Menéndez March Ricardo; Bayly AndrewRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you to the member for answering the question and again for having this debate a really good debate. Look I take the point of us being able to potentially have a debate just about the sustainability of New Zealand super as a whole but this bill is very much specifically around the impact that our migrant population has on the cost of New Zealand superannuation and it very specifically targets a community. So I guess wanting to keep it within the scope of the 6000 people that the member alludes to that will be affected: how does the member justify the fairness of moving people to a main benefit and the potentially higher operational costs that somebody being on a main benefit may have in terms of taxpayer dollars? Also when the member talks about the compounding healthcare costs considering that those that may need to move on to a main benefit may end up being worse off and knowing that incomes are one of the most important determinants of health does the member foresee some of those people affected potentially having deteriorating health outcomes and therefore having a higher need in the welfare system and the healthcare system and potentially contradicting the purpose of this bill which is to create sustainability within our income support networks?ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. Well I think there's a supposition in your questioning because if you look at what's being proposed there is a staged delay before people are entitled to superannuation. What that means is that people have the opportunity and can and must work for a longer period of time. So what it's not saying is: you're not entitled to superannuation. The issue is you must have to work in New Zealand and be working here for a longer period of time. That's what most other countries have moved to anyway. So what we tried to do is come up with a practical way of getting to that point of a 20-year entitlement which is by far the norm overseas. That's my first point in response to your question.The second one is I'm not actually persuaded by the issue of complexity. You seem to make out that it's going to be very difficult and it's going to be costly or imply that it's going to be costly to administer the scheme. I'm not sure that that's actually correct. It's a pretty simple rule: for bands of two years you may have to work at one extra year of entitlement in New Zealand or if you're from a Realm country—we've also extended the provisions to Realm countries; Tokelau—you know the three countries that are Realm countries. So that's part of the provision. The third area that we've been very careful to protect is actually refugees. So what it means is if you're a refugee and you arrive here and you're 55 and older you're not caught by these provisions. You only have to work the 10 years as long as you stay in New Zealand and work. That's a specific provision to protect refugees. So if you come here at a younger age then obviously you would need to stay in New Zealand and work for that period of time to be entitled to New Zealand super. So we've tried to come up with a balance of looking at more vulnerable groups particularly refugees. We wanted to make sure we protected our Realm country interests—very important in terms of superannuation. But this is a pragmatic way of trying to increase the entitlement over a period of time so that people have sufficient time to plan for it and to be able to meet their requirements in a way that they can and prepare for it.