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."