Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. There's been a lot of discussion tonight about the detail within this bill. I think it demonstrates really clearly the value of the select committee process and why when a bill of this magnitude has not been to the select committee it creates this detailed debate at the committee stage of the bill.But it would be remiss of me to not take this opportunity to comment on the analogy given by Greg O'Connor in the committee tonight when he talked about his classic car—about getting under the bonnet and removing his engine. It was I think demonstrated quite clearly Mr O'Connor that a vintage car can still achieve uncontrolled loss of traction as you did—spinning the wheels going nowhere but still the smell of burning rubber and petrol fumes.This bill describes in detail the benefits that are available and when you look at the list of the benefits that are available within this bill—particularly in Part 2 that we're talking about—it goes to show what an absolutely generous country we live in in support of our least able people to support themselves. Our welfare system is a very healthy one.But I did hear last week in the House as there was question time happening one member across the House who talked about how we procrastinate in getting people back into work by giving them not one not two and not even three but four chances—he called them—not to go back to work. Well this bill in the form that it was delivered to the House last year is about the social investment approach to these people that have found themselves in a situation where they are in the benefit-dependency cycle and the social investment approach seeks to remove them from that.But there is one part of the bill in the amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 25 to Part 2—and it's indexed at HA—which talks about the winter energy payment. I was a bit surprised to hear the Minister decline my amendment before I'd even had a chance to discuss it. That was an amendment to Part 2 proposed Subpart 9A and clause 65E on Supplementary Order Paper 25 and my suggestion was to insert a new clause 65E(2)(c). That would allow for the winter energy payment to be paid in five monthly payments and two fortnightly payments and the rationale given by the Minister was that it would cost millions of dollars to implement a monthly payment. The rationale was that it coincides with monthly power accounts and so it makes perfect sense to align the payments to a monthly power account.And so my argument is that we load those payments up for people who are receiving benefits. We load them once into a computer. How hard can it be then to load one payment to go in monthly or perhaps fortnightly? It's not as though we have to do it every single month twice for every beneficiary. But of course if you did live on the West Coast an annual payment would be quite acceptable. You could buy two tonnes of coal on the West Coast for $700—Simon O'Connor: Not if you're a greenie.MAUREEN PUGH: If you're a greenie—there's not many of them on the West Coast Mr O'Connor.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Don't bring me into the debate.MAUREEN PUGH: Oh excuse me Madam Chair. Mr O'Connor highlighted tonight some minor tidying-up that the bill required.Simon O'Connor: Which one?MAUREEN PUGH: Some—there was quite some and I guess that is actually demonstrating once again the value of the select committee process because that small tidying-up gets done at that point when everyone has had an opportunity to scrutinise the wording within the bill and provide the input at that stage. But I also heard earlier in the year when I was watching from home a speech given by the Rt Hon David Carter when he talked about schedule 4 and the winter energy payment. I asked the question why they are not targeted or means-tested when someone who is on an MP's salary receiving super getting fees-free for his—[Time expired]