New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this

I move, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Social Services Committee for consideration, and that the committee report the bill back to the House on or before 22 May 2006.

The main aim of the bill is to extend the eligibility for the single rates of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions to all superannuitants and veterans pensioners who have spouses or partners in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home. The single rates are higher than the rates payable to persons who are married or in a civil union. This amendment will apply from 1 July this year. It was recommended by the Social Services Committee in a report that the committee presented to Parliament in May last year. The committee report was prepared in response to concerns outlined in a public petition. The Government accepted the recommendation in the committee’s report.

Currently, a person with a spouse or partner in long-term residential care is eligible for the higher single rates in only two narrowly defined circumstances: firstly, if the spouse or partner is receiving the residential care subsidy, which is means-tested; or, secondly, if the spouse or partner is suffering the effects of a stroke or dementia and is thereby unable to recognise the spouse or partner and affirm marriage vows. There are two main issues with the current approach. First, the current linking of access to the higher single rates to the residential care subsidy is inconsistent with the general non - means-tested approach to eligibility for New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions. Second, the exception that relates to a spouse or partner suffering a stroke or dementia has proved difficult to administer. In particular, it requires officials to ask intrusive questions and make complex decisions regarding sensitive issues.

This amendment will ensure fairer treatment for many superannuitants and veterans pensioners living in the community with spouses and partners in residential care. Approximately 2,000 older New Zealanders in that situation will benefit from this change. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the petitioners who first brought this issue to the attention of the House, particularly petitioner Mrs Barbara White, who was supported by Lianne Dalziel.

The bill also makes other changes to eligibility criteria for New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions. From 1 July 2006 the bill will remove the sharing expenses rule, which has prevented some superannuitants and veterans pensioners from receiving the living alone payment. The living alone payment represents the difference between the single sharing rate and the higher single living alone rate of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions. This difference is currently just under $20 a week net of tax. Current legislation limits eligibility for the living alone payment to superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are single, living alone in their principal place of residence, and not sharing their household expenses—including accommodation expenses—with any other person.

The sharing expenses rule operates as a somewhat strict and arbitrary form of income testing for the living alone payment. It is strict in that any contribution to household expenses denies eligibility completely. It is arbitrary in that only a particular form of income—namely, contributions to household or accommodation expenses—is counted. In some cases, superannuitants and veterans pensioners have been denied eligibility for the living alone payment because they received modest contributions to their household expenses from others, such as family members. The amendment will mean that eligibility for the living alone payment is based solely on actual living arrangements. It will, therefore, ensure fairer treatment for all superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are living alone.

The third amendment contained in this bill will enable a person to be paid New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension for up to 156 weeks, if that person is overseas and undertaking voluntary work for a recognised aid agency such as Volunteer Service Abroad. Currently, the maximum payment period is 52 weeks. However, Volunteer Service Abroad’s standard assignment period is 2 years. The extension of the payment period to 156 weeks that is provided by this bill will allow for a typical 2-year assignment plus potential extension of the assignment for up to a further year. This will, therefore, remove the financial disincentives that inhibit older volunteers from making a longer contribution to Volunteer Service Abroad.

The final amendment contained in the bill changes the War Pensions Act to enable all rates of veterans pensions to be increased by Order in Council. This change will align the legislative provisions for the adjustment of rates of veterans pensions with those of New Zealand superannuation under the Social Security Act. As required under section 73 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act, the Minister of Finance has provided a statement regarding the consultation process followed in the development of the amendments to that Act that are contained in the bill. The statement also covers the outcome of this consultation. The statement is included in the bill’s explanatory note and was also tabled in the House when the bill was introduced.

The amendments contained in this bill address several anomalies in the current treatment of superannuitants and veterans pensioners. I am confident they will ensure fairer and more equitable treatment for many older New Zealanders. In summary, the bill is further evidence of the commitment of this Government to ensure that superannuitants and veterans pensioners are able to live in dignity and participate fully in our society. I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this

It is with pleasure that the National Party supports this bill. It is a very good provision, and it actually looks to recognise the situation that has been highlighted by my colleague the Hon Nick Smith. He took up the issue of a Nelson couple. Mrs Page had to go to a rest home. She and her husband have been married for 70 years, and Mr Page applied to Work and Income for the living alone payment—because he was, of course, living alone—but he was declined under the previous Labour Government because his wife still recognised him.

