JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this
This is good legislation, and we should congratulate all parties that have voted for it. It is good legislation because it deals with a situation in New Zealand in relation to married couples, where one of the spouses may be very elderly and in care in a rest home and where, because he or she can recognise her husband or wife, that husband or wife cannot get the living alone allowance. There has been a petition in relation to this matter—the Barbara White petition—which we supported. There has also been the work done by my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who on behalf of Mr Page of Nelson—[ Interruption]
Hon Mark BurtonI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I notice that the noise from the National members who are leaving the Chamber is really quite distracting.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Yes, there is far too much noise. All members should either be sitting down or have left the Chamber. They should leave the Chamber in silence. The noise level is just not fair to the speaker.
Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. As I said, this legislation has come about because of some good work done by Mrs Barbara White, who, I note today, has been congratulated by her colleagues, and also because of the work done by Dr Nick Smith, who took up the issue of Mr Page. He fought for Mr Page, a Nelson resident, who had not been able to get a living alone allowance. He had been married for 70 years, and his wife, who was in aged care, still recognised him. That is something we should all think is a good thing, but in Mr Page’s case it meant he could not get a living alone allowance, even though he was very obviously living alone. That is why we in the National Party have been particularly pleased to support this legislation. It is not often that we see in this Parliament legislation that receives the broad support that this is getting.
This legislation deals with, let us say, a very unfair situation. Elderly people who have been good New Zealand citizens all their lives, who have paid their taxes, and who have been trying to keep their relationships going after 70-odd years—and that of itself is worthy of note—have been finding themselves in situations where at one stage they were told to go off and get divorced in order to qualify for the living alone allowance. They were told to separate—to leave their spouses. That was a terribly cruel piece of advice to have been given in the case of Mr Page, and it is certainly a situation we are happy to support fixing through this legislation.
However, it is unfortunate that this legislation—in spite of having been called the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans Pensions (Entitlement of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care) and Remedial Matters Bill—will not help some of our veterans. I say that in particular because of the situation of Nancy Wake. I brought that issue to the attention of the House, the public, and the media, and I would like to thank the parties—including New Zealand First and the Māori Party—that supported my call to support Nancy Wake and give her an honour as a war veteran.
Hon Jim AndertonMr Anderton, who keeps calling out all the time, was the person who insulted Nancy Wake. He is the person that said of her: “Being famous, and born in New Zealand, are not of themselves sufficient reasons for her to be considered for an honour …”. Well, frankly, in her case, that was a shocking insult, and he has not apologised.
Unfortunately, Mr Anderton has not apologised. I am one of the many New Zealanders who did not realise until just a few years ago what a marvellous woman Nancy Wake was, or who knew her story. It was only because of Peter FitzSimons’ book on the issue that I and many other New Zealanders found out about Nancy Wake. For some reason, her story had not been celebrated in her own country.
One of the complaints Nancy Wake had about the Australian Government was that it would not give her an honour because she was a New Zealander. The reason the Australian Government gave, for many, many years, for not giving her an honour was that she was a New Zealander. Then Peter FitzSimons wrote about her work, and the Australian people demanded that their Government give her—a New Zealander who still has a New Zealand passport—an honour. I have been told by the Prime Minister and others that Nancy Wake, a war veteran, does not qualify for an honour because she was not with the New Zealand services. Well, that did not stop the Americans from giving her an honour, and it did not stop the French, the British, and the Australians from giving her an honour, because there are some people for whom we actually have to bend the rules.
Honours in this country are given to New Zealanders, but we know that the people who help us and work for us do not always live here. We honour some of those people every year—and good on us for doing so. But we have that pig-headed attitude from Mr Anderton and his ilk that says that because Nancy Wake left here as a child, and because she has not been to New Zealand for some time—for many years, to be frank—we cannot honour her. That is in spite of the fact that she just happens to have led 7,000 resistance fighters in France, to have helped many Allied servicemen, and to be our greatest living war hero. That we cannot honour her is absolutely disgraceful. That woman is 94 years old. She is still alive and she would like an honour.
