New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill

I move, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.

It is a great honour to have the opportunity to bring this longstanding New Zealand First policy to the House. In its construct, it is a very simple and narrow bill, but it is a significant one. It seeks to increase the period of residency required to qualify for New Zealand superannuation from 10 years to 20 years between the ages of 20 and 65. At its heart, this bill is about fairness, fairness to New Zealanders who have worked and paid taxes here [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, I wonder if members could take their conversations outside or keep a bit quiet. It’s hard to hear Mr Patterson; he’s got such a quiet voice.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is simply unfair for expatriate New Zealanders, those that have been out of the country for extended periods, contributing to other economies, and recent immigrants to be able to receive the same benefits upon turning 65 as those of us that have been here doing the hard yards at home, paying our taxes, and contributing to our economy.

New Zealanders are by and large a generous people, but on this issue, we have been a soft touch. In many other similar jurisdictions, qualification for equivalent pension schemes ranges between 25 and 30 years. In bringing this bill into law, New Zealand would still be towards the lower end of the qualification period by international standards.

It is interesting to note that the current 10-year threshold came into law in 1938, when life expectancy for men was 65 and for women 68. This bill is long overdue. New Zealand First has always championed the qualification age of receiving superannuation to remain at 65, and projections do show this is a sustainable level. But, of course, affordability for New Zealand super is important to all New Zealanders. It has resulted in having one of the lowest elder poverty rates in the world and added financial security for those who are heading towards retirement age. And I must admit, having turned 50 at the end of last year, I’m taking a lot more interest in the superannuation bills than I used to. Good stewardship of New Zealand superannuation will be important so it is sustainable for our children and generations to come. And while this is longstanding New Zealand First policy, current events make the passing of this bill even more imperative as the Government takes on considerable debt to assist the country to recover from the economic fall-out of the COVID-19 pandemic. Fiscal responsibility in this regard has never been more important.

Figures commissioned for New Zealand First by Business and Economic Research Ltd have estimated savings of $80 million in the first year and a cumulative total of $4.4 billion over 10 years. Figures done by the last Government suggest a lower figure. But whatever is true of these complex projections, it is a material figure which New Zealand can no longer afford to bear.

So who will this affect? New Zealand super is very generous for expat Kiwis who have had the benefits of our education system, left for overseas at a young age, and contributed to other economies for potentially 35 years, then returned to retire in New Zealand upon nearing retirement age. The global downturn caused by the current COVID-19 crisis could see us facing a tsunami of expatriate Kiwis repatriating as they look for the safe haven that is New Zealand.

Secondly, over the last few decades we have opened the doors to a large number of immigrants. The majority of these immigrants will be unaffected by these changes as they generally arrive below the age of 45, which means they have the opportunity to live in New Zealand for 20 years, which is required to qualify for New Zealand super at age 65. However, immigration laws have allowed immigrants to bring their parents under the parent resident visa. After 10 years, these new residents are entitled to full New Zealand super for the rest of their lives. Given the average length of claim for superannuation entitlements is around 20 years, this amounts to around $500,000 per person. This is exceedingly generous.

It is worth emphasising that those who will have delayed access to New Zealand superannuation as a result of this bill and find that they are unable to support themselves will still be eligible for the full comprehensive backstop that the New Zealand welfare system provides in the interim period before they qualify for New Zealand super.

New Zealand has reciprocal pension portability arrangements with nine countries: Australia, Canada, the UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Malta, Greece, Denmark, Jersey, and Guernsey. Additionally, a reciprocal agreement with South Korea is being negotiated. Immigrants from these countries remain eligible to receive their overseas entitlements within existing qualification thresholds. The special pension portability arrangements with 22 of our Pacific neighbours remain unchanged.

It is important to clarify that the residency test does not apply to New Zealand tax residents working overseas. This includes staff from the likes of Zespri, Fonterra, foreign affairs and diplomatic staff, the Defence Force personnel, missionaries from New Zealand - based churches, and maritime crew paying tax in New Zealand, who are also not captured by this change. It is also worth noting that the requirement to be a resident for five years after the age of 50 is unchanged by this bill. I stand by the immediate implementation of this bill with a welfare backstop for those who are unable to support themselves at age 65 and who have not reached the 20 years’ residency requirement. A phased implementation would be more complicated to enact and not get to the desired endpoint quickly enough.

