Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSocial Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 18 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4588. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) BillThird ReadingHon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I move That the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill be now read a third time. This bill will provide greater pension flexibility for people who wish to live in the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. This Government wants to recognise the great contribution that people from those islands have made to New Zealand. We also want to make sure that those countries and territories that have close constitutional ties with New Zealand are recognised and that their ongoing economic and social viability is supported. Current pension portability arrangements allow people to take their New Zealand superannuation to 22 Pacific countries and territories including the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. The provision that makes this possible is called the Special Portability Arrangement.Under this arrangement New Zealand superannuation is paid at a minimum of 50 percent after 10 years’ residence in New Zealand rising to 100 percent after 20 years’ residence. There are also general portability provisions which cover people going to all other countries with which New Zealand does not have a social security agreement. The payment formula for the Special Portability Arrangement is more generous than the payment formula for the general portability provisions. This is because the Special Portability Arrangement is designed to recognise that contribution that Pacific peoples have made to New Zealand and the inability of Pacific countries and territories to fulfil the reciprocal obligations necessary to conclude social security agreements with New Zealand.Despite the relative generosity of the Special Portability Arrangement an issue for people who wish to retire in the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau is that under the arrangement they must be resident and present in New Zealand on the date they apply for New Zealand superannuation. Consequently people who wish to receive New Zealand superannuation in those islands are not able to leave New Zealand until they are 65 which is the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation. Should they choose to return permanently to the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau prior to age 65 they lose their ability to apply for New Zealand superannuation. This bill will remedy that situation by eliminating the resident and present in New Zealand requirement for the Special Portability Arrangement in respect of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. The bill will allow people to move to those islands after reaching the age of 55 and apply for the New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension from these Pacific Islands at age 65. People still need to live in New Zealand until they are 55 because in order to be eligible for New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension a person must have lived in New Zealand for 10 years since the age of 20 5 of which must be after the age of 50. The residence rule applies to all applicants for New Zealand superannuation.There has been a lot of debate in the House on this point. I want to make it clear that all New Zealanders must meet the 5 over 50 rule regardless of who they are and where they live. New Zealand superannuation is based on principles of fair and equitable treatment and it would not be fair and equitable to allow a small group of New Zealanders to avoid a rule simply because of where they choose to live when every other New Zealander must fulfil that rule. Members have also said that it is unfair that migrants can come to New Zealand and qualify for full New Zealand superannuation after 10 years’ residence in New Zealand whereas people who want to live in and receive their pension in the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau must have had 20 years’ residence in New Zealand to get the full payment available. This bill reflects the universal nature of New Zealand superannuation. All applicants living in New Zealand will receive full superannuation after 10 years’ residence. This Government believes that all New Zealanders regardless of where they were born deserve to be treated equally.Where applicants want to receive their New Zealand pension in another country though we apply a different set of residency requirements. This can vary between countries depending on the details of the relevant legislative provisions or social security agreement. As I have already said people who live in the Pacific including the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau have a relatively generous payment formula compared with people who take New Zealand superannuation anywhere else in the world. If a person moved to another country they would need to have lived in New Zealand for between 40 and 45 years to be eligible for full New Zealand superannuation. To be clear those who live in New Zealand qualify for full New Zealand superannuation after 10 years’ residence including 5 years after the age of 50. Those who choose to live in the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau qualify for 50 percent of New Zealand superannuation after 10 years’ residence and full superannuation after 20 years’ residence. They must be resident in New Zealand for 5 years after the age of 50. Those who choose to live in another country subject to portability agreements would generally need to have lived in New Zealand for 45 years to be eligible for full superannuation. However there can be some difference between agreements.Some members have also said that the bill discriminates against people from the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. There is no inequality here. People from those islands who remain in New Zealand are subject to exactly the same rules as all other New Zealanders. They will receive full New Zealand superannuation after 10 years’ residence. All people who wish to take New Zealand superannuation to the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau are subject to the rules in the special portability provisions regardless of whether they were born in New Zealand the Islands or another part of the world. The change in this bill is restricted to the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau because it is about recognising New Zealand’s close constitutional relationships with these Pacific Islands which enjoy shared citizenship with New Zealand and unique legal arrangements. Tokelau is a non-selfgoverning territory of New Zealand. Both the Cook Islands and Niue have adopted constitutions enabling self-government in free association with New Zealand. Free association is a status distinct from that of full independence in that it allows for the Cook Islands and Niue to maintain New Zealand citizenship while administering their own affairs.As I mentioned earlier this bill is also about ensuring the economic and social viability of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. Depopulation and its related social and economic consequences is a longstanding issue for those islands. The current “resident and present in New Zealand” requirement has been described as a disincentive for Cook Islanders Niueans and Tokelauans who are established in New Zealand to return home before the age of 65. Removing this disincentive would potentially help boost economic development and human resource capability in these islands through an increased return of experienced people who are able to effectively apply skills acquired in New Zealand in their home communities. People returning at age 55 would have the capacity to contribute to the workforce 10 years in advance of the age of qualification for New Zealand superannuation. As pension payments are paid in gross it is expected that more income and value-added tax will be paid by returning migrants to contribute to the local economy.I want to reiterate that this Government wants to make sure that those countries and territories that have close constitutional ties with New Zealand are recognised and that their ongoing economic and social viability is supported. This Government also wants to ensure that superannuitants have options as to where they choose to live. By allowing people to apply for New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension while resident in the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau this bill will achieve both of these things. I commend this bill to the House.