Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Apologies for my slip there Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on this bill with—it's been a really interesting exercise. I was not part of the Finance and Expenditure Committee to hear this bill and so in my research to be able to stand and address you I've been fascinated to have a look at who we're actually talking about and what it says about the development of our country. Because as a sixth-generation Pākehā my roots lie in England and in Ireland and in Scotland. It is some of my relatives who would have benefited by that initial decision to pay the pension to New Zealanders who had been here for 25 years back in 1898—same year that we were also getting the vote which as my colleague Angie Warren-Clark has said is a fact worth repeating twice and thus I repeat it a third time.If you have a look at the groups that we are talking about here—because accusations of racism have been extended towards this policy. But of those qualifying for New Zealand super in the 12 months ending August 2020 1214 were Chinese; 4000 were like my ancestors from the UK. If you're looking at the total number of people who are actually receiving superannuation who recorded their country of birth as other than New Zealand we're talking about 86000 from Britain; 12000 from China; 7000 from India; nearly 7000 from South Africa; and those Australians—who I have to also include in my whakapapa—16000.This is an inquiry into the make-up of our society and the ongoing make-up of our immigrant population that is I think refuting any accusation that this is about racism. What it is about is the place of superannuation in our society and superannuation as a mark of respect and a mark of consideration to those who have contributed to our society over the years paid and unpaid. When it was begun way back in 1898 it was of course a very different beast and there were some very—I would say now—repugnant moral clauses attached to it in order to receive your little pension. And it was a very small pension. By today's standards it would have been fairly minuscule. To receive your pension you had to show you were of good character. You had to deserve your stipend in your poverty. Today we recognise that actually what this is about is recognising the contribution that people make without judgment of that kind and it is important.I would also say to those who are cautious about this bill that it is relevant to look at what other countries do not because we measure ourselves by them and we certainly seek to lead them but because it is of use in assessing what we're doing here today. So we and Australia are at this stage until this bill hopefully passes the only people to give a minimum of 10 years' residence from the age of 20 when the maximum rate of super is payable immediately. If you look around the other countries whom we compare ourselves to they tend to take a pro-rata basis and they put things over a much longer period. So in Canada you get a pro-rata basis of your super if you're an immigrant going over 40 years. It's 40 years' residence before you would be entitled to the full whack. In Denmark it is again 40 years I believe. In the UK it is 35 years before you receive the maximum. There is something relevant in a country saying This is a mark of your contribution to society." and I do not think it is immoral to make that point when it is all of us who are paying into this fund to recognise contributions paid and unpaid to our society. The contributions of parents who have taken time out of work for example are as valuable.But I do want to commend the select committee and in fact all of those who were involved in the process of writing this bill because it was a remarkable process. To think that a bill that came from New Zealand First was picked up by Mr Bayly sitting opposite was brought forward in what was described I'm sure in good part by Dr Webb as being a one-liner which said "Cross out 10 years; put in 20." has evolved into something quite nuanced and sophisticated. That is to the great credit of all of those involved. I do want to do a shout-out to those members of the select committee for their hard work because it is often hard in a select committee when you have differing opinions but look what they've produced. It's remarkable and it's helpful.It is also a mark of the contribution of the Minister who put aside her own workload to tautoko a good idea and make it work. So congratulations to Minister Sepuloni. It is also a really interesting demonstration of the importance of the Retirement Commissioner because it was Jane Wrightson the Retirement Commissioner who came back and registered some really significant concerns and tweakings—better late than never.But this is really interesting. So in this little bill—this quite small member's bill—we've had a New Zealand First bill taken by National worked on by a majority Labour select committee worked heavily on by a Minister of a Labour Government contributed to by the Retirement Commissioner and then most of all contributed to also by members of the public. And I do want to do a shout-out to my colleague Naisi Chen the baby of the House for her work in making sure that the migrant community had a voice in this process. Naisi is doing a stellar job and it is wonderful to see her making her mark.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I do apologise to the member for interrupting her speech. If the member from ACT could please put his mask on.Hon Member: There was a moment of peace though which we all appreciate.Dr EMILY HENDERSON: Well peace broke out is my point. Peace broke out in this process and it is a wonderful thing to see in the lead-up to Christmas. Peace broke out in this House and up until a few moments ago there was peace right now. But perhaps what we are hearing is merely the jolly warm-up to a rendition of "Silent Night".But to return to the bill—because I feel Madam Speaker you might be about to tell me to—I do just want to say there is a larger question here and that is the question of how we handle superannuation. Because I do agree that it is not a sufficient reason to make a change like this that it is of great fiscal significance; it's of minor fiscal significance but in the longer term we need to think about how we are going to handle super.It is a mark of the respect we give each other and our contribution over many years in society that we pay super. I find it very sad that we are in the situation where the members opposite wanted to raise that age by a further two years before people are entitled to it causing great hardship for those in vulnerable groups whose life expectancy sadly is less or whose work is hard and who need to be able to retire earlier. I find it very sad that in 1974 only a year before—in 1975 people would be fully entitled to their super when they migrated but in 1974 we had the super fund which would I believe now have some $278 billion in it had it not been stopped by the Government of the members opposite. I feel very sad also that we are missing the $14 billion in the New Zealand super fund or the Cullen fund from 2001 that would have accrued had the National Government in 2012 had the courage and the courtesy to its citizenry. Therefore I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Christopher Luxon—five-minute call."