In the development of this policy, I’d also like to acknowledge the large body of work that’s been done by Professor Susan St John and Dr Claire Dale of the retirement policy and research centre at Auckland University, who had advocated for New Zealand’s super residency requirements to be extended to 25 years, as did a report by the former Retirement Commissioner Diane Maxwell. New Zealand First has campaigned on 25 years being the threshold, but in the interests of finding cross-party support for this bill I have reached a compromise position. I acknowledge that other political parties who have indicated their support for this bill in more recent times have come around to New Zealand First’s sensible, long-term policy position, and I thank the relative spokespeople that I’ve engaged with for their constructive dialogue.

In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that this bill is about fairness, fairness to those of us who’ve contributed the most to this country. I emphasise not only in monetary terms around working and paying taxes, but also in being resident here. We have continued the work of generations before us in building the very fabric of this country. We have coached the netball teams, prepared the hangis at the marae, delivered the Meals on Wheels, and served on the school board. In short, we have played a role in building the best country in the world. We built a country that expatriate New Zealanders aspire to return to to live out their golden years, and immigrants from all around the globe are drawn to live here. It is for those Kiwis for whom I bring this bill forward.

I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of the National Party to support this bill to the select committee stage. It’s been the National Party’s policy, outlined in our discussion document, to agree with the idea of a longer period of people being in New Zealand before they are eligible for New Zealand super, for the points made by Mark Patterson, the member introducing this bill. It is a very generous superannuation system that we have, and we want it to be sustainable long term. It’s only right and proper that people should have the opportunity to contribute to New Zealand society and New Zealand taxes for an extended period before they get such a valuable superannuation. Ten years has been short, and we have proposed extending it to 20 years. So we’re broadly in support of it.

It would be fair to say that this is a very lazy piece of legislative work by our friend from New Zealand First—running to one page, and very little in the detail. I think that there is a fair argument to be had at the select committee as to how exactly this is introduced. It would be, I think, quite harsh for somebody who had been in the country for nine years and nine months, and had been in expectation of superannuation on their 10th year, to suddenly discover that they have to wait another 10 years. So there is an argument for some sort of phasing in of this proposal. I think we’d like to discuss that and get a sense of what the options are and what the implications are for that, and so I’d be interested to have that as an ongoing discussion in the select committee.

I was intrigued to hear the member from New Zealand First talking about the long-term sustainability of New Zealand superannuation. Of course, all the parties on the other side of the House are determined to keep the age at 65 for the next 100 years, it seems, or however long; only National has talked about, in 17 or 18 years, increasing the age limit for New Zealand superannuation up to the age of 67, which is something that Diane Maxwell, the former Retirement Commissioner, recommended. The member was happy to refer to her recommendation in this area, but not in that.

It’s always interesting that we had very many long and lengthy articles from a renowned media economist like Shamubeel Eaqub about how John Key used to have his head in the sand over the age limit for New Zealand superannuation, and now the National Party has taken a longer-term view, the Prime Minister has her head in the sand, but we never see those articles any more. So I’d encourage him to start writing them again and recognise the fact that New Zealand superannuation is a wonderful asset, it is available to all New Zealanders, and it is affordable in the long term, but it does make sense that if we all live longer, healthier lives, then perhaps we should be able to recognise that in the distant future.

In terms of the importance of getting on top of debt, I agree wholeheartedly with the member when he says that New Zealand is taking on an enormous amount of debt. Budget 2020 did indicate that, on current patterns, New Zealand’s net debt would go from about $60 billion to $200 billion in the next four years. Many people would say that Treasury estimates of revenue are pretty optimistic, and so it could be worse than that. That is a very a huge mountain of debt for New Zealanders to repay. On that score, I think that we need a Government policy that is a little bit more than just debt-fuelled Government spending on a colossal scale and waiting for a vaccine. So we’ll be having a discussion, as we get closer to the election, about something a bit more robust than that. Over here—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would be good if we could have some discussion sort of focused on the bill.

—on this side of the House, we will—we will, Madam Speaker. I would make the point that the member introducing this bill did point to the debt situation that the country faces as being one of the reasons why this bill was required, and I was just agreeing with him and also noting that when you’re facing large amounts of debt, you do need to have policies that are designed to get on top of that debt. One of those—

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: What would you do—increase taxes?