So the situation was that because Mr and Mrs Page could recognise each other and were not divorced, they were told by Work and Income that if Mr Page wanted to get the living alone allowance he would have to divorce his wife. That is the sort of callous situation that we found people in.

I was on the select committee that looked at the petition the Minister referred to, and it was certainly one that we took very seriously and, I recall, looked at very favourably, because it actually addresses a very cruel situation for people who in this day and age have to be separated at such a time in their lives. I note that the bill was in fact introduced on 21 February this year, 1 week after my colleague the Hon Nick Smith, who was very frustrated with the lack of work the Government had put into this area, lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on behalf of Mr Page, who is now aged 91. I am very pleased to see that the Government has finally moved on it. We have to wonder why it took so long. With all the talk about petitions and everything else, the Government knew about this problem. The Government has been in power for over 6 years, and it could very easily have fixed this issue very quickly.

When we look at the bill itself, we see that it is a matter of only a couple of pages. So given that there was pretty much across-the-board and cross-party support for the bill, one would have thought that a bill of six pages might have been introduced with somewhat more speed once this problem had been recognised. However, we should be very grateful that despite the mad situation we have had, and still have in law at the moment, we are finally getting some action, because if this couple, Mr and Mrs Page, aged 91 and 88 respectively, had been either a de facto couple or a gay couple, or if Mrs Page had dementia or was in prison, then Mr Page would have been able to get the extra money.

Finally we are getting some action, and, really, only after my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith took a complaint to the Human Rights Commission. Frankly, the Ministers involved should be wondering why they could not have brought the matter to the House earlier. So we are very pleased to be able to support the bill. We do not want to be too nasty about that fact that it has taken so long, because finally something is happening. We are very pleased to be able to say that the Government has finally got itself together, found some legislation to bring to the House, and can finally get a bill passed—even if it had to get a hurry-up from Nick Smith. So we are very pleased to support the bill, and we are delighted to see that something will finally be done for Mr and Mrs Page and for couples like them.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) Link to this

I am very pleased to participate in the first reading of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I thought it was a little churlish for the member who has just resumed her seat, Judith Collins, to carry on about Mr Nick Smith, who obviously had little influence in terms of finding a real solution to the problem, as opposed to what the Government has been able to do.

I would like to reiterate the words of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, David Benson-Pope, when he congratulated Mrs Barbara White, the lead petitioner who brought the matter to the attention of the House via a petition and, of course, her excellent advocate in that matter, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who was with her every step of the way. Not many petitions make it right through to this particular instance of having legislation created directly from them. So I congratulate Mrs White on achieving that outcome, if she happens to be listening to the debate this evening, and I hope she is pleased the bill has come to this point.

This is another example of Labour delivering its election promises. The bill extends the eligibility for the single living alone rate, from 1 July 2006, to married superannuitants who have a partner in long-term residential care. That was a key election commitment, and this bill will do it. That change will mean that nearly $20 extra per week will go to approximately 2,000 qualifying older New Zealanders. It is further evidence of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that superannuitants, veterans, and pensioners are able to live in dignity and to participate fully in society. This is the Year of the Veteran, and what better timing could there be for such a bill?

In conclusion, I look forward to the House sending the bill to the Social Services Committee. We were very pleased to consider the petition of Mrs White, which prompted this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) Link to this

I am pleased to rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. Since Georgina Beyer mentioned that this is the Year of the Veteran, I point out that I have made an application to the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, Rick Barker, in relation to a special statue and a memorial celebration to take place in the Auckland Domain for the bombers, who have not had any memorial there and do not have a statue. I understand it would cost about $60,000. Millions of dollars are floating around—the Minister of Finance has about $6 billion worth of surplus available to him. I know that this matter is a bit outside the topic of the bill, but I am very hopeful that the bombers will get their just recognition.

It is interesting that we are in a House that is a war memorial—and it was certainly a war zone today—and that we should be looking to do something for poor veterans and New Zealand superannuitants, who have been forced by this Labour Government, under a crazy scenario, to divorce their partners of often up to 70 years so that they can get the single living alone allowance. What a disgrace it is that the Government has had 6 years to fix that up, but it has sat on its hands and has done very little—other than to count the cash. Michael Cullen sits on a pile of cash that he likes to count, night after night, while the poor veterans and the New Zealand superannuitants are out there, struggling to make ends meet. It has taken the Government 7 years to bring this legislation to the House.