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Kia orana fakalofa lahi atu and taloha ni. It is a privilege to speak on the third reading of this bill. I want to acknowledge all of our Cook Island Niue and Tokelau - New Zealand residents living in New Zealand and all of our Tokelau Cook Island and Niue people living in the Realm of New Zealand countries.We come here today all in support of this bill with one minor—or not so minor—point that we disagree with. Listening to the Minister for Social Development there was much of what she said that I agreed with; some of what she said I thought: “Hang on a second that’s not actually correct Minister.” One of the points she raised was that all New Zealanders must meet the 5 years after 50 rule in terms of 5 years having been spent in New Zealand over the age of 50 regardless of where they live to be able to access their superannuation.We know—and this has put forward through a Supplementary Order Paper—that actually there are countries where we have a reciprocal pension agreement. They are countries like Australia the UK and the Netherlands where actually they can access their pension there without having to spend 5 years in New Zealand between the ages of 50 and 65. What we have been asking for alongside New Zealand First is that that same exemption be given to these three countries which have a special constitutional relationship with New Zealand. Actually if any citizens were going to be exempt from that 5-year rule it should be the three countries that are actually part of the Realm of New Zealand. So to hear the Minister go on and say that there is no justification or rationale for an exemption well actually I think that that is incorrect and the submissions that we received from people like the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands and the Premier of Niue actually should have been enough to persuade the National Government and to convince it that an exemption was warranted in this particular case.Many of us of Pacific descent in this House have an understanding of the importance of returning to the Pacific country that we came from. I myself have a father who was born and raised in Samoa and who has now in his later years gone back to Samoa to invest in the land to renew the plantation and to get people working on that plantation. It has made a huge difference to our family over there in terms of—here is this plantation that was not touched for almost 30 years and now there is this whole family that has found this renewed interest in the land that had kind of been left to itself for just a long period of time.Niue the Cook Islands and Tokelau have the same possibilities and we have an opportunity here to support these citizens to return to those countries to invest in their own countries and to contribute to their economic development. For the Minister to say that that investment can start at age 55 or that that investment can start in those years but they must still spend 5 years here between the ages of 50 and 65 well actually that is not good enough.One of the biggest issues that we have been told about by these countries is that we have depleted them of their major resource—their major resource—that being their people. We look at places at Niue which now has a population of something like 1200 people. How can it develop its economy with 1200 people when we have 24000 of its people in this country? Those are 24000 people who have contributed to this country not only to our workforce to our sports fields to our academic credentials but also—and I think this is really important to point out—serving under the New Zealand flag alongside our military at war. Yet we have a Minister and a National Government who cannot give that one exemption that was asked for that being to exempt them from the 5-year rule between the ages of 50 and 65.If we had had agreement on that one small point I think we would all be celebrating in the House today. We would have consensus here and actually we would be happy with each other. But when we walk out the door today and we go and talk to our Niue Tokelau and Cook Island communities yes we can say that we have made some arrangement so that the portability has increased for them so that they can go back earlier and they can contribute but not to the extent that we think we should have.Let me just say that members on that side of the House need to know that when we walk out this door we will be saying to our Cook Island Niue and Tokelau communities that yes there was consensus overall for the bill but we were disappointed Labour was disappointed that National could not understand the rationale or see the justification for exempting our three Realm countries from that one rule that would allow them to spend 15 of their years between the ages of 50 and 65 back in their homelands. Exempting them from that one rule would have allowed them 5 additional years between those age groups to contribute to the economic development of their own countries. National would not agree that the historical and constitutional ties we have with those three countries were enough to actually warrant an exemption. So we will be going out there and voicing that to our communities.Actually already I did see that my colleague Poto Williams did put something up on social media and the reaction she got from the Cook Island community about the fact that the one Cook Island MP in the National Party could not convince his National Party colleagues to support that one exemption was actually—let us just say they were outraged that had happened. You know we know that regardless of whatever ethnicity we are there are ideologies philosophies and ways of thinking in different political parties and this is one of those examples where actually the rest of our community gets to see that that exists regardless of ethnicity that there is a philosophy and ideology that comes with an individual depending on which political party they are in. That has proven itself today and with this whole discussion around the bill.I am not sure actually whether I have more to contribute to this discussion. The point I wanted to make today was that actually yes we are happy to support this bill. We are disappointed in the National Government that it did not understand the rationale for exempting Niue Tokelau and the Cook Islands from the 5-year rule. We will be letting our communities know that that was the case but in the very least this is a step forward. It is a step towards recognising the special relationship we have with the three Realm countries. I will end on a positive note and say that at the very least that is a good thing. Thank you.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is nice to finish on a positive note there. It is a pleasure to speak on the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. I think there is general agreement across the House that this is a good bill. With the Realm countries electing to have self-governance and free association it is a wonderful thing to be able to align them with the same rights to be able to retire and take your superannuation with you to the Islands.Although there has been a lot of talk about those rules—I think I will touch on that a bit further on—I first want to talk a little bit about the submissions that were given to the Social Services Committee. Generally they were mostly all except for one focused on the 5 years over 50 provision in the bill and two of them in fact suggested that the 5 years over 50 should be 5 years over 40 giving people a bit longer in the Islands. The rationale of course is that those people would be able to contribute more to the economy of those islands and contribute to the communities as well. Although I suggest that that is a very good ideain spirit they will actually get that at age 55 anyway.Although we are aligning this with what every New Zealander has to do to qualify for superannuation I think I would just like to point out that in those countries we have agreements with like Australia and the UK as was pointed out before what is different about that situation is that there is a provision known as totalisation. That provision allows for reciprocal payments of superannuation within those nations. That does not apply in the Islands because they are not able to pay their superannuation at the same rate.So in theory it sounds good to hand out a little bit more money and I know the rationale of some members of the Opposition in the Committee debate was that it is not that much money so why do we not just pay it. Well my running total so far at the moment when adding all of these up in these various bills through the House is half a billion dollars. So these little bits of money add up to quite a lot of money and being legislators we have to make hard decisions. We take taxes off New Zealand citizens and distribute them to provide the services that the Government provides and superannuation is one of those. In this bill we must be responsible with that money as we are with every other bill we debate in this House.On the whole I think we can be very proud of this bill. I think the people of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau can all be very very pleased with this. I would also like to take note that my colleague Alfred Ngaro reminds us that the triple star that is referred to in our national anthem refers to these nations. I think that probably should be spoken about at every opportunity because most people do not realise that that is what it refers to. I think it is a great thing. In summary I think this is a great bill and I have a lot of pleasure in commending it to the House. Thank you.