Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): 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.Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: 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."