Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
In conclusion, I say that the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill, now divided into the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill, has been accepted and supported by all parties in this Parliament except the ACT Party, which, during the Committee stage made it clear that it would oppose it. I am delighted that this legislation will go through. It was started by Labour in Government and has been completed by the National Government. It will be widely welcomed by older New Zealanders who look forward to being able to travel and to live overseas, taking with them a large proportion of their New Zealand superannuation, which is something that they worked for for many years and they believe is their entitlement. It is not a benefit; it is a pension, and they are delighted that with the passage of this legislation they can make choices about where they go to live and how they can now spend that money. Under the old criteria they could have only 50 percent of their pension. This legislation is supported by this House; I am pleased to see it being passed today.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
I just say that it is very impolite for conversations to be going on while members are speaking. I know that the member here had only a minute and a bit left, but it was very difficult to hear. If members want to speak they should move out into the lobbies. I do not know whether the member was calling or not, because there are people standing in front of him. If any member wants the call he or she needs to stand up and seek it.
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this
I rise to speak in support of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill. [ Interruption] I am pleased those are the ones we are on and that everything is on target, and I thank the Minister.
It is important to note that these are changes that have been wanted for some time and that they have received wide support from across the House. There was goodwill on both sides of the table, around the select committee process. We received substantial help from the officials who were present and they guided us through the process. As the previous speaker has said, this legislation was initiated under the previous Government and it has continued under this Government. It deals equitably with those hard-working New Zealanders who have spent years contributing to our society, paying their taxes in anticipation that in their elder years they would receive superannuation. We do want those people to travel around the world. We certainly want them to come back, but it is good for their health and the health of our nation that they travel around the world, not only to visit their family but also to drink in all that this world has to offer, and to come back and add to the rich tapestry that is the wonderful country in which we live. This bill enables them to be able to do that and to reap the benefits of their long years of hard work, working towards a better New Zealand, as we all are. I endorse this legislation and commend it to the House.
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) Link to this
I am very pleased to speak in support of this legislation. Just to recap the purpose, this legislation amends the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954. The whole intent is to make it easier for superannuitants and veterans to receive their superannuation or pension if they travel or, in many instances, work overseas.
The provisions for these payments have been in place since 1 April 1990, but they provided only for a flat rate of 50 percent of the domestic rate of the payment at the time these people left New Zealand. Effectively, New Zealand superannuitants and recipients of the veterans pension who travelled overseas received only 50 percent. In many instances that flat rate deterred retired people and veterans from travelling for any length of time overseas, because it was just not possible for them to access the superannuation that they were entitled to because they had reached the age of 65 and were superannuitants or had served New Zealand and were on the veterans pension. It was a very unfair situation and, one might say, quite punitive.
I am really pleased, as is everyone in the House, that from 2 November this will no longer be the case. Those people who travel overseas will not lose 50 percent of their pension; they will receive all of the pension that they are entitled to. I think that will be a major benefit to people who have reached retirement age or who have served New Zealand and have served it well.
Along with my colleagues, I am very happy to speak in support of this bill, but at the risk of being just a little negative, I will repeat what I said in an earlier speech in the House. I am concerned about how this measure will be funded. This increased benefit for recipients of superannuation and veterans benefits in New Zealand is something that all members in this Parliament support, and that is a very, very good thing, but its funding is also very important.
That is why it is very important to put money aside into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, which we can call the Cullen fund, to continue to fund New Zealand superannuation at the level that it should be funded. In the National Government’s Budget Labour members were very, very concerned to see the deferral of payments into the fund. What does that mean? It means that the Superannuation Fund account is not receiving the money it currently needs to have. It means, with the best will in the world, that although we are now extending people’s rights with regard to superannuation, which we have all acknowledged is good, we now have a big question mark about the funding, which is not good. We must ask how we will sustain the funding into the Superannuation Fund for generations to come as we continue, I would hope, to enhance these payments.
