Development, the Hon Anne Tolley, under whose watch much of the important aspects of this bill commenced.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: A very good Minister—a very good Minister.

She was a very good Minister, and I hope I’m not in breach of the Standing Orders in doing it in that way. But I think acknowledgment needs to tabled—credit where credit is due.

So here we are under urgency rushing a bill through. Now, like Mr Penk, who is now our veterans’ spokesperson in the National Party, I too didn’t get to hear the submissions on this bill; I’ve only recently joined the Social Services and Community Committee, and it’s fairly unusual, I think, for the first two Opposition spokespeople both to have been in that position where they didn’t hear the submissions on the bill. But, in reading the report, and in reaching the fact that here we are now, I—well, I can’t be sure that it’s entirely unanimous but I presume there’s almost unanimity in the House about the bill; clearly, they’ve done some good work and paid respect to those submitters, and I acknowledge them.

Could I also acknowledge Gareth Hughes, the Green member who is the chair of the committee. In the short time that I’ve been a member of the committee, I’ve been very impressed by Gareth Hughes’ style of chairmanship—I think he’s very collegial and fair, and that deserves to be acknowledged, and I’m sure he did a good job in chairing the submissions process.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: A big loss to the Green Party.

He will be a big loss to the Green Party, and I’m sure the Green Party would acknowledge that, and I congratulate him on the new job that he’s recently secured with his wife.

Could I also—

💬 Hon Members: What job?

The new job that he has recently been appointed to.

💬 Hon Members: What job?

Well, sorry, I think it’s public knowledge, but if not, I’m just going to move on very quickly. I understand that they have a new job and they’re looking forward to it, and I wish them well in their post-election employment. I hope that I’m not leaving to find new employment myself, post-election—ha, ha!

I did just want to acknowledge, as Mr Penk did, that it’s particularly appropriate that we’re dealing with this particular bill, the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill today as we mark the 70th anniversary of the Korean War. I’m sure that we all would want to acknowledge our veterans even with the passage of time, and it is quite extraordinary to think that 70 years has passed since that particular conflict. I’m sure we would all want to acknowledge our veterans and say that we are for ever in their debt and hugely grateful to them. I just hope that within our lifetimes, the tragedy that is North Korea may see a similar sort of restoration of human rights and a semblance of democracy, because what a horrific situation it is in that country.

Now, many of the members who have spoken have quite rightly commented on the fact that the important aspect—or perhaps the most significant aspect—of this bill is the spousal deduction issue, and I know that that has been a long time coming. Those of us who have been electorate MPs will have heard from constituents over many, many years how unfair some of them had found it, and I don’t know whether other MPs would say it, but, for some reason, in my case, it’s been mainly Dutch constituents who have brought that particular issue to my attention, and so I’m delighted to be able tell my Dutch constituents when I next go home, “We’ve heard you and we’ve acted, and we’ve acted in agreement, and this longstanding grievance that you feel will be at last overcome.”

It’s also worth noting that New Zealanders, of course, are living longer, and that’s a great thing, and as long as we have a degree of quality of life, I’m sure we all welcome that. When superannuation was first introduced, I understand, way back in the days of the first Liberal Government, and with some extraordinary sort of moral qualifications and other things, at the time, it was set at 65 years—the age of entitlement—and the average age of life expectancy for a man in those days was 58, and for a woman it was 63. So you had to have exceeded the life expectancy before you could even be considered for a pension. Well, how times have changed. It’s still at 65, but now, most New Zealanders can expect to live about 25 percent of their lives on superannuation, and, in fact, I would like to acknowledge, if I may, Alan and Alice Hodgson, of my electorate, who yesterday celebrated 70 years of marriage, and I think that is a tremendous achievement; I had great pleasure in talking to Mr Hodgson last night and passing on my congratulations to both of them. And may I also mention that today is the diamond wedding anniversary of my parents-in-law, Joan and Michael Murray, wonderful parents-in-law, love them dearly, and they are in Havelock North and I look forward to seeing them over the weekend. [Deputy Speaker gestures to member to speak to the bill] Yes, but Madam Speaker—they’re pensioners, Madam Speaker. Actually, because I’ve already talked about the “class of 2017” from the other side, and he wasn’t so kind, in the collegial spirit for which Waikato MPs are so well known, could I also wish a happy birthday to Labour list MP Jamie Strange.

