Guy NathanHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Madam Chairperson Williams thank you very much for giving me the call. It's been great exercise this afternoon for the last 40 minutes—up and down wanting to seek a call. This is a very important bill and what the committee has heard this afternoon from the Opposition is that if we'd had some time in select committee we certainly could have ironed this bill out. But on the what is it seventh week this Government has chosen to put the House into urgency which just goes to show—we're almost on Christmas Eve and they're already showing signs of arrogance just in the early stage of their tenure and I'm really disappointed about that. Certainly there's a lot of expertise on this side of the House that we've heard particularly to do with Part 2 around the winter energy payment.There's been a lot of discussion this afternoon about trying to define what winter" actually means. Well in my view this isn't a winter payment to do with energy use because everyone gets it. It's not targeted and we just heard from Andrew Bayly about the different energy charges up and down the country. I have the largest number of over-65s on a proportionality basis in my electorate of Ōtaki—number one—so I have the highest number of superannuitants in my patch. I have a huge variance. I've got pockets of deprivation in Levin and Foxton and Ōtaki and then I've got high - net worth individuals and couples down in Paraparaumu and in Waikanae and a huge variance in between. But this winter energy payment is not targeted.We have an amendment on this side of the House talking about if you really wanted to get specific about the elderly in need and about deprived communities why wouldn't you target this to the community services card? I can't believe it. Then we've had a debate about wealthy superannuitants who are going to leave and indeed they could take their 700 bucks and head over to Brisbane in the winter and come back again. You could have wealthy superannuitants that could go to Brisbane come back within the month period and go back again. That's the ludicrous aspect of this bill that hasn't been thought out. Why has this bill—and in particular this part—not gone to a select committee? It could have gone to a truncated select committee for a week or a few days and we could have helped iron this stuff out. But the arrogance of the Government is already playing out in the first six or seven weeks.What's also interesting is how National were proposing to change the tax thresholds which would ultimately mean that superannuitants would be better off particularly in the first winter that we're going into in 2018. Superannuitants under this bill under the Labour-led coalition will be worse off than what they would have been under a National Government. In fact when you do the numbers—like Nick Smith and Steven Joyce have talked about this afternoon—it's robbing superannuitants of $150 million.Now I bet that Stuart Nash won't be calling a public meeting of the Napier Grey Power before Christmas or anytime soon. I challenge the Minister to stand up and answer those detailed questions about why this isn't targeted around the community services card. Why are the Labour-led coalition going to vote down Andrew Bayly's amendment that is going to refine it down to pricing of different lines companies up and down the country? That's where you get the real detail.Have the Greens thought about or have there been any costings done on what impact this bill could have on climate change targets? Indeed you could find that coal—more coal—goes on the fire. That's going to make it challenging for the Prime Minister and James Shaw to make New Zealand—what is it?—carbon-free by 2050.I really want to hear from Stuart Nash now about those very detailed questions because he's been good. He's been standing up and answering them."