I feel strongly about this and I urge the Government to reconsider the deferral of the Superannuation Fund payments, to enable the fund to grow so that all these obligations can be met and will not cost future generations of New Zealanders in terms of their access and their rights to superannuation. I think that is important and I urge the Government to consider doing this.
I know that after the Budget was released, Treasury showed that Bill English’s plan to gut the Superannuation Fund by 50 percent meant that it would never be able to catch up. It means that in the future a Government—it would certainly not happen under a Labour Government, but it could happen under more conservative Governments—could use that as an argument for attacking the rate of superannuation and the rights that are part of the superannuation package.
Members opposite might say that is rubbish and that it is simply not the case. I would say to those members—
Labour would pay for it, but the member has just asked where Labour would get the money from. Labour would continue—
Yes, because Government members are now asking quite openly where we would get the money from to maintain superannuation at its current level. What does that bring into question? Well, it makes me ask what this Government’s agenda is. I ask what this Government’s agenda is, when Government members are sitting on the other side of the House asking that.
Chester Borrows is sitting on the other side of the House and saying that National has cut the contributions to the Superannuation Fund, but if we want to maintain superannuation at its current level, he is asking Labour members where they would get the money from. I find that pretty abhorrent. I have a lot of respect for Chester Borrows. I think that he is a good select committee chair. But I think he has quite unwittingly exposed the National Government’s agenda for superannuation in this country. He has asked where Labour would get the money from to maintain superannuation at the current levels. Is that correct? Is that the question the member is asking?
The question is where would Labour get the money from to maintain the contributions to the super fund.
I find that quite reprehensible. It is an appalling statement to make. It is putting pensioners and future generations at risk. I must say to Mr Borrows that I am very, very disappointed to hear that. You are the last member I would have expected that sort of statement from. I will find it very difficult in the select committee tomorrow to treat you with respect. I am really quite concerned about this.
Hon Darren HughesIt is “Borrow” by name and borrow by nature. I say to Mr Deputy Speaker that I have never had any trouble whatsoever treating you with respect, and I will continue to do so.
Coming back to the matter in hand, I am pleased that this bill is before Parliament. As I have said before, this would have been a good bill to rush through in the 100 days of action, rather than the one slashing KiwiSaver rates. But it is here now, and I am supporting it. But the question I ask the Government is, if these levels of payments are to be maintained, then how will we continue to keep making those contributions to the Superannuation Fund? Thank you.
As we consider this bill today, crowds will be heading to Mangahānea Marae in Ruatōria to bid their farewells to the renowned educator and mentor, Mate Huatahi Kaiwai, as mentioned by the Hon Parekura Horomia yesterday. This kuia of 94 years of age was the proud mother of nine children, and Mate was also kuia to 31 mokopuna and 33 great-mokopuna. She was awarded Te Whetū o Te Tau by Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori, the Maori Language Commission, a couple of years ago for her lifelong contribution to the retention and preservation of Māori language.
But there was another distinctive characteristic of Mate, and that was the fact that she was the daughter of Ta Apirana Tūrupa Ngata, Ngāti Porou leader, politician, esteemed scholar, devout land reformer, and writer. His wide-ranging scholarship resulted in a unique publication of a collection of waiata, Ngā Mōteatea; the journal Te Wānanga; the revision of the Māori Bible; and a survey called The Māori People Today: A General Survey. But his legacy was also important in encouraging his people to develop and farm their land, while also preserving their culture and maintaining their unique identity—all aspects that his daughter clung to until her dying days.
I draw attention to the inspiration of that kuia in this brief contribution to the debate, because she represents, in aspects, just how treasured our pakeke are, and as a consequence should lead us to seek to improve the income levels and support for them in whatever form we can. It is because of our aroha, our love, for kuia such as Mate that the Māori Party has previously supported legislation to amend the income and asset-testing regime for elderly people requiring indefinite long-term residential care. We supported the initiative of the SuperGold card, and more recently we have extended the eligibility for the single living alone rate to previously excluded categories of superannuitants and veterans. In many ways, these votes have all paved the way for the decision to have this collection of bills, which have now been split off and are before the House right now.