💬 Hon Member: He’s nearly a pensioner.

He’s nearly a pensioner—that’s right. In fact, he texted me earlier to say that he was about to nod off in his office, and if he wasn’t before, I’m sure he is now.

I am interested by the fact that there is one issue where there is going to be disagreement, and that is that the Minister has signalled that she is going to defer the introduction of a Supplementary Order Paper to do with the spousal deduction from 1 July, and she’s claiming that she’s doing that because of the COVID-19 impact and the suspension of Parliament. I don’t agree that that’s fair, because it has been well signalled, and I know that New Zealand First doesn’t think it’s fair either, so let’s see what can happen there. I’ve got a quote from Dr Claire Dale, who is a research fellow at the retirement policy and research centre in the Department of Economics at the University of Auckland Business School, who was talking about the anomalies in the policy for superannuitants with overseas pensions, and in particular said, “Of these multiple anomalies, the most egregious is the spousal deduction. This policy reduces a person’s superannuation when their partner has an overseas pension. A woman could have lived and worked all her life in New Zealand, and entered into a second or maybe even a third relationship later on, only to find she gets less New Zealand super, or even none at all, and so loses precious financial independence. Increasingly, men who marry women with long working histories from other countries are affected as well.”

So that is just one example of why we need to modernise this legislation, we need to simplify it, and we need to take into account the fact that many people’s living arrangements are very different nowadays. It’s appropriate for us to recognise the social changes; after all, when my father retired, that meant that my parents, effectively, retired, because he was, in the old traditional way, the breadwinner. I think that my mother’s role as an active mother, home maker, was every bit as important—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: When’s their wedding anniversary?

Well, sadly, Mr Simpson, my father has been dead for some years, but their wedding anniversary was 4 August, and I still remember each day—ha, ha!

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Please don’t encourage him.

Well, it was kind of him, and, in fact, my mother is probably watching this, so could I wish her a very happy birthday for a couple of weeks ago. But anyway—you can blame that one on Scott Simpson; blame that one on him.

But it’s also important to recognise that single people do still need to enjoy a slightly higher rate, because it costs as much to heat a room for one person as it does for two; it costs as much to power a fridge or an oven for one person as it does for two; it costs as much to register a car which a couple may have owned as it does for two. And that is why the difference between the single and the couple’s rate has always existed and must continue to exist. We’re sometimes asked that—that’s the reason. I’m out of time, and, Madam Speaker, I know you’re absolutely disappointed about that! Ha, ha!

It is always a pleasure to stand and take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in my support of this legislation, the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. I’d like to begin my contribution by acknowledging—

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Tim’s mum.

Tim’s mum—happy birthday. Tim’s parents-in-law, congratulations on your anniversary. Anyone that happens to know Tim, it is wonderful to see such a jolly superannuitant in the House.

Back to the bill. It’s really great tonight that we’ve heard from the member opposite, Tim Macindoe, who’s just resumed his seat, without giving us a lecture—it’s been most pleasant indeed to listen to your contribution this evening.

New Zealand Superannuation and the veteran’s pension legislation, how important is this to all of our seniors? It is extremely important. We can’t underestimate its value. For those of us who have parents in the ripe old age of receiving their superannuation, that’s a wonderful thing. If my father had lived, he would have received a veteran’s pension, so I’d just like to acknowledge him today on the 70th anniversary of the start of the Korean War on 25 June 1950. My father was in the 16th field regiment and served two terms with the K-force Korea. He also, firstly though, started his military career in the J-force at the end of World War II. So I take just a moment to acknowledge all of those in this House who have served New Zealand and all of those others across New Zealand who have given of their time, their bodies, their hearts, and their souls in service of our country. The Korean War is also known as the forgotten conflict that shaped the modern world, but we will remember them, particularly those that have fallen in their service.

I’d just like to come back to the bill to say that I think that it is important that we are modernising and simplifying through legislation, and so I don’t want to hold up this bill any longer. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be in the House this evening to support the second reading of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. I’d also like to acknowledge the speakers tonight on this bill, and, while we’re at it, I’d like to acknowledge my parents as well, who are pensioners.

This is an omnibus bill, and it does deal with that social assistance for that very particular special part of our community, our older New Zealanders. This bill, as had been noted by the member Chris Penk earlier—but I’ll just repeat it just in case it was missed—amends the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, the Veterans’ Support Act 2014, the Social Security Act 2018, the Income Tax Act 2007, and the Tax Administration Act 1994, and it is about moving the assessment of eligibility towards an individual basis. The purpose of this bill, which has already been highlighted by speakers, is, essentially, to modernise and simplify our superannuation and veteran’s pension. I agree with the Minister Sepuloni, who spoke, it is time. The nature of our relationships for younger and for older has changed, and, complexity or not, and simplicity, at the end of the day, we needed to have an Act that reflected the reality of relationships today. So I applaud this bill in doing that.

I’d just like to note some of the particular provisions that are included in this package. In clauses 8 and 9, we’ve got provisions that relate to missionaries and volunteers for secular charitable organisations. Part of that is the treatment of the various periods of absence from New Zealand. I do note, and I definitely support, those changes to section 9, including that humanitarian work will be added as a valid reason for absence from the country. Also included is treatment of overseas pensions that include a voluntary component, the scope of a single living alone rate, and the legislated wage for New Zealand super and veteran’s pension. We do support the intent of this bill and the broader policy intent to make sure that our veterans are not left behind at all.

New Zealanders are living longer, and just this week, in our Social Services and Community Committee, we heard from the Minister for Seniors, Tracey Martin, who provided some very relevant demographic data for our committee. Some of that data was very interesting. In 2001, 65-plus-year-old New Zealanders accounted for less than 12 percent of our population, and, by March 2020 that has gone up by 4 percent, so it’s now 16 percent of our population. We also heard that by 2034, seniors are expected to make up more than a fifth of our population, which will be over 1.2 million. In March 2020, 11 percent of seniors were aged over 85. This is expected to rise to 15 percent in 2034.

So not only are New Zealanders living longer, they are a part of our community that contribute hugely to our society in employment, to our families, to our communities, and to our volunteer roles as well. On that note, I would just like to acknowledge a submission by Age Concern New Zealand. I acknowledge their very strong voice and advocacy for our older New Zealanders. In particular, in their submission I noted their vision, which is older people live a valued life in an inclusive society, and that’s a vision, I think, that I fairly could say that all members of this House would also agree with: a vision for all our older people living a valued life in an inclusive society.

The National Party is committed to ensuring that our older New Zealanders do receive the respect and the support and the security that they deserve for the service and the work they have done during their time working, raising kids, and being part of the community. It’s wonderful to be here to support this bill, because we do want a superannuation system that is more sustainable.

The rate of our New Zealand super and veterans’ pensions that recipients receive does depend on your relationship status—the spousal reduction; or was it spousal deduction, which is, actually, a reduction, as was mentioned by the member Tim Macindoe. I, actually, am delighted that Tim Macindoe has become a member of our Social Services and Community Committee. No doubt about it, most, if not all, submitters made quite strong points around that part, and it’s good to see that under this bill spousal deduction is gone. It will no longer apply to the standard rates of the New Zealand super and veterans legislation. That means that superannuitants will no longer be affected by what a partner will be receiving from an overseas pension. Again, it is good to reflect the changing nature of our relationships in terms of modernising this legislation. So that’s a good thing. That’s a fantastic thing: that we can reflect society today. I just note that around 450 superannuitants in the 2022 period will no longer have their entitlement reduced, because of the removal of that spousal deduction. So that’s a significant amount.

Also, in relation to the submission from Age Concern, it’s a body that does a lot of advocacy for older New Zealanders. They are one of the many social service providers in our communities. I note that they have over 4,500 volunteers, who gift around 5,000 hours per week of volunteer work to the community. They also have 150 paid staff throughout New Zealand who work almost 4,000 hours per week and across boards to provide governance for local Age Concerns and other care. This is not the only body that does this work in terms of older population and in terms of the contribution that they make in our community. And, as we know, many of our older New Zealanders are still in the workforce.