—policies is relying on private sector investment to grow, and not increasing taxes everywhere, like is proposed on that side of the House. I heard that member on tape, and he should be ashamed of himself, and I’m glad that he’s apologised to his New Zealand First—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: None of which has anything to do with the bill.

No, but it was a response to an interjection from the other side of the House, Madam Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: It may well have been.

If we are to be taunted and have such a difficult time, we should be able to respond.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: You’re not going to repeat it for the third time though, are you?

So, finally, in conclusion, I would like to say that the National Party does support this bill to the select committee. We are concerned about the abruptness of the introduction of the extra 10 years, and we think that there is a discussion to be had about how it is introduced, and that is a discussion that we look forward to having at the select committee. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Labour Party will be supporting this bill, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill, to select committee.

I just wish to respond to a number of points that have been made—actually, not really respond. The previous speaker, Paul Goldsmith, was concerned about New Zealand’s finances and—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, we’re not going to debate that—no we’re not.

No, I promise I’ll get to the point, and it’s an issue that we do want to get clarified in select committee. In particular, how much would this policy save? It’s not quite clear yet. We’ll need to get some good costings on that, and I think we could certainly do with some advice on that.

But beyond that it is, actually, a very, very simple bill. It does go—well, it doesn’t even quite go over the page. It’s a very simple measure. It is replacing the number 10 with the number 20—that’s the only legislative change proposed by this bill. But it does, of course, reflect a big issue, and that is when do we allow someone coming into the country to join the team of 5 million? When do we allow them to join the team of 5 million?

We’ve been talking about this a lot in the last few weeks—about people who need to, as it were, do their bit to join the team of 5 million. Those of us who went through lockdown are now saying that, actually, if you’re coming into the country, there needs to be two weeks of quarantine and a test, and that’s what you do to join the team of 5 million. Actually, this bill is about the same issue: when is it appropriate to join the team of 5 million? The team of 5 million who have worked in this country, paid the taxes, built the resources, supported each other, been a team that have worked together as New Zealanders do—looking after each other in good times and in bad. So we’re saying to people who arrive in the country: “When is it appropriate for you to join and to receive all the benefits of living and working in New Zealand?”

In the case of New Zealand superannuation, we’re saying, “Hmm, we need to have a little bit of a think about that.” New Zealand superannuation has a long, long history. It first started way back in 1898—the first version of an old-age pension was the means-tested pension. It was quite revolutionary in world terms at the time. It was means-tested, but the thought that we would support people in old age was a revolutionary concept, and one we should be proud of—that it should be State-supported. It was means-tested. By 1938, it became universal. I think that’s something quite distinctive about New Zealand superannuation—it is universal. It doesn’t matter what other income a person might earn. If they are age 65 in New Zealand, then they are entitled to New Zealand superannuation, no matter what else their circumstances are, except if you’re a recent migrant to New Zealand.

The thought there is that in order to be eligible for New Zealand superannuation, there should have been a contribution that has been made. Now, most of us who grow up here or who arrive here as children, of course, take on jobs here, we live and work here for a long time, and we are, therefore, eligible for super. But the rule for people arriving, and, in fact, the rule for New Zealanders who’ve grown up here, maybe, but then left before they’ve actually worked here and then come back, is that a person needs to work here for 10 years or to live here for 10 years, and they will be eligible for New Zealand superannuation. That is an extraordinarily short time, but it’s not clear what the appropriate length of time is.

In this bill, the person who is introducing it, Mark Patterson, suggests that 20 years is the appropriate length of time. Who knows? That’s actually a discussion that’s worth having. At what point does it become reasonable for a person to expect that they too would be entitled to New Zealand superannuation? Actually, 10 years seems like a number just pulled out of the air, and so does 20 years. They could be the right numbers, and that is certainly a discussion we should have. I’d also suggest that perhaps we should look at the number of years that a person should have lived and worked here from age 50. At the moment it’s five years. Of those 10 years that you have to have had in the country, five of them must be after age 50. Perhaps we should look at that too. These are all questions that are worth discussing, worth having a good look at, and worth understanding what it would actually save us, because if it turns out to be not much, well, then, what’s the problem? But maybe it is still doing something there. So I am looking forward to the discussion and I commend this bill to the House.

Madam Speaker, I rise to take a relatively brief call on this legislation to support and congratulate Mark Patterson for bringing this legislation before the House, because I think it is of considerable merit for this to be considered by a select committee.