It has taken the good work of the member for Nelson, Nick Smith, to bring the bill forward. This is a proud day for Nick Smith and a proud day for the National Party, because we are forcing the agenda once again, just as we are forcing the tax agenda. Michael Cullen spoke today on the issue of payroll tax. It took the National Party to expose that Michael Cullen is, by stealth, about to introduce a payroll tax to many New Zealanders—fortunately not the New Zealanders who will be eligible for assistance under the provisions of this bill, because they have moved outside the workforce. But I thank Nick Smith for his contribution of caring beyond the extent that many members of Parliament do, by ensuring that the 2,000 eligible New Zealanders will live with some dignity, because it is a crazy scenario that a couple who have been married for 70 years could be forced to get a divorce.

I can add that I have been married to my wife for 21 years. I do not like to admit that, because I am greying slightly. I am 44. I know I am not very good with numbers, but if we add to that another 21 years, we will find that I will have been married for 42 years by the time I am 65. I do not anticipate going gaga any time soon, but should I go gaga at 80, then that would add up to 57 years of marriage at that time. I do not think my lovely wife, after 57 years, should have to divorce me, because she loves me as she does no other human being. She cares about me. She should not have to go through a divorce after 57 years of marriage, so that we can get the single living alone allowance. It is a disgrace that my wife of 57 years—when I am 80 and gaga—should have to go through such a despicable display, and I am surprised that that was not something the Government tackled earlier.

I am surprised that Nick Smith, the very hard-working member for Nelson, had to drive the agenda, and I am amazed that Georgina Beyer tried to rain on Nick Smith’s parade. That is disgraceful, when Nick Smith had undertaken all that work on behalf of the party, had listed all of those things, and had driven the agenda. That is typical of the Labour Government: it is late to do absolutely everything, but is all too quick to put its hand up and claim the credit. The Labour members in the House are barracking, even as late as this point. They should just take it sitting down and accept that Nick Smith drove the agenda, Nick Smith put the issue on the map, and Nick Smith is the person whom thousands of New Zealanders will have the opportunity to reward.

I say to Nick Smith that he has done a wonderful service for the people of New Zealand, and a wonderful service for those veterans. What a tremendous job and what a tremendous effort he has made, given that Michael Cullen is too busy dreaming up payroll taxes, and Georgina Beyer was not sure whether she would stand in Wairarapa. In the end it did not matter, because National romped home in that seat with Chester Borrows. It would not have really mattered whether Georgina Beyer or anyone else had stood in that seat, because the people of Wairarapa knew a disgrace when they saw one. They knew that a person who has been married for 57 years should not have to get divorced in order to get the single living alone allowance. They knew that that was wrong. They knew not to ring 0800 Georgina Beyer, they knew not to ring 0800 Labour, and they knew not to trust a credit card that was paid for by the taxpayers of New Zealand—and while we are on the subject of that, we want the money back, thank you very much.

Instead of doing that, people rang “Nick for Nelson”. When they rang “Nick for Nelson” the phone was on the hook, unlike the Labour Party’s phone. Nick did what Nick always does: he stood up for the people of Nelson, he stood up for the people of New Zealand, and he went the extra mile. It was a tremendous effort by Nick Smith, and I say to Georgina that I was absolutely shocked by what she said. I thought she would have risen above that, and I thought she would have given the credit to the member for Nelson that he deserved. All I can say is that National is proud to support the bill, because National led the agenda. Once again the people of New Zealand can look to the National Party for security, for dependence, for leadership—for all the things that one would expect from a party like ours. The people of New Zealand will be very happy.

I make just one final point in relation to voluntary service abroad, and the ability of New Zealanders to work abroad and still receive their New Zealand superannuation for 156 weeks, not for 52. What a good idea that was, as well. I do not know whether Nick Smith recommended that, but I am pretty sure he would have done that as well, because he has a heart. In Nelson, where Nick works, volunteer work is a critical part of the community. Nick knows the value of volunteer work, and he knows that people who are working as volunteers overseas deserve to receive New Zealand superannuation. They deserve to receive the benefit of all those things.

