Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): It's good to be able to take a call on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill a bill that came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee which I was a member of. I'd like to thank the member who is sponsoring this bill Andrew Bayly—who picked up this bill from the previous member Mark Patterson of New Zealand First—both for his constructiveness during the select committee and his flexibility with some of the changes that we've made. I'd like to take the time to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Carmel Sepuloni and her Ministry of Social Development (MSD) officials for their advice. I believe this bill would not be in its workable form had we not had their input. For any members who have actually picked the bill up off the Table today it evidences how much input the officials had because there was only the title and the commencement clause that have survived the select committee phase. That's how much this bill has changed during the Finance and Expenditure Committee.The bill as introduced seeks to change the residence requirements from 10 to 20 years. As introduced the new requirement would also apply from the date of Royal assent which has not changed. In the first reading Mark Patterson spoke of the history of the current 10-year threshold. He noted that the current 10-year threshold came into law in 1938 when life expectancy for men was 65 and for women was 68. He also spoke of his intentions for this bill. His belief was—and I quote—… New Zealanders those that have been out of the country for extended periods contributing to other economies and recent immigrants to be able to receive the same benefits upon turning 65 as those of us that have been here doing the hard yards at home paying our taxes and contributing to our economy." The member currently sponsoring the bill has also spoken tonight of the generosity of our current scheme.To me and for many members who have spoken before me this all points to fairness. Therefore the policy mischief that the Finance and Expenditure Committee sought to respond to for me was covered in three key questions: one whether having been resident and present in New Zealand for 10 years is too short a period for entitlement to New Zealand superannuation; the second question is whether an increase in residency requirements would contribute to the sustainability of New Zealand's superannuation; and three whether an increase in residence requirements would contribute to the fairness of New Zealand's super for people who have contributed to New Zealand for longer. I'll come back to these three policy questions.Our belief on this side of the House has guided us through that whole select committee process. Around 832000 people receive New Zealand super or the veterans pension. We want to secure the future of New Zealand's super on this side of the House. That's why we resumed the contributions to the super fund when we came back into Government in 2017. The failure to invest under previous Governments we believed put the retirement plans of Kiwis at risk. We're also keeping the age of superannuation eligibility at 65 years. Lifting the age of eligibility we believe on this side of the House would have unfairly disadvantaged some groups in society more than others—for example life expectancy varies for people of different ethnicities. New Zealand Māori and Pacific people have lower life expectancy versus non-Pacific and non-Māori. Also life expectancy also varies depending on what you do and where you work; so for blue collar workers—the plumbers the builders—versus white collar which is people that work in businesses or in offices.So going to the changes to the bill at select committee any changes to entitlement rules for superannuation—and in fact benefits or entitlements in general—have to be considered very carefully. And again the work that MSD officials put into this bill has meant that the changes that the Finance and Expenditure Committee is recommending removes the very sharp cliff face that the bill as introduced would have had—which leads me to one of the main changes in the bill that has been spoken about tonight which is the phased increase by birth date.Now we heard it from many submitters who were concerned about the lack of transitional arrangements in the bill. I wanted to actually refer to a particular group of submitters which my colleague and member Dr Duncan Webb also referred to which was the Browns Bay Chinese society. Now their submission stood out for me. They were incorporated in 2007 and they have around 170 active members. I quote from parts of their submission: "The bill is totally lack of considerations about its possible negative impacts on the wellbeing of a portion of the older population. … Although it looks rather simple the change this bill proposes is far from trivial. In fact the propose[d] changes would affect many New Zealanders in both short term and long term and there are many open questions and concerns about the scope of the change and measures the bill should take to make the change fair and balanced."They go to on page 4 of their submission some recommendations as to how to fix that cliff face. In particular I quote recommendation three in clause 4 that you amend proposed section 8. They provide a really great table which has year of birth the year of age or residency granted and the minimum residency qualification. They finish their submission with "We hope the Select Committee could give serious consideration to our comments and recommendations." Well I'd like to be able to say tonight to the Browns Bay Chinese Society that that's exactly what we've done. What we've realised is that almost overnight with the bill as introduced people could be faced with substantial delays of up to 10 years before they were eligible for superannuation.To mitigate this risk we introduced the longer residence requirement through a phased increase by birth date as set out in new clause 4 of the bill which funnily enough looks very similar to the table that was provided to us by the Browns Bay Chinese Society! There was just a slight change because they proposed that the bill should commence in four years' time not at the date of Royal assent. But that to me proves how good the select committee process can be when (1) you have members across the particular tables in that select committee work together and (2) you have really considered well-advanced submissions. So again thank you to the Browns Bay Chinese Society because your submission was very convincing and it is shown in the bill that's on the Table tonight.The last particular part of the bill that I do want to talk to speaks to me as a member of our Labour Pasifika caucus our 10-member strong Labour Pasifika caucus and that's in relation to the Realm countries. The other key changes in the bill are the modifications for our Realm countries of the Cook Islands of Niue and of Tokelau. Now we know as Pacific members that there were recent changes to the superannuation and veterans pension schemes to allow people to migrate to New Zealand's Realm countries—the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau—before they turn 65 and still receive superannuation. For someone to be eligible migrating to a Realm country then they still have to have been resident and present in New Zealand for at least 10 years since the age of 20.The policy intention behind those super and veterans pension changes was to help the Realm countries' efforts against depopulation. For a lot of our Realm countries the people were coming to New Zealand and staying here. This was one way for the Government to be able to recognise that actually going back to your homeland is a good thing and I know many of our retirees from the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau have been able to enjoy that superannuation that comes with going back home. So the committee was concerned that this amendment would incentivise people to not return to their homelands and we believed that it was contrary to the policy intention to help prevent depopulation within the Realm countries. So therefore we have put in some exemptions or some rule changes around that as part of the bill in section 8 of the Act. The select committee also recommended modifications for refugees and protected persons which is why again I thank the members of the select committee for coming to that point and it is disappointing that the Greens were not accepting of this particular change.So going back to those three key policy questions that I believe the Finance and Expenditure Committee had to address: (1) whether having been resident and present in New Zealand for 10 years is too short a period for entitlement to New Zealand super—we believe that the bill as proposed the revised tracked version yes 10 years is too short; (2) whether an increase in residency requirements would contribute to the sustainability of New Zealand super—although not a primary consideration yes we do believe the changes that we've put in the revised tracked version of the bill do contribute to the sustainability of New Zealand's super but also again the contributions that we've restarted under the previous Government to the super fund are extremely important there too; and (3) whether an increase in residence requirements contributes to the fairness of New Zealand super for people who have contributed in New Zealand for longer—that's pretty much a no-brainer based on the revised version of the bill.Increasing the residence requirements for New Zealand super is about improving fairness because of longer- and shorter-term New Zealand residents and it safeguards the future of superannuation. The current residence requirements ensures that almost all New Zealanders are protected in our older age and so I commend this bill to the House."