Adams AmyHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you Madam Chairperson Williams. This is the first opportunity I've had to take a call in Part 2 of this very important piece of legislation that we're debating today—important because it is important that New Zealanders understand exactly the impact of this on them. We've had a number of opportunities to discuss the tax changes in Part 1. The parts that I want to reflect on in this contribution—well the first of the contributions I will have on this part—are firstly relating to the winter energy payment. Then I also want to touch on the accommodation supplement because it is an issue that is a critically important and substantial part of this package. It's a part of this package actually that the National-led Government when we were in office announced and funded during the 2017 Budget. And I want to acknowledge the Hon Steven Joyce because in fact it was his Budget that put in place the substantial increases to the accommodation supplement.It's not just the increase in rates in the accommodation supplement; it is the re-drafting of the areas of the accommodation supplement which will see hundreds and hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders getting real tangible assistance with their housing costs. I can see why the new Government wants to include it as part of their package as if it was theirs but it is important to put on record and to make sure that this committee and the public understand that those accommodation supplement changes are the work of the National Government and were funded under the National Government's Budget and interestingly enough were opposed by the then Labour Opposition.I remember listening to the Budget speeches and those very accommodation supplement changes that are now in Part 2 of this legislation were roundly criticised abused and opposed by the Labour Opposition. None the less they're now in Government and of course their words in Opposition don't mean a lot and now we are pleased that they are adopting our changes because they are important changes.The one question I have for the Minister in the chair which I think he should address for the record relates to Subpart 3 and particularly clause 72—that is the deeming of the operational date for these changes is 26 June 2017. Now it's quite unusual of course for legislation to act retrospectively and to pick a date in the past at which these changes will apply. I think it is important as a matter of record that the Minister in the chair Stuart Nash explain the rationale behind clause 72 where the appropriate date for the changing in the areas is somewhat randomly 26 June 2017. So I do look forward to the Minister explaining that change.I want to come back to the winter energy payment and I want to speak particularly in support of the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my colleague the Hon Louise Upston which is on the Table. It relates to what I think is a very very unfair exclusion from the winter heating payment for some superannuitants. Now we need to remember that this winter heating payment is what superannuitants get instead of their core indexed weekly super payments going up. So it's critical. Every single superannuitant would have got that core indexed repeatable increase in their super but a big chunk of those superannuitants will miss out on anything because the way this legislation is drafted says that if a superannuitant is in long-term rest home care in part funded by the Government they miss out.The point I want to make and the reason I think the Hon Louise Upston's Supplementary Order Paper should be supported is that any fees a superannuitant is contributing towards long-term rest home care includes the cost of their energy. You don't get rest home fees that don't include energy. And there are a lot of superannuitants. You know of the 750000 superannuitants a large number certainly spend part of their time in long-term rest home care. They won't get the substantial increase in their super payment which the National Government had legislated for them to have. They won't get the indexed increasing payment that they would have had and now they won't get this winter energy payment even though they still have to pay and contribute towards their energy costs. I think that's outrageous. It's unfair and we haven't heard an explanation for it.In this call I want to just respond to the Minister about when he answered David Carter's question. David Carter had asked what would happen if a scientist went to Scott Base. The Minister responded that of course that scientist would miss out because he's left New Zealand. Of course Scott Base is in New Zealand. He won't miss out the Minister might like to know.