But there is another special characteristic to the legacy of Nanny Mate. As the daughter of Sir Apirana Ngata, I think she represents a unique connection to our past. To all intents and purposes, she sits at the cusp of another era, a gateway to Te Ao Māori of days gone by. Our cultural framework establishes the expectation that it is the role and the responsibility of the middle and younger generations to properly care for our elders. For the Māori Party, whānau ora is integral to the proper care and respect for older people—for older people to feel included, loved, secure, supported, and involved in community life.
As part of such an expectation we therefore support the opportunity provided by this raft of legislation to allow superannuitants, and veterans pensioners to travel or retire overseas and still have the ability to receive New Zealand superannuation and pension payments. Such an expectation includes provisions for countries with which New Zealand does not have agreements relating to reciprocity of social security payments. This legislation also amends the current flat rate payment of 50 percent of the benefit when a person leaves New Zealand, with an abatement scheme that entitles those who have lived longer in New Zealand to receive a greater superannuation or pension payment. These are all practical, tangible measures to help make life just a little easier for our older ones. They are also consistent with the Māori Party policy position, which has promoted the need to raise the rate of superannuation and veterans pensions.
We believe that superannuation should be set at a level that provides for an equitable standard of living, pays for all of the essentials, and allows the continued participation of older people in community life. As a consequence of this view, the Māori Party advocates an increase in superannuation income. Price increases in essentials such as basic food items, petrol, and electricity lend urgency to the need to increase superannuation levels. A 6-monthly inflationary adjustment is also necessary to maintain living standards.
But there is another aspect to the income differential not addressed in this legislation that we believe warrants further examination, and that is the capacity to lower the age of entitlement to New Zealand superannuation to 60 years for groups whose life expectancy is lower than average. The average mortality age for Māori is around 10 years earlier than it is for non-Māori. We believe that a lower entitlement age will allow for a more equitable uptake of New Zealand superannuation for all citizens. Of the 65-plus population in New Zealand, in Aotearoa, 5.3 percent are Māori, so we are aware of the scale of the income difference we are dealing with.
We will therefore support this bill, in that it will enable superannuitants and veteran’s pensioners who wish to travel to or live in any country, or travel between any countries, to retain their benefit entitlement. We support it also in that it amends the benefit entitlement of superannuitants and veterans pensioners living overseas. With these two provisos firmly in place, we are happy to state our collective support for this reading of the bill. Kia ora tātou.
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) Link to this
I want to say how pleased I am that most parties will vote for this legislation at its third reading. I will reflect, as the previous speaker did, on something that happened yesterday. One of my former constituents, Harold Clark, celebrated his 107th birthday. Unfortunately he had to celebrate it not overseas, living where he might have wanted to, but in Middlemore Hospital because he had had a fall. I acknowledge Harold Clark and what he has done.
The people who will benefit from this legislation will, I think, be listening very carefully today. It is not often that people in this Parliament get up and talk about their support for a bill. Everyone across the House seems to be in favour of this legislation, although I must say to Sir Roger that I could not see the graph he had earlier. I suppose that made it a wee bit difficult. Perhaps that is a pity.
In my electorate, I have numbers of people coming to my electorate office. We are averaging over 82 people per day, who are walking in off the street. Amongst them are people who are coming to see us about superannuation. I can tell members that some of these people visit because they have Dutch pensions and they think the Government over here is unfair to them. They feel cheated. These bills do not address that. This legislation deals with people who have grown up in New Zealand, worked hard, and, I suppose, have been the strugglers. Then their families leave home, go overseas to live, and they would like to join them. What has been holding them back? I say it has been money that has been holding them back, but this legislation, which was introduced by Ruth Dyson last year, gives people that opportunity.
We heard the previous speaker talk about the SuperGold card, but those people will not be able to use the SuperGold card when they shift overseas. It will not be able to be transported overseas. But these people will perhaps be able to spend their retirement close to their families and seeing their grandkids. I always thought the way people talked about their grandkids all the time was unusual. All of a sudden, one’s son produces a grandson and one changes one’s mind. If my son went overseas to live, that is where I would want to live because I would want to see my grandkid. For many people, this legislation means that they can now make choices. I think that is why this is really important. It is all about choices. People can stay in New Zealand and collect their national superannuation, or they will be able to live overseas. I think that is very important.