In this country we constantly give out honours to people for deeds not nearly as strongly deserving or as remarkable as those of Nancy Wake. If we cannot give her a military honour, then why do we not give her a non-military honour? Why do we not make her a member of the Order of New Zealand? We made our High Commissioner to Britain, Jonathan Hunt, a member of that order, so why not honour someone like Nancy Wake—a woman who went way beyond the call of duty, a woman who took actions that many others would not? I cannot think of anyone else who would act in the way she did, yet we do not honour her. She is alive, so let us do it now. It is not good enough to say that we will stick up a statue later on. [Interruption] That is what Mr Anderton said, I tell Mrs Pettis. He said we would put up a statue. That is no good to her. We should give this woman something now while she is alive. While we are at it, we should do something a bit better for our Viet Nam veterans. I am sick and tired of hearing about how we cannot have the relevant report through.
Hon Annette KingAnd by the way, I tell Mrs King, many of these veterans will not live long enough to get the old-age pension, because they are dying like flies. Since the time of the report back, in March, another five veterans have died while waiting. That is how they have died. They have died waiting, waiting, waiting—just as Phil Goff does in his caravan in Mt Roskill. They have been waiting for something to come out. Why can we not have that report? It is supposed to be unedited, so why can we not have it? We know the answer. It is because the report slams the Office of Veterans Affairs. It slams the fact that those veterans have been waiting for months and months—sometimes 9 or 10 months—to get their benefits, when in many cases they are very sick, and in some cases terminally ill. They have to wait, but anyone else who as a civilian goes through Work and Income receives his or her benefit at the click of a finger. That is disgraceful. So we just sit here, giving to this legislation that beautiful name that says it is for spouses’ entitlements, for veterans, and for people in long-term care.
This is a party that denied we even had a problem.
JUDITH COLLINS: Well, unfortunately, I tell Mrs King, a lot of those veterans will never live to be in long-term residential care, because they simply will not live. When we poison people, as they were, and we then lie about it for years and years—[Interruption] It was the Labour Government in 1989 that refused to allow Geoff Braybrooke’s bill to come in. The Labour Government refused to support its own member, then it brought out the McLeod report—
The McLeod report was put out by the Labour Government—a Government that said those veterans were not sprayed. Well, they were. Unfortunately, it took the work of a cross-party group to come to the truth. New Zealand First, the Greens, ACT, and United Future all supported National. The only party that did not want it to happen was the Labour Party. But we got to the truth. It did not happen only once, it happened 320 times. It took us to do it, because Mrs King, who was then Minister of Health, did not want it to happen, either. No, no, she was going along with the party line. That party has now been embarrassed, because it has been asked to front up. This is the Year of the Veteran, and unfortunately we have, in Mrs King, yet another Minister who does not want to admit that we need to do something about it.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have a stream of barrage—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
There is barraging going on. Would members please confine themselves to interjections, and not barrage.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member is bringing me into the debate directly. It is not unreasonable that I respond. If the member wants to personalise the debate, then I think I have the right to interject on her.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
The member does have the right to interject, but she does not have the right to barrage.
It is time we stopped saying: “You did this, you did that.”, and actually—[ Interruption] Madam Speaker, we now have a stream of barrage from Mr Benson-Pope.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
They are interjections. Would the member please carry on.
We have a Government that is happy to say to the few veterans who are still alive, and who are, in fact, in aged care that it will help their spouses—and good on it for that. But there is something so much more important: it is doing the decent thing by veterans, not just talking about it.
JILL PETTIS (Labour) Link to this
That National member is so isolated from the rest of her caucus that she does not even know that the National members on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee voted against the Nancy Wake petition. Another example is that in 1995 Peter Gresham, a former National Government Minister, investigated the policy that this Labour-led Government is implementing today. He had it costed. He put forward the same measures that we are enacting today. But he and the National Government of the day failed to do anything about it, even after they had the evidence. There is a word for that, and it starts with “h”. I am proud that this Labour-led Government is enacting this legislation, which will improve the quality of life of New Zealand superannuitants and veterans.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) Link to this
The National Party is indeed happy and glad to be supporting the third reading of this legislation, because we care about the veterans and the elderly in this country. I think it is very important to go back to the genesis of this legislation. It came about when the Labour Government introduced its New Zealand Superannuation Bill in 2001. As a result, 1 year later the petition of Barbara White and 1,519 others arrived at Parliament. The petition pointed out the anomalies this legislation addresses—anomalies that, for 5 years under this Labour Government, saw significant numbers of veterans and elderly in this country being cut off from their entitlements. For over 5 years the Labour Government has knowingly cut out the entitlements of our elderly and veterans.