I would also like to acknowledge that, in terms of the tabled Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 508, we do not support that SOP, but I would like to acknowledge that this was a part of our community that was very vulnerable to the COVID-19 virus and the lockdown. It was a very anxious time for them, and it would have been good to have that reflected in terms of this bill, in terms of allowing the date for that to still remain as it was for 1 July 2020. So we won’t be supporting that SOP.

But I would like to acknowledge my fellow committee members on the committee. We worked very collaboratively on this bill. It was good to be able to generally be in consensus of the views and wonderful to hear all the submissions. I acknowledge all the submitters. I would also like to acknowledge our chair, Gareth Hughes. I echo the sentiments of the member Tim Macindoe. I think Gareth Hughes has done a tremendous job as a chair for our committee. Thank you very much, Gareth. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Given that this bill has clearly unanimous support across the House, I won’t delay its passage too long. I would just like to respond to the comments made by Ms Loheni and Tim Macindoe earlier as well, just to, sort of, receive thanks on behalf of Gareth Hughes, and I’ll make sure that I pass that on to him. The Green Party, of course, is also supporting this bill. We supported it at first reading; we’ll be supporting it at second reading, and so on. Many of the provisions in here are ones that we have been advocating for for some time.

A number of members have already made reference to section 70 and the, sort of, built-in inequity that’s contained there, and I know that there are some people who are queasy about the fact that the implementation of that has had to be delayed due to COVID-19. Just for the record—you know, to make sure that it’s in the Hansard—that is not because of policy reasons or any political intention to delay it, but it is simply a pragmatic issue in terms of the execution. It’s clear that every party here supports the change to section 70 and that the spousal deduction was one of the most egregious, kind of, anomalies that’s contained in the current set-up, and that we’ll be moving as fast as we are practically able to do to fix that.

In terms of the other provisions, I mean, the overall intention here, you know, it does simplify the superannuation and veteran support system. It does make it fairer through a whole series of different amendments, and I think anything that modernises it so that it does reflect New Zealand society more—and Tim Macindoe I think made some very good points about just how much New Zealand society has changed since superannuation was first created and how, sometimes, a system gets ossified at a particular moment in time and society moves on. I think this bill does a great number of things to help to modernise it and to simplify it, and for those reasons, we support the bill and look forward to its speedy passage through the House.

Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. It seems to be a night for all-round consensus and bonhomie. James Shaw, the Minister who has just resumed his seat, is usually better known for giving a long, detailed, thorough analysis of the issues that relate to his portfolio areas, so it’s kind of a treat and almost a shame to have him speak for such a short time on such an important bill. I take the point that he wants to make, which is that he doesn’t want to delay the passage of this legislation any longer than it already has been, but that’s actually been the problem for the Government. It’s that this bill has been delayed. It’s something that should and could have been remedied much sooner than is currently the case.

I, like a number of other speakers on this side of the House, didn’t have the privilege or opportunity to sit on the Social Services and Community Committee and hear submissions on the bill. But I accept and acknowledge the gracious comments that have been made about the chair of that committee, Gareth Hughes, who is at the pinnacle of his political career in terms of his parliamentarian role of chairing that committee, and it’s such a shame that he, in fact, didn’t get an opportunity to take a ministerial responsibility, as the longest-serving Green MP in the Chamber.

So, putting that to one side, I do want to just endorse the comments that others have made tonight about the benefits that will accrue from this omnibus bill passing through the House.

My electorate of the Coromandel is not only beautiful and large but it has an age demographic that is skewed very much in favour of the 65-plus age group. In fact, at the last general election, Coromandel had the largest number of voters in the 65-plus age group enrolled out of any electorate in the country. Over my time as the member of Parliament for Coromandel, it’s fair to say that I’ve had more than my fair share of constituent inquiries around some of the matters that are addressed in this bill.

