Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Chair. It's an absolute pleasure to follow on from my colleague Mr Ngaro. A few minutes ago I was listening to the longest five minutes of my life when Mr Greg O'Connor was speaking. I thought to myself I really want to describe that as a triumph of form over substance but quite frankly that form is so derelict not even a panel beater could knock it into shape. It was followed on then by the Minister in the chair Peeni Henare who made a comment. He's talking about new Subpart 9A where I will spend most of my contribution on—Subpart 9A of Part 2 in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25. My colleagues suggested a Supplementary Order Paper about making it a bit more universal; he said It's not policy-neutral. We can't support that." Well how Minister is the inclusion of new Subpart 9A anything but policy-not-neutral? How can you describe the inclusion of that subpart as policy-neutral in the first place? It appears that it's a very selective policy neutrality that you're looking for.I also wanted to talk about Dr Russell's contribution of now some time ago. She introduced in her contribution this idea of universality and how the former National Government didn't care about all older New Zealanders. And because she introduced it I just want to take couple of moments to address how wrong she is on this. The National Government had introduced a tax package that would have seen every superannuitant better off each week and they're better off through the linkage of superannuation to after-tax average wage. So the superannuitants would have been off in year one pretty much the same as the winter energy payment. But here's the real difference and the real kicker: because superannuation is linked to the net after-tax average wage as average wages increase so too would that superannuation increase have further increased—so it would have gone up. And a good Government such as the National Government with its focus on economic prosperity and well-being for all would have ensured that incomes continued to rise faster than inflation so superannuitants would have been better off.Well this change that this new Government has put in place from what I can see they say it's universal. It's universally poorer because it doesn't even appear to be linked to inflation so it won't go up over time; it will go back over time. And with the spending and borrowing plans of this Government inflation is going to be rising much faster than it would have done under National so the erosion of the value of the winter energy payment will be so much faster. There is simply no way a claim can be made that the universality of this new Subpart 9A makes elderly New Zealanders better off than they would have been if this Government had kept the tax package that we had legislated when we were in Government. It simply is not the case.Let's talk a little bit more on new Subpart 9A. An earlier speaker regaled us with her tale of living in a colder part of New Zealand in an old villa that wasn't insulated and having to freeze. Eventually she was able to afford to insulate the home and it got a little bit better. That actually helps to crystallise another fundamental flaw in new Subpart 9A. It actually reflects the two very different philosophies of the left and the right when it comes to helping people who are less advantaged or more vulnerable. While they will give a little bit of money—that will erode with inflation over time—to help people pay some bills they don't actually help them solve the problem. The problem is the home is cold. Therefore to solve the problem you'd help them insulate it. If you helped them insulate the home then the energy bills are going to come down naturally but there's nothing in new Subpart 9A that really helps that. They get a fortnightly payment that'll let them pay a little bit towards the bill today but does nothing to help them actually afford the works that would help to make the home cheaper to heat and in fact need less heat. So where—where—if this is a Government that supposedly is made up of parties that truly care for the less advantaged in New Zealand is the actual means here to give them long-term help? It doesn't exist. But it does exist in the amendment that I've tabled under my name this evening which I'd now like to move on to.This amendment would give New Zealanders receiving the winter energy payment the ability to in effect take a payment as an annual payment rather than a fortnightly payment and they could then use that lump sum to improve the insulation in that home. It is focused on giving them the ability the financial means to lift themselves out of the current state of that insulation. It gives them the opportunity and the means to actually make improvements to the home to add some insulation that will then help to decrease their winter energy bills—therefore actually making them less reliant on any form of financial assistance.So why—why—does a Government that claims to care for all New Zealanders and particularly the disadvantaged not offer them the means to get themselves out of the situation they find themselves in? No it takes a party a former Government that actually cares about the underlying problems and the drivers of disadvantage—the causes and the real problems—being prepared to actually make change to address and fix those. It takes a party that is prepared to take that view to come up with an idea that says "OK you may need some help. So let's help you get out of the situation you're in." instead of just a little bit of money that'll keep you where you are and quite frankly perpetuate the misery that one is in.So this amendment very simply would change the purpose of new Subpart 9A to mean that it would also provide financial assistance to help certain people meet their heating needs during the winter period by providing for an additional home insulation or new heating sources and it effects that in two clauses. Into new clause 65E in SOP 25 "Winter energy payment: instalments rates and payment" it would insert new clause 65E(1)(c) "if the person has nominated in a form and manner approved by the chief executive to use their winter energy payment for additional home insulation or heating sources in 1 annual instalment." giving all of the benefit of the payment they would otherwise receive to use to improve the insulation of that home. And then in a subsequent clause it just ensures that they don't lose any of that through the calculations.It is a simple but effective way of actually looking to help New Zealanders who might be in some financial difficulty who today might find they have challenges in paying for the heating of their home but under the Government's plan would find themselves in the same situation every week and absolutely reliant on the small amount of money that they want to give them—the amount of money which as I have pointed out inflation will erode away over time; in a very short period of time quite frankly with the lack of economic plan that that Government actually has—which none the less would erode over time and therefore be in less of a position to be able to help them meet those continuing energy heating costs.But instead in effect if I think of a former party in this House United Future they called the idea capitalising family subsidies—well in a sense it's a little bit like that where you can get the annual amount in one advanced payment and then use it in a substantial and meaningful way to make improvements to the home that will make one warmer now and with lower heating costs into the future. It is a simple amendment that actually seeks to solve a problem instead of merely placing an insufficient band-aid and claiming that one somehow cares deeply about a group but the actions of which show they care more about what they say rather than the effects of what they do. If this Government has—in my personal opinion—a soul they will agree to support this amendment because they will acknowledge that it actually provides a better long-term solution for those people with winter energy payment issues today.So I call upon the Minister in the chair to explain to us if they won't support it why they want to perpetuate people's misery instead of actually solving it; why they want the value of their subsidy their benefit to erode in their winter energy payment because it's not inflation indexed. Why would they do that when they could simply support this? It doesn't involve spending any extra money just paying it in a way that allows people to make the best possible use of the State assistance that they've already agreed to offer and in doing so they help people to lift themselves out of the positions they're in today so they are better off tomorrow."