Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I was very interested in the initial comments of Helen White—and I agree with them—regarding the degree of collegiality in the select committee on the first bill that she was part of considering. I sensed something of a surprise that there was that level of cooperation in the committee and I think new members sometimes come in with this perception that we are sort of hammer and tongs at each other across the aisle. It is I think worth putting on record that that's not the case because the select committee is the engine room of our democracy and we do work I think by and large very cooperatively within it including in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I raise that because this is what is slightly frustrating about the conversation that we're having right now. This committee did work well to take a bill with great intent but not that well worded and make it better. But I note that actually as far as I can recall—and I can't find the documentation—the Retirement Commissioner didn't actually make a submission to the select committee raising any concerns. Now I know that there has been a change to the Retirement Commissioner during that period and that somebody else has come in with a different view. That's fine—I understand that. But one of the things that we could have done is actually answered some fundamental questions. This is not a criticism of the sponsor of the bill because he quite rightly is almost compelled actually I think to agree with the Minister's proposed amendments—and they're well intended too. But it has created some confusion because what we got in the departmental report and we were able to consider was some quite good information as far as we could get from the Integrated Data Infrastructure and from Immigration New Zealand about the number of people who might be affected by this change and we haven't been able to go back and sort of recalibrate some of that information as a consequence of the change to clause 8 as articulated in the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I would like to know how many people who might have had a delay are now not going to have a delay how material this change is and what the cost of that delay is. But for Dr Webb's benefit—because he was I think not confused but asking questions about refugees—actually the substantive change in clause 8 is not to do with anything to do with refugees. The simple change is this: the amended bill as we reported it back from the select committee meant that if one was aged 64 on or before 30 June the time requirement would be 10 years. The amendment now means that one would be—and I've got to find my numbers here—62 I think on or before in order to have 10 years or is it the other way around I think. I'm trying to see—Andrew Bayly: It's 64 is it? Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes—so it would be the other way around. You can be younger now and still have a 10-year requirement. So there's actually a two-year delay before the 11-year requirement comes in the 12-year requirement and so on. In respect of refugees I think it's important to note that when a refugee is granted residence he or she is not subject to the two-year stand down for any income support whether that be jobseeker support the invalid's benefit and so on that a New Zealand resident who has arrived for other reasons might have. The select committee I think we should acknowledge was very careful in our amendments to the bill to make sure that refugees would not be affected at all. So the chair's question—Dr Webb's question—about how refugees are affected by the SOP I just want to support Mr Bayly's response. The answer is they won't be and all through this transitional period and beyond the qualification period will be 10 years. It will remain 10 years and I see the member—yes—nodding. Good because that's certainly my understanding. I think that's really important but I do want to record that I am a little perplexed that we didn't hear from the Retirement Commissioner that we weren't able as a committee to perhaps put the new SOP and turn the handle on it and then see what the impact is. It's a minor irritant to what will still be I think a significant improvement that affects a very small number of people probably aged between 50 and 64 maybe even a little younger than that—sort of between 46 and 64—but they have a long period of time within which to plan for that change.