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Kia orana Mr Speaker. In February I had the pleasure of travelling to Rarotonga to attend a United Nations development partners meeting. They had an award ceremony on one of the nights I was there and during the award ceremony they made an award to my uncle Mr Tekake Williams. Tekake Williams is a pioneer of the black pearl industry. Many of the people from this House who have travelled to the Cook Islands know that the black pearl is one of the major components of the economy in the Cooks. My father Nahora Williams used to travel back to the Cooks to help his younger brother work in the pearl farm in the early days. When my father retired he would travel every year to the Cooks for a couple of months—he would winter up there—and he would be very pleased to know that we are putting this bill through the House and that it will be passed tonight. Portability was important to him. He did not have the opportunity to access the portability that is now being afforded so in that regard today is a very important day because the bill will be passed and afford to many people the opportunity that my father did not have. My father I should also say used to travel to the Cooks and leave mother behind but that is a whole other issue.Portability is important because as my colleague Carmel Sepuloni said one of the unintended consequences of being part of the countries of the Realm of New Zealand and travelling on a New Zealand passport is the depopulation of the home islands. We are able to travel freely as people of the Realm to New Zealand and we have done so not only to New Zealand but also to Australia. So this portability bill is an attempt I guess to support the travel home the return home of people in order that they contribute to the economy of their home islands.But what is difficult about it—and we have traversed this well and truly across the House during the passage of this bill—has been the difficulty around the residency clause that mentions “after the age of 50”. Twelve of the 13 submitters were very clear that they felt that clause was a huge barrier to the opportunity to make a significant difference to the economy of the Cooks and to the population of the Cooks—and I speak of the example of the Cooks because I have personal knowledge of this. The opportunity that my father for example may have had to go back and actually start a pearl farm of his own had he been able to do so cannot be afforded to him and there are many people who are currently in the countries of the Realm who will have to return to do that 5 year residency. It is blatantly unfair when we have portability arrangements with other countries that do not have that as a provision. It is unfair.We had the benefit of having the Hon Henry Puna the Hon Nandi Glassie and Premier Talagi from Niue here to present and the very fact that we had two heads of State and a Government Minister from overseas countries come and present to our select committee should have been recognised for the value that it brought. They were coming to plead their case and that unfortunately fell on a couple of deaf ears. There was also the hard work by the Matua group and I have to acknowledge the group in Christchurch led by Mama Tufunga and Papa John Pitomaki who were very impassioned in their submission and quoted the sacrifice they felt they and their families who had come before them had given to this country. I have already in this House talked about the 500 soldiers from the Cook Islands who fought for New Zealand under the New Zealand flag during World War I. What has that afforded to us? In this bill it is demonstrated that that sacrifice has been for nothing. I also want to commend the submission made by the Christian Church in Christchurch by Mrs Teremoana McNabb. She too spoke quite passionately about the residency requirement post age 50 and how unequal that made her feel as a Cook Islander living in New Zealand.But there was hope. There was hope in the form of the Supplementary Order Paper that was put forward by New Zealand First. It was supported by us. It was a good Supplementary Order Paper and it was an attempt to redress an inequality that exists within this bill. After the Committee stage as my colleague Carmel Sepuloni has said I was canvassed quite heavily by members of the Cook Islands community to ask: what now? What now? What can we do now? Unfortunately for this bill that is it. We will not actually be able to demonstrate our commitment to our Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau communities as we would have hoped. We will not be able to say that yes your sacrifice your hard work and the lives of your ancestors do mean something to New Zealand and yes we will bring you in line with portability arrangements with other countries that do not have the special arrangements. But in this case we cannot say that.I also have to acknowledge the RSA submitter who made a very clear case that when you receive a war pension that is not the same as superannuation. He wanted it noted on the record that someone who puts their life at risk in service of this country should be recognised differently to someone who receives a pension because they have been a taxpayer and it is the age of eligibility that triggers that. I want to acknowledge that RSA submitter and say yes I agree that someone who does put their life on the line for their country should be treated in a different way and acknowledged in a different way. Superannuation and war pensions should be treated separately so I acknowledge the work that you have done.So I say to all of those people—and there will be one or two who are watching the third reading of this—that we did try. We tried really hard. We did our best but it has not come to fruition as you would have hoped. But we all know that there is one person whom we can point to on the other side of the House who could have stood up for you but chose not to—someone who could have petitioned his colleagues and talked about his own family experience but chose not to. I am not going to belabour the rest of this bill. I am pleased about the provisions that we are passing in this bill and it will make it possible for some people to have the opportunities that they may not have had prior. But at the end of the day it does not do what was promised by Mr McCully all those years ago and for that I am very disappointed. Kia orana. Meitaki maata.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): After that speech by Poto Williams I struggled to get to my feet—what a sombre affair. It just drained the energy out of me. What a great day for the Cook Islands what a great day for Niue what a great day for Tokelau and what a great day for all New Zealanders who now will not need to be resident and present in New Zealand to receive their superannuation. This is just typical petty oppositional politics—everything we do they will say it is not good enough. Imagine if we gave every vulnerable family in New Zealand $25 a week. They would still say that was not enough—hold on we did do that and they still said that was not enough. What a great day for the Cook Islands for Tokelau and for Niue. What a great day for all New Zealanders who will be able to retire at the age of 65 and not have to be resident and present in New Zealand.Can I say kia orana to the Cook Islands taloha ni to Tokelau and fakalofa lahi atu to Niue. I do not have any ancestral connections to these islands but as I disclosed in my second reading speech it was in Rarotonga in the Cook Islands that I got down on my knees on the beach and proposed to my wife. I could not think of a better environment to start a beautiful relationship and I could not think of a better environment to retire to. This bill is being passed so what a great day this is.On Wednesday of this week I was at the Budget estimates hearing for Vote Social Development. I think we need to remind ourselves where the funding comes from. Vote Social Development is the biggest spender of this Budget at $25 billion—$25 billion. The country trusts us with the management of this money. It was demonstrated very clearly in September last year that they trust us that they know we are responsible. That is why they returned us to Government. In Vote Social Development the focus of the Government’s work is to move people from dependence to independence. It was great to see the programmes like the Community Investment Strategy which will deliver this.Can I pay homage not only to the Minister for Social Development Anne Tolley for this bill but also to the chair of the Social Services Committee Alfred Ngaro. Like many people in this Chamber we wear many hats. At times we look at things through a personal lens and at other times we look at things through a professional lens. It is very disappointing that people on the other side of the House have blurred those lenses from personal to professional and forgotten the very important roles that we play.It is somewhat interesting that the members opposite have selective memory about the submissions. The submissions process was yes overly favourable. I remember the Concerned Community Collective. It was great to see about 30 people get together from ages 25 to 75. It shows the key interest of this bill because they all can see the benefit but the Opposition clearly forgets.There were concerns around this bill around people moving back to the Islands and the pressure that would put on housing on social services and on health. That is why it is good to structure the process as we have done to take the steps we have done to see how this will play out. Of course these islands need repopulation and it is great that we will be able to promote economic development in these islands. Not only is it about people returning home to spend their hard-earned superannuation to support the local businesses in Tokelau Niue