How proud Nick and the other National members who have driven the agenda on this New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions bill can feel as New Zealanders head overseas for 156 weeks, knowing that they can receive their New Zealand superannuation as they do their good work—as they work in the tsunami-affected areas, and as they work in Pakistan in areas affected by earthquakes and landslides. As they work in other parts of the world that are challenged, they can look to the National Party of New Zealand and know that it cares about them—not like the Labour members, who sat there for 7 years not caring about that issue, and who were too busy looking at student loans and things they could do to make their way back to victory. National cared enough to make this matter a big issue; National, through Nick Smith, cared enough to make that happen.

I finish by simply saying that I am disappointed with Labour, but, frankly, after 4 years, I have come to learn how easy it is to be disappointed with Labour, which is sitting around, doing very little, and leaving our economy to wander in the wilderness as other countries go past us. Only on Monday, Peter Costello was very happy to set up a taxation review, and very happy to make the Australian economy more efficient and more effective, to drive home the real advantage for Australians. Our Minister of Finance sits in the House tonight, twiddling his thumbs. He will probably get up at some stage, take a call, and claim that Nick Smith’s effort was not fantastic. Well, I say to him that it does not matter what comes from people who have taken 7 years to put this issue on the agenda. National is the one to thank; Nick Smith is the one to thank. It makes one proud to be a member of the National Party.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this

I do not know whether it is good news or bad news for Mr Key’s wife, but after listening to that speech I have to tell the good member’s wife that she will not have to wait 57 years for John Key to become gaga—I think he is well on the way. As for Nick Smith standing up for the people of Nelson, if my memory serves me correctly, within a fortnight of being made deputy leader he could not stand up for anybody. He was carried out of here—and I think he was actually carried back in.

There is an old saying—at least I think it is an old saying; if nobody has said it before me I will say it now—that we should judge people not by what they say but by what they do. What did that crowd on the National benches do when it was last in Government? It scaled back superannuation to 60 percent of the net average wage, and it wanted to means test superannuation and raise the age of entitlement to 70! And now National is trying to say it is the party of compassion. The only compassion National members have is that they feel sorry for themselves, and they will spend a long time sitting there feeling even sorrier.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this

On behalf of the Green Party, I take a brief call to say that we also are totally behind this bill. It is long overdue, and, once again, characterises just one aspect of the huge mess that our income support and welfare system is in. However, at least this little piece of it is being sorted out.

I would like to endorse the words of Peter Brown, who just now said that it has been a bit disappointing to hear such frivolity from Mr Key on this topic. This is actually about fixing up a situation for people in absolutely desperate straits at the end of their lives, where one partner of a couple has been in long-term residential care, and the other partner, who has been left out in the real world, has been stuck on the married rate of the pension or veterans’ benefit, to his or her disadvantage. That is actually really serious when one is counting every dollar and every cent, and it is not something that should be the subject of a whole lot of laughter.

I would also like to acknowledge the role that Lianne Dalziel of the Labour Party played. An elderly petitioner came to the Social Services Committee, as did Lianne Dalziel, to tell the committee about this situation. I would like to acknowledge the courage, in coming to speak to the committee, of the elderly lady who led the petition. She has had long-term support from Lianne Dalziel in trying to get this legislation through Parliament. I would like to acknowledge both her and her colleagues for bringing it through—quite quickly, now that I know something about the legislative processes here. It has been quite a quick process since we heard the petition at the committee, not a long one. It is good to see that the Government does not just accept the decisions of the Social Security Appeal Authority. I just wish we had a mechanism whereby we could look at a lot more of them, rather than just this one.

The Green Party is totally behind this measure. We will be pleased to see the day come very soon when this anomaly is ended, as it affects thousands of people. I understand that the select committee process will be quick, which is excellent—as long as people have a chance to make submissions. If people have problems with it, let us hear from them, but I doubt that they will.

On the other matter of the Volunteer Service Abroad, I say that I think it is fantastic that the Government has seen fit to extend the period for which people can get superannuation or the veterans’ pension while they do volunteer work abroad. It is being extended from 1 year to 3 years. It is a wonderful thing to see our older generation giving their time and experience in this way, and I know that increasing numbers of them are doing this once they leave our regular workforce. It is a great contribution that this country can make, particularly to our neighbours in the Pacific and Asia.

From what I understand, this is very unusual: we are seeing unanimity across the House in support of a piece of welfare legislation. That is great. Let us just get there as fast as we can.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Rākau papa pangā, ka hei ki te marae. A weapon discarded can be an ornament on the marae. In the context of this bill, that whakataukī advises us that an older person who has followed a career of certain skill but is no longer agile enough or strong enough can teach younger persons the same skill. In its essence this describes the unique relationship of reciprocity, of manaakitanga, inherent in our valuing of our kaumātuatanga—of recognising that the elders, the wise ones, are the repositories of whānau stories and family histories; that they are the bridge to a world not lived by the young.

It is these characteristics that instruct us in supporting the proposed changes to amend the New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension provisions. We must ensure that the adjustments provide for an equitable standard of living, pay for essentials, and enable the continued participation by older people in community life—participation, which is about the best opportunities for all, that will close the gaps between rich and poor, Māori and non-Māori, and older and younger.

This House will recall the New Zealand report from Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen last year. The special rapporteur identified significant disparities between Māori and Pākehā in regard to social and human development indicators in his visit to Aotearoa. A key concern for the special rapporteur was the lack of significant disaggregated statistical data that identified ethnicity. If one does not have the right data, one cannot really target social policy. The information we do have in Aotearoa is as a result of a 2002 report published by Professor Mason Durie. The Living Standards of Older Māori report shows a relatively high rate of material disadvantage amongst older Māori, and clear disparities between the living standards of older Māori and non-Māori. One in five older Māori face severe difficulties.

It is data such as this that must inform the subsequent drafting of new legislation to broaden eligibility criteria and to ensure that Māori are able to maximise their take-up from superannuation and the veterans pension. It is never too soon to plan ahead to help boost Māori material well-being and to ensure that all superannuitants and veterans pensioners living in the community are able to benefit from simplified rules, clear entitlements, and income support appropriate to assist actual living arrangements. If we are to hold our heads up high on an international stage, we need to know how to respond to what Professor Stavenhagen observed is a surprising differential of 10 years in life expectancy between Māori and Pākehā.

The urgency of this crisis is also influenced by the demographic changes, as the Māori population will age at a faster rate but at a later time than the non-Māori population. In March 1996 there were 14,200 Māori aged 65 and over. By the year 2011 the number of Māori in this age group is expected to have increased by 84 percent to reach 26,100, when Māori will comprise 5 percent of the population aged 65 years and over. By 2031, the expected number of older Māori will be 59,000—more than four times its current size—and they will account for 9 percent of the total Māori population. In the space of one generation we can expect significant population pressures that this new legislation must take into account.

It is our moral, economic, and cultural responsibility to take care of our older people. Such care is critical for the survival of mana ā-hapū, and we must not short-change another generation. If we can live up to this expectation, the benefits will accrue for the nation as we nurture the leaders and wise advisers of our growing communities. It is all about respect and taking appropriate care of our elderly. The broadening of eligibility criteria means that our elderly are able to continue to play an active role in our communities. The provision to extend the period of time a person can continue to receive superannuation or the veterans pension while overseas working voluntarily for an aid agency is a particularly commendable move.

No one should leave this House tonight without acknowledging the fact that this is the Year of the Veteran. This is our chance to thank all New Zealand veterans of all ages—tangata whenua, Pasifika, and tauiwi alike. This is our time to honour their enormous sacrifices. It is an opportunity to recognise the inherent value of their service to our nation. The Māori Party will continue to call for justice for New Zealand’s veterans who served in the Viet Nam War in order to ensure that their significant contribution to shaping our nation is also recognised.

In light of the year being distinguished as the Year of the Veteran, we could not believe it when we were first approached by Viet Nam War veterans throughout the country, who were incensed at the decision by the joint working-group on the concerns of Viet Nam War veterans to refuse to meet on marae for their hearings. We received emails and phone calls, including a letter from one vet currently living in Sydney, who called the working-group’s decision to boycott the Ngāti Kahu marae in Tauranga a “cultural insult, disrespectful, and a slap in the face for Māori Viet Nam War veterans.” We had to ask how hard it is to hold a meeting on a marae in order to respect the wishes of tangata whenua to honour their request. Many of the veterans never received any support or counselling following their return to Aotearoa. Many experienced serious trauma and turned to alcohol to help them to cope. So where were the hearings held? They were held at the good old watering-hole, the RSA—far more suitable than the marae, or so the working-group decided.

One would think that the long-term care and restoration of all our veterans, including those who served in Viet Nam, would be that they could be rehabilitated with as little trauma as possible. It seems to us to be simple good sense that those who were wounded in mind or body would be adequately cared for and compensated for their injuries.

The well-being of veterans’ families is of critical importance. Our veterans and their whānau have waited for 30 years for the report released by the Health Committee, which confirms that Viet Nam War veterans were exposed to a toxic environment. In honouring the dedication of our own forces, we must never forget the innocent victims of war—the villagers, people and families of Viet Nam—who were also sprayed with the defoliant—the innocent non-combatants whose voices here in New Zealand we do not hear.

It is time now for the Government to act. The Government must honour its responsibility to respond to the devastating trauma experienced by Viet Nam War veterans and the ongoing intergenerational impact on their children in light of their exposure to Agent Orange and defoliant chemicals during their war service, and it must do it now. The Māori Party believes there is no better way of honouring the Year of the Veteran this year than to recognise the genetic damage and the serious health problems caused by the impact of Agent Orange on Viet Nam War veterans. Taking action on Agent Orange, agreeing to hold meetings on the marae, and introducing amendments to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act and the War Pensions Act are all ways of commemorating and paying tribute to the services so many of the people of this land gifted to future generations.

We as a society must ensure that what nature has decreed should not generate undue insecurity, as Nelson Mandela, aged 77 at the time, said. He went further and said that he wanted to be able to sleep until eternity with a broad smile on his face, knowing that the youth opinion-makers and everybody are stretched across the divide trying to unite the nation. We will support this bill as a mark of respect and for the principle of honouring our elderly, our pakeke, and our veterans, the sons and daughters of Tūmatauenga, many of whom as rangatahi sacrificed their youth in serving so that we may sleep with smiles on our faces.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) Link to this

I rise on behalf of United Future to take a brief call on the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I must say that it is a pleasure in this House sometimes to follow members of the Māori Party, and the previous speech given by the honourable Tariana Turia was one example of a very thoughtful, well-constructed, and very good contribution to the debate on this bill. When she talked about the importance of ethnicity in terms of the statistical—and if one likes, the genetic—characteristics of ethnicity, I was reminded of the little campaign that seems to be run by some members of the National Party at the moment that seeks to confuse New Zealanders about the difference between ethnicity and nationality. For example, this morning at the Finance and Expenditure Committee the member Craig Foss wanted to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why he did not just regard all the people working for Treasury as New Zealanders, rather than worry about their ethnic origins.

It is important to say that ethnicity talks about a person’s DNA and gene pool origin. In my case that happens to be Caucasian, and within Caucasian is the subset of Scottish, English, and Irish. It is a completely different question from nationality. The other difference between the two is that we are born with our ethnicity. It is not something we choose and it is not something we can change, whereas our nationality is something we can change. Everybody who is born in this country is a New Zealander; everybody who has a New Zealand passport is a New Zealander, but I could choose tomorrow to go and live in Australia and I could start to call myself an Australian. Or people could come, as many have, from places like Taiwan to live in New Zealand, and they now consider themselves to be New Zealanders. So that is just a little aside for those in the National Party who have confused minds about the difference between the two terms.

I come to the bill. United Future supports very strongly the provisions of this bill. We believe that it is entirely fair and reasonable when a spouse or a partner goes into full-time residential care, that the rate for the partner who continues to live in the community should then become the single person’s rate. That is eminently fair and it addresses a situation that has probably been blatantly unfair for quite some time. We also support the provision of the bill that simplifies the rules for living alone payments, so that it is based on a person’s actual living arrangements. Again, we are a common-sense party and this is a common-sense provision, when one thinks about it. There is a difference in the rates for single and married couples, because of the difference in living costs. The old saying that two can live together cheaper than one is true when it comes to sharing all kinds of things, from cars to packets of Weet-Bix. One can achieve some economy if one is part of a married couple or a couple living in a partnership, as compared with a person who is on his or her own. That is exactly what the scheme does and that is the distinction we should ensure is made. I know, from correspondence I have had from people, that there has been some confusion around that point and it is good to see it clarified.

