Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the second reading of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill. As the Green Party's immigration and senior citizens portfolio holder it comes with great shame that we cannot in good conscience support the bill for several reasons. But I firstly want to start by acknowledging the contributions of previous speakers who talked at length about the history of our superannuation scheme and the important contributions it actually has made over the years to reduce poverty rates amongst our senior citizens. It is a scheme that while many members have discussed the issue of sustainability is critical to ensure that our low-income whānau who reach their twilight years have a safety net for them to subsist. And what has been really concerning over the past few years is the increasing rates of hardship amongst our senior citizens—in fact more of our senior citizens are now requiring food grants from Work and Income to survive and the rate of senior citizens requiring food grants from Work and Income has gone up by 50 percent between 2014 and 2019. That is something that is concerning and should be of concern to all of us. I don't think we want to see our senior citizens in hardship growing.What this bill aims to do is to increase the number of years that people need to live in Aotearoa New Zealand as new migrants before they can qualify for the New Zealand super and the rhetoric behind the intent of this bill was to make our superannuation scheme fairer. But I want to point to a submission by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) that I think points at some really key facts—particularly on the issue of restricting superannuation for new migrants contributing to the sustainability of the New Zealand Superannuation scheme. An assessment made by the Ministry of Social Development found that the fiscal savings would only be at around 0.3 percent of the cost of New Zealand super. This takes into account increased benefit numbers as a result of people not meeting the new residency requirements for New Zealand super and the veteran's pension. So while the intent of this bill was around sustainability the Ministry of Social Development was quite clear that actually this bill would not achieve that intent. But what the Ministry of Social Development submission also pointed out was that this bill would increase hardship and it was clear that this bill will increase hardship amongst our senior citizens at a time where we are already seeing increasing rates of hardship. I want to point out page 17 of the Ministry of Social Development's submission point 90 where it says that Increasing the residence requirements for [New Zealand superannuation] will inevitably increase income poverty and material hardship amongst seniors."I am saddened that this House is passing a bill that will increase inequality amongst groups some of which are already facing discrimination in many many levels of our society. While I acknowledge that the Finance and Expenditure Committee made attempts at creating a transition period so that people wouldn't be so harshly affected as the bill came into effect I think that the end result of this bill will be as the Ministry of Social Development submission highlights an increase in hardship.Our migrant communities come from several backgrounds when it comes to the level of welfare they come into the country with. We can't ignore that many migrants of the global south have come under types of visas and types of unemployment that don't yield a lot of income. Our senior citizens may not be in Aotearoa with already a safety net and MSD's submission talks about how many people will have to tap into their own savings and to the goodwill of their communities in order to survive. What this will end up doing is putting more pressure on the people who won't be able to qualify for the New Zealand super and will then need to go on a main benefit or require emergency assistance from Work and Income. What it will do is put more pressure on our welfare system at a time where we are seeing a record number of hardship grants.So this almost feels like for the people who will be put in hardship as a result of this bill we are going to be putting them into a situation with added bureaucracy at a time where I think all of us want to relieve that pressure off front-line Work and Income staff. So the Green Party cannot support this bill in good conscience for the effects that it will have in our communities. It is a step towards dismantling a scheme that actually has been really critical in reducing poverty rates. I would challenge people who say that the superannuation scheme is really generous at this time to look at the facts and the figures of the fact that quite a few senior citizens are now struggling financially. Not all of our people from the baby-boomer generation are wealthy individuals as sometimes the media likes to portray—Andrew Bayly: So what's your solution?RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —in fact many people are really struggling right now. And I hear the contribution from the member in charge of the bill about what the solution is. Well the solution is to continue investing in our safety net to tax the rich and ensure that we have a tax system that allows us to raise enough revenue so that we have a sustainable safety net. I don't think that calling for taxing the rich in order to have a safety net that works for all of us is a radical thing. I think the fact that it is really making the members to my right annoyed speaks to the fact that in fact those are the sorts of solutions that the other side of the House should be hopefully looking at.The New Zealand Superannuation scheme I think is a treasure to this country. Many countries around the world do not have a safety net that allows for senior citizens to be supported. I hope that despite this bill likely passing—seeing as it seems to have the support of both sides of the House—we look to ensuring that our migrant communities are well supported because what I also don't want to see is negative health outcomes as a result of loss of income seeing as we know that income is one of the most important determinants of health. For those migrant communities who will miss out on the superannuation and who may not have a lot of income support from the goodwill of their community or being able to access hardship grants I would hate for their health to deteriorate faster therefore needing to go to the doctor or to hospitals as a result of not having critical income and that actually putting further costs on a system that is already under a lot of stress.Taking steps to discriminate our migrant community under the pretence of making our superannuation scheme fairer is pure rhetoric dog-whistle politics and as per the Ministry of Social Development submission not backed by facts and figures. We don't stand by dog-whistle politics that discriminate against our communities and so we cannot commend this bill to the House."