and the Cook Islands but it is about the tourism as well—the pensioner tourism. They will be able to go over and spend money in these islands.This bill amends the payments for New Zealand superannuation. Currently people have to reside and be present in New Zealand at 65. This change will allow applicants who are 65 to apply from these countries. It was great to hear the thinking that has already happened about the roll-out and the phasing-in of the IT support that will be needed to facilitate these payments. It shows that this Government—trustworthy and responsible—has clearly thought through the pragmatic implementation of this bill.We must remind ourselves that this bill is not only for people from Niue Tokelau and the Cook Islands. This bill is for all New Zealanders. They will be able to go and retire in these countries and enjoy a blessed retirement. Thank you. I support this bill to the House.DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take the first call for the Greens on the third reading of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. We are pleased to be supporting this bill in its final reading and we will of course be voting for it. This bill recognises and should recognise the special relationship that New Zealand has with the countries of the Realm of New Zealand: the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. It is a special relationship that has lasted a long time.This bill changes what has been seen to be an inequity. I have to say that the evidence we heard during the Social Services Committee hearings suggested that this bill has been a long time coming and certainly that is the view of my colleagues over here who were also on the select committee at the time. It was a special privilege to have the premier leaders of our Realm countries come and present their oral submissions to the select committee. It is not something that happens very often but I would reiterate that it was an absolute signal from these countries that a change to superannuation and the veterans pension portability is absolutely required for the citizens of the Realm who want to go back and spend their final years in those Island nations.What the bill does is enable citizens of the Realm from those island nations who have lived in New Zealand for more than 10 years after the age of 20 to return to their home country while remaining eligible for New Zealand superannuation as long as they have lived in New Zealand for 5 years after the age of 50. This provision was quite controversial and I want to acknowledge and thank the members on this side of the House from both New Zealand First and Labour who put up Supplementary Order Papers in an attempt to amend that provision in the bill because we do still see that as an inequity. What the bill does is allow after the age of 55 citizens from Niue Tokelau and Cook Islands to return to their home islands and to apply for and receive New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension if they are eligible for it. The previous situation was that they had to be present and resident in New Zealand in order to access that superannuation.When the Act actually comes into being it will not actually affect a huge amount of people right away. Roughly about 250 only will be triggered into being able to access superannuation and the veterans pension. However it does give an opportunity for those many people from the three Realm countries living in New Zealand to be able to access it in the future which we do see as fairer.Currently according to Statistics New Zealand there are 62000 people from the Cook Islands 23000 Niueans and 7176 people from Tokelau living here and those are far greater numbers than the populations living on those islands themselves. It has been an ongoing issue that the local economies have been depleted of their greatest resource which I agree with my colleague Poto Williams is their people. So we have a larger number of people living in New Zealand then than are living in the Realm islands. But their connections are strong and their ancestral ties bind them to those countries and it is fair and reasonable that they return in their final years if they want to to take up their lives back in their home country. The depopulation issue has been a real problem and we did hear that from the leaders of those countries when they submitted but we did also hear that there was some potential for this change in this bill to enable people to return to their country at the age of 55 when they may—they may—be young enough to be able to contribute further to the economies in their home countries. But we are not sure about that; that was one of the reasons why we were quite keen to remove the 5 years after 50 rule.We are happy to be supporting this bill and to know that it is supported unanimously across the House. It is very rare that that happens and it is an unusual experience I have to say but for the people of the Realm and from the Realm countries I think it is something we should be doing to ensure that they get the best deal that we can possibly give them. Again I restate that I am disappointed that the National Party did not listen to the submitters that we heard including those from those nations’ leaders asking for more flexibility because they have been waiting and they have been negotiating with Murray McCully and others in the National Government for a very long time. So although this bill does not go as far as we would like it to go it is a step forward and we will be supporting it.DARROCH BALL (NZ First): New Zealand First has made it quite clear from the start where we stand on this bill. We do agree with the changes that are being made but it is not good enough. We did put in Supplementary Order Paper 71 and requested support from the Government; in particular from one member of the Government at least who knows that he should have voted for that Supplementary Order Paper. We have had support and the same way of thinking from all the Opposition parties in regard to the Supplementary Order Paper and that Supplementary Order Paper was specifically in regard to the 5 years over 50 rule.I would just like to talk about something that Matt Doocey said in his speech previously and that was that this was nothing but petty Opposition politics—disagreeing with things or thinking that the changes are never good enough. Well I would like him to have a look at the submissions and who submitted and what they submitted on. There were 13 submissions and 12 of them were in regard to the 5 years over 50 part of the amendment. I would like him to contact the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands and tell him that this is nothing but petty politics because it is not. It shows the importance the outright importance of that specific clause to the people of those three Realm countries. In fact we had a unique situation where the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands and the Premier of Niue I believe it was came over personally and gave an oral submission. That is the importance that they placed on that clause. In fact what the Government of the Cook Islands submitted was that the Cook Islands did support the bill but recommended further consideration given the 5 years over 50 rule. Not only that the submitters actually made a good point where they pointed out that the regulatory impact statement did not actually mention the financial burden placed on New Zealand by applicants who may claim welfare payments returning to satisfy the 5-year residence requirement. So from the get-go in the process—and I know that there has actually been a long time going through the process of this bill—it seemed to me when I was going through it in the select committee and through these different stages that there was not actually a lot of thought put into the bill itself. The reason why I say that is—Jono Naylor: Oh!DARROCH BALL: Well Mr Naylor might disagree with that but I ask him to look at all of the submissions and see what the opposition to that clause is and who is saying it. It is not just the Opposition parties; it is the people who are being affected by that clause specifically—and that is the importance of that clause.What I would also like to go on to are the purpose and intent. The reason why I say there was not much thought put into the bill is because the purpose and the intent of the bill are actually good ones. They are to recognise the very special relationship that New Zealand as a country has with those three Island nations. They come under the Realm of New Zealand and the Cook Islands as Mr Ngaro would know even uses the New Zealand dollar. So not only have we got ancestral connections with those islands but we have the largest population centre—being Auckland—of the Pacific Islands and in particular of those three. We have economic ties. They come under our protectorate. So the bill misses out on that very important provision on the 5 years over 50 which those islands have been asking for for a very very long time. I think that the Government assumed that this would be a bill that would pass through the House quite easily and uncontested. But that was not the case. New Zealand First put through a minority report stating those different points.But I would just like to touch on the extra costs that the departmental report from the Ministry of Social Development said that it would actually cost. We are not talking about a huge number of people this would affect but it would make such a big impact in their lives—and more important their families’ lives. If we are talking just about the administrative implications for the ministry in 2020 in 5 years’ time we are talking about only $60000 to $65000 in administrative costs. That is the cost that the Government is saying is one of the reasons why it will not change that clause. We are talking about up to 100 additional applications for New Zealand superannuation in subsequent years and it costs the ministry only around a million dollars a year. If you compare that with a waste of money like the flag referendum which is costing $30 million you can see where the Government puts its priority.New Zealand First like I said is supporting this bill. We support the intent; we support the purpose. We do not think it goes far enough and for very good reason. I would like to join my Labour colleagues in saying to those peopleout there whom this does affect that we tried our hardest. We put in the Supplementary Order Paper. All it would have taken was one member across in the Government benches to vote for the Supplementary Order Paper but he did not.