We strongly support the extension of the voluntary work provisions for people who are doing voluntary work overseas, from 52 weeks to 156 weeks. I am constantly amazed at the number of New Zealanders who in their retirement years choose to undertake fantastic voluntary work overseas. I would like to ask the select committee that will consider this bill to look carefully at the way in which that work is defined. In my view it should be defined in a way that includes, in an unambiguous manner, people who take short 1 to 3-year terms overseas as missionaries. Some people like to argue that they are in the business of simply—if one likes—winning converts to their particular faith, be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever. But speaking for the many, many missionary organisations that I know about, the reality is that day in, day out they give considerable humanitarian support to people, particularly in Third World countries, in every range of charity one could imagine. By the way, the word “charity” happens to mean love for one’s fellow man They express that through medical help, educational help, translation help—the list goes on and on. All of that is part of the day-by-day work done by many of those people in missionary organisations. It is true that their motivation is based on faith, but that should not obscure the reality of the good that they do in those countries. I think that if an objective account were ever taken of New Zealand’s history, it would be true to say that the early missionaries in this country also made a significant contribution—sometimes controversial, but overall extremely positive.

It is also right that we align the veterans pension with the adjustments we are making to New Zealand superannuation. United Future strongly supports the confidence and supply agreement between Labour and New Zealand First, that New Zealand superannuation will move to 66 percent of the ordinary-time weekly earnings as from 1 April 2006. Indeed, our own party’s policy would have been a bit more generous than that. We wanted to move the data to a prospective base rather than a retrospective base. At the moment those calculations are done on 1 April, but are based on the figures for the previous 31 December. When one works that through the next 12 months one finds that superannuitants are always 9 months behind the eight ball, because this new rate applies from 1 April until 31 March in the next year but is still based on 31 December in the year before. I have done the sums and that is the way it works out on average. One is always 9 months behind. Under our formula we would have gone to more than 66 percent, but this at least is a good step in the right direction. I am happy to signal our strong support for this bill on that basis.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this

I begin by thanking all members of the House for, so far, their support for the bill. Some clearly are more enthusiastically and genuinely supportive than others.

I would just say to my friend Gordon Copeland that everybody is actually about a year behind everybody else, in terms of pay increases, once he or she has had his or her last pay increase, and that is no different for superannuitants than for anybody else. The formula in that respect, in terms of the fixing, has not changed in that instance since 1976, when New Zealand superannuation was first introduced under the National Government. It has always been related to wage relativity at the point that it occurs, not at some point further down the track.

I would have to say I was a bit surprised by his call for further increases in Government spending, as this morning he was urging me at the Finance and Expenditure Committee to cut Government spending as a proportion of GDP. He appears on occasion to share the strange belief of members opposite that one can increase every item of Government spending but reduce the total in some way or another. It is a very interesting prospect, I have to say.

I want particularly to thank Mrs Barbara White, who was the person who really brought this matter to Parliament’s attention, and my colleague Lianne Dalziel, who is the MP who was most supportive.

I must say I was very amused by the enthusiastic, over-the-top speech in support of Dr Nick Smith by Mr John Key. I am surprised that he had heard of Dr Smith, because he thought the member for Wairarapa was Chester Borrows. He said so in his speech. If he is ever going to get the numbers to do Dr Brash, he has to learn that Mr Hayes is the MP for Wairarapa and Mr Borrows is the MP for Wanganui. But, never mind, that is the trouble when one thinks about financial markets rather than one’s colleagues. I gently say to Mr Key that in a few weeks’ time he may want to read that Hansard and perhaps dissociate himself rather more from Dr Smith than he was doing this evening. I gently suggest to him that he might care to start distancing himself from one or two of his colleagues on the front bench reasonably early in the process. I am sure he will do that over the next few weeks, at some point. [] I say to Mr Henare that what goes around, comes around. That is an old rule in this place, and the National Party will learn about that old rule some time in the next few weeks. I will now come to the other extraordinary thing about Mr Key. [] Oh yes, and it is a lot better too, some of it.

Let me now come to another aspect of Mr Key. When one has been overseas for so many years, speculating on the foreign exchange markets, one tends to become out of date with what is happening in New Zealand. I just need to bring him up to date very briefly about what has happened with superannuation in the last 15 or so years. Firstly, the single living alone allowance was introduced by the last Labour Government. I was the Minister who introduced the single living alone allowance. Secondly, the last National Government, in 3 out of its 9 years, froze New Zealand superannuation and had no annual increase, at all. In its last year in Government it legislated to cut the relativity from 65 percent to 60 percent. It had proposed 55 percent, but to get Mr Henare’s support, and that of one or two others, it had to raise it to 60 percent. And there is no question that Dr Brash—because I think he might have said it in detail—actually wanted to go to a relativity of 50 percent of the average wage. National, as a whole, wanted to go to 55 percent. What was the first thing the incoming Labour Government did? It restored the relativity up to 65 percent, and, in the end, to 67 percent of the average wage.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this

I stand to support the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. It has been a long time in the making, and we have to thank the Hon Dr Nick Smith, member for Nelson, for getting this going. It is a pity that we had to wait so long.

I am pleased that the bill will make changes to the New Zealand Superannuation Retirement Income Act 1954, and that it will enhance the lives of superannuitants and veterans who have spouses in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home. Superannuitants and veterans are a section of our society that needs to be acknowledged. They have all contributed to our society; it is a pity that they have had to wait so long to get this recognition.

Veterans are a specific group within New Zealand, and this amendment bill in part acknowledges the role that veterans have played, and continue to play, in the development of New Zealand as a nation. The decline in the number of veterans of World War II in our population means that veterans are a dwindling population. It is difficult to estimate the numbers of veterans in New Zealand, but it is probably best done by counting the numbers in receipt of the war disablement pension. Approximately 16,000 veterans are in receipt of that particular pension. This bill targets those veterans who have spouses in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home. In respect of the veteran population, we are dealing with a small, but diminishing, population. Having a loved one in a long-term care facility is an added emotional and physical burden to this group.

I am pleased that the bill will go some way to help both the veterans and the superannuitants. When a spouse or partner is critically ill in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home facility, there is the inevitable additional financial cost of travelling to and from the facility, and the other extra costs of caring for a loved one who is in care. Quite simply, it is more expensive to live alone. This bill removes the sharing expenses rule for the living alone payment, so that entitlement to the living alone payment for New Zealand superannuitants and veteran pensioners is based solely on actual living arrangements.

I am pleased that the sharing expenses rule has been addressed, as it has been the cause of a lot of negative public comment. It operates as a strict and arbitrary form of income testing for the living alone payment. Any outside contribution to the household expenses denies completely a person’s eligibility for the payment. It is arbitrary in that only a particular form of income, namely that directly related to household or accommodation expenses, is counted. In some cases, New Zealand superannuitants and veteran pensioners who are living alone are denied eligibility because they receive modest contributions to their household expenses from others, such as family members. Clearly, that is wrong.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) Link to this

As the MP who met with Barbara White to discuss with her what we would do in order to address what was a serious issue, I am very pleased to be able to speak in the first reading debate on a bill that addresses the second limb of the two-limbed issue she brought to my attention. When we drafted the wording of the petition, we wrote: “That the House of Representatives recommend that the Government review the rules of eligibility for the living alone payment when one of a superannuitant couple is in long-stay or permanent residential care and for practical purposes they are no longer able to live together as a couple.”

We made a mistake, Barbara White and I, because we did not realise when we wrote the wording of the petition that the issue of the living alone payment was not the primary issue. For her to qualify for the living alone payment, she first had to qualify for the single rate of superannuation. A person cannot get the single rate of superannuation if he or she is married, and that was the issue she faced. So we discovered, after we had presented the petition, that there were two separate issues. One was the appropriate rate of superannuation—that is, the single rate as opposed to half the married rate—and the second issue related to the living alone payment, which appeared to be subject to different considerations, not simply whether the person was living alone.

So I did some research, and I found out that the ministerial directive that related to the living alone payment dated back to 1999. It was a National Minister who signed the ministerial directive that set the way the living alone payment was to be paid. So I had then to find out why she was not entitled to the single rate of superannuation, because she was entitled only to half of the married rate of superannuation. I discovered, when I went back, that a previous National Minister had been given costings on fixing that problem nearly 10 years ago, but National had said that it was too expensive and had decided to leave it like that—precisely like that. [Interruption] I am really interested that National members want to try to yell over the top of me. The point I want to make to the House—

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this

I move, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill be referred to the Social Services Committee referred to Social Services Committee