Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Madam Chair for this opportunity. I would like to start by talking about the winter energy payment because that is something we saw as a big change in the way we were debating this bill. In Part 1 what we heard was that they were defending the fact that this is a policy-neutral bill—so yes we want to keep it policy-neutral but when we came to Part 2 here we find that there are winter energy payments.But what I want to comment on on winter energy payments is that when it says that it is available for people that are on the main benefit I don't understand why it's available for people only on the main benefit. There are so many types of benefits that people can receive from the Ministry of Social Development and those people receive those benefits because they are in real need. So they are going through some financial constraint. If they are going through some financial constraint they all should be eligible for the winter energy payment. So it will be really good to see the Minister answer this question: why will only the people on the main benefit be receiving the winter energy payment and not people receiving other benefits? That is really unfair for people those who receive other benefits that they will not be eligible for the winter energy payment. When we talk about people on superannuation there is no such criterion. Everybody that is receiving superannuation is going to receive a winter energy payment. So it is really unfair when it comes to looking after people on really low incomes that the support is not going to be available.Along with that I would also like to talk about my colleague's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) Andrew Bayly's SOP that is to define winter according to the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research's (NIWA's) definition. So if it is actually to help people that are feeling cold in their houses then why not adopt this definition—and the Minister has already dismissed that definition. I want to know what the basis is. So if the basis is that the Minister wants to provide some certainty that certainty can be provided through definitions that are provided through these scientific institutions. It's about helping people helping people that feel cold in their houses so the definition of winter from NIWA should be adopted because according to scientific evidence that is when the cold weather starts that is when the temperatures drop and then the temperatures actually pick up. So there are a few issues there on the winter energy payment that need to be answered.Very quickly I also want to touch on an SOP by Simon O'Connor. This is to amend the Minister's SOP. This is replacing inserted Subparts 5 and 5A of Part 2 with a new Subpart 5 to restore a wide range of circumstances under which a supported child's payment is eligible. The Minister touched on this issue before when he took a call but it's not very clear how this payment will work because we're talking about children that are not orphaned; we're talking about children that are not unsupported—we're talking about children that are supported. So we want some clarification around it because now in clause 31 the Government has decided not to combine the orphans benefit and unsupported child's benefit.So we want some clarity around what's going to happen to the supported child's payment as was proposed in this legislation. It's very clear that this SOP that has been put forward—this is based on what was in the legislation before—will be available to people that are looking after a child that for some reason doesn't have his or her biological parents available. They could be no more maybe they are missing or maybe there is a breakdown in the family so there could be reasons why a child needs someone else to take care of him or her. It could be a grandparent it could be a relative and there could be financial constraints on them so we cannot assume that they do not have any financial constraints—or maybe they have their own budget and now all of a sudden if they have to look after another child it could become really difficult for them. So it is the Government's responsibility to look after those children.This change actually will make New Zealand children poorer. We hear this Government talking repeatedly about doing more for children making New Zealand the best country to raise a child in but when it comes to legislation that actually delivers when it comes to action that action is completely missing.So I'm really disheartened. I'm really sad to see that this Government doesn't care about this special support child's payment and thinks that we don't need it. So I really want to hear from the Minister why the Minister is actually making this change and how the support child's payment will work for these children in special circumstances. We are talking about people who will be providing assistance to children or looking after these children in the long term.