Edmonds Barbara; Bayly AndrewBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to thank the member for his constructive work during the process and during the select committee process. As you can see the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that's been tabled by the Minister I understand has been in consultation with the member as a result of the Retirement Commissioner. Now I just want to go back to what was agreed during the select committee period so I can walk through it and then I'd like to ask the member a couple of questions in relation to those changes that have been recommended in the SOP if that's OK.So if I look back during the select committee period we had submissions from a number of submitters. In particular I can recall the Browns Bay Chinese Society submission and they had set out a table which is very similar to the one that is in the revision-tracked (RT) version of the bill that was reported back by the select committee. In that particular table—although it was slightly different in the RT version—I understand that we had come to an agreement during the select committee period that we would go by periods of dates so that there wasn't so much of a cliff so that as soon as somebody had got to the point where they were able to receive superannuation instead of just dropping off the cliff straight away from a 20-year to a 10-year applicant period we would phase it in over particular periods. So if I looked at the RT version of the bill I think it was clause 4 replacement section 8(4) it was around I think between 1 July 1957 and 30 June 1959 it was 11 years; if you look at 1959 and 1961 it was 12; 1961 and 1963 13; and it carries right through to on or after 1 July 1975 which was 20 years.That was a really constructive discussion we had during the select committee. I understand that a lot of the submitters—not just the Chinese association but there was a couple of others. I know that the reason that we did this again was to prevent that cliff face. There was also a really good example that was put in there by officials which is quite unusual for a bill of this type and that was around if A person … is born overseas on … 1965 [they move] to New Zealand and becomes both resident and present in New Zealand on 1 July 2020 at age 55. The earliest date … which B can meet their can meet their total time requirement is 14 years later on 1 July 2034 at age 69. B meets this requirement by being both resident and present in New Zealand for a total of 12 years in the Cook Islands". Now if I look specifically to the SOP that's been tabled by the Minister my question is to the member: how did—I see they've shifted. They have moved based on SOP 58. Can you please give some background as to why the Retirement Commissioner recommended that move from 1957 to 1959 that's carried out now in the new clause 4 in that SOP please?ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you—very good question. So the primary driver in the discussion with the Retirement Commissioner that I had was she was particularly concerned that for people who are very close to retiring even though the requirement might have been that they had to work for an extra year actually for some that was quite unfair. And so she recommended that we should delay the commencement date to allow those very close to retirement age to be able to have time to work with their employers if they needed to work an extra year rather than retiring to 65 they could work through to 66. So it meant not only could the individual plan what they wanted to do with their life but also hopefully they had the opportunity to continue working at the firm where they were employed. And so it's just a pragmatic approach to literally trying to deal with the short-term issue of when do you start commencing this progressive stage-in. As you pointed out in clause 4 effectively we've got the same two-year requirement bands but what we've done is just pushed out the first commencement date to effectively 1 July 2023.BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): I thank the member for clarifying that shift between what was recommended by the select committee and then the Retirement Commissioner. My question around that is—I understand perhaps the Retirement Commissioner actually asked for a longer period? I'm not quite sure; I've just picked up the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) off the Table today but I understand that the delay based on what is currently in the SOP hasn't gone as far as what she wanted publicly. However I believe this phased implementation does strike a balance as you've just discussed. What exactly was it that the Retirement Commissioner was recommending and why have we not gone with that extended period rather than the period we've currently gone with?ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. Well the discussion was around whether it should be between one and five years. Obviously at that point we have had a bill that was introduced to the House that was talking about effectively an immediate introduction which had been recommended by officials. We had a discussion—and I'm saying she and I had a discussion. She had a view that it could be certainly longer than two years. Her approach was that we should make it as long as practicable and she certainly talked about the five-year period. But obviously what you're driving at is a question of discretion and judgment and it's something I've discussed with Minister Sepuloni as to what is an appropriate date. I think we both came to agree that we thought two years for a delayed commencement date. We've still got the same delay over the next 12 years before you get to the full 20-year entitlement but it was all around just how long do you delay the start point.Of course from the Government's perspective there's quite a financial cost to that and one of the reasons why we had a bit of a delay on this bill was that we had to look at the financial considerations—that's something the Cabinet had to look at. And so we've struck a balance which we think is appropriate. Obviously some people will want it longer. If you look at survey results there's an overwhelming desire that this bill be introduced and be made to be in effect very quickly. So you've got to get a judgment between those who think we should not be allowing people to come here and immediately get superannuation after 10 years and those who think we should have more delays and I think we've sort of struck a balance on that."