So here was Barbara White, back in 2002, bringing to this Parliament a petition that has been ignored by the Labour Government for at least 4 long years. What it took was the case of an elderly Nelson man by the name of Mr Page, who was 90 years old and whose elderly wife was in long-term residential care with Alzheimer’s disease. Mr Page applied for his entitlement but was told by this mean-spirited Labour Government that if he wanted to get that entitlement, he would have to divorce his wife of over 70 years!
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON Link to this
That is exactly what the Labour Government said. This Labour Government has brought in all sorts of liberal laws over the last few years, but it said to this elderly gentleman, Mr Page from Nelson, whose wife was in long-term residential care with Alzheimer’s disease, that it was sorry but the only way he would get the entitlement due to him was to divorce his wife. That is exactly how this Labour Government operates.
But what happened? Fortunately, Mr Page went to see the very good member for Nelson, the Hon Nick Smith, who said he would rectify that anomaly. He went first to the various Labour Government authorities, who said they were sorry but the rules were the rules. Despite the petition of Barbara White, and despite 5 years of that anomaly, they were not prepared to do anything. So Nick Smith, quite rightly, took Mr Page’s case to the Human Rights Commissioner, who immediately said that something was basically wrong and that it reflected an absolute wrong by the Labour Government. It was only then that—after 5 long years of mean-spirited behaviour by the Government towards veterans and the elderly—suddenly the legislation appeared in Parliament. But the elderly and the veterans have been diddled out of a substantial amount of money. It amounts to about $60 a week, and for an elderly person who would otherwise be earning, after tax, only $203 a week, that $263.90, which is the adjustment, represents a large amount—almost 25 percent more than he or she had been getting previously. In fact, it will affect, initially, something like 2,000 people at a cost of $6.1 million in 2006, rising to something like $6.7 million in 2008-09.
But the real worry is that the Labour Government waited so long before it was prepared to give our veterans and our elderly the entitlements that are their due. It is quite interesting that the Labour Government is prepared to continue its mean-spirited behaviour. Nick Smith proposed two amendments to new clause 6A. The first stated: “(1) Any person who applied for the living alone payment prior to 24 July 2004 but were declined on the basis of their spouse living in rest-home care, shall be eligible for payment from 24 July 2004.” That is pretty reasonable—particularly in the case of Mr Page, who has so patiently waited for his due entitlement. But, once again, that very reasonable amendment from the Hon Nick Smith was disallowed by the mean-spirited Labour Government.
On the other side of the ledger, when the Volunteer Service Abroad people came along to the Social Services Committee and pointed out that many of them were finding it difficult to serve the usual routine 2-year stint overseas because they had to come back to New Zealand and apply for their entitlement again, the Labour Government said that it would not just make it 2 years’ entitlement, which is what the organisation requested, but that it had heaps of money—and we know it does not look into things very carefully or seriously—and would make it 3 years’ entitlement.
That response was absolutely unnecessary, absolutely inappropriate, and way over-the-top. If we look at it in the context of the major point of the legislation being about ensuring that New Zealand’s elderly and New Zealand’s veterans are not diddled out of their entitlements, then is it not ridiculous that Mr Benson-Pope can sit on the other side of the House and give to Volunteer Service Abroad people not 2 years’ entitlement but 3 years’ entitlement? Yet not one of them has ever applied for 3 years’ entitlement, nor are they likely to.
One of the other very interesting things about the bill is a submission from Age Concern stating: “While we acknowledge the proposed amendments through the bill improve the situation and make it fairer, the changes do not address the fundamental issue, which is that many older people currently do not receive adequate financial assistance from the Government to ensure poverty does not predetermine their health and well-being.” The issue is all about whether this country’s economic growth is substantial enough and sustainable enough to ensure that our elderly people receive appropriate benefits when they reach old age. What we know is that after 6 long years of a Labour Government—which, when it came to office in 1999, inherited a growth rate of 4.9 percent—economic growth in the first quarter of this year fell to 0 percent. The current quarter is about 1 percent, and predictions by the Reserve Bank over the next few years say it will be approximately 1 to 2 percent.