If I could make a few opening points about New Zealand superannuation: it is, by comparison with the rest of the world, a very, very generous scheme. It is universal. It’s not means tested in any way. I do recall, going back perhaps 30 years, two Governments had a go at thinking about it, with a fair reaction—an electoral reaction—that was suggesting it’s dangerous to ever consider means testing superannuation. But when you consider it’s available universally at 65 years of age, it is a generous scheme, and frankly—[Interruption]

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: In the lobby, please, or seated. Sorry to interrupt.

As I was saying, it is a very generous scheme, and I think it is time that at the age of 65—at some stage it needs to be considered.

But, in regards to this particular legislation, the eligibility for someone who has only been in New Zealand for 10 years, that seems to me over generous. If you think about somebody who spends most of their working life in another country, builds up a substantial nest egg, and then arrives in New Zealand at, say, age 54, completes another 10 years of work here in New Zealand, and then becomes as eligible for superannuation as somebody like myself, who has devoted the whole of my working career to businesses here in New Zealand, that seems unfair to me.

But the point I hope that the select committee will tease out is the sudden nature by which this legislation would transition. The reason I say that is if you set a date by which Royal assent means this suddenly changes and it goes from 10 years to 20 years, then you’ll have the very unfair situation where if, say, Royal assent was 1 April on a particular year, somebody who had been here and completed their 10 years on, say, 29 March would suddenly be eligible, and somebody else who completed their 10 years on, say, 4 April would be ineligible and would have to do a further 10 years of work. I think the select committee needs to look very carefully at a transition measure whereby some justice and fairness is delivered if this legislation successfully passed. But I commend the member Mark Patterson for giving this bill to the House—a chance to examine the issue.

That was quicker than I expected! Thank you; I’m happy to take a call on behalf of the Green Party on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill, and I’ll start by acknowledging the member and the good luck to have a bill drawn from the ballot. It’s always a moment for celebration in this House, and one that not everyone gets to experience; so, good on you.

With that said, sorry, the Greens will not be voting for this. While I do recognise that the residency requirements in New Zealand are lower than in many other countries, this is one of the issues—superannuation, and the really important role that it plays in our society around keeping levels of poverty really relatively low in our older population—that’s really precious to us. We don’t want to see changes that risk those low levels of poverty, and we don’t want to see a two-tier system for older New Zealanders. And, while we may be open to the conversation, we would like to see—and do believe that New Zealand at some stage should have—a comprehensive conversation as a country about superannuation and whether any changes do need to be made, but that that should be a Government-led process that is fully considered by the country.

I would just note, in terms of the ideas of affordability and the idea that it’s not fair that people may not have contributed for so long, that they may be New Zealand - born citizens who have been working overseas, and then they come back in their later years. I think a lot of New Zealanders actually stay in contact now and operate globally. They may be living in the UK and be involved, being on boards even, or providing advice to groups here in New Zealand, or being very active in their whānau on Zoom or whatever other technology. Just because somebody isn’t based in this country does not mean they’re not contributing or involved. I think the world now is quite different from how it was; in the sense that you have to be here for 20 years before being be able to access superannuation, regardless of your birth or your sense of connection and involvement in our community, doesn’t make sense to me on the face of it.

I also want to point out that the core thing around superannuation for the Green Party is not about a return on your investment to this country; it is a policy that ensures we can keep levels of poverty low in our older population, a population that is vulnerable in terms of discrimination as well as marginalisation and isolation. That has been incredibly successful for us, and we wouldn’t want to see that eroded.

In terms of the issues that have been raised around that, we need to consider the affordability of superannuation. I would point members to the Retirement Commissioner’s statement of earlier this year, which was reversing their position on raising the age for entitlement and saying that, actually, in the worst case scenarios of what percentage of GDP we would have to spend on superannuation, it’s 7 percent—that’s the worst case scenario. And that would be 7 percent of GDP by 2060, and that’s actually a level that’s in line with other countries right at the moment providing sustainable superannuation schemes. So I really would challenge that idea that it isn’t sustainable at the levels of entitlement that we have at the moment, and I do think there are possibly more pressing issues to be looking at.

So, well done, and I’m sure we’ll actually be interested in being involved in the conversation, but we can’t support it at this reading.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to be talking on this bill. I just want to acknowledge all the good members in the House tonight, particularly the Rt Hon David Carter here who’s stayed on because he knows how important this bill is.

