Mark RonHon RON MARK (NZ First): This is a proud day for New Zealand First and for every single New Zealander out there who voted for New Zealand First in the 2017 election. I have to say I accept the sincerity of the Hon Alfred Ngaro's speech but I'm going to go back a little bit in history because I think this being the first reading it is appropriate that we do that. I will acknowledge with thanks and gratitude National's new-found position but I have to say to Alfred Ngaro: if you truly want to represent Pacific Island people by passing legislation such as this you're in the wrong party to do that. You should really be over on the side of the House maybe with—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Could I just encourage you not to bring the Speaker into the debate. Thank you.Hon RON MARK: Yes thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. He is in the wrong party and he could better represent them from over here. Why do I say that? I think we need to at this point in time go back and look at the history and I say the political history of this nation. On the question of superannuation generally speaking there is only one person one party that can claim the title of being the heavyweight champion of superannuitants in this region and that is the Rt Hon Winston Peters and New Zealand First. On the question of super there's only one person one party that has consistently fought for the rights of the dignity of and the well-being of superannuitants of this nation and the integrity of the superannuation policies and laws that this nation has either passed or failed to pass.I want to say that if we go back—and we need to because this is a very significant day. This is a very important day in the history of this nation when it comes to fairness equity dealing with prejudice and dealing with injustice. If we look back over history and the way in which superannuitants have been dealt with we recall very vividly the attacks on the Labour - New Zealand First Government when we introduced the SuperGold card. We look back on the cuts that were made to that and the direct impact on superannuitants during the time that National was in Government—those nine long years when they attacked the rights and privileges accorded to superannuitants through the Labour - New Zealand First SuperGold card.We look back at the surcharge the no ifs no buts no maybes" promises that it would be removed when they came to power by National and subsequently its non-removal and the fact that it took till 1996 in a coalition negotiation between New Zealand First and National to finally get rid of the surcharge.We think back to the times when people dipped their hands into the Superannuation Fund to fund other projects and Government spending. It tended to be National. If we look back to the implementation of the Cullen fund the vision that was displayed there and the courage it was a Labour - New Zealand First Government. And then we come a little bit more into the more recent past looking at who then cut the contributions and the impact that has had on sustainability and who then talked about reducing payments—it all comes back to the National Party again.If we then look at—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Could I just ask the member please come back to the specifics of this. Thank you.Hon RON MARK: I think what is important about this bill is it sets in place a promise that was made—Hon Tim Macindoe: Superannuation rose significantly under the previous Government.Hon RON MARK: —a promise that was made Mr Macindoe on the back of a Supplementary Order Paper on this very matter in a speech given by the Rt Hon Winston Peters on 29 April 2015 when the then National Government sought to deal with this problem but cut short. Now Mr Peters put down a Supplementary Order Paper that is actually reflective of what we're doing here right now.I'm going to requote some of the things he said because these things have just been repeated in the House ironically by the National Party members who now support the bill. He said at that time that this legislation that this coalition Government is now addressing and correcting was "extraordinarily biased and prejudicial towards the Realm countries in the Pacific". He said then that the "Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully has continually emphasised the special and historic relationship of the Realm countries and the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill is [only] doing … half [of the] … job." that it should. He appealed to the Minister "to finish what he started and amend the agreement to exempt the Realm countries from section 8(c)" and that's what Mr Peters' Supplementary Order Paper was all about. But did they listen? No.He talked about "A concession to those who retire to these three islands is a gesture of goodwill and their special relationship to New Zealand"—something that he's just repeated on the tour with the Prime Minister in those speeches around Pacific reset and in those discussions that he's had in the Cook Islands. So here we are backing up those words with our deeds and Minister Sepuloni is introducing this bill for its first reading which is actually a case made of a promise made and a promise kept. We're very proud of that.He talked then about a simple change in the rule which meant that they did not have to return if they are a Cook Islander a Niuean or a Tokelau Islander or for that matter if the person were a New Zealander working in the Islands. He talked about removing the need for them to return to live in New Zealand for five years and how illogical it was to deny a similar concession to a special group of retirees in the Cook Islands—re-emphasising the very point that we are now dealing with.He talked about the social and economic impact on those islands something that the Hon Alfred Ngaro has now repeated as being the reason that the National Party will support this and we applaud the Hon Alfred Ngaro for acknowledging that now but we do have to say that he could have done it in 2015. Why is it that it has taken another three years and an election to get members on that side of the House to address an issue that was simply prejudicial simply undermined the social and economic viability of these Island nations simply stripped out skilled people forcing them to return back to New Zealand leaving their whānau to meet their obligations so that they could get that portability.We would simply plead that on the day and it will happen that there is another National-led Government remember this moment. Remember this moment when they the National Party had to accept and admit that they were wrong. Front up. Don't just give a nice speech here today. Say sorry. Say sorry because Mr Peters was very clear—very clear—that at the same time that these impositions were being placed on Pacific Islanders—Niue Tokelau Cook Islands—that Government was letting 87000 people retire into New Zealand and collect superannuation after living here only 10 years—87000.When you compare that to the 400 people that we're talking about now what can one say about that? One can only say that that seemed pretty prejudicial pretty uncaring and pretty unfair. This was never about an election lolly scramble aimed at garnering votes. This was about recognising the very things that every member has spoken about this far: the history the connectivity the fact that these nations are us and we are them and about honesty fairness equity and removing a policy that was simply prejudicial and actually undermined the economic viability. It stripped out skill sets that were viable for mentoring tutoring and helping those that are still in those islands live and grow. We just hope—I should say on behalf of New Zealand First—that National will in the remaining speeches find it within itself to be a little humble and to apologise."