Woodhouse Michael; Bayly AndrewHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well thank you Madam Chair. This is a fascinating discussion and probably in my time here rather unique—where two things have happened that I think are quite significant. When a member's bill is supported by both sides of the House there generally is some sort of background horse trading with the Minister at the select committee period and indeed that occurred. It was easy to do because there was a general acceptance that the bill as introduced while the purpose was understood the method was poor. The intent was fine but the bill was not well written and we in select committee had to basically rewrite it. Now the Ministry of Social Development and the Minister for Social Development and Employment were involved in that and I thought we had reached what was an appropriate phasing of this and there was no indication from the Minister's office or the ministry that there was any great concern. I haven't seen the advice the Retirement Commissioner has provided and that frankly is one of the problems that we have with trying to understand the value of this Supplementary Order Paper. I'm not personally convinced that it's necessary but I completely understand the sponsor of the bill who wants to pass it actually having Hobson's choice really because we need the support of Labour members in order to get this bill through—so what the Minister wants the Minister gets.The second part of the unusual part of this is that at the committee of the whole House it's very unusual for a Minister to put in such a substantive amendment to a member's bill. The behind the scenes work is usually done through the select committee and the nod and the wink is given. But this is quite overt. It's in the Minister's name effectively and giving effect to her wishes. Mr Bayly has just talked about the costs of this delay but as far as I can tell on the table there hasn't been an assessment of what the cost of this change is. So my question to the member is: has he seen those costs in any great detail? Is he satisfied that that's appropriate and that the Minister of Finance is satisfied with this? Because actually it's not really a net cost because the bill overall is going to save money over time. We're just delaying not the start date necessarily but the effective date. So has the Minister or the Government undertaken an analysis of the costs or the savings that we won't make now as a consequence of the two-year delay to the start of this?ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. Yeah there's two points to that. The first thing is I just want to be clear that it wasn't necessarily the Minister driving this delay. It was something I was very happy to consider having spoken to the Retirement Commissioner. And of course between the time that this bill was introduced and actually consulted on and the stage where we've got to today we've got a new Retirement Commissioner. The previous Retirement Commissioner was very very keen on making a strong recommendation that this should be brought in as soon as possible and very strong that it should be 20 years that we move to. The latest or current commissioner has a slightly different view and that's what reflects in the consideration in delaying this. Originally the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) was in my name but as a result of the need to go to Cabinet it was agreed that the Minister would file the SOP and of course she was in consultation with me. So I'm very grateful for that. In terms of your second point about the costs you're right. What we're doing with the delay if it gets passed is effectively foregoing a certain amount of saving of expenses so it reduces the cost of superannuation for the Government. If it had been brought in effectively today that would have meant that there would have been a lower cost for superannuation over the next couple of years. That's the cost of delaying it—that saving in terms of superannuation. I haven't seen the specific figures in response to your direct question but it was something that the Minister said that she had to take to Cabinet and has taken to Cabinet and Cabinet has approved it and as a result we've proposed this SOP.