I’ve got to say that this bill surprises me somewhat because it is put forward in the name of Mark Patterson, and it’s actually a remarkably good bill.

💬 Matt Doocey: Oh, that’s why he was in the National Party, you see?

Yes, I know he was a former member of the National Party; I think that sensible approach and pragmatic approach to superannuation has probably shown up in this bill. We’re, of course, supporting it, but what people don’t realise, you know, is that superannuation at the moment accounts for about 5 percent of our total Government spend, and it will double over the next few years. But without measures like this, which, by the way, are incredibly well-supported in public polls—this is a way of trying to make sure superannuation is paid to those who are most deserving and appropriately but also meeting the financial needs of future payments, and that will be required to be paid by younger people in New Zealand, and that’s why we’re supporting it. Well done.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have been doing a little bit of reading—which is probably a good thing, seeing as I’m taking a call on this bill—into the issue of super and the change to the residency requirement, which, of course, will disproportionately impact some people, and I’ll get to that in a minute. But I just wanted to, I suppose, acknowledge right at the outset, as my colleague Dr Deborah Russell did, that New Zealand super, in some form or other—a form of pension—started back in 1898. At that point it was means-tested. And then, fast forward to 2001, the Hon Michael Cullen, who was Minister of Finance at the time, established the New Zealand Superannuation Fund as we know it. As others have mentioned in this House, it is a generous payment. It is universal, for one. And compared to other countries, many of which take different views, I guess, on superannuation payments—for example, some are calculated based on contributions that people make to their own pension—compared to all of that, what we have in New Zealand is generous, and I just want to acknowledge that at the outset.

Now, as we know, if you’re legally a resident, if you’ve lived in New Zealand for 10 years after the age of 20, including five years after you turn 50, you’re eligible, regardless of where you’ve come from or how much you’ve contributed to New Zealand. And I take the point that others have made, but I do also want to push back a little bit on that, because, as I mentioned, it is universal, and so it’s available to everyone here in New Zealand, regardless of how much they’ve contributed to New Zealand. So that is not the point upon which I’m arguing my support for this bill to select committee; instead, it is on the fact of sustainability. The point that I want to make there is that this Government resumed contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The previous Government’s failure to invest in the retirement plans of New Zealanders put those plans at risk, and the opportunity cost of that is $14 billion. So if the previous Government had actually invested at the rate they really should have, perhaps we wouldn’t even have to have this debate at this point in time.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Borrowed $80 billion.

That’s a good point that the Hon Damien O’Connor makes. The previous Government borrowed $80 billion. So when members across are yelling out that this Government’s borrowing money, they obviously have no idea what they’re talking about. [Interruption]

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Everybody, can we just focus on the bill.

Sure, Madam Speaker. There’s a fair bit to focus on, as well. Anyway, as others have said as well, on this side of the House we believe in keeping the eligibility rate at 65, because not doing so would actually disproportionately adversely impact certain groups of people who have lower life expectancies. So that’s that issue there.

Now, the point that I made at the start was that this bill will disproportionately affect some people, and that’s because immigrants from certain countries we have social security agreements with won’t actually be affected by this, but immigrants from countries like China and India will. Is that an argument not to support the bill? Again, I go back to the point on sustainability, and that’s the argument that I would make in terms of my support to see this bill go to select committee. But what I will say, though, is that I would like to encourage all those who would be affected by this, and groups that work with those who would be affected, to have their say at select committee and to actually come and tell us. Of course, we have one of the most transparent parliamentary systems in the world, where virtually anybody can come and tell us how a bill will affect them and how it will impact them, and I encourage them to do so. I’m not sure why the member Andrew Bayly’s making faces at me from across the House, but that’s the whole point of the—

💬 Hon Member: That’s just how he looks normally.

That’s just how he looks—ha, ha! But that’s the whole point of the select committee. So I would encourage the member to engage widely, as well, because we do want to hear all sides of the story and from people who would be affected in various ways, and I will be helping him with that, as well. I look forward to the discussion.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Are you joining the committee?

I suspect this is going to come to a select committee that I’m on, and I look forward to the debate on that. I commend this bill to the House.

