Social Security (Long-term Residential Care—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill

Thank you for giving me the chance to speak to Part 2 of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. In 1967 the Tremeloes, a band that I am sure many of the people who will be affected by this bill were fans of, released a song called “Silence is Golden”. The chorus to that song is “Silence is golden but my eyes still see”. The people out beyond these walls know exactly what is happening here. They still see what is happening here: that this Government is trying to sneak in this piece of legislation, which significantly changes the way in which the threshold for assets for residential care is calculated for them. What will it mean for them? It will mean that it will cost them a lot more money to pay for their residential home care.

This change was not telegraphed. I cannot see it anywhere in this piece of information, which was sent by the National Party around election time last year. I did not hear Mr Lotu-Iiga out around the traps talking about raising the threshold by the CPI. I did not see any of the members across the other side of the Chamber talking about this. But it is so important that it needs to be rushed through this House under urgency. It is so important that it has to be rushed through this House under urgency, and it was not mentioned once in the Budget speech, at all.

This is so important that this needs to be rushed through in the House under urgency, and how were the New Zealand people told about this? They were told in 1½ lines at the bottom of a press release from the Minister of Health. This is a Budget measure that the Minister in charge of this bill, the Minister for Social Development, said was a priority for her Government in her 1-minute speech in the first reading to the House—in her 1-minute contribution in the first reading in the House. You have got to give Miss Goodhew some praise too, because at least she made a 2-minute speech—a 2-minute speech—in the second reading of this bill, which is now before the Committee. But I will remind you again of that song, “Silence is Golden”.

I notice that there has been a change in membership for the Minister in the chair, and I would encourage the new Minister in the chair, the Hon Nathan Guy, to maybe perhaps take a call and answer the myriad of questions that have been asked by people on this side of the Chamber as to why this has to be done. If, as Mr Macindoe said in another contribution, this Government wants to tackle the serious issues around aged care, then why bring this in and raise $4.5 million in the first year and, in the fourth year, raise $16.5 million? Thank you very much, you have solved the problems in aged care with that amazing measure that comes in with this bill—with that amazing measure. I say thank you very much to the National Government for sorting out aged care with this bill.

It is ironic that the Minister in charge of this bill had the gall to say that this is a priority when it was not mentioned once in the Budget speech. It got half a mention in a press release, and the Ministers who are in charge of shepