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 second time. The main aim of this bill is to extend eligibility for the higher 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. This Labour-led Government is delivering on its promise of fairer treatment for the partners of people in long-term residential care.

The bill also makes three other changes that will benefit older New Zealanders. It removes the sharing household expenses rule, which previously limited eligibility for entitlement for the living alone payment. It extends the period of time a person can continue to receive New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension, if that person is carrying out voluntary work overseas for a recognised aid agency. Finally, the bill will enable all rates of veterans pensions to be increased by Order in Council.

Four written submissions on the bill were received. Those submissions were supportive of the legislative amendments contained in the bill, and I am pleased to report to the House that the Social Services Committee has recommended that the bill be passed, and has reported it back to the House without amendment. I would like to thank that committee for its prompt consideration of the bill. I would also like to thank the organisations that made those submissions.

The extension of the higher single rates of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions will ensure a fairer treatment for many superannuitants and veterans pensioners living in the community who have a spouse or partner in residential care. The change will remedy the current situation, where spouses and partners of people in long-term care are currently eligible for higher single rates of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions only in limited circumstances. The main situation where that eligibility occurs is where the partner in care is receiving a residential care subsidy. However, access to the residential care subsidy is limited by a means test. The current approach is seen as unfair to spouses and partners in the community. That issue was highlighted by the Barbara White petition, which was presented to the House in late 2004. The extension of the higher single rates will apply from 1 July this year. It will mean up to $60.90 a week more, net of tax, for those affected. Approximately 2,000 older New Zealanders will benefit from that change. I should like to take this opportunity again to convey my thanks to the petitioners who first brought this issue to the attention of the House, and in particular to the lead petitioner, Mrs Barbara White, who was ably supported by my colleague Lianne Dalziel.

As I have previously indicated, the bill also makes other changes to eligibility criteria for New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions. From 1 July this year the bill will remove the sharing expenses rule, which currently prevents some superannuitants and veterans pensioners from receiving the living alone payment. That payment represents the difference between the single sharing rate and the higher single living alone rate of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions. That difference is currently just over $20 a week, net of tax. The sharing expenses rule currently operates as a somewhat strict and arbitrary form of income testing for the living alone payment. In some cases in the past, for example, superannuitants have been denied eligibility for the living alone payment, because they have been receiving modest contributions to their household expenses from, say, family members. The removal of that rule will mean that eligibility for the living alone payment will be based solely on the actual living arrangements of superannuitants and veterans pensioners, and it will therefore ensure a fairer treatment for all of them who are living alone.

The third amendment contained in the bill will enable a person to be paid New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension for up to 156 weeks, if that person is carrying out volunteer work overseas for a recognised aid agency such as Volunteer Service Abroad. Currently, the maximum payment in those circumstances is for 52 weeks. However, Volunteer Service Abroad, for example, has a standard assignment period of 2 years. The current rule therefore prevents a large number of older volunteers from making a longer contribution to service abroad. That issue was highlighted by the written submission on the bill that was made by Volunteer Service Abroad. The extension of the payment period to 156 weeks that is provided by this bill will allow for a typical 2-year assignment plus an extension of the assignment time for up to a further year, if required.

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. That change will align the legislative provisions for making adjustments to the rates of veterans pensions with those for New Zealand superannuation, under the Social Security Act.

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

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this

This is a good bill. I do not want to shock members, but I say that it is a good bill. The problem is, of course, that it has taken too long to get here. Mrs Barbara White was a very brave lady to come to Parliament with a petition. She came to the Social Services Committee and, yes, she was supported by the member referred to by the previous speaker, David Benson-Pope. Mrs White is one of several people who are in the situation of being aged pensioners whose spouses are in hospital or in care—but the spouses can still recognise their wives or husbands. They are people who have been with their spouses for many, many years, but who are now not only living alone but are living on a smaller amount of benefit, because it has not been recognised that they are living alone. She brought her petition in 2002; we are now in mid-2006. That is too long. It is far too long for a situation like this to continue for Mrs Barbara White and the other people affected.

It is very interesting that a bill was introduced to this House only after my bench mate and colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith also took up the issue for Mr Page. He fought for Mr Page, who is a Nelson resident, to be able to get a single living alone allowance. Mr Page was living alone but, because he had been married for 70 years and his wife still recognised him, he was not able to get the single living alone allowance. He was told that he would have to get divorced, or have his wife not recognise him, before he could get the single living alone allowance.

That is an instance of the cruelty of some of these regulations. They are set in good faith, but unfortunately they do not always take into account human realities. This bill has taken far too long in gestation. It is only a couple of pages long; it did not take an awful lot of effort. I am not aware of any party in this House that did not vote for it. I am not aware of anyone on the Social Services Committee who did not support it. This is a good bill; it should have been before the House a lot more quickly. We could have passed it under urgency—we have had so many sittings under urgency since late 2004. There is no excuse for this bill to have taken so long. It is interesting that only a few people will, in fact, benefit from this bill. That is because not everybody lives long enough to be living alone while his or her lifetime partner is in care.

Given the title of this bill, and considering that it affects veterans pensions, it is appropriate to mention that there are veterans living in the Montecillo Veterans Home in Dunedin who are worried about what happened there. There are Viet Nam veterans who will never ever benefit from this bill, because with the life expectancy of Viet Nam veterans, they will never live long enough. One of the jobs that I have had to do involving veterans—as with the Agent Orange inquiry—has been to go to an awful lot of their funerals. These are men in their 60s—some now in their 70s—who died far too young. Generally, veterans lose about 10 years of their life expectancy. I think that applies to veterans of any war, frankly, because it takes an awful lot off them.

Unfortunately, this bill will not be of any benefit to Nancy Wake, who is the most celebrated war heroine of this country. It will not do her any good. She is now living in England but was born in New Zealand and is of part-Māori extraction, part-French, and part-English. She is a woman of extreme courage. She is now in her 90s. I have asked this Government to award her an honour while she is alive. I hope that the Government actually takes that step. I understand that it is unlikely, given that so many members of the Government in Cabinet have written to me and said that she does not qualify. No, I guess she does not. She is only one of the bravest people in the world. She is only a New Zealander. She still has a New Zealand passport. She is a New Zealander. So of course she would not qualify! She has been honoured by the Americans, and she is not American. She has been honoured by the English, and she is not English. She has also been honoured by the French and the Australians. Australia is the country that she grew up in, but she is not Australian any more. She is a New Zealander.

There are times when we have to make exceptions for exceptional people. Nancy Wake is one of those exceptions. She will not benefit from this bill, but she is someone whom this country should be very proud of. I urge members from all sides of the House to put forward Nancy Wake to the Prime Minister and the Ministers and ask that they please take what might be the last opportunity to honour a woman of courage. Too often in this country we honour people just for sporting prowess and arts prowess. We sometimes have difficulty honouring people who do the work that others of us would rather was not done.

Unfortunately, war is a brutal business, and Nancy Wake’s job was brutal, but she did it. She led 7,000 resistance fighters, and she led them in the most extreme circumstances. This Parliament has the ability to ask the Prime Minister and the Ministers to do the right thing by one of our very few remaining unrewarded extreme heroes. She is undoubtedly the most decorated war heroine in the world. The only country that has not done its duty by her is her own country, New Zealand. My colleagues in the Māori Party have asked that she be honoured, National Party members have asked that she be honoured, I am sure New Zealand First would wish that she be honoured—and I see some nodding from New Zealand First members—I am sure the ACT party would wish her to be honoured, and I am sure that there are many good people in the Labour Party who would wish her to be honoured. I ask them please to take some steps to get their Government to do the right thing by this woman. It is no good getting all excited about heroes and heroines once they are dead, because death is pretty final.

This woman is 94. Days are not getting any longer for her; they are becoming pretty short. We work in a war memorial. I ask that we please respect this woman and honour her now while she is alive. She will not get the benefit of this bill, but it would be one of the things that so many veterans would take as a mark of very good faith and they would respect us very much for doing this.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) Link to this

In case anyone had forgotten, we are debating the second 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. This bill is designed to ensure a fairer and more equitable treatment for many older New Zealanders. The Social Services Committee, which was pleased to receive this bill, worked very collaboratively and well together on something that nobody had any real disagreement upon. It was drafted well and the advice we received on the bill was pertinent. We were able to expedite it quite quickly. As chair of the committee, I thank the committee for its good work, and the advisers and committee clerks and staff for the assistance we have had to bring it back to this point in the House.

This bill is delivering on Labour’s election promises, as per usual. It extends the eligibility for the single living alone rate from 1 July 2006 to married superannuitants with a partner in long-term residential care. That was a key election commitment, and the bill does that. It extends eligibility for the single rates of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension to all superannuitants and veterans pensioners who have spouses or partners in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home. This change will mean nearly an extra $20 per week for approximately 2,000 qualifying older New Zealanders. The bill also removes the sharing expenses rule, which is arbitrary and too strict in places, and it extends to 156 weeks the time people can be paid New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension while they are overseas and undertaking voluntary work for a recognised aid agency.

The bill is further evidence of the commitment of this Government towards ensuring that superannuitants and veterans 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 we have? The Labour-led Government has already made significant progress on issues that are important to older New Zealanders, and this bill builds upon that progress. I commend it to the House and look forward to the rest of its passage.

NATHAN GUY (National) Link to this

I am from the Kapiti-Horowhenua area, and that area has one of the highest rates of over-65s per capita in the country. We all know that we have an ageing population, and it will be interesting to see how much that figure increases in the latest census. Up in my region those elderly people are struggling to make ends meet, even with the 1 percent lift in the superannuation rate for married couples—which is something to do with the supply and confidence agreement with New Zealand First, I believe—that moves the rate to 66 percent of the average wage. But the trouble is that costs continually increase for our elderly people, and a lot of those increased costs have been passed through this House in the last 6 years, under this Government.

Rates are increasing. Right now councils are out there consulting on their annual plans and long-term council community plans. We only need to look at how the Building Act has increased the level of general rates, on average, by 1 percent. We see that councils have ongoing costs of consultation, with their glossy documents called long-term council community plans. Councils are out there, trying to consult communities with just a handful of people turning up to public meetings, while more legislation has been passed under the Local Government Act.

We should just look at fuel costs and how they are impacting on the elderly. Approximately half of the cost of fuel is collected by this Government in tax. And we can just imagine how much costs will increase for elderly people who have dogs as companions when they have to microchip their dogs.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) Link to this

For those who missed that diatribe, I point out that that was one very humble Nathan Guy, who is a list member from somewhere and is claiming to be a constituent member for the Otaki electorate. The truth hurts—he is not. He is in the Opposition. He is a list member.

I listened with some interest as Mr Guy addressed this bill and talked about council rates increases. I am advised by a very good authority sitting close to me that Nathan Guy was elected to some council or other—I do not recall which council—in 1998, and I am told that when he was elected to Parliament he gave a pledge that he would resign from the council. I am told he still is a councillor. When he talks about rates rises and how awful councils are in imposing rates rises on the elderly, I say to him that he has been on that council since 1998—does he take no responsibility for that? What sort of a council was he part of and what management structure did it run? Governments do not increase rates; Governments look after taxes. Councillors increase rates. He is a councillor. He has been in since 1998, but, of course, he blames everybody else.

As I look at this bill, I see what a superb piece of legislation it is. It is yet another building block that the Government has put in place to look after our elderly folk. That member, who has been here 5 minutes, gets up, pontificates, and tries to be the friend of the battling elderly Kiwi man and woman, when he is part of a party that, when in office, cut the pension three times, did not inflation-proof it, and de-linked it from the average wage. Now, every pensioner around the country knows that. Pensioners are not silly people. They are very wise, learned Kiwis who can smell bull a mile away, and they got plenty of it from him. [Interruption] That member squawks like a headless chook. I invite him to get up again and justify how he can stand there with any gall and any credibility, when he is a part of a party that, when in office, cut the elderly’s pension three times. Does he have an answer for that? No, the silence is deafening. He does not, because he knows he has been done like a dinner.

Every elderly person who heard that speech tonight knows that Nathan Guy stands for nothing. Nathan Guy thinks he can hoodwink every elderly person, and then he claims he is an electorate MP. Well, that is two things. He claims he can hoodwink every elderly person and he thinks that just because they are in their retirement years they may forget it was a National Government that cut their pension three times. And we can see Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber on the other side grinning like a couple of Cheshire cats. They were members of a Government that cut the pension of the elderly. What has Labour done? We have inflation-indexed it. We linked it to 65 percent of the average wage, as we promised to do, and it goes up, with our support party New Zealand First, to 66 percent. We introduced the rates rebate for pensioners. We did that. We raised the rate of the pension, actually, when we became the Government. We had not promised to do it, but we did it anyway. I will stand on my record of standing beside our elderly pensioners.

There was a time when there was a sort of social contract in New Zealand, where one generation had an obligation to look after the previous one. And here I acknowledge our veterans. I have never served in uniform—I acknowledge that. I am a part of only a couple of generations who have not been called to arms, to serve in uniform. Who cut the veterans pension? The National Government did. Who pulled the rug out from under every veteran when his or her national superannuation was cut? The National Government did. Who reversed inflation-indexing? Who cut the rate? Who de-linked it? Nathan Guy gets up and proudly pontificates about every veteran, as if he is their friend. Well, I tell him it was a National Government, and that crew over there, who sold out every one of those people—people who fought to give us the democracy and the Parliament we have now. “Lest we forget them”, is as the ode to the fallen goes, but I say it should be: “Lest they forget what the National Government did to them”—and every Returned and Services Association member knows that.

I invite Mr Guy to learn one or two things from the little 10-minute experience he had. He should not make it up. He should tell the truth. He should not pretend to be something he is not—and he is not an electorate MP. He should not pontificate about rates increases and how hard they are on elderly folk, when he sat on a council—and continues to sit in a council—that put up rates. That member said, on the electorate stump, that if he got elected to Parliament he would resign from that council and would not double dip. And has he? No, and he has so much time on his hands, serving the one or two people who might have had a look at him on the stump, that he is doing two jobs. I invite him to reflect on that. This is a good piece—

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) Link to this

On behalf of New Zealand First, it is with pleasure that I rise to support the second 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. New Zealand First is 100 percent behind this bill, and we would like to see it fast tracked through Parliament. Nobody likes to see our senior citizens or veterans disadvantaged in any way so, we repeat, we would be very happy to see the bill fast tracked through Parliament.

As Minister Benson-Pope said, the bill amends the eligibility rules for New Zealand superannuation under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act and the War Pensions Act of 1954. It makes some very significant changes to the eligibility rules for New Zealand superannuation in relation to people with partners or spouses living in long-term residential care, and people who are living alone yet share household expenses. The bill also increases the time a person can continue to receive New Zealand superannuation while overseas and working voluntarily.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

Let me first congratulate Barbara Stewart on her contribution to the debate. It was the first contribution so far that has been relevant to the bill, that dealt with the issues, and that avoided the foolish politicking that is going on. I thank her for that contribution.

The Greens are very pleased to see the bill come back to the House. We would also like to see it fast tracked; we see no need for delay. The issues are urgent and people need to have them sorted so that they can get on with their lives. We fully support the extension of the eligibility for the single rate of superannuation or the veterans pension to those who have spouses or partners in long-term residential care. We agree that the restricted eligibility criteria were very intrusive and very unfair. My colleague Sue Bradford sat on the Social Services Committee, which heard the bill, and she made a first reading speech on the legislation. I know that she feels very strongly about these issues, as well as me.

We also fully support the changes to the sharing expenses rule that the bill sets out. Like all people on low incomes, superannuitants make huge efforts to maintain a reasonable life on a very meagre income. On a day-to-day basis they, like other low-income people, make financial arrangements to help with the inevitable financial shortfalls that occur when one lives on such a poor income. Those people should not be penalised or persecuted for making those arrangements. This bill fixes some of those rules for superannuitants and those on veterans pensions. We would like to see much more work done on fixing the rules that control and dominate the way in which low-income people manage their finances. We know it is extremely difficult for those who live on a very, very low income, and there must be some flexibility and recognition of the incredible work people do in trying to maintain an ordinary life.

We hope that this bill passes quickly and without fuss. I urge members to enable that to happen and to desist from their foolish politicking. This is far too important an issue for that.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

There is a very ancient waiata that includes the phrase: “He rākau tawhito, e mau ana te taitea i waho rā, e tū te tāhiwi.

[An ancient tree with sapwood just adhering on the outside, and only the heartwood standing firm.]

That is a metaphor for an older person whose body is ailing but whose spirit is indomitable. Within our world the spirit of our elders permeates through every decision, every discussion, and every hui. And we sit up and listen.

