Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill – Second Reading – Video 6

Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill – Second Reading – Video 6

Articles, Blog , , 0 Comments


of April 2015 thank you madam Speaker I call more impunity the Speaker I stand today in support of the social assistance residents residency qualification legislation bill in its second reading and it’s a it’s a little bit of an anti-climax for me to stand and speak considering I’ve just followed the the deputy leaders speech it’s a great pitch Ron Mac that’s right and I you know if we were scoring you worried we would you would be right up there we know we know he wants the job madam Speaker we’ve got some very enlightened and sometimes irrelevant contributions to this bill during this round of reading the second reading but I will do my best to maintain my focus this is an omnibus bill in my understanding that the use of omnibus means that it reflects some changes in more than one bill which this one certainly does and it makes changes to the New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pensions and the purpose of the bill is to allow people from the Cook Islands Niue a in Tokelau to be able to be resident in New Zealand for a minimum of ten years after the age of 20 and five years after the age of 50 to qualify for New Zealand super at the moment the bill will in fact mean that that New Zealand residency post 50 so the five years after 50 will actually apply in the Cook Islands new way or Tokelau one of the main reasons behind this change is that there was concern in those Island that the depopulation of those islands to New Zealand in order to qualify for the New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions and by having that five years after 50 at that age probably well settled here in this country there was less motivation perhaps to go back to the islands for the retirement and instead preferring to stay in New Zealand where their families are and a motivator for coming to New Zealand in the first place as we heard during the submission period was to further education or to come here for work or to reconnect with family that were already resident here so at the moment now this bill is proposing that they can provided they have spent ten years here in New Zealand after the age of 20 that the return to the Cook Islands Niue a or Tokelau after the age of fifty for five years will mean that they will qualify for New Zealand’s superannuation or veteran’s pension madam Speaker there were seven submissions made to the Select Committee to oral submissions including a very impassioned one from the High Commissioner from new way and his submission was suggesting that the the ten years after 20 and the five years after fifty would apply in any of the countries of the realm and although it was quite an ambitious request the committee and the advisers did suggest it was far outside of the scope of the intention of the bill the world were concerns raised during the submission period that this bill was actually not complying with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act of 1990 and and one of the submissions it had actually submitters had actually taken a case to the Human Rights Tribunal based on this but the advice received was that this did appear to be consistent with the rights in freedoms as in the Bill of Rights Act and so as a result there were no changes suggested but madam Speaker my contribution to this debate is actually going to be about the suggestion that one submitter had which was that all of the Pacific Islands be included in this bill which of course deemed it out of scope for the contribution but I thought it was an opportune time to pay tribute to the other Pacific Islands because I know from the area that I am in West Coast Heslin the Pacific Islands and the contribution they make to our re-see schemes and then further to the economic prosperity of not only the areas that they come to work and here in New Zealand but but the own country when their funds are able to go back i absolutely makes a difference to us all and I think that partnership is invaluable to all of those Islands there are 11,000 100 places available as at the end of last year for Ric Lucas and and I think it’s a fine opportunity to pay tribute to them and I’m sure the orchardists and vineyards around New Zealand would also accept that but in coming to a close madam Speaker I’m actually going to suggest that we we shelve this bill and the reason for that is because last week mark Patterson from New Zealand first was fortunate to have his private member’s bill drawn from the ballot the New Zealand super Enya in retirement income fear residency amendment bill now I congratulate mark Peterson he’s been quite lucky and having that wound wrong I think he’s had to in the short time he’s been here and he stated very confidently that he believes he’s going to get support across the house for his private member’s bill but what that will do is actually make it make the residency requirement 20 years here in New Zealand so it looks like we’re going to be debating two separate bills that are conflicting in terms of the outcome that is required and you know I hope we have not had that discussion as a caucus about that proposal was actually put forward as honorable Ron mark has already mentioned today by national by Sir Bill English last year in June I believe it was so it is a concept that that national has supported in the past but with two bills now with two different time frames attached to them it seems only logical that we should put this bill in this debate on hold while we see the outcome of this new bill that has been introduced into the house so madam Speaker thank you I will wind up my contribution by just talking to some of the other submissions that were heard by the Select Committee and one of those was about the objectives around the constitutional arrangements that we have with Cook Islands Niue a and Tokelau and the colorful contribution in the house today so so one of the submitters as we talked about but I talked about before see that this could apply to the other 22 countries in the Pacific and our contribution back was that the that the provisions that are already in our arrangements around the the ten years after twenty the five years after fifty was applicable to all of those other islands and that we would not be taking any further changes to the bill the bill as it’s been presented to the house is unchanged from the original and even though we did have some very good contributions from our submitters I think that it’s we’ve found a good place I think also that if the house is of the opinion that we should delay having any further debate on this bill while we see what the alternative bill of Mark Patterson’s comes to then I think that would be a very appropriate outcome and with that madam Speaker I commend this bill to the house call Jane Logan

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *