Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm really thrilled to get this opportunity. I thought I was going to get overlooked tonight; the competition has been extremely tough. The reason I'm excited is I actually think I've got the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—SOP 33—that the Minister will approve. The reason I say that is because I've done a bit of homework on my SOP which is submitted in the name of the Hon Louise Upston. It proposes an amendment to Part 4 clause 191 and in subclause (3) suggests replacing the in a relationship" phrase on page 127 with "married or in a civil union or in a de facto relationship." The reason that I'm speaking to this one again is because if you take a look in clause 191 of the bill then we see that in clause 191(1) in (b) and in (c) and then we move on to 191(2) the terms that are used in both of those bits talk about a "spouse or a partner". So in 191(1)(b) it refers to "[The person] has a spouse or partner who is not in hospital or has been in hospital for less than 13 weeks;" and 191(1)(c) refers to "a main benefit under this Act is payable to or in respect of [that person's] spouse or partner." So I'm suggesting for the purposes of consistency that when we move on to 191(3) we use the same language in that subclause which says that "Nothing in this section entitles a single person or a couple who are … [in a] relationship". The words "in a relationship" are open to interpretation. To give you an example as defined in the dictionary one interpretation of "in a relationship" is "the way in which two or more … people [or things] are connected or the state of being connected:"—that could be a relationship between a member of Parliament and their constituents. The other term for "in a relationship" is "The state of being connected by blood or marriage."—so you know you can trace your relationship via your heritage to a common ancestor. The other interpretation of "in a relationship" is "The way in which two or more people or groups regard and behave towards each other"—so landlord-tenant relationships. So I think the words "in a relationship" are so open to interpretation and in order to be consistent with subclauses (1) and (2) where the words "spouse" and "partner" are actually used I think that we owe it to the bill to maintain that consistency throughout. I also have a couple of other questions for the Minister. One of those is whether the 13 weeks of hospitalisation actually refers to community-based services for respite care—those places may not be in terms of the definition of a hospital actually a hospital and whether they would comply with this Act or whether there could be an exemption for respite care services which provide that community-based care for carers for their family and whānau. The other question I have for the Minister is around the clarification for this part of the bill clause 190 which is headed up "Factors affecting benefit: hospitalisation" and whether the word "benefit" does in fact apply to superannuitants as well. So I'm just not quite sure whether that application is meant to apply to superannuitants or not. The definitions indicate that it does but I wasn't sure whether it was intended to capture that cohort. So I do believe I have a very good argument for accepting this SOP and I'm sure that this one here is actually going to find favour with the Minister and be approved. For that reason I have great pleasure in speaking to my proposed amendment in the name of the Hon Louise Upston and I certainly look forward to—[Time expired]"