I notice that it’s predicted that in terms of the correction of the spousal deduction issue, it’s expected that something like 450 superannuitants in the 2022-23 year will no longer have their entitlement to New Zealand superannuation or the veteran’s pension reduced because of their partner’s overseas pension, and there have been times when I’ve been sure that, actually, all 450 of those people must have resided in my electorate, because these are people who feel very passionately about the wrong that has been done to them. They feel very strongly that they have been ill-treated, that the system doesn’t treat them fairly, that they are being disadvantaged, and that they are people, generally, who have been—well, in fact, always, in my experience—good citizens and who have been contributing citizens, whether it’s been in New Zealand or during periods of time when they’ve worked overseas and maybe have contributed to the voluntary schemes of superannuation that are set up in most countries these days.

Some of the most harrowing conversations I’ve had as a constituent MP have been in trying to explain the provisions of the existing law in relation to this area to people who just feel that they’re being hard-done-by and that the system is agin them. I’ve felt very sorry for them because, actually, the system has been agin them, and it has been unfair and it has been inequitable, and those people feel very disgruntled. So I’m hopeful that when the Parliament passes this legislation, those people will feel that a wrong has been righted—probably later than it should have been, but it will be righted none the less—and that’s a very good thing.

I remember particularly a constituent case where a partner in a relationship had had an international career with a multinational company. In the period of time that this person had worked during their working life, they had, I think, worked in something like 16 different countries, being stationed with this multinational company, doing good work. In each of the countries that this person was doing work in, they had contributed to the various superannuation schemes in that country, and trying to unwind with the Ministry of Social Development the complicated maze of contributions that that person had made during their professional and working life was a nightmare—an absolute nightmare. It should not have been that difficult, it should not have been that hard, and it was just wrong that we actually treated somebody who was a New Zealand citizen, who had made contributions during their working and professional life in a positive, correct, and appropriate way, thinking that they were making provision for their retirement, thinking that they were doing the right thing—and then, when it came to returning to New Zealand, they actually got financially penalised. That was wrong, it is wrong, and I’m very, very pleased that it’s now going to be corrected.

So I say to the 450 people in my electorate for whom this is an issue that help is on the way. So that’s a good thing.

But there are a couple of other aspects of this bill that also appeal to me and that I think are important in terms of righting somewhat smaller wrongs. One of them, funnily enough, also relates to my electorate, where not only do I have a beautiful and large electorate with an age demographic that is skewed to the 65-pluses but we have a very high percentage of people who occupy and live in mobile homes in my electorate. They choose to do that because it’s a nice part of the country to be living in and doing those sorts of things, and they can move their mobile home around and they can come around.

💬 Hamish Walker: And because of the MP.

Most of them—actually, yes. My colleague Hamish Walker is correct: many of them come, of course, absolutely for the quality of parliamentary representation, and I’m sure that that is a motivating factor for—

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: Perhaps that’s why they’re mobile.

—many of their decisions. They choose to come from all sorts of electorates. [Interruption] They choose to come from places as far afield as Mt Roskill and Palmerston North, no less. In fact, we have a big number that come from Palmerston North, and they say, “The reason I’ve come to the Coromandel is the quality of parliamentary representation. I’ve left Palmerston North and I’ve left Mt Roskill and I choose to come to Coromandel.”

Well, they come in their droves. They come in their droves, in their mobile homes, across the Kōpū Bridge at night, in the dark, by the moonlight, sometimes, to come to the beautiful Coromandel. Here they come, and this bill rights a wrong in terms of their access to the entitlements that have been available to other people who might, for instance, already live in a flat or a granny flat or in a hotel or a motel or a boarding house or in units or in a caravan park, but, for some bizarre reason, mobile home dwellers have been exempt. Well, as is the case with the spousal deduction, help is on the way, and this is a very, very good thing.

So I say to those people, who tonight are probably on the road in their mobile homes, heading from places like Mt Roskill and Palmerston North—there’ll be people coming from all around the countryside, heading towards the Coromandel, coming for the quality of parliamentary representation—and they’ll be saying, “I’ll be able to get the appropriate and sensible contribution to my superannuation.” So, for that reason, and that reason alone, and forgetting all the other good reasons, the National Party will be supporting this legislation.

