In this bill, the person who is introducing it, Mark Patterson, suggests that 20 years is the appropriate length of time. Who knows? That's actually a discussion that's worth having. At what point does it become reasonable for a person to expect that they too would be entitled to New Zealand superannuation? Actually, 10 years seems like a number just pulled out of the air, and so does 20 years. They could be the right numbers, and that is certainly a discussion we should have. I'd also suggest that perhaps we should look at the number of years that a person should have lived and worked here from age 50. At the moment it's five years. Of those 10 years that you have to have had in the country, five of them must be after age 50. Perhaps we should look at that too. These are all questions that are worth discussing, worth having a good look at, and worth understanding what it would actually save us, because if it turns out to be not much, well, then, what's the problem? But maybe it is still doing something there. So I am looking forward to the discussion and I commend this bill to the House.