This is a bit of a disappointment for me, but I just want to congratulate the member from the deep south and member of the parliamentary cricket team—actually the best batsman in the parliamentary cricket team—on drawing a bill from the ballot. And the other thing I just wanted to say while I was commenting on this bill was I read our speech notes, and one of them says that New Zealand superannuation is paid for an average of 20 years, and I ain’t got long to go.

The member took me by surprise there, but I’m delighted to stand and take a call on this bill. I just had a birthday about two days ago.

💬 Hon Member: Oh! Happy birthday.

Thank you very much. Obviously turned 21, similar vintage to Simeon Brown and Chlöe Swarbrick, in that sort of range. So after having this birthday, I’m one year closer to receiving superannuation, and it’s certainly something that is, at least, in the back of my mind.

A number of discussions have been had in this Parliament over many, many years around superannuation. As one of the earlier speakers mentioned before, superannuation did used to be means tested. It is now universal. And it’s wonderful that we do have that way of valuing our seniors for everything that they have contributed over their life. This is a bill here for discussion around how long somebody should be in the country before they receive that universal superannuation. So the proponent of the bill Mark Patterson talks about raising the minimum residency qualification for New Zealand superannuation from 10 years to 20 years after the age of 20.

Now, the Labour Party are supporting this bill to the select committee, and it will be interesting to see what the submitters say. Now, some submitters might agree entirely around 20 years, some might think it should even be longer, 25 years or 30 years. Others may come and tell us that 10 years is about right. Others might settle on the area of 15 years. If this bill passes the first reading, which I expect it does have the numbers to do that, then this will be, effectively, thrashed out in a public setting where people can have their say. I expect that there will be a lot of interest in this because, as I said at the start of my speech, the aspect of superannuation, it affects all New Zealanders, you know, at some point in our life, when we get to the age of 65 of course, but obviously affects current family members of mine who are past that age.

If I could seek to, without wanting to put words in the member’s mouth—the sponsor of the bill—to sort of sum up this bill, I think the key point here is around fairness. I’m looking over to the member if there’s a bit of a nod, because it’s about fairness, what is fair. How long is fair for somebody to have paid taxes into the Government coffers for then the Government to support them in their superannuation? How much tax is a fair amount, and that’s basically what the argument is.

I would also like to touch on the super fund. I know a couple of previous speakers have because—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, no we won’t, because it isn’t—

We won’t go to the super fund?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, we won’t. It’s not in the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate your advice there.

So I would like to touch on the fact that globally, 10 years is actually an unusually short time for full entitlement to a universal non – means-tested pension at the age of 65. So maybe we are a little bit out of step with other countries in terms of the OECD and other developed countries. So that’s just an example of why it is useful to have a look at this, to have a discussion in select committee. Ten years, 15 years, 20 years, 25 years—what is the appropriate time that New Zealanders want to see? And what is the appropriate amount of time that is fair? So it may be that we are out of step with some countries, and we do have to have a look at it.

Obviously, the fiscal aspects need to be taken into account, in terms of this, if it does change to 20 years, and what that will mean. So we haven’t got that specific detail in the bill here, but certainly I’m sure we can get that forecasting from Treasury, which will be very interesting to see. Considering average life expectancy, New Zealand superannuation is paid out for 20 years, which is up to $480,000 per person at current rates. So it certainly is a considerable amount of money. So it’s a bill that must be considered very carefully. The Labour Party are certainly supporting it through to the select committee. That discussion will be had at select committee, and we’ll see where we land. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I commend the bill to the House.

I just would like to take a couple of minutes to thank the members across the House for their constructive engagement and feedback on the bill; from across the whole House, Clayton. I even received some positive comments from the National Party members, which is a new experience for me, although Paul Goldsmith did call the bill “lazy”, and that is because it does merely just change one number from “10” to “20”. But I’m a farmer, not a lawyer, so it’s the sort of bill that suits me! It is a very complex field, though, New Zealand superannuation; so it is very important, within the scope of a member’s bill, to keep this as tight as possible. I note some of the points raised, particularly around the implementation, which will, I’m sure, be well prosecuted before the select committee.

Just before I finish, I did make one significant oversight in my bill. I’d like to acknowledge Anita Williams, who’s sitting up there in the gallery. Anita has lived and breathed this bill and all things superannuation as an adviser to New Zealand First. So, Anita, I know this is a day you’ve been looking forward to for a long time. So congratulations. So, without further ado, we look forward to this bill going to the select committee. Thank you.