The submission from Age Concern is absolutely appropriate to the needs of elderly people, but the Labour Government has put New Zealand further and further down the ladder in terms of our ranking in the OECD. When we look to the future, we see that New Zealand is destined to go even further down, if we remain under a Labour Government. If the elderly and the veterans of New Zealand are to achieve adequate recompense, then we should look to a National Government.
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) Link to this
On behalf of New Zealand First it is with pleasure that I rise to support the third readings of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill. New Zealand First is 100 percent behind these bills. We want fair and equitable treatment for our seniors and our veterans, and we believe it is about time that that has come about. We are pleased to see that the bills will at last have their third and final reading today, so that they are quickly passed into law.
New Zealand First always maintains that the treatment of our seniors sends a clear signal of our status as a developed nation. We believe that we must focus the actions and attitudes of both our Government and our Government agencies towards our seniors, ensuring that their valued status in society is clearly evident.
This legislation amends the eligibility rules for New Zealand superannuation under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 for New Zealand superannuation in relation to persons with partners or spouses living in long-term residential care—and I know that the previous speaker noted how many of those people there are in New Zealand. It also increases the time people can continue to live overseas and work voluntarily for an aid agency while they receive New Zealand superannuation.
This legislation, we are pleased to see, contains some really positive changes that ensure that superannuitants and veterans are able to live in dignity and participate as fully as they possibly can in society. We know that the volunteer sector is hugely important in today’s society, and it is a real credit to all our senior citizens that they donate their energy and time to worthy causes, particularly those who go through Volunteer Service Abroad. New Zealand First believes that the change from 52 weeks to 156 weeks will be most appreciated by people involved in that service overseas. It gives those who are involved far more choice than they have had previously. It is to be hoped that many members here in this House will go on to become involved in Volunteer Service Abroad in the same way.
New Zealand First is happy that the same eligibility changes apply to the veterans pension, so that that pension actually mirrors the provisions of superannuation—and that is how it should be. We all place great value on the service given by our veterans, and we accept that New Zealand has a very special obligation towards all our veterans, particularly those who have suffered as a result of their service, and there are many who have. And, of course, we acknowledge the many families that have been affected by their husbands’ and fathers’ service overseas.
It is absolutely essential to ensure that the floor for superannuation and the veterans pension does not fall below 66 percent of the net average wage. That was agreed to by New Zealand First in its supply and confidence agreement with the Labour Government, and we must say that this is only the start of addressing the needs of our senior citizens and veterans in New Zealand. The next change for our seniors, of course, will be the golden age card for all New Zealand seniors and veterans, and we will be absolutely delighted to see that measure implemented.
New Zealand First was very pleased to see that eligibility for single or living alone rate for New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension was extended to all New Zealand’s superannuitants and veterans pensioners. We know the hardship experienced by all those people who have a spouse or partner in long-term residential care in either a hospital or a rest home. So we are absolutely delighted to see that anomaly fixed.
We must mention, too, the Year of the Veteran. As I said earlier, we owe our veterans a great deal. I would remind the National Party that New Zealand First’s Ron Mark has recommended Nancy Wake for a Queen’s honour four times—in fact, long before Judith Collins came to this House. When it comes to talking about veterans, often we see the politics of convenience come to the fore. I have heard that veterans say that the National Party is as deep as cellophane, and just as transparent, when it comes to talking about these particular issues. It is also worth reminding the National Party that successive National Governments have not recognised some of the servicemen whom we hear about in this House—for example, Lieutenant Colonel Malone, Sergeant Mahoney, Des Scott, or Nancy Wake, or even the Viet Nam veterans and their plight over Agent Orange, or the nuclear test veterans. There is quite a long list of veterans that National, when it was in power, could have done something about.
R Doug WoolertonIt is absolutely disgraceful. New Zealand First is absolutely delighted to see this legislation pass. We want to see a speedy resolution to these issues, and we will be looking forward to hearing some positive stories from our superannuitants and veterans.
SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this
Along with most, if not all, parties in this House, the Green Party welcomes the third readings of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill, which together will mean fairer pension payments for superannuitants whose partners are in long-term residential care.
This legislation will come into force almost immediately. This was not a controversial issue between parties. Indeed, when Mrs Barbara White appeared before the Social Services Committee with her 1,500-signature petition to have the law changed, she found a warm response around the table, the fruition of which we see here this afternoon.