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to take this call to speak on the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill in its third reading. This is a great bill for the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau because this bill seeks to provide greater pension flexibility for those people who wish to retire in these three Pacific nations—Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau.This bill as acknowledged by the member who just spoke Darroch Ball is about recognising our special constitutional ties with these three Pacific nations which enjoy shared New Zealand citizenship and unique legal arrangements. Under our current portability arrangement eligible people are required to be residents and present here in New Zealand at the time of applying for their superannuation at the age of 65. This bill is to remove that requirement.There is a residence condition which is that to be eligible for New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension people should have lived here for 10 years after the age of 20 which includes 5 years after the age of 50. This means that people—those who wish to—can actually retire in these three Island countries at the age of 55. They can go to these Island countries to retire at the age of 55 and when they turn 65 they can apply for their New Zealand superannuation from any of these three Pacific nations.The Social Services Committee received 13 submissions and they were thoroughly considered. Six were orally heard and I can say that most of those submissions were in support of this bill. I want to acknowledge our chair Alfred Ngaro and I also want to acknowledge our Minister the Hon Anne Tolley for the work that she has done on this bill. I also want to acknowledge all submitters for the time they took to come and make those submissions. We had thorough discussions on points that were raised.One issue that came up and widely discussed was depopulation. This was actually linked to the 5 years after 50 rule. I also note the Supplementary Order Paper 71 by New Zealand First to make a change to exempt these three Pacific nations the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau from this 5 years after 50 rule.I was here in the Chamber when we were debating the Committee stage of this bill. My observation was that I did not expect Labour to be fair. The New Zealand First members were pleading to get support for this Supplementary Order Paper but they could not provide even a single reason why their Supplementary Order Paper should be supported. The only reason that came from their side was that it is not that many people; it is not about how many people. It is about fairness and it is about having a balanced approach. That was coming from the party that thinks it has some common sense. It thinks it has some common sense but there was no common sense in its Supplementary Order Paper to get support.Hon Simon Bridges: No common sense.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: No common sense.Hon Simon Bridges: Common sense is decidedly uncommon.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: That is true. There was no common sense. There was no fairness. There was no reason given as to why that rule should be amended. It was very interesting for me to sit here and watch that.But this National Government is committed to all. This National Government is working for all. We are an efficient and fair Government. We are not unfair like them. This bill going through does not mean that it will apply only to those people who originally came from the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau. Once this bill goes through this provision will be available to all those eligible people those who wish to retire in these three Pacific nations. It is the kind of flexibility that we want to provide to people. It does not mean that all people those who are from the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau will take up this provision. So it is about providing greater flexibility. We know that there are around 650 people in the Pacific who are receiving New Zealand superannuation and out of those 650 people around 300 are in the Cook Islands. We also know that with this legislation going through there will be around 245 people who will benefit with an increase of 16 people per year.The New Zealand Government is always committed to its relationship with the Pacific nations. We have strong cultural political and economic ties with the Pacific nations. With these three Pacific nations the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau we have a very special relationship. We call it free association. As a result of this free association the people from these three Pacific nations enjoy New Zealand superannuation and also there is substantial assistance from our Government to their Governments so there is this very close linkage. Employment opportunities here in New Zealand are better so it is natural that the people from these Pacific nations are attracted to New Zealand.With these three Pacific nations there is even greater attraction because their people have New Zealand citizenship and rights to residence. The issue of depopulation is a real one. That is why this bill is really important. It is to help these three Pacific nations with that issue. This bill will make people go to these Pacific nations if they wish to at the age of 55 and at the age of 65 they can apply for their New Zealand superannuation from any of these three Pacific nations.This National Government recognises that New Zealanders have worked hard and they deserve to enjoy their retirement. We want them to have as many options as possible. It is very hard to say what the cost of this to the Crownwill be but we know that this move will definitely help these three Pacific nations—the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. This bill is to help these three Pacific nations socially and economically and it will also reduce the impact of depopulation that they have in these three Pacific nations.This bill is about keeping it fair. Once the bill goes through it will be applicable to all eligible people—those who wish to retire in these three Pacific nations. This 5 years after 50 rule applies to all even to New Zealand - born people—those who have gone overseas and come back and want to spend their retirement here or those who want to go to other countries and spend their retirement there. It is about fairness and it is about having a balanced approach. As I said this National Government is about fairness. We analyse everything from a fairness point of view. That is why we are not supporting the exemption to the 5 years after 50 rule in Supplementary Order Paper 71.This bill is a great bill to support these three Pacific nations. This bill is about recognising our special relationship with these three Pacific nations. I am really delighted to commend this bill to the House and to support it. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call will be a split call. Jan Logie—5 minutes.JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a short call on the third reading of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. The Green Party is of course supporting this bill. We are united with this side of the House in disappointment that it does not go far enough. I will explain to members of the public what this bill is about. It is about enabling people who live in the Realm of New Zealand—Niue Tokelau and the Cook Islands—to access superannuation or their veterans pension after they have worked in New Zealand for 10 to 20 years and to access it without having to be in New Zealand on the age of retirement.The bill still requires people to live in New Zealand for 5 years post the age of 50 which is our contention with this bill. Partly it is because this has been an issue that has been raised with members in this House for decades. It has been a real concern for people from these countries who are part of our Realm. They are part of our family. They are not another country per se. They are part of the Realm of New Zealand. They have been saying that these rules have been creating an incentive for people to stay in New Zealand when they would have otherwise returned to their country to be able to engage in meaningful work pre-retirement. When we look at the example of Niue which for me is the most striking there are fewer than 1600 people left on the island and over 23000 are here in New Zealand. We can see the impact of this kind of regulation on that country and by virtue of the impact on them the impact on our overseas development and aid budget. So where there is a small cost here there is also a potential savings in overseas development and aid support from New Zealand. This is about seeing this whole situation holistically and addressing it holistically but also to me it is fundamentally a matter of respect.Two heads of State presentedbefore the select committee which is a very rare occurrence. They spoke directly to this House about what a difference it would make to be able to pass this legislation and to remove that 5 years post 50 years of age requirement. They said that it would absolutely assist their countries in reversing the depopulation building their economies and sustaining their communities. I think it is very sad that the Government has chosen to go only part-way in addressing those concerns and I think it is short-sighted. I do not think it makes sense in terms of even the medium-term economic interests of this country let alone those Realm countries’ interests for the Government to make this decision. I think it is very short-sighted and poor thinking.I do particularly want to acknowledge the Realm countries as part of our family and the contribution of the people who have left their countries to come to our country right here. They are people who have contributed massively to our economy to our societies to our academic sphere and to this Parliament for goodness’ sake. They are people who have died under the colours of this country in war. Where their needs are met only part-way by this Government I find it disrespectful and another example of unnecessary meanness. Although we are happy to support this bill for the step that it does take we are disappointed that it could not go the whole way in honouring the contribution of all those people. Kia ora.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Louisa Wall—5 minutes.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe te Māngai o te Whare. Kia orana. Fakalofa atu ki a mutolu osi. Malo ni. It is my pleasure to speak on this the third reading of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the two heads of State—Cook Islands Prime Minister Henry Puna and Premier Talagi from Niue—who came to our country and in a very rare occurrence made a submission to the select committee. From my perspective I think the significance of that submission really needs to be reflected in the final debate in the House because what it speaks to actually is the prioritisation from their perspective of this piece of legislation.I just want to outline quickly the eligibility for New Zealand superannuation. For people who are listening: you have to be 65 years of age you have to be a citizen or resident you have to have lived here for 10 years since the age of 20 and you also have to have lived here for 5 years since the age of 50. Generally you have to be a resident in New Zealand on the date of application. Those are the general rules or criteria around New Zealand superannuation.If you are from the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau you are a citizen of this country by virtue of having been born in one of those countries. They are Realm countries of New Zealand so they are incredibly special and they have a special status in terms of us here in Aotearoa. You have to have spent 20 years in New Zealand since the age of 20 and 5 years since the age of 50 but under this legislation—and this is where I want to congratulate the Government—you can now apply from the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelaufor your pension. So well done; congratulations. On behalf of the people of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau I would like to say thank you because I think it is significant. In fact it is one of the two things that the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands and the Premier of Niue came to submit about.Half of what they asked for has been achieved. In terms of the differences obviously being able to apply from those Realm countries is incredibly important. The other difference that I want to highlight is that unlike general New Zealanders who have to have been here for 10 years since the age of 20 in fact if you come from the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau you actually have to have lived in New Zealand for 20 years. And that was the main contention particularly of the submission by the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands to the select committee. If you are a general New Zealander it is 10 years; if you are from the Cook Islands it is 20.So he said: “How about because we have to live in New Zealand for 20 years the compensation for that is not to scrap the 5 years since 50 but”—he was actually saying—“why do we not recognise that if you spend 5 years from 50 in the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau because they are Realms of New Zealand that qualifies you?”. Because the reality is that they may have lived in other parts of the world. They may have lived in Australia or in Sweden or in London or wherever. So actually it was about recognising people who come back to the Cook Islands and contribute to those countries. And I think that has been the main contention.When you look at all the statistics about how expensive it is it actually does not stack up. Currently 220 people receive New Zealand superannuation in the Cook Islands. That is about 33 percent of those who are eligible. When this legislation goes through tonight 245 people will become eligible. So there is not going to be a big flood. The Government is not going to take a big hit. It is not going to cost the Government a lot of money. In fact they have estimated that there will be an extra 16 people per annum. So this is not about money. Yes this is about the special status that the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau have in New Zealand’s constitution and about our recognition that they are part of our country. They have automatic citizenship.We would have contended that the Government could go just that little bit further and got rid of the requirement. I think that in the Government’s mind Cook Islanders live in New Zealand and then when they are 55 they leave here and go back to the Cook Islands. The reality is that that is not what happens. So thank you to the people who made a submission and thank you to the people who have contributed to the debate. I commend the bill to the House but with that caveat. Thank you.JONO NAYLOR (National): It is with great pleasure that I rise to talk about the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. As a relatively new MP I was reflecting today that I think this is the first bill where I have been a part of the first reading the Committee stage the select committee and seeing this through to the end.Chris Hipkins: Not working hard enough.JONO NAYLOR: No it is just a great thing for me to be able to be a part of. It is a great thing to be able to be a part of doing something that is actually very positive. Of course everything this Government does is positive and this is just another one of those things. But it is just I think for me something that we can really look at and say that this is something positive we are doing for the people of the Cook Islands Tokelau and Niue. I think the last speaker Louisa Wall summed it up when she reflected on the very positive response that we had in large part from the submitters from those islands who talked about the fact that they were very grateful for what is going on here and what is happening.What we are doing is ensuring—and I think this is the particularly important part of this—that people no longer have to be resident in New Zealand at the time at which they apply for their superannuation to be able to be transferred to them if they are living in any of these Realm of New Zealand Islands. I think it is a critical thing because people do sometimes want to go back a little earlier than the age of 65 to retire and so it is great that they can do that.I think what is critical about this though is that it actually gives people who are from those places the same rights that are afforded to the rest of the New Zealanders who are living here. I am 48 years old now. If at some time I decide that I want to move to the Cook Islands or Niue or Tokelau and I want to stay there when I retire I am going to have to spend 5 years after the age of 50 in New Zealand. And yet what is being proposed by Supplementary Order Paper 71 which has come from the other side of the House is to give people who are from these islands something that other New Zealanders are not eligible for. That is not necessarily fair. So what we have done in putting this legislation forward—despite the fact that a member over the other side thought that not a lot of consideration had not gone into this a huge amount of consideration has gone into this to ensure that people can go back before the age of 65 and they can receive superannuation in exactly the same way as other New Zealanders can. I think that is absolutely critical.One of the points that was made from the other side of the House was just bizarre. I just want to pick up on it because it was stated that almost all of the submissions were for changing this. I thought: you know what? If this Government—if any Government to be honest—said every time that submissions came to a select committee “Oh the people who came to make submissions asked for this so therefore we should give it to them.” well the Government would go broke so quickly it would be unbelievable. So yes we do need to listen to submissions but we need to weigh them up against the reality of the situation. Yes we will get submissions on bills but we do need to be sure that we weigh those up against the reality of the situation. We listened to those people and we have responded to those people but it does not mean that we always have to do just what somebody wants every time they ask.These islands are facing some real issues. They are facing issues of depopulation. They are facing some challenges. As a nation New Zealand is offering protection to those other islands in the Realm of New Zealand and it is our responsibility to do what we can in an appropriate way to assist them. That is exactly what we are doing through this legislation. Through this legislation we are ensuring that it will be much easier for people to go back to be able to retire somewhere along the line perhaps a little bit earlier than they might have before and to make some useful contribution back home in those islands.I have heard members on the other side use the word “mean”. They have used the word “mean”. They have said that this Government is mean because we are not changing—Su’a William Sio: Mean-spiritedJONO NAYLOR: Mean-spirited even was the word that I have heard. It is absolutely bizarre because what we are talking about doing today is offering something that has not been offered before—something that up until now has been missing through successive Governments of New Zealand. I do not want to lay blame but it has not been addressed until now. We are addressing it and we are doing it so that the people of those Islands are being treated in the same way as any other New Zealander in terms of whether they wanted to retire there and I think that is critical in what we are doing.So I want to finish up by saying we are committed to these islands of the Realm of New Zealand. We do take it very seriously. We do acknowledge the special place that they do have but we do need to make sure that what we do is fair is equitable and is in line with everything else that we are doing. That is exactly what this bill does. This bill ensures that we are working in a way that is most appropriate to meet the needs of those islands and also keeping in mind what is fair and equitable for other New Zealanders.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I think that members of the Pacific Islands listening in to this debate will have a very strong difficulty accepting or believing the comments about this Government being committed to the Pacific. They have heard it often—too often—and particularly in the last campaign and it has all come to naught. It means nothing. Words are quite cheap. They have learnt to understand and accept that this Government will say anything to try to bring people around to its thinking but at the end of the day they are just simply words.I want to firstly acknowledge the leaders and the people of the community of the Cook Islands who are listening in—kia orana tatou katoatoa. I also want to acknowledge the leaders and people who are listening in from Niue that place that we affectionately call “the Rock”—fakalofa lahi atu. I also want to acknowledge the leaders and people of Tokelau who are prayerfully listening to this debate as well as prayerfully waiting for one of their former Ulus who is sick in America the honourable Toloa. I acknowledge them because I am aware they have been listening in to the debate as this piece of legislation goes through its passage in this House.May I begin by saying that I want to share a Samoan saying: “O e e lavea’i ia te a’u i taimi o puapuaga o ivi o toto o aano.” If I translated that it would mean: “They who come to my hour of need are my family. They are blood bones and flesh.” I say that at the outset because when it comes to dealing with the Pacific you are dealing with people and relationships are paramount in our ongoing dealings with the Pacific.I have got just a few points that I want to raise. Firstly I want to acknowledge Poto Williams Carmel Sepuloni and members of New Zealand First and the Green Party. We have stood united in acknowledging the fact that yes we support this bill but we believe that New Zealanders should be treated equally regardless of where they are based and we support the removal of the 5-year resident and present status. I will tell you why. New Zealand prides itself on saying that we have this constitutional arrangement between New Zealand and members of the Realm countries: the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. Because we do not have a written constitution we rely on the words of past and present Prime Ministers past and present Ministers of Foreign Affairs and past and present Governors-General.For me the Governor-General who enforced how important that was was Sir Anand Satyanand who everywhere he lived walked and spoke would always acknowledge the languages of the Realm of New Zealand: Māori English sign language Cook Islands Niuean and Tokelauan. That says it all—that that Governor-General acknowledged this uniquely special relationship. What does it mean? Time and time again Murray McCully and the Prime Minister John Key always say this phrase: “We New Zealanders have a special relationship with the Pacific.” But in their hour of need when the leaders of those countries present themselves at the select committee what do we give them? We give them half a pie but we hold on to the other half. What for?That reminds me of another Samoan saying: “E u’u le afa ae togi le moa. E togi le moa ae u’u le afa.” It is a trap. We will give you a little bit now but we will hold on to this other part for later on. If the relationship is important the Government should recognise that these leaders come armed with the prayers and with the endorsement of the people of those countries. They are New Zealand citizens. Why does this Government continue to treat them as second-class citizens? Why is that? That is what it is doing. That is exactly what it is doing.We had the Premier of Niue the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands and some significant individuals from these countries come to make submissions. I want to read something out that is important to me: “The unique and special relationship has seen many New Zealand citizens move from the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau to work in New Zealand and contribute economically socially and culturally to [the] fabric of New Zealand society.” That side of the House—that Government—makes out as if we are giving them a handout. That is what it believes. Here we have the Government of the Cook Islands saying it is not a one-way street. Yes they receive aid from New Zealand. They have to. It is a constitutional obligation.But by the same token the people of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau come here and work they go to school here and they pay taxes here—they contribute. The Hon Nandi Glassie lived in Māngere and worked in Manukau in local government until he was about—oh I do not know; he looks older now—I think around his 40s. He left here and is now a Minister in the Cook Islands Government. So what do we tell him? When he retires he will not be eligible—he will not be eligible because he has to be present here in the land of Aotearoa New Zealand. But the land of Aotearoa New Zealand should also include the Cook Islands—the soil the land of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau.I agree with what my colleagues here on this side of the House have said. This Government’s members are just being mean. They say words to the effect that the relationship is real and genuine but in reality these actions speak louder than the words they continue to roll out.Only yesterday Adrian Rurawhe Kris Faafoi Jenny Salesa and I attended Jerry Collins’ funeral in Porirua. This is important. Peseta was there and we helped him get into the row we were sitting in because he did not want to sit next to Ken Douglas. We were there. Prior to the funeral we made a brief presentation to the family of Jerry Collins in accordance with Samoan protocol and culture to pay our respects to convey our alofas to them. The essence of all the testimonies and tributes made at that funeral was that Jerry Collins never forgot where he came from. Jerry Collins never forgot his tupuaga—the people who supported him to the role that he played. Jerry Collins never forgot his si’osi’omaga—his environment what made him the person he was. He was constantly working to give something back to “P-Town” or to the people who made him the person he was and helped him along to become a star All Black. It was an amazing funeral and it was an amazing atmosphere—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Su’a WILLIAM SIO: —with all the tributes. I am getting to the point. The point I am making and this is with reference to the chairman of the Social Services Committee Alfred Ngaro is that I want to appeal to him. When we were campaigning last year he went out to the community and made promise after promise after promise in the likeness of John Key to the people of the Pacific that if National came into Government things would happen—things would happen. I want to say to him that the sign of a Government that has become arrogant and drunk with its own mightiness is that it refuses to listen to the people. I want to appeal to you Alfred. You need to listen to the people who helped you arrive at where you are now. This is important.Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This member has been here long enough to know that he is getting well away—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no. No I am the judge of these matters and I am calling Su’a William Sio.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: I am appealing to the chair of the Social Services Committee who heard the submissions who heard the pleas from the Cook Islands Prime Minister from the Premier of Tokelau and from the elders of those communities—the community that he belongs to. I am appealing to you: listen to the people. Do not live up to the meaning of your name and forget who brought you to where you are.Alfred Ngaro: I raise a point of order Mr Assistant Speaker. That member knows that there is an offence culturally to actually start to use a person’s name which we would never do. So I take offence actually at the use of that comment.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): All right thank you. The member has taken offence and I ask the member who is speaking to withdraw that comment.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: I withdraw. I appeal again to the chairman Mr Alfred Ngaro. Do not forget your tupuaga—the people who supported you who covered you who enabled you to sit at the head of the table. Listen to the pleas that they have given you because I am afraid that if you have not listened to their appeals and to their submission to be flexible in your stance on this particular issue then it means that you are selling your soul. You are selling your soul and that is a bad thing because there are so many of us—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The member’s time has expired.ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise and take the final call on the third reading of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. I want to make reference to the comments that were made by Mr Sio and in particular when he talked about actions speaking louder than words. Can I remind the member that in 1990 what was then the Social Welfare (Transitional Provisions) Act actually indicated that you needed to have 7 years rather than 5 years. The year was changed so that it was 5 years to make it a lot more equitable. Can I remind that member that the Green member who spoke Jan Logie also talked about how the petition for change for the provision of the portability of the pension has been happening since 1990. So if we are going to talk about actions speaking louder than words why when Labour was in Government were there no changes made? I tell you the reason why: actions speak louder than words. Here we are with the honourable Minister Murray McCully putting actions to his words. And actually under this Government we are making it happen. Since 1990 the petition has been happening.If we talk about actions speaking louder than words let us also talk to our Cook Island Niuean and Tokelauan communities that are out there. In the inquiry that was taken in 2010 into New Zealand’s relationship with South Pacific nations one of the issues that it talked about was the Pacific Parliamentary and Political Leaders Forum. Now the member Mr Sio will know that this is not a new issue. In fact when Mike Moore was in Parliament he talked about it. When Helen Clark was in Parliament she talked about it. But guess what happened? Under that Government—when Labour was in Government—nothing happened. So what happened? Minister McCully turned round and in 2013 we had the very first Pacific Parliamentary and Political Leaders Forum with 138 members from across the Pacific. They came here and for the first time we talked about issues that affect our Pacific nations. When actions speak louder than words it is under this Government that we make it happen.The last thing—because it is good to have a trifecta—when we talk about actions speaking louder than words is that it was under a Labour Government that the Pacific Island affairs portfolio was taken out of Cabinet for the very first time. The Pacific community turned round and asked: “Why? Why did this happen?”. It was under a Labour Government and those people could not understand it. Why? Because for all the talk and for all the rhetoric that Government was not appealing to the so-called submissions of the Pacific community. [Interruption] No I do not stand to take those comments; I stand to actually proclaim the things that this Government has done. It is making a difference.I am going to round off my speech with just a few comments that I think are actually really important to actually address some of the issues of concern. I want to address the issue that Louisa Wall raised when she talked about discrimination. I am going to read this out really clearly: some members have also said that it is unfair that migrants can come to New Zealand and qualify for full New Zealand superannuation—Louisa Wall: I didn’t say that.ALFRED NGARO: —no no no I am just reading from this—Louisa Wall: After 10 years—after 10 years.ALFRED NGARO: —hang on let me finish OK—residence in New Zealand whereas people who live in the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau must have 20 years’ residence. That is the point I wanted to make—the 20 years’ residence. This bill does not discriminate against people from the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau. People from these islands who remain in New Zealand are subject to exactly the same rules as all other New Zealanders. I want to make that point really clear to all other New Zealanders. There has been a lot of misinformation that has gone out to our community to believe that there is discrimination and that there is an injustice. Absolutely there is not. What you are talking about is the special portability provisions that are there as well. I want to be very clear. These provisions that are there are absolutely important. They do allow for the migration back into the Pacific which is what the communities have asked for. If we are talking about what they have asked for Mr Sio this is what they have asked for—those Pacific nations those Pacific leaders. When they came and they presented they said: “These are the things that we have been waiting for—these are the things that we have been waiting for for a very long time.” So this Government put actions to the words and is making it happen.The last thing is around this 5-year rule. You are absolutely right Mr Darroch Ball: 12 out of the 13 submissions said: “Can we find that there is some discretion around that?”. There is no discretion for anybody. When we talk about those who have discretion you are right that there are those for whom there is a social security agreement a reciprocal financial arrangement that is made with those particular nations like the UK like Canada and like Australia and that is that arrangement. There is no discrimination there at all. Therefore all New Zealanders all Cook Islanders all Niuean people and all Tokelauan people have exactly the same.I want to finish off by saying this. This is a bill that is ensuring that when the community of the Pacific has asked for portability of that pension they shall receive it. They will be able to go back and when they go back at the age of 55—my parents are residing back in the Cook Islands as we speak and they are there now. When we are asked for the reasons why these are the reasons why: it allows for them to return back to give back to their local economies so that depopulation where they are migrating out does not happen. They return back and they can give something back to those local economies.This is a good bill. It is a bill that we know right across the House has added support bar one point of difference. We have justified that we know what that is and you are absolutely right it will impact 245 people every year increasing by about a hundred people who can make the application. We know that that is there. But we know that actually it is clear. The provisions of the bill make the difference.Lastly I want to finish with this. There were some comments made by New Zealand First and its leader that there were promises made back in the Cook Islands by Andrew Bayly and by me at the Swordfish Club or Swordfighters Bar whatever it is. There were absolutely no promises that were made—no promises that were made. The only promise that was made was this: that we would address the issue of the 5 years. I can say with hand on heart that the only promise that was made was to address the issue of 5 years not to fix or change that.I am proud of this bill. I am married to my beautiful wife Mokauina Fuemana-Ngaro who is Samoan and Niuean and comes from the beautiful village of Mutalau in Niue. I am of Cook Island descent and I am proud that this bill will make a difference. I commend this bill in its third reading to the House.Bill read a third time.