Leary Ingrid; Bayly AndrewINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I'd just like to pick up on the member's points about the best practice overseas raising the age of superannuation to between I believe the member said 65 to 68 and some of the conversation that was had during select committee and also when I look back at the Hansard around fairness. Indeed this is a bill which is predicated on fairness both to those who are paying superannuation and those who have been in the country and have been paying superannuation and working for a long time and balancing that with those who have an entitlement to superannuation yet may have been contributing to other economies or perhaps have been doing unpaid work. I note in the Hansard it was mentioned that life expectancies are different in Aotearoa New Zealand; there are different ages. So for example for women it is 83.5; for men generally it is 80; and when that is broken down for Māori men the expectation is much lower: it is 73; Pasifika men 75.5; Asian men 85; and so on.So I'm curious to know: when the member spoke with the Retirement Commissioner was there a discussion around the fairness relating to the retirement age and did the Retirement Commissioner believe that the two-year extension was going to be a better and fairer mitigation than perhaps raising the retirement age which in the earlier debates had been suggested by Mr Muller from the National Party? And secondly did the Retirement Commissioner speak particularly about the ethnic minorities that might be adversely affected by this—that small cohort—and was there particular concern for that group?ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you for that questioning. The first thing I would just say is that this bill is about raising the entitlement from 10 to 20 years not about raising the entitlement for anyone in New Zealand from 65 to 67 or whatever. So it is very specific this bill; I'd just make that point.In terms of the discussion with the Retirement Commissioner it was about this part of it and her recommendation that we should be delaying the commencement date as I've outlined previously—that was the focus of the discussion. So I listened to her and responded and obviously we are where we are today with the proposed Supplementary Order Paper.You referred to life expectancy—so yes there is differing life expectancy between Pākehā New Zealanders and Māori and Pasifika certainly as you highlighted and even between gender women and male and they are quite substantial. The other thing is—that you are probably not aware of—that if you look at the long-term demographics of New Zealand if you go back over the past four decades effectively the life expectancy of anyone living in New Zealand has effectively gone up one month for every year that they live. So for every decade over the last 40 years for every decade effectively the life expectancy of New Zealanders on average has gone up by one year. So there are a whole lot of changing demographics so pulling out one sort of demographic is only part of the issue.The wider issue that you are raising about the unfairness or otherwise of certain racial groups or even gender groups who have lower life expectancy and whether they should be therefore entitled to superannuation at an earlier stage is outside the bounds of this debate today. But I would say to you that it is a long-running issue that most Governments have looked at. It was an issue when we were in Government and certainly you've been in Government for now nearly four years. The issue and most of the advice—I think if you look at the advice that most officials give you if you want to talk about complexity by doing and looking at those sorts of aspects you bring an element of complexity that a member from the Greens was talking about which would make it very complex. That is why generally the advice from officials is to stay away from that and just work on a blanket issue. But as I've said before it is outside the scope of this bill.