It has been manifestly unjust that for so long superannuitants and veterans pensioners have continued to receive the lower married rate of pension, even though they have a spouse or partner in long-term care in a hospital or rest home. Common sense has finally prevailed, and people in that situation will now be eligible for the single or single living alone rate. The sharing expenses rule has also been taken out of the legislation, so that payments will be based just on the living arrangements in which people find themselves, rather than on the previous arbitrary mechanism, which ruled people out of receiving the living alone rate if they received any external contribution at all to their household costs from other family members, for example.
The second key feature of these two bills is that the period of time people can continue to receive New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension if they are working overseas with an aid agency has been extended from 52 weeks to 156 weeks. This is great news and simple common sense, and, in fact, it is a very cheap way for our Government to extend its overseas aid programmes—by subsidising superannuitants who would be receiving the pension at home anyway, while they do useful relief and developmental work abroad.
I would like to congratulate the Government and, in particular, Lianne Dalziel, who has championed this particular cause, on ensuring that the law in this area has been changed at last. Although this erstwhile anomaly in New Zealand’s pension regime does not affect a lot of people, unlike other matters such as portability of overseas pensions—which is currently under scrutiny in our select committee—for those who have been in the past, and may be in the future, suffering reduced rates of income for no good reason, this is a significant, timely, and positive change.
The Green Party welcomes the passing of these two bills into law and looks forward to the day that the many other anomalies within our income support system are similarly dealt with.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. I a au e tū nei ka hoki ngā māhara ki te hunga kua ngaro. E kui, takoto mai rā i te wā kāinga. Moe mai, moe mai, moe mai.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Greetings to you Madam Speaker. As I stand here my thoughts go back to the ones who have passed on. Oh kui, lie there at home. Sleep, slumber, sleep.]
Less than a month ago one of much cherished kuia of Te Arawa and Te Whānau-a-Apanui, Anne Anituatua Delamere, passed away at the age of 85. As we have turned to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill, her name came up in conversation. Ani, I understand, was one of the five community members on the Senior Citizens Advisory Council that provided the Minister for Senior Citizens with independent advice on issues concerning the well-being of our older people. As such, I am sure her input will be evident in this bill, as with many others before the House.
Ani Delamere was amongst a distinguished group of former service people, including Tā Hemi Hēnare—Sir James Hēnare—Pita Awatere, and John Rangihau, who were recruited as welfare officers. They were a group of public servants who played a key role in mobilising the Māori workforce, helping to facilitate the urban drift during the 1950s and 1960s, lining up jobs, helping them with housing and education, while still supporting them in adhering to their hapū and iwitanga.
In 1961 Ani Delamere helped to establish and run the then Māori Education Foundation, interviewing thousands of school leavers, setting them on the track to higher education, and watching them and encouraging their progress. Former Māori Affairs secretary Neville Baker said that Ani Delamere was instrumental in helping families with their education, health, employment, and so forth, particularly harnessing the strength of Māori women. Indeed, Ani was a life member of the Māori Women’s Welfare League, having helped to establish it in 1951.
I mihi to Ani Delamere today, because many of those Māori she helped over 50 years ago are the people we are talking about today—those who are seeking to enjoy continued participation in our communities. The New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill helps to make life easier for this group, in much the same way that Ani Delamere did in taking under her wing the hundreds of Māori who left their rural communities for the streets of Wellington.
There is another woman whom I want to acknowledge, as we consider this legislation today—Richmond pensioner Barbara White. She, along with 1,500 others, petitioned Parliament to seek fairer pension payments. I am told that Mrs White had received only a single person’s benefit because her husband was in care, suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. The legislation that is being debated today is indebted to her initiative.
The legislation extends eligibility for the single or single living alone rate, recognising the discriminatory impacts of the strict and arbitrary forms of income testing that currently exist in the sharing expenses rule. I have received over my desk a number of submissions from people who are in this situation, whereby they would have to divorce or declare themselves unmarried in order to be eligible for additional payment. It may not be a huge amount of money that we are talking about—the payments relate to some $20 or $30 a week. But these are significant amounts of extra dollars for Māori, who face a relatively high rate of material disadvantage, compared with the living standards of older non-Māori.
