Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand today in support of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill in its second reading. It's a little bit of an anti-climax for me to stand and speak considering I've just followed the deputy leader's speech. It's a great pitch Ron Mark and if we're scoring you you would be right up there.Hon Member: It was a challenge. He wants the job back.MAUREEN PUGH: We know he wants the job. We've had some very enlightened and sometimes irrelevant contributions on this bill during this round of reading the second reading but I will do my best to maintain my focus.This is an omnibus bill and my understanding of the use of omnibus" means that it reflects some changes in more than one bill which this one certainly does and it makes changes to the New Zealand superannuation and the veterans' pension. The purpose of the bill is to allow people from the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau to be able to be resident in New Zealand for a minimum of 10 years after the age of 20 and five years after the age of 50 to qualify for New Zealand super—the bill will in fact mean that that New Zealand residency post-50 so the five years after 50 will actually apply in the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau.One of the main reasons behind this change is that there was concern in those Islands about the depopulation of those Islands to New Zealand in order to qualify for the New Zealand superannuation or veterans' pension. By having those five years after 50 at that age people are probably well settled here in this country there was less motivation perhaps to go back to the Islands for their retirement instead preferring to stay in New Zealand where their families are. A motivator for coming to New Zealand in the first place as we heard during the submission period was to further education or to come here for work or to reconnect with family that were already resident here. So now this bill is proposing that provided they have spent 10 years here in New Zealand after the age of 20 their return to the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau after the age of 50 for five years will mean that they will qualify for New Zealand superannuation or veterans' pension.There were seven submissions made to the select committee; two oral submissions including a very impassioned one from the High Commissioner from Niue. His submission was suggesting that the 10 years after 20 and the five years after 50 would apply in any of the countries of the Realm and although it was quite an ambitious request the committee and the advisers did suggest it was far outside of the scope of the intention of the bill.There were concerns raised during the submission period that this bill was actually not complying with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act of 1990 and one of the submitters had actually taken a case to Human Rights Review Tribunal based on this but the advice received was that this did appear to be consistent with the rights and freedoms as in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and so as a result there were no changes suggested.My contribution to this debate is actually going to be about the suggestion one submitter had which was that all of the Pacific Islands be included in this bill which of course deemed it out of scope for the contribution. But I thought it was an opportune time to pay tribute to the other Pacific Islands because I know from the area I am in West Coast - Tasman that the Pacific Islands and the contribution they make to our Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) schemes—and then further to the economic prosperity of not only the areas they come to work in here in New Zealand but their own country when their funds are able to go back—absolutely makes a different to us all. I think that partnership is invaluable to all of those Islands. There are 11100 places available as at the end of last year for RSE workers and I think it is a fine opportunity to pay tribute to them and I'm sure the orchardists and vineyards around New Zealand would also accept that.In coming to a close I'm actually going to suggest that we shelve this bill. The reason for that is last week Mark Patterson from New Zealand First was fortunate to have his member's bill drawn from the ballot; the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill. Now I congratulate Mark Patterson. He's been quite lucky in having that one drawn. I think he's had two drawn in the short time he's been here. He stated very confidently that he believes he's going to get support across the House for his member's bill. But what that will do is actually make the residency requirement 20 years here in New Zealand so it looks like we're going to be debating two separate bills that are conflicting in terms of the outcome that is required.We have not had that discussion as a caucus but that proposal was actually put forward as the Hon Ron Mark has already mentioned today by National by Sir Bill English last year in June I believe it was. So it is a concept that National has supported in the past but with two bills now with two different time frames attached to them it seems only logical that we should put this bill and this debate on hold while we see the outcome of this new bill that has been introduced into the House.I will wind up my contribution by just talking to some of the other submissions that were heard by the Social Services and Community Committee. One of those was about the objectives around the constitutional arrangements that we have with Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau—[Visitors enter gallery] A colourful contribution in the House today!One of the submitters as I talked about before said that this could apply to the other 22 countries in the Pacific and our contribution back was that the provisions that are already in our arrangements around the 10 years after 20 and the five years after 50 was applicable to all of those other Islands and that we would not be making any further changes to the bill.The bill as it's been presented to the House is unchanged from the original and even though we did have some very good contributions from our submitters I think that we've found a good place. I think also that if the House is of the opinion that we should delay having any further debate on this bill while we see what the alternative bill of Mark Patterson's comes to then I think that would be a very appropriate outcome. With that I commend this bill to the House."