Salesa Jenny; Smith DamienASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before the dinner break we were discussing New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill.DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Madam Speaker thank you very much. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to support Mr Bayly's bill and pay respect to Mr Patterson's legacy–also to my colleagues across the House in terms of their commitment to the bill and also to the officials who I think have done an excellent job on this bill.The whole idea of the bill was to improve fairness of superannuation of people who have been resident and present in New Zealand and who will benefit from having a substantive connection with New Zealand. The bill is also intended to contribute to the sustainability of superannuation. New Zealand's superannuation system is one of the world's most generous schemes. It's one of the few pension schemes internationally that is given to everyone who fits the residency criteria. If you're legally resident and you've lived here for 20 years after the age of 20 as we are proposing it's not means-tested or income tested. Other countries take a very different approach. Many rely on schemes that are based on compulsory contribution from wages and from employers. The State only ever steps in when those are left without enough.Our system is fair and cost-effective and New Zealand super payments are taxed where those in other schemes are not. At current rates it virtually singlehandedly pulls over-65-year-olds out of poverty and enables a basic standard of living and helps to offset residential care for older pensioners. To that effect I don't really understand the Green Party of New Zealand's argument around why we shouldn't have this.The Ministry of Social Development showed that there were 774651 people receiving super in March 2019. By 2060 the numbers are projected to be closer to 1.838 million. And by that stage people over the current pension age will be 28.2 percent of the population compared with 15.4 percent in 2018 which is a massive jump. In 1996 New Zealand spent $5 billion on New Zealand super which has grown to $10 billion in 2021. And if you take a 2059 to 2060 view it is a hundreds of billions of dollars issue. Superannuation currently costs an amount equal to 5 percent of GDP. At the ACT Party we believe any change to the law must be equitable for all and its core must not provide uncertainty for retirement planning or reduce vulnerability and it should not affect equity. The bill must contribute to the sustainability of super in New Zealand which we believe it does.There will be a big shift in the proportion of Government spending that goes to retirees as demographics dictate. Within the bill the transitional provisions are very important. We've had fellow speakers talk about the phased benefits by age matrix which was a great piece of work by the officials and we believe very fair.One of the issues we do feel strongly about and we agree with both sides of the House is that the implementation period must not affect people's planning. It should be equitable. For people who are in the 60-plus age group it shouldn't create any uncertainty. Therefore we believe that a two- to five-year period is worthy of consideration. There's a worry that too many New Zealanders who are approaching retirement years are in poor financial shape and we tend to agree with that. At a macro level New Zealand super is sustainable over a 30-year period but we believe now we've got some serious thinking to do. Unlike the Green Party we believe this is a start. We believe that it doesn't limit any growth in income and it does protect against poverty amongst older people. We're particularly proud in this bill of the treatment of the Islands of refugees of people who have had uncertainty with regards to the COVID implications overseas and also looking at the ability for veterans to be treated fairly.One of the things that we do believe at the ACT Party is that in terms of super generally as a standalone means of saving and superannuation as a second form of net it is one of the most complex areas of confusion in the financial sector. We believe we should start thinking now over the 30-year period because we believe it's sustainable for the next 30 years but needs to have some radical change to meet future requirements. So to that extent we're very proud to support the bill tonight and we look forward to the next stage. Thank you.