Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you. That was a little earlier than I expected. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to take a call opposing this New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill at the third reading while I will still go through the politeness of Parliament and acknowledge Mark Patterson's luck for getting this drawn and Andrew Bayly for seeing this through the process because it is quite a rare event for a member to get a piece of legislation passed particularly when they're not a member of the Government. The Greens are not supporting this and neither are Te Paati Māori in my understanding and there are some reasons for us that are pretty clear about why we're not supporting it. There's a lot of discussion about the sense of fairness but for us our starting point is actually: what's the effective policy to ensure the wellbeing of older New Zealanders in their last and later years of life? How do we ensure the best possible life for seniors in our country? We know that income is a really critical component in terms of enabling people to flourish and live good lives and our superannuation scheme has been instrumental in reducing rates of poverty amongst senior citizens. It continues to be effectively a universal basic income for people over 65 in this country that has served us as a country incredibly well but unfortunately the rates that people receive aren't always enough to make ends meet any more particularly when many people do not have that privilege of reaching 65 with a secure home and savings—a safety net—and many have the need for ongoing medical treatment now. Superannuation as it was initially conceptualised was built on the assumption that people owned their homes because we had a much higher rate of homeownership at that time and that is changing which to us feels as if this is not the time to actually be picking away at our superannuation scheme and to be undermining it. Actually this is the time for us to be looking at what else we need to do to ensure that in their last years of life people have enough to flourish. So this is why we believe we should be working to bolster our income support systems instead of stripping them away for some under that false pretence of sustainability which is a word I have heard already in the speeches this afternoon. Restricting migrant communities' ability to access superannuation will simply entrench inequities and put more people in poverty and it will force people into an inadequate welfare system which we're trying to fix but that is another topic. The work of the select committee members resulted in a few amendments—and we've heard a bit about that this afternoon—attempting to lessen the bill's impact. For example deferring the commencement of the bill to July 2023 and exempting refugees is a really important change. Unfortunately these amendments will not take away from the intent of the bill which is to restrict access to income support and it will actually not protect people from the harm that we're concerned about. During the committee of the whole House stage we noted that in the initial briefings from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) it was really clear that as we restrict people going on to New Zealand superannuation some migrants who need income support will end up going into the income support system because they can't access superannuation and MSD's own papers also noted that in the longer term the projected savings of this bill to the super scheme—and this was before the amendments that reduced the scope of the bill—were likely to be only 0.3 percent of the projected cost of New Zealand superannuation and I really struggle to see how that's going to address any concerns people have about sustainability. So not only will this bill not contribute to the sustainability of super; it will push people into a welfare system that has a lot more hurdles. I don't think there's anybody in this House that can't acknowledge that and we're telling seniors that they have to attend job seminars—like 65- and 70-year-olds having to go to job seminars—and having to take jobs or risk losing their income regardless of how unsuitable those jobs might be. This is not the image of the later years of life that we collectively envisaged as a country. I don't believe it is consistent with our best intent for our seniors in this country. When we presented the member with the facts of this around the money and the sustainability he simply responded that well other countries are moving to restrict their superannuation schemes and we should do the same—another view that I've heard echoed in this House—and there was no acknowledgment of the fact that his bill won't produce any real savings. Instead of following the poor leadership from other countries who are stripping away from senior citizens the ability to live with dignity we have the ability to lead the way in ensuring we have a robust unconditional safety net for seniors in this country. This bill will also hurt disabled people. Again MSD's own briefing clearly outlined that the outcome of this bill is that there will be an increase in poverty and material hardship amongst the disabled people affected by the delay in accessing super and they are likely to a greater extent than for non-disabled people to be impacted by this bill. They also said that it is likely that there will be an increased demand for Government services such as the disability employment services. So we're putting old people out to work and we're putting old disabled people out to work and at the same time we're announcing a ministry for disability services and committing to the inclusion of disabled people in this country. It doesn't feel consistent or holistic or our best selves and it's almost like we've decided to push forward with this bill with the full knowledge of the hurt and inequities that the bill will create. There is no research and no evidence backing the intent of this bill. It won't make super more sustainable but it will increase hardship for a group of people. It's just vibes—just harmful racist ageist xenophobic vibes—that will result in hardship for migrant families for years to come. The Greens will not be supporting this bill and instead we will focus on true economic justice. Imagine if we sought to have sustainability in our superannuation system by having a wealth tax—by actually taxing progressively—so that those who didn't need the superannuation actually had it eroded through taxation so that everyone managed to get it? There would be no barriers to access and our old people in this country as well as our children would be able to thrive and live their best lives contributing to our communities which is actually possible through having Government policy that is not a fairy tale as some of the gestures by people in the Opposition are suggesting it might be. It is actually a choice and this bill is making a different choice. It is making a choice to restrict and make people's lives more precarious and that is not something that the Greens will—any day—support.