We think it’s a good piece of legislation, and our only real criticism is that the Minister, who is not well-known for her speed and alacrity, has taken so long to do it. But I guess that in the dying throes of this Government’s administration, we should be thankful for small mercies, and at least she’s roused herself into some kind of movement tonight, under urgency, and is progressing this bill in the dying throes of this Government’s administration. We support the bill.

This is a split call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand in support of this bill and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I thank the speaker who just sat down, Dr Liz Craig, for that very short speech. I’m wondering whether I could actually take some of her time considering this is actually a split call. Having said that, I shall see how I go and see how the room feels.

I stand on this side of the House together with my National Party colleagues in support of this bill. First of all, I’d like to acknowledge the Minister in charge of this bill, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, for seeing this through, and also the Social Services and Community Committee chairs and the members who have actually actively participated in the process of this bill. I have to, first of all, declare that I haven’t been part of the process, but when I came to this Chamber and found that we were debating this, I had to volunteer to speak. And I hope that the House will give me a little bit of leeway to talk about the Korean War, because Korean War veterans mean a heck of a lot to me and today is the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War.

Some of the elements in this bill—well, it’s actually a very small scope in the sense that we are wanting to make sure that our veteran’s pension is not disadvantaged by spousal deductions, when they have partners who may be younger and who are entitled to overseas pensions and if their pension amount is higher than what the New Zealand situation is, the pension of the veteran was actually deducted. That seems extremely unfair. For people who have actually sacrificed and volunteered to fight in war for the democracy of the foreign countries that this nation has deemed our soldiers and sailors had to attempt to fight for, I believe we have to do everything we can to make sure that we respect them, we honour them, and make sure that we provide for them and protect their pension and, hopefully, pay them more than what we are doing. And I think this bill does that. So I’d like to thank all of the members who have actually supported it.

On 25 June 1950, just before dawn, war broke out in Korea. North Korea invaded South Korea. During that time, the UN put out a call to the world for people to volunteer to fight, to come to the aid of Korea. New Zealand was one of the first countries to respond to the call of the UN, and, within days, two frigates were sent on their way to fight the war in Korea—it only took days. Actually, war broke out on 25 June, and when New Zealand frigates actually arrived in Pusan, it was 30 July. So it wasn’t many days after the war broke out.

After that first arrival of the frigates on 10 December 1950, thousands of New Zealand men sailed to fight for a distant country for democracy. The Prime Minister of the day, Sidney Holland, farewelled soldiers, who were known as the K-force. And some of the battles that they fought were really, really bloody, and many New Zealand K-force veterans remember how difficult it was during the winter months where their boots split open because they weren’t prepared as to how cold it was and how bloody it was. In one hour during the Kapyong battle in Korea, when they were fighting the North Koreans and the Chinese, they shot off 2,300 shells. New Zealand forces did that in an hour. That’s an amazing number of shots.

Not only did the New Zealand veterans who fought in the war battle the war, but they were also cultural ambassadors for New Zealand. I, as a Korean child born in Korea, was raised to believe that the song we now know—well, I now know—as Pokare Kare Ana was in fact a Korean song. I thought it was a Korean song. It is called Yeon-Ga, which means love song. It is the same tune, and the lyrics have the same meaning as Pokare Kare Ana. It was learnt by Korean children because the Korean veterans sang it to them and taught it to them. They were, in fact, the cultural ambassadors in Korea for New Zealand. It is the veterans who have fostered a closer relationship with Korea, and I honour them. And for those 47 who never returned to this country after the war, lest we forget.

Madam Speaker, could I use some of that time that Liz Craig—no?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Unfortunately not.

Oh, what a shame. Can I seek leave, Madam Speaker?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you can seek leave, yes.

I seek leave to extend a little bit of time to talk about part of the bill, if I may, to use up Liz Craig’s—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. I did give the member some licence to honour the Korean War veterans.

Thank you.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, other people have talked about their mothers, and, you know, so.

Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. In the absence of anyone showing any interest on the other side of the House, I shall rise and take a call, which is a little disappointing, actually, given the nature of what we are debating tonight, that no one on that side is showing sufficient respect to our superannuitants and veterans who have served their country, to do them justice by actually reflecting on the particular changes that are put forward in this piece of legislation.

We’ve actually seen a theme of that over the duration of today’s debate, where members of the Government are pushing through a raft of different pieces of legislation and doing so in an expedited manner which is unbecoming of the House really, if one were to consider it. That’s a personal view, of course, but the reality is that we’re here, hearing very short calls from the Government side, not doing justice to what are some reasonably important pieces of legislation for those that are impacted by it—in this instance, of course, those superannuitants and veterans who have served their country.

I really want to take the opportunity to elaborate on that a bit through the duration of my call and perhaps pick up on some of the things and, on behalf of everyone here, acknowledge those contributions, even if we’re not seeing that forthcoming from the other side. I wanted to start by acknowledging the comments made by Jenny Marcroft in relation to her father, I believe it was, who had served in J-force.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: J-force, K-force.

J-force and K-force, yes. My grandfather actually served in J-force as well, in Japan, post - World War II. I just thought that was a nice little connection. When we think about that, in New Zealand there are so many families that have some direct connection to a member who has served or members who now continue to service in the New Zealand Defence Force, and there are a few members within this House as well. I’d like to acknowledge Chris Penk, our veterans spokesperson, who started our contribution on behalf of this side of the House on this particular bill for his service as well. Also having been fortunate enough to have had the privilege of serving in the New Zealand Defence Force briefly myself, I can clarify for Ms Marcroft that whilst the 16th Field Regiment is indeed a great unit, you cannot beat the infantry. Infantry is what makes or breaks any war and in that regard—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do they get superannuation, do they?

So in terms of the superannuation and the veterans who have proudly served in many infantry regiments, I’d suggest and come through now to the opportunity where they are getting some appropriate support from the Government of our country, in relation to recognising the service they have provided over a period of time, by then providing some support and assistance back to them as they move through their twilight years, I suppose, and superannuation phase. Actually, many of these people are still contributing in meaningful ways. That may be in terms of community groups or associations where they are experiencing or displaying a higher level of volunteerism within the different communities that they represent. So from that perspective, it is important that we make sure we get the rules right, and I think it’s fair to accept that we haven’t necessarily had that right.

I’ll just touch briefly on what my colleague Scott Simpson mentioned as well, in terms of some of the contributions he’d heard from constituents as well, where there had been a number of issues raised around eligibility to pensions and superannuation. I’ve had a number of those cases come across my desk as well. [Interruption] We hear members on the Government laughing and criticising. I understand they don’t really perhaps understand what the issues are here, because they’re not constituent MPs largely, so they don’t have these cases coming across the desks. But there have been many constituent cases come across my desk as the member of Parliament for Waikato, where people have raised concerns around the issues of overseas pensions impacting on a New Zealand citizen’s right to access particular levels of superannuation. So it is quite appropriate now that we are finally making some changes.

Again, we’ve had, well, nearly three years’ worth of this Government, and the changes have been reasonably slow in coming in that regard. But I would like to commend and acknowledge the Minister for making a last ditch effort to twitch something across the line prior to going out of Government and into Opposition. We’ve seen a clear trend coming through with tonight’s polls in that regard that will see National soaring to victory in just three months’ time.

But this particular Government have made some good changes here, and we do support this bill because there are some relevant aspects to it. On those fronts, we do acknowledge and accept there needed to be change over time. So that spousal deduction, that’s gone now. That’s appropriate. I think one of the other key aspects is they’re actually making this simpler to apply for. There were several steps that had to be progressed through that were, I’d suggest, overly complex and perhaps restrictive somewhat in enabling people to access what they were appropriately entitled to. So by seeing some of those simplifications coming through in this piece of legislation, I think that’s a good step, and I would commend the Government for bringing those forward as well to try and streamline the process and just make it easier to get the right result for those people that deserve this level of support after their contributions.

I’m focusing here mainly on the veterans’ side, because that’s a particular passion of mine, for those who are now getting—

💬 Hamish Walker: Tell us about your experience, Tim.

—that level of—

💬 Hon Member: How many years, mate?

—service and—ha, ha! Yes, plenty of requests here to talk more about the infantry, and whilst I am always happy to delve into some of those discussions, I’m not sure that tonight is quite the right session for that. So I would encourage them to follow an infantry mantra that we all follow, taught early in our training; that is, hurry up and wait. I am happy to impart some more stories post tonight’s discussions.

But in terms of some of the other aspects that I just want to touch on here, one of the key changes that’s been brought forward is in relation to the list of places of residence that are now eligible. I think that’s an appropriate reflection of the fact that we have changed a number of ways in which we live and operate within society now, and those changing societal demands and in terms of relationships and also our working partners and the likes—

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: Oh, here come the motorhomes.

—that comes into it. I hear strong interest from the other side of the House in relation to motorhomes. I’m happy to pick up on that motorhomes theme, because, actually, this morning in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, we heard some submissions in relation to tiny homes and the consideration they should be given and the classifications, therefore, for what becomes a place of residence in relation to this bill. So they are quite relevant in the nature of this evening’s discussion.

💬 Hon Member: We’re interested.

💬 Hon Member: They’re all watching closely.

And it is good to hear that they are interested, because the select committee this morning was also interested. I note Mr Eagle was on that and asking some very pertinent questions throughout the—

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: Name dropping.

—course of that. I’m always quite happy to name drop Mr Eagle as a hard-working member of Parliament who, I believe, is under-utilised by the Labour Party, who surely don’t pick up on the fine talents on display and available by that fine member.

So what we’ve seen here through this piece of legislation is: proposing a new regulation-making power to enable those different types of residences to be brought into play as required. As our needs evolve, as processes change, as living requirements change, and models of living example adapt as well, then it is necessary to reflect that in our legislation. Tiny homes, tiny dwellings—call it what you may—are an aspect of it.

We’ve also seen just recently where the Minister for Building and Construction has brought forward a few changes in that space to enable some of those small dwellings to be built without consents, and having just recently picked up that building construction portfolio that’s a particular area—

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: This is going straight to the Facebook page.

—that I wanted to touch on tonight. And it’s encouraging to hear the high level of support from the other side of the House for my contribution this evening.

One of the other areas that’s important to reflect on is also the changing nature of retirement options within New Zealand. When we think back 20, 30, 50 years ago, the range of options that were available and the types of dwellings or residences that might have been utilised by our older New Zealanders are significantly different to what they are now. I had the privilege recently to meet with the Retirement Villages Association and hear about some of the different types of dwellings that are being put forward there. So in that nature, it is quite relevant to ensure we’re modernising our legislation to account for that.

So while on the balance of things, I think we’re landing in a good space—we have indicated our support for this as the National Party—it has been a little disappointing it’s taken two years and eight months into this parliamentary term to get to the point where we are progressing some of these changes. But, broadly, they make relevant and necessary updates to bring us into line with the needs of those particular people.

I would just like to end by thanking all those who have served their country and particularly the infantry, picking up on Mr King’s comments there, and acknowledge that this has some appropriate changes for those who are now in their twilight years, and I thank them for their service.

Mr van de Molen, when your own team’s heckling you, it’s just time to give up. The poor bloke’s pocket square was beginning to droop by the end of that.

I was going to give this a full 10 minutes, such is the significance of this bill, but after the sheer psychic sclerosis that descended upon this Chamber in that last speech, I don’t think I could put my colleagues through it. I just want to say, very briefly, that this is a bill that’s an example of a Minister in a Government that’s not kicking the can down the road; it’s making progress on the issues that matter. I was just talking to my colleague here, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, about the issue of the removal of the spousal deduction, an issue that has bedevilled electorate MPs for years and years and years. Here we have a Government and a Minister that’s finally getting on with the job and delivering progress for New Zealanders. That’s what we’re doing every day on this side of the House, and I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. For the love of the people, it is 11 p.m. on a Thursday night in the middle of the cold New Zealand winter, and for those few people that happen to be listening to this debate out there across Aotearoa at the moment, all they need to know is that that side of the House agrees to it—this side of the House agrees to this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.