You know, people do get very concerned about national superannuation. They come to the electorate office and they ask all sorts of questions. They want to know what will happen. Of course, that is a real worry for some people. I think one of the big problems many people have is that they listen to talkback radio. On talkback radio, rumours run around like nobody’s business, and listeners get the wrong end of the stick. A lot of people think that with the Cullen fund under siege from the National Government they may not be able to afford to live a modest but reasonable life in the future.
New Zealanders are worried about the security of their pensions. I think that is a very important point for MPs across the floor to dwell on for a second. If people work all their days in New Zealand, there is an expectation that they will get national superannuation and be able to live on it. If people go overseas to live, they will want to take their pension with them. I think people are now very suspicious. What is the National Government’s real intention towards superannuation? That is why they come to my electorate office.
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS Link to this
Jonathan Coleman can smile. I do get quite a few people coming to see me about him and his immigration policies and decisions. But the ones I have real sympathy for are the elderly.
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS Link to this
I tell members that for the last 9 years conspiracy theories were running rampant, and all the people were ringing up talkback radio and listening to what they had to say.
The ordinary, elderly people who come to the electorate office to talk about superannuation are really worried. They take a very, very simple interest in this issue. They look at it from their own point of view. Jonathan Coleman may be laughing and carrying on, but he is the guy who has a poor memory. He is the guy with amnesia. He cannot remember what he tells journalists. He cannot remember what he tells his own colleagues. That happens when someone gets old too, I say to Dr Coleman. People get amnesia and they get things muddled up. In the electorate office in Manurewa we help those people; we actually help them. [Interruption] That member does not know what he—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
I am having difficulty hearing the member. Interjections should be rare, reasonable, and witty, and I put the stress on “witty”. I have not heard any of those. Cross-exchanges are getting a bit out of hand. I ask members to keep the noise down.
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS Link to this
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think it is really important that there is some respect for the elderly, speaking from my own point of view. From calls across the floor I think people should be a wee bit more respectful. I say to Dr Coleman that as one gets closer and closer to 65, one starts to think more seriously about superannuation. I spend quite a bit of time thinking about life after Parliament, in about 8 years’ time. In about 8 or 9 years’ time I think I may be one of those people who has to make a decision on whether I pack up and leave New Zealand and take my pension with me, or stay in New Zealand. Then I think that there will be a Labour Government within about 2 years, so I think I will stay here because it will be another benevolent Labour Government.
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman Link to this
You didn’t like the last one very much, George; I don’t think you’ll like the next one.
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS Link to this
Well, I think that in the end many people will look to this legislation as providing opportunities for them. It will make sure people have the choices they rightly deserve. I think all parties can join in supporting this legislation. I listened to Sue Bradford when she spoke earlier today. I think that we will miss Sue Bradford from this place, because she understands ordinary people and what a small amount of money can do for them in their retirement.
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) Link to this
This legislation sets up three regimes for people who wish to retire overseas; how much one gets depends on which country one happens to retire in. If one retires to a country with which we currently have a reciprocal arrangement, then the amount of superannuation one will get depends not only on the formula that is in the bill, but on the rules that are laid down in that agreement. If one elects to go to Australia, one might get anywhere from zero to 100 percent, depending on one’s other income. One could work in New Zealand for 47 years, decide to retire in Australia, and get zero. The reason for this is that we have a reciprocal arrangement with Australia that is means-tested. The same applies if one goes to Canada, the UK, or any of the eight countries with which we have a reciprocal arrangement—the Netherlands is another one. On the other hand, if one goes to any other country outside those eight and outside the 22 Pacific Island countries, then one will get a pension anywhere from 50 to 100 percent. It is not means-tested.