This bill is also very significant for Māori, in that the changing ethnic composition of the older population means that more and more Māori will benefit from the legislation being heard today. We need to bear in mind that while Māori and Pacific peoples account for only a small proportion of the senior population, the demographic is changing. The older Māori population is projected to grow rapidly, around 5 percent per year, reaching 32,000 by 2011 and nearly 84,000 by 2031. Older Māori currently account for just 3 percent of the Māori population. This will increase to 10 percent by 2031. This will also have implications for the proportion of Māori within the general senior population—expected to rise from 4 percent of all older people in 1999 to 9 percent from 2031.
So how will this affect the uptake of New Zealand superannuation? It is extremely significant that older Māori have a slower than average take-up of New Zealand superannuation. Only 78 percent reported having received it, in the 1996 census, compared with 91 percent of the rest of the older population. According to the Ministry of Social Development, the reasons for this are unclear. An issue that has been raised in senior citizens unit consultations with Māori is the effect on Māori of the increasing age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation. The issue is that the eligibility age for New Zealand superannuation of 65 years, combined with lower life expectancy rates for Māori, means that some Māori will not receive New Zealand superannuation, and indeed most Māori will not receive New Zealand superannuation for as long as their non-Māori counterparts.
Māori life expectancy is 73 years for females, compared with 81.9 years for non-Māori, and 69 years for males, compared with 77.2 years for non-Māori. Despite some ratbag reporting and political pontificating at the time prior to last year’s election, the issues regarding inequities in Māori access to superannuation remain current. These are big challenges which this Parliament must consider carefully. We must invest in our senior citizens, Māori and non-Māori, by assisting access to health services, by challenging all agencies of the State to be responsive to our elderly to ensure that the programmes provided reflect the choices and preferences of a diverse senior population.
In talking to this legislation today, I want also to refer to the War Pensions Amendment Bill that relates to the pensions stemming from service in the Second World War, the Viet Nam War, and the Korean War, with certain New Zealand peacekeeping forces. This bill introduces an entitlement to the veterans pension for spouses or partners of persons in long-term residential care, in hospitals, or in rest homes. The Māori Party is happy to support these amendments in order to ensure that an equitable standard of living is able to be enjoyed by veterans as it is by any superannuitants.
There are, however, some issues that the Māori Party has brought to this House this week that we believe warrant further debate. We have raised with the Minister of Veterans Affairs the discriminatory impact of the differences in pension payments and compensation available for injured soldiers under the War Pensions Act 1954. This compensation, when compared with accident compensation, clearly disadvantages Viet Nam veterans, nearly 60 percent of whom are Māori.
In a report presented to the Agent Orange Joint Working Group on Concerns of Viet Nam Veterans, Viet Nam veteran Bruce Isbister stated: “Their earning capacity has been taken from them by their service to country, consigned to an income akin to poverty line and exacerbated by blatant discrimination. Many veteran pensioners have to sell family assets to stay afloat causing huge disruption to themselves and their families.”
These are major challenges to the well-being and ongoing living standards of our veterans within the senior population, and we must ensure that this group—a group that has sacrificed so much on behalf of our nation—is not treated in a way that dishonours the service they have given for Aotearoa. Finally, in closing I am thinking of the passing last week of Hapimana Toby Rikihana, a retired teacher and principal, who was given the teacher union’s highest honour of life membership. This koroua was a passionate advocate of te reo Māori, who has devoted his life to promoting and teaching Māori language, giving over 40 years of his life to education—making him an inaugural recipient of Te Tohu mo Te Reo Rangatira a Te Waka Toi / Te Waka Toi Award for Te Reo.
It is so easy for us to dismiss the experience, the knowledge, and the gracious and generous spirit that our senior citizens should be recognised for. It might interest members to know that neither Ani Delamere nor Toby Rikihana ever married or had children, but they cared for so many young people and were affectionately known as Aunty Ani and Uncle Toby to many. That is the caring spirit we are honouring here today, and it is the gift of their lives that we think of in supporting this legislation. We will remember them. Kia ora tātou.
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) Link to this
I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the third readings of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill. Previously, those bills were in one bill under a completely different name, but we have separated it out into two bills for this reading.
