Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I still don't understand. I mean I know that the Minister wanted to school us on what policy-neutral is. We do know what policy-neutral is; we want to know what her interpretation of it is. Again that is another good example of being policy-neutral but not good enough. So I think actually what we do understand now is that what the Minister is saying is: actually it's policy-neutral under her own definition. If it's good enough for the definitions in the dictionary of the bill why isn't it also good enough—and in this House there's been many debates to recognise the different types of relationships. I mean let's be real: in this House there have been debates acknowledging whether it's a de facto relationship a civil union or a married relationship. Why is it not good enough to have it in the legislation so that it's very clear there? So I still think that actually I'm sure many of us on this side don't agree with the Minister's response.But Madam Chair I know you are looking for new and fresh forms of debate and I would like to give that to you in the form of in Part 4 new clause 203A in Supplementary Order Paper 25 and this is in particular to do with the factors affecting benefit and the absence from New Zealand. I note that hasn't been debated as yet in Part 4 and I think it's particularly important because this is to do with the winter energy payments. Now I know that the Minister keeps saying that this is policy-neutral but it wasn't there before; it is now under this new Government. Anyway we won't go into that debate. That was a debate that was had. But under this it talks about the special absence rule". So we talk about the winter energy payment: "[payment] is not payable for 1 or more days while a beneficiary is absent from New Zealand". We get that; we understand it. Subclause (2): "The winter energy payment is payable to a beneficiary for 1 or more days during any 1 or more absences". We get that as well. It then comes to subclause 2(a) "the payment would but for those 1 or more absences … (b) the chief executive is satisfied that the 1 or more absences do not affect the beneficiary's eligibility for the payment under section 65C."I would like to actually include in this because I think it's important that we have the recognition of many of our beneficiaries and I'm speaking of the Pasifika community in particular. There are many who are superannuitants who often will return back to the Pacific for a number of different reasons and I'd like to include in this—and it's not a Supplementary Order Paper but I'm going to debate it—that if the Minister would consider then having in section 3 a clause that would state: "a person may apply to the chief executive"—in this case again—"for exemption in a special absence under the special absence rule for—(a) caring for children who may be located overseas; (b) health conditions which require time in warmer conditions". So there are many instances where—I know I've had constituents and others who have come to our offices and talked to us about the need to actually go away to warmer climates because often that suits their conditions; their health conditions as well. And more importantly—"(c) serious illness to immediate family overseas." And on many occasions that's the case.Now if the Government is clear that the winter energy payments are for those superannuitants it doesn't want to disadvantage those who for a genuine reason have had to leave the country. Again it could be for caring for children who could be located overseas—often grandchildren or "(b) health conditions which require time in warmer conditions". Often it's the case—again because constituents that I know of have had to go back to the beautiful islands whether it's Fiji Samoa Tonga and of course the most beautiful islands the Cook Islands. They'll go there because the conditions actually allow them to be able to recuperate and to recover. But (c) is "serious illness to immediate family overseas." I think this is not unreasonable. Again if I reiterate the points that the Minister has said: this is just simply adding to—it's not changing—the policy intent. It's not changing the policy direction. It's making sure that it ensures that for those who are genuinely absent from New Zealand for genuine reasons and considerations the chief executive will take these into consideration and they will not be penalised for that.So I think this has been a contribution that I've made on a part that actually has not had any debate so far in Part 4. I think that I'd like to consider that the Minister—I know what she'll do: she'll come up again and she'll talk about her own views but I think as Maureen Pugh said she had the Golden Kiwi ticket. We don't talk about Golden Kiwi; we talk about Lotto tickets now but anyway back in our day it was Golden Kiwi. I do hope this could be the Golden Kiwi. The Minister may just consider that this could be the one that is policy-neutral enough to be able to consider this for an amendment and a change to the bill."