So if one goes to Australia one gets zero to 100 percent—the reason one might get zero is because of the means testing—but if one goes to any other country, putting aside the 22 Pacific Island countries, one will get somewhere between 50 and 100 percent, so one is substantially better off. It depends on the number of years that one has worked. To get the full 100 percent one has to work in New Zealand for 45 years. On the other hand, if you elect to go to one of the 22 Pacific Island countries, you will get 50 percent after 10 years, 75 percent after 15 years, and 100 percent after 20 years.
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS Link to this
I am; I apologise. The superannuitant will get 50 percent after 10 years, 75 percent after 15 years, and 100 percent after 20 years. In fact, this policy was, as I understand it, promoted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and it is a de facto foreign aid policy. I do not believe it is a particularly satisfactory one.
In this legislation we have an issue of fairness. Is it fair that a New Zealander who has worked here for 45 years and who goes to Australia to live could well get zero pension? On the other hand, someone who goes to a country other than one of the eight countries that we have reciprocal arrangements with and the Pacific Islands is treated more generously—after 20 years if one goes to Australia one will get somewhere between zero and 45 percent. One will get zero if one has too much income, but the maximum one gets after 20 years in New Zealand would be 45 percent. If one goes to another country, putting aside the 22 Pacific Island countries, one will get 45 percent. So in Australia it is zero percent to 45 percent; in other countries it is 45 percent with no means testing. If one goes to one of the 22 Pacific Island countries one will get 100 percent with no means testing.
We are saying to New Zealanders who have lived here for 65 years and who have worked in the workforce for 47 years or possibly longer that if they happen to choose to go to one of the eight countries with which we have a reciprocal agreement, after 20 years they will get somewhere between nought and 45 percent, and they will get 100 percent only if they have worked the whole 45 years. If they go to one of these other countries they can get up to 100 percent—it will depend on the number of years—but on the other hand, if they go to one of the 22 Pacific Island countries they will get 100 percent after 20 years.
I will be interested in how National and Labour actually explain to New Zealanders who have worked here 45 or 47 years why after 45 years’ work they get zero pension if they have other income more than $39,000, whereas if they had chosen to go to another country or a Pacific Island nation they would get 100 percent. In fact, if they chose to go to a Pacific Island nation they would get 100 percent after 20 years. I do not believe that that de facto foreign aid policy is a good policy. If we want to pass that money on we should do it directly rather than in this de facto way. There is an element of fairness, and I think a lot of New Zealanders in Australia are going to be asking politicians in this Chamber to explain why they get zero or a reduced benefit when compared with people from other countries. A good principle might lie behind this legislation, but I tell members that the way it has been implemented is anything but fair. I think a lot of New Zealanders in England, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, and other countries will find this anything but fair.
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) Link to this
The member for Manurewa and the deputy leader of the Labour Party noted that this legislation’s introduction was supported by almost all parties in this House. I agree with Ms King’s comment, that a pension is not a benefit; it is an entitlement earned by hard-working, older New Zealanders who have contributed fulsomely to our country over a lifetime. I hope that we will always be internationally recognised as a country that values and respects our senior citizens and guarantees, through our pension system, dignity for all in their retirement.
The overriding purpose of this legislation is to create a more flexible regime that reflects New Zealanders’ nomadic inclinations, giving our older citizens greater freedom to travel in their retirement without facing a heavy financial penalty. The key change is a new, more generous maximum payment. Instead of the current flat rate of payment, older New Zealanders will be able to receive up to 100 percent, depending on the number of years they have resided in New Zealand. The legislation also frees up the rules that restrict the ability of superannuitants and veterans pensioners to move around once they get overseas. It also allows payments to people who wish to reside in countries with which New Zealand has no social security arrangements, whether they remain in such countries or begin travelling.
These provisions modernise an overseas payment policy that has been in place for nearly two decades and that is clearly outdated. The current system causes distress for many New Zealanders and prevents some from embarking on the overseas travel that in many instances they had planned for and looked forward to throughout their years of employment. At a time when they deserve to be rewarded for their valuable contributions, many have instead had to modify or cancel those plans upon realising that the current flat rate of 50 percent would provide insufficient income to allow a reasonable standard of living in many countries, or because existing rules restrict their ability to move to more than one country, because payment is linked to residence in one particular country only.