The purpose of the legislation is clear. It recognises that many senior citizens or superannuitants who are married or partnered are actually living alone. Those people have all the financial pressures of managing a home on their own, yet until this bill is passed into law they are assessed, if their partner is still alive, on whether their partner can recognise them. The other thing that is often not taken into account when a loved one is in care is the extra expense incurred by things like visits, transport, and the little bits and pieces that the person in care requires. Those things have to be bought out of the partner’s income, and that additional expenditure goes along with the inconvenience of the partner still being treated as part of a couple in terms of the rate of benefit received. So United Future is very, very pleased to see this legislation finally come before the House. The legislation also removes the sharing expenses rule that has applied up until now. For a lot of people who are captured under this provision, that will mean a saving of $20.30 a week.
I always remember a rather interesting lady whom I met during an election campaign at a little meeting in a country hall. She came up and asked to see me privately afterwards. We had a little bit of a talk, and her concern was that she had been sent a $3,000 funeral bill for a gentleman whom she had been living with. His family refused to pay the bill, and it was sent to her because she was deemed to be the partner of that man. It was a confusing conversation. She explained that she had been living with him for only a couple of years. She had heard that the man had health concerns and no one to look after him, so she took it upon herself to move in and look after him. She had been honest and said they were living together, which the department concerned took to mean that they were living as a couple.
Because of the way the conversation went and the little details she gave me, I suddenly realised that they were not actually a couple at all, but that she was just one very kind person. I think the way I queried her was to ask whether their relationship was romantic—I was trying to think of how I could put the question sensitively. She looked horrified, and said: “Young lady”—which I quite enjoyed—“I am no …”, and then she used a word that means a woman of ill-repute, which I probably should not say in the House. It became very clear that that dear, kind lady, who had been living with and caring for that gentleman at a financial handicap to herself—and had now been sent a $3,000 bill—had been captured in the talk of the department, and it had never been fully understood as to what her living situation really was.
The other thing this legislation does is extend to 3 years the eligibility period for New Zealand superannuitants and veterans who are working voluntarily overseas for aid agencies. There has been a little bit of scoffing about the fact that the period has been increased from 1 year to 3 years, but most 65-year-olds are pretty active people who could easily see themselves committing to 1, 2, 3, or more years of living overseas. It is a very sensible provision. In one of my previous speeches I mentioned a lady called Myrtle Whitehead. She was working in Borneo with the Iban people and had to come back all the time to New Zealand so that her superannuation would not be cancelled, then get on a plane and fly back to Borneo to do the work she was so ably doing over there. So the provision is really, really sensible.
United Future believes we could do more, as a country and as a Government, to recognise the superannuitants who volunteer within New Zealand. It could be a case of tokenism, we admit, but we are suggesting that those people could be given something like $500 for 100 hours of voluntary service within the community—some sort of tax rebate that could be given to superannuitants on a fixed income who are doing a huge amount and making a huge difference in the community. To give those people a little bit of a rebate would be a way of recognising, honouring, and thanking them for the work they are doing. We look forward to an opportunity in the future when we may be able to advance that suggestion. Instead of rebating people for the money they donate to charitable causes, we could provide a rebate to people for the hours of service they give when they are on a low, fixed income and when giving money is a much more difficult thing to do.
Finally, this legislation also enables us to adjust veterans pensions and those of superannuitants in an aligned kind of way, which is a really good thing. I have a reputation of being a bit paranoid about Orders in Council. Certainly, if we read any of the recommendations of the Regulations Review Committee, we find that that committee is always a little nervous about Orders in Council, and that has made me a bit nervous, too. My nervousness is always about the open-ended nature of those orders. So I am really pleased that we are looking clearly at the fact that Order in Council provisions can be used to increase veterans pensions or superannuitants pensions, not to drag them back down. Superannuitants need to be relieved about that.
Certainly, I do not think it is the intention of this Government to decrease pensions, and hopefully no future Government will do so, but there have been seasons and times when senior citizens have felt disadvantaged by Government policy. Certainly, we would not like the Government to make any move in that direction without having the full consultation of Parliament and going through the select committee process. I am very pleased that those Order in Council provisions apply to increases, and not to the general adjustment in any direction of pensions of both veterans and superannuitants.
United Future is very pleased to be supporting, along with all other parties, this legislation. We think it is timely; it is probably actually late—it should have been done some time ago. At least it is happening now, and we are very glad to be supporting it.
NATHAN GUY (National) Link to this
I speak in favour of this legislation, but in doing so I would like to raise quite a few points. I reside up in the Horowhenua-Kapiti region, which has, per capita, the highest number of over-65s in the country. So this legislation is of great significance to those aged over 65 in that particular region.
This legislation has been 5 years in coming. It has taken 5 years for this Government to acknowledge what was simply pathetic. I thank Nick Smith, the MP for Nelson, very much. He is a hard-working man who actually represented—
Hon David Benson-PopeI can handle the interjections from Mr Benson-Pope. We all know he likes to bully people. That member will not be bullying me, so I will carry on. The member from Nelson, Dr Nick Smith, is working hard for 91-year-old Mr Page, whose wife was in long-term residential care because she had Alzheimer’s. When Mr Page tried to get the single living alone allowance, he was told he should seek a divorce. How terrible is that? It is an anomaly that if a civil union couple applied for that allowance, that would be fine. So I thank Nick Smith for raising this issue and bringing it into the House. But it has taken 5 years to get the legislation to where it is today. It is pretty lightweight legislation, so I struggle to see why it has taken so long to come through the House. It is good legislation, but I cannot believe that it was not taken in urgency.
It is interesting to note that the legislation will help 2,000 war veterans—there are about 6,000 of them in this country. We need to take our hats off to those people who have served in uniform and represented our country in wars that happened before my time. We need to acknowledge that, and this legislation goes some way towards doing so.
The increase will be small—$60 a week—but it will be significant. It will lift the allowance from approximately $200 to $263. That increase will be introduced in a couple of days’ time, which is fantastic. But we need to bear in mind that superannuitants are getting walloped by higher taxes and higher petrol, power, and food costs. This legislation goes some way towards addressing those costs for people who are living alone. We all know that the costs for people living alone, or living together where one partner is in long-term residential care, are fixed, no matter whether one or two people are living in the house. I think that that is a significant point.
It is amazing that this cold, callous Government turned down the amendment to backdate this measure to July 2004. The cost to backdate the measure would be $600,000, but—hello—that amendment was turned down. This amount, when taken in the context of the $1.5 billion package for Working for Families and the $1 billion package for interest-free student loans, is a drop in the bucket for the Government. But, no, the amendment was turned down by a cold and callous Government that knows best.
This legislation also covers people on voluntary service abroad. Every year about 40 people choose to travel overseas and help out in other countries voluntarily. It is great that they will be captured in this bill. It is interesting that under the old regime those volunteers were covered for a year, but they put up their hands to ask to be covered for 2 years. The Government chose, in its wisdom, to allow them to go overseas for 3 years, which is fantastic. So we have a bit of an anomaly there, in that a certain group of people said it would be great if their service could be acknowledged for 2 years, but the Government chose to fund them for 3 years, even though they did not ask for that. The cost of that particular item is about $266,000 in 2006, moving up to $300,000 in 2008, which is fantastic.
The overriding issue in relation to this bill that has not been covered tonight is the fantastic job caregivers do, and they should be acknowledged for that. Right now, caregivers are choosing to leave the sector because of rising fuel prices and the fact that they are being rewarded with only the basic wage. That needs to be acknowledged, because on the day the price of petrol rose by 6c recently, 300 resignations were tendered. So caregivers work in a forgotten sector, and they need to be rewarded for the true value of their work. Let us not forget that caregivers use their own vehicles to travel to look after clients in their homes. So they cover their own registration, fuel, and vehicle costs, and they get no travel subsidy. The Government says caregivers do get a travel subsidy. It says that it has given the money to the district health boards. Well, in the MidCentral District Health Board area no money is flowing through to the caregivers. I am working hard to ensure that caregivers get a fairer go for the job they do—firstly, with fair wages and, secondly, with a fair travel allowance.
This is good legislation. It has taken 5 years to get to this stage. It will allow those who have chosen to represent our country in wars to age with dignity and have a better quality of life. It was through the hard work of the National Party and our MP for Nelson that this legislation came to the House, and it will be fantastic when it is rolled out in a couple of days’ time, on 1 July.
To sum up, this legislation will target the 2,000 war veterans for whom an anomaly exists if the husband or wife is living in long-term residential care. It is important that those people are acknowledged. We all know that the costs of running a house continue to go up, with rates, power, running vehicles, etc., as well as the high tax take that the Government imposes on a whole lot of beneficiaries. This legislation will reward the people who have served our country, and it is thanks to the National Party that it is in the House tonight and will be rolled out in a few days’ time.