Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It's a privilege to be able to reflect and provide comment on this bill this evening. I do want to acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Melissa Lee for being lucky in getting it drawn from the ballot and being able to debate the work that she has put together. I get quite enthusiastic when people talk about vulnerability and find solutions to resolving it for those who through sometimes no means of their own find themselves in situations where they need genuine and authentic assistance from the State. So when I started hearing the Opposition talking about these words and the word compassion" too I thought "Well then there's something in here that must be good."However when I looked closer and more deeply into what's being proposed I reflected on what the Minister said when he introduced the paper around principles first because I think a good amendment—or a good bill full stop—should be based on solid principles. He reflected on the superannuation scheme and ACC and also—he didn't talk about this but important to the conversation—there is immigration. So when I looked at what underpins those three areas I suddenly found myself thinking there's a lot more to this and when I looked at the vulnerability and compassion statements I thought even in the previous bill around triangular employment that that would make a big contribution and it was a pity the Opposition didn't support that because that would go in itself a long way to supporting some of the migrant communities—in particular women—who would benefit and in fact will benefit from the outcome of that bill.The Minister talked I think quite strongly about just getting very clear around what was the guts of the bill in terms of what was in and what was out and who it would impact. I think the thing that struck for me was just a couple of themes: one in terms of migrants those coming to New Zealand—that they come with the resources necessary to ensure that they have the support in their old age. That was one theme. Secondly when you work in New Zealand and you are injured at work and you are over the age of 65 everyone gets treated the same anyway. I thought that's another theme that's important to the debate this evening.He also talked about the age of 65 and why they use it with ACC. What it suddenly became was "What is the problem that we are trying to fix here? Is there a problem here that still exists?" We know that the category was closed—the parent visa category was closed by the previous Government—so when you join the dots around principles these themes and the current situation I struggled to see what this bill was going to achieve and what problem it was going to fix. I think that's fundamental to anything that comes through this House: what exactly does this bill want to achieve? I think that that's where there are some issues because I'm not sure if this bill will fix the problem that it purports to resolve. If we want to have a conversation about extending access to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund or the scheme to a new group then that is a different conversation from what we should and are having this evening. So Labour doesn't support this amendment bill. I can't find what it's trying to fix. I don't say that in a mean-spirited way but I think there are other bills that will deliver the compassion and vulnerability solutions that this bill may try to achieve. Thank you."