Forcing older people to remain in one country, or preventing their ability to travel to a variety of countries, is punitive and has no basis in sound policy. Because of our geographic isolation, New Zealanders travel long distances whenever they leave our shores. Limiting their pension entitlements when they do so cannot be justified, and I am delighted that this legislation removes that unfairness. This is a good measure. I thank the officials who have worked on it and all who submitted on it, and I commend it to the House.
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this
It is a rare moment in our Parliament, unfortunately, when National agrees with Labour and supports our legislation. I am delighted to hear the contributions of that member and his colleagues supporting the progress of this legislation.
In my earlier contribution to this debate I raised concerns, though, about the confidence with which younger members of our society can look forward to their retirement, because the National Government has gutted the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The benefits of this legislation—which will make it easier for superannuitants and people who are in receipt of a veterans pension to travel or retire overseas—will be lost on people, who, because of Bill English’s gutting of the Superannuation Fund, will not have enough money to travel overseas, let along to retire on it. It is not credible for this Government to say that it values older New Zealanders, that it wants to keep the level of superannuation at the level it currently is in order to keep the level of entitlement at the same rate, and that it wants to ensure that people can receive that entitlement when they are 65 years old, while at the same time it is taking away the very fund that will allow that to happen in the future. It will not affect the superannuitants of this year or of next year, but it will affect the superannuation entitlement of members like the Hon John Carter, who made a contribution earlier in this debate. It is very frustrating to hear what I consider to be conflicting points of view from the National Government, when it says that it supports this legislation because it will make it easier for superannuitants to travel or to retire overseas, but at the same time says to people in their 40s and 50s: “But we are not going to have you retire with that level of income because you”—Not you, Mr Speaker; you are much younger than that. I apologise for referring to you as being in your 40s or 50s. You have a long way to go before you reach that level of age. But those of that age will not be able to receive the level of superannuation that would allow them to retire in confidence.
My colleague and friend, the Hon Annette King, asked the Minister the Hon Paula Bennett during the Committee stage of this debate one simple question. Tragically, the Minister was not able to answer it. She took a call, but she totally ignored the question. It was a very serious issue, which was raised by people who in New Zealand deserve just about more respect than anyone. They are the people who have risked their lives, literally, and their well-being, by going overseas and serving in a war on our behalf. Those war veterans made submissions to the select committee during the process of this legislation, and they expressed some frustration, which it is my understanding was shared by every member of the select committee, with the fact that at the moment the war pension is directly linked to superannuation when it is actually quite a different entitlement. The war pension is granted to a person who has served our country on our behalf, and who has some sort of impairment as a result of his or her engagement. That person might receive that entitlement at a much younger age than a person on superannuation. This is all directly referred to in Part 2 of the original bill, and fortunately at the moment a very extensive review of the War Pensions Act is being undertaken by the Law Commission.
I know that the Minister of Justice is right on top of that issue. He has a very strong personal interest in the war pensions situation. I hope that he is able to advise his colleague the Minister for Social Development and Employment to turn her attention to this issue, because she did not even acknowledge that a question had been asked, and she did not acknowledge the many submissions that were made to the select committee about why the current link is made when there is such a different threshold for entitlement between the two pensions. Changes are clearly needed in this area. The select committee looked at the matter, and on the advice it received and accepted it decided that it was outside the scope of this particular amendment. The committee could not make that amendment progress, but I am certain that Labour would welcome any such amendment that was brought to the House as a result of the Law Commission review. So I hope that the Hon Simon Power can get his colleague the Minister for Social Development and Employment up to speed on this issue, because she clearly missed the boat when it came to what I think were very critical submissions to the committee.