I had the privilege of nursing my mother and caring for her in our home, right until the time of her passing. When it came to any decision about whether to attend a hui or travel to a tangi, or to major family decisions, she was the boss. Her word was law. Sometimes we were not always happy with that law. My children remember the way she used to give chocolates to the dog, rather than to them, when they were being naughty. We remember the long ash of her cigarette and how we were scared she would burn the house down with her smoking all the time. But nevertheless she was very much in charge.

I remember, at the tangi for one of our aunties in Hastings, telling mum on the third day that I had to return to Auckland for some key meetings. It went something like this: “Mum, I have to go; I have just been appointed as the race relations executive officer.” She said: “Son, I know that’s important, but you should stay.” I proceeded off to the marae kitchen, though, did my poroporoaki to my whānau—my farewells to all my mates, family, and cousins—and headed for the car. Mum was sitting in the car and she uttered three little words: “Son, you stay.” My cousins in the kitchen could not contain themselves when they saw me walk back in somewhat sheepishly, having been reminded of my obligations, my priorities, and my responsibilities. All it took was those three little words.

The Māori Party, therefore, comes to this bill fully appreciating the vital importance of the continued participation by older people in community life. Our policy commitment has always been to ensure that superannuation provides for an equitable standard of living, and pays for the essentials. We are, therefore, happy to support the amendments proposed, specifically to extend eligibility for the higher, single rate to all married superannuitants living in the community who have a spouse in long-term residential care, to remove the sharing the expenses rule for determining entitlement to the living alone payment, and to extend the period of time a person can receive New Zealand superannuation while he or she is overseas and working voluntarily for an aid agency.

But we support those amendments while also recognising the relatively high rate of material disadvantage amongst older Māori and the ongoing disparities between the living standards of older Māori and older non-Māori. Decades of disparity have resulted in a higher likelihood of poverty and in higher material hardship levels for Māori than non-Māori, as shown in Professor Mason Durie’s report Living Standards of Older Māori. Although we support the three initiatives to extend the eligibility for superannuation, we hope that the Government is also taking responsibility for considering other amendments in the distribution of superannuation that will take into account the disparities evident in life expectancy.

The figures are shocking. The Social Report 2005 revealed that the independent life expectancy for Māori men—that is, without requiring the assistance of another person or a complex device—is a staggering 58 years. The general life expectancy is 69 for Māori males, compared with 77.2 for non-Māori—a difference of 8.2 years. The figure is 73.2 years for Māori females, compared with 81.9 for non-Māori—a difference of 8.7 years. That is 8 fewer years of life for me, for Hone Harawira, Ron Mark, Mahara Okeroa, Shane Jones, Parekura Horomia, Tau Henare—even Winston Peters—compared with many other people in this House, and I ask whether that is fair. It is no wonder that we pack so much into every moment of our lives. I am intrigued that the members on the Government benches can always quantify and qualify the excellent benefits to Māori of every initiative they have ever created, yet when we ask sensitive questions that do not fit with that spin, they are silent.

As in many areas of social policy, the predetermined, arbitrary age-limits for superannuation eligibility, which seem to be set for fiscal reasons, generate inequities. Members of the Māori Party challenge the thinking behind that, because that creates the disparities. It was precisely because of the dramatic life and death disparities that the Māori Party raised the question, before last year’s election, that eligibility for superannuation should be reviewed in the light of the reduced life expectancy of some groups in the population, such as Māori, Pasifika, and Pākeha from the lower socio-economic levels. Dr Cullen was duly asked about that very serious policy issue in Parliament on 26 July 2005, and his response was: “I am advised by Treasury that it cannot cost that accurately, because it has no breakdown by ethnicity of New Zealand superannuation payments.” I ask members what sort of answer that is. Hansard never lies. If the Government does not have the data, why does it not?

That was precisely why the key recommendation from the United Nations special rapporteur Rudolfo Stavenhagen suggested that more targeted research, evaluation, and statistical databases were required in order to respond to the unique needs of Māori. Of course, we are not saying that reducing the eligibility for superannuation from 65 to 60 years is the only way we will achieve change; we are simply saying it is one measure out of many. We must invest in our greatest resource—the diversity of human capital—by addressing access to health services, by assisting State agencies to be responsive to the needs of all communities, by initiating strategies for recruitment, participation, and retention across all areas, and so on. Services that do not recognise the diversity of the population will never work, but it seems that this Government and many people in this House appear to be committed to a one-size-fits-all ethos, and they do so in blind pursuit of the cliché of one law for all.

