Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm delighted to talk in the second reading of the fair residency bill. But before I do it would behove me I think just to provide some kind of commentary on Mr O'Connor's rugby prowess because as a sprightly—I think—20- or 21-year-old in the western suburbs second team some years ago Greg O'Connor was the vice-captain or captain and very much the senior some would say geriatric member of that team. But I have to say he did have many skills. He had many qualities. Yelling was one of them and all I could say is if words had wings Mr O'Connor would have flown along the rugby field.I must commend both the member who introduced the bill Mark Patterson farmer of Lawrence former MP and my colleague Andrew Bayly who has passaged it through the select committee process. But Greg O'Connor describes the work as sterling". Well of Mr Patterson's work I would suggest that it was more solid than sterling because when the bill was introduced it was pretty much a one-pager. And the select committee had to do quite a bit of work to panel beat it into a shape that meant that the policy effect could be given but that the unintended consequences—or at least by the members of the select committee by the time it was referred—Greg O'Connor: Speaking ill of the dead.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —the unintended consequences were not—well I try not to speak ill. As one of my colleagues said in the first reading that it was a lazy piece of legislation from our friend in New Zealand First. I probably wouldn't go that far but there's no doubt that no one on the Finance and Expenditure Committee through the process wanted to see people negatively affected because the bill as introduced would have had a person on the day that the Act came into effect—say at the age of 64 years and nine months—who would have had to have waited over 10 years in order to qualify for New Zealand superannuation. I'm sure that wasn't what Mr Patterson intended it certainly was what he introduced and which we agreed at first reading needed to have some serious panel-beating done to it. So I'd like to thank the officials who contributed I think very sensible suggestions. I note the Minister for Social Development may well be interested in the kudos that I think we all would give them because they worked very hard to make sure that the bill was in good shape when it came out of the select committee.The three main areas that formed the basis of the more than 350-odd submissions that we received and the 15 submissions that we heard were: the transition process so that that wasn't affected and both Mr Bayly and Mr O'Connor have covered that off. But it was also to ensure that two other important groups were not even more negatively affected; that is those people who reside in our Realm countries Tokelau Niue and one other.Ingrid Leary: Cook Islands.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Cook Islands thank you very much Ms Leary. But also the issue around refugees. And this was going to be a particular problem for refugees. So I think the amendment that the committee is recommending to the House is to ensure that there are some carve-outs for refugees who as the select committee report indicates don't really have a choice either to come to New Zealand the timing of their arrival in New Zealand or any choice in most cases to return to their country of origin. So I think those were perfectly sensible suggestions.I just want to finish on another note that I think is relevant and this is because the National Party actually had this policy in its manifesto in the 2017 election. So of course we were going to support it. But it also talked about having an honest conversation with New Zealanders about the affordability of New Zealand superannuation. And the officials—Simon Court: You can borrow that line.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —when providing—sorry?Simon Court: You can borrow that line.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: All right I got one for free. Well an honest conversation it needs to be and indeed I thought we would have had one with the Labour Party when Jacinda Ardern was their spokesperson on social development but then as Leader of the Opposition and now as Prime Minister did a 180-degree turn on that. Apparently it isn't such a compelling issue after all.But I note that the officials in advising the committee on what happens in other OECD countries both with the age of eligibility and with the qualifying period if one spends time out of their countries—nearly all of the countries we received advice about have retirement age and superannuation qualification age higher than ours and rising. So they look as though they are doing a graduated process from age 65 to age 67 at least. But if one reads policy documents or commentaries from around the world that is being revisited even as they have taken a step that we haven't. I note with interest that there is a gender bias in Switzerland. Members might be interested to note that the age of eligibility which does remain 65 for men is actually 64 for women which is fascinating. I would have thought that if there was to be a gender bias it might have been the other way round given that in most OECD countries men don't last nearly as long as women do in terms of average life expectancy. So there's something that I'll go and research. But in the meantime I think the bill comes back to this House in much better shape than it was referred to the committee. I commend colleagues but certainly officials and the support of the clerks for enabling us to consider now a bill that's in much better shape and I commend it."