The other issue that was raised earlier in debate—and I was delighted to see the Hon John Carter give a clear commitment to progressing work on this issue—was the huge frustration felt by a number of people who originally lived and worked in another country, but have since moved to New Zealand to retire and now receive New Zealand superannuation. They feel a huge frustration that they lose their entire overseas superannuation when they get the entire New Zealand superannuation. They are not expecting to get two lots of superannuation in full, but they would like to get the percentage of their overseas superannuation they earned while they were overseas, whether it was in Switzerland, Holland, or Canada, and they would like to get the percentage of New Zealand superannuation they earned while they were here. I frankly do not think that that is too big an ask.
We made some good work on that issue. It never got to the top of our list in terms of Budget priorities, but we had a very strong commitment from the Minister for Senior Citizens, the Hon John Carter, earlier in this debate to progress that issue. Again, that would be an initiative that would be welcomed by New Zealanders. Some people who had lived overseas might be disadvantaged; I think, therefore, that it would be fair to consider giving people the choice. We would not want people to be financially disadvantaged by the fact that their overseas pension is worth considerably less than the value of the New Zealand pension and, actually, compared with many countries, we are quite generous. But compared with other countries, we are not. So some people are financially disadvantaged and the Crown is advantaged by their giving over all their overseas superannuation to the Crown and receiving just the level of New Zealand superannuation. So I hope that the issue outlined in section 70 of the social security legislation will be addressed by the National Government. I will be asking questions of the Minister for Senior Citizens, the Hon John Carter, on a regular basis, because he has given the House a commitment to making progress on that matter. I think that would be very warmly welcomed, not just by members of the House but by those New Zealand superannuitants I referred to earlier, who currently have to miss out on their fair share.
This has been a very worthwhile debate, with the exception of the contribution from the ACT member, who has misunderstood, despite having it very clearly outlined to him that people do not come to New Zealand from the Pacific Islands on a whim. They come here only if they meet the requirements of New Zealand’s immigration policy. They have to meet those standards. They do not decide to come to New Zealand just to get a pension; they come here under the policy that New Zealand sets out. They meet our rules, and that is a fair call. The ACT member was clearly advised that this was not a back room, foreign affairs, New Zealand overseas aid contribution. It was a genuine effort by the previous Government, supported by the current Government, to make sure that when people who were in receipt of New Zealand superannuation wanted to travel or retire overseas, they were not financially disadvantaged in being able to do that.
As I said at the beginning of my contribution, we find ourselves in an unusual situation. First of all, it is no longer unusual to have urgency. It seems to be usual to have urgency, and I think there will be a motion put to the House at some stage that we stop calling urgency “urgency” and start calling it “normal time” because it is what we do every week. But the Order Paper is very unusual under urgency. Usually when the House moves into urgency it is to progress matters that require the urgent attention of the House outside normal sitting time—for example, the referral of a bill to a select committee if a Minister requires a bill to be back in a very short space of time. We heard in the House last week that the Minister for ACC had intended to progress the ACC legislation, but he had forgotten to secure the support of a majority of members of Parliament so we could not do that legislation under urgency. We did some other very critical matters, such as a customs bill and an offender levy bill. But those issues clearly did not require the urgent attention of the House. It kept members of Parliament in Wellington, away from their families, on a Thursday night, and the huge additional cost to taxpayers, to ordinary citizens of New Zealand, of running this Parliament was for no good reason. Urgency was without justification, and was solely due to mismanagement by the Leader of the House, the Hon Gerry Brownlee.
This legislation is in that same category. It does not need to be progressed under urgency but, from a personal point of view, I am delighted that the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill are being progressed.
PAUL QUINN (National) Link to this
As previous speakers on this side of the House have said, it is our pleasure to support and commend the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill to the House. I think it is important to note that the reality of life is that people have the best opportunity to travel when they finish work and before other events take over.
The only point I want to make is to pick up on something that the previous speaker, Ruth Dyson, alluded to: the fact that the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill, from which these bills were divided, was a previous Labour Government bill. I ask why, if it was such a good bill, it took Labour 9 years to bring that bill before the House. The only thing I can think of is that Labour saw the writing on the wall. The Labour members saw that they would be going out of office, and they wanted to travel overseas and run for the hills. They were looking after themselves, whatever it took. I am very happy to support these bills. Thank you.