Bayly Andrew: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBayly Andrew: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6730. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking on this bill tonight the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill. I find this an interesting bill which has been put forward by Denis O’Rourke a member from New Zealand First and it is really a refinement of our current superannuation arrangements here in New Zealand.I believe that it is based on the French model. Interestingly I have got a lady working with me who has had firsthand experience of that system which does apply a pro rata arrangement. The interesting thing in the French arrangement is that the contributions made by members to the scheme are absolutely significant. The application of the pro rata arrangement does provide some form of recompense to people but it is a difficult scheme to administer. Therefore on many grounds I do not think it actually works that well. So I was sitting here trying to work out what the benefits of trying to refine our New Zealand superannuation scheme were and to be honest I am struggling to understand what the merits of this bill might be.If I were to look at some of the issues that it does raise I think the first one is that there is a maximum allowance for someone who is a New Zealander to legitimately travel overseas for 5 years between the ages of 20 and 65. I think that many New Zealand people do travel overseas—as we are all aware; many of us have—and this stipulation around the 5-year requirement is I think actually quite constraining and counter-productive not only to the personal interests of New Zealanders who legitimately want to do that but also to the interests of New Zealand as a whole in terms of allowing people to go overseas and get the valuable skills that they may want to achieve while they are working there.Secondly this bill actually makes it very difficult for returning New Zealanders and in many ways it actually puts in a disincentive for New Zealanders to return to their homeland. I actually believe that that is a bit of a mistake. I think those Kiwis returning to New Zealand who may have worked overseas for many years and who want to come home—and to be penalised for doing so under a bill like this is actually fundamentally flawed.The third issue I have with this bill is that if you strictly apply the rates. If you return at any time after the age of 55—i.e. within that last 10-year period—you are actually quite disadvantaged financially. Again it is putting in place a mechanism that actually reduces the superannuation that New Zealanders or other people returning to New Zealand are actually entitled to.Fourthly the bill actually is absolutely anti-migrants and that is an issue I really have an issue with. If we accept people into New Zealand as migrants and they go through the strict process of immigrating to New Zealand with all the assessment that goes on under the present arrangements they are entitled to a full pension after a certain period of time. This bill would cut across that and I think that that is a very poor commercial issue as well as a sort of fundamental rights issue that New Zealand First is raising with this bill.The fifth thing about this is that even for those returning with a foreign-based superannuation scheme that would be part of the remuneration that they would be able to draw on together with a part-share of the New Zealand superannuation scheme that creates a whole lot of problems for those individuals. It creates problems not only in terms of what that means in terms of assessing what returns they might get subject to foreign exchange differentials that go on from time to time and the management of that—and any of you who have actually tried to bring back a foreign pension scheme it is not without its difficulties. In fact it is an administrative nightmare. So on that basis also I cannot support the bill.Then what the bill does not do is it does not actually respect older people coming back to New Zealand. You know I was at a bowling club on Saturday and I met this very nice English gentleman who had been in the Royal Air Force for many many years. He had worked in France and then he came to New Zealand. He had been through that superannuation and immigration process and you know he was loving living in New Zealand. He had a lot to contribute to New Zealand. But under this bill I suspect that that gentleman would not have come to New Zealand and I think again that that would have been a significant pity.Finally New Zealand already has in place good reciprocal arrangements with nine countries around the world. Where we have these arrangements set up it is absolutely clear what superannuation entitlements people are entitled to. I think that on those grounds I would have to say I do not support this bill.