It was then dealt with through a very constructive and robust select committee process where submitters raised their concerns and were given a very good hearing. What we heard from many submitters was that they were concerned that this was a very abrupt policy change and that it was introducing a 20-year residency requirement for eligibility for New Zealand superannuation that would create massive dislocation and impact on large groups of New Zealanders and was viewed as very unfair. The Finance and Expenditure Committee all could see that that was a genuine issue and strove to address it through the transition provisions that are in this bill. As other members have discussed, coming up with that transition regime was not straightforward. I believe even Dr Duncan Webb, a former legal professor, asked for a few explanations of exactly how and why it was worded the way it was. So to those who are later negotiating with this piece of legislation, we were pleased to be able to add some diagrams and tables to make it a little more interesting. Even the English language has limits when it comes to complex matters such as this. The select committee was able, I think, to amend the bill in a way that means it keeps to its core principles but that also ensures fair transition arrangements. 