The provision of responsive services for the elderly must reflect the choices and preferences we can all make about valuing the participation of older people in our society. I was proud that my mum lived out her life in our home. That was the choice of our whānau. Mum always said that she had kids only so that we could look after her in her old age. We were her insurance policy. She had paid the premiums through 70 years of enduring love, of discipline, of washing nappies, and of all that stuff. That was our choice because it is our custom, and I would not have had it be any other way. In days gone by, that was the norm. The intergenerational disparities have taken their toll on whānau in terms of their ability to do what was done in the past. What will we do about that when we know that one in five older Māori face severe difficulties caused by material hardship and disadvantage?

We in the Māori Party believe that the economic miracles that every Government has professed to perform have led, in part, to the fragmentation of whānau and family. Is that fragmentation and the consequential loss of care and responsibility of one human being for another genuine progress? We think not. Will next week’s Budget, and its accompanying fanfare, trumpet out the glorious differential of 8 to 9 years’ loss of life for Māori as opposed to non-Māori, or will it be silent again? The Māori Party will not be silent on critical matters, such as reckoning the national accounts in such a way as to ensure that genuine progress is achieved. We will judge the Budget on the basis of the genuine progress index. Our analysis will expose the deficits of that Budget and propose an alternative. We believe this bill should also have reflected, and every bill should reflect, genuine progress. We support the bill.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) Link to this

I stand to speak on behalf of United Future on the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. Obviously, we will support this bill, along with all other parties. It is a good move, it is a fair move, and I agree that it is probably long overdue. It is interesting to note there were four written submissions on this bill, no oral submissions were asked for, and all submissions were fully supportive of the bill. No substantive issues were raised in relation to the legislative amendments contained within the bill, and no changes were made by the committee.

I would like to refer to the submitters because I think it is a good time to look at those who did take the time. One submitter that has been mentioned is Volunteer Service Abroad, which was genuinely thrilled at the extended period of time, from 52 weeks to 156 weeks, that someone can receive New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension if he or she is carrying out volunteer work overseas for a recognised aid agency.

I remember at the time thinking about a lady, whom I was very fond of—and I have to mention her name: Myrtle Whitehead—who served for years and years, including when she was a superannuitant, in Borneo. I remembered a day when we got notice that Myrtle was missing. She was missing for some weeks in the jungles of Borneo. To be honest, we had all come to the conclusion that she had had an accident and hurt herself, and that we would eventually, possibly, get news that her body had been found. However, a very long time later Myrtle wandered out of the jungle into a village. She had just become lost and gone astray. Through all those years of her hard work for that country, with her love of the people of Borneo, she was travelling back and forth to New Zealand to keep current with her superannuation, which was difficult.

I was really touched by the comments made by Dr Pita Sharples about the time he had his mum living with him. My husband and I took my husband’s grandmother in to live with us at one stage, and she lived with us for the last 18 months to 2 years of her life. We look back on that as a very rich time in our lives. We also have some very funny stories that we can tell about that chance to have her live with us. We could set the clock at the time she would open her door to her part of the house, shuffle through, not speak a word to anybody, come into the kitchen where I was cooking tea, and lift ceremonially all the lids of the pots to check that there were green vegetables for our son, and if there were not green vegetables of sufficient quantity, then I got a telling off. My youngest boy, who, incidentally, is not obese and has never been obese, had the best diet of any of our children because nana kept a good eye on it. So all of us who have enjoyed that type of arrangement know how precious it is.

What our family has not experienced, and what this bill is about addressing, is the situation where one elderly relative is unable to be cared for by family or spouse because of the level of care that is required, and has to go into care, and the financial difficulties that that can create for the person living on his or her own at that stage. It is right and proper that this bill is passed and the respect it creates is acknowledged.

The National Council of Women was also keen to add its support, and it made the comment that it felt that this complemented the Ministry of Health’s “ageing in place” strategy, and I think the council is right. Age Concern New Zealand also made its feelings known on this matter. There was a submission that talked a little bit about—and I know this will be dear to Mr Mark’s heart—this whole idea of the portability of pensions. It was not addressed in this bill properly, because it was kind of outside the terms of this bill. But since I have received some letters on this issue, I have been asking the Minister for a briefing on it. I think it is something that needs to be further addressed, and we will be looking to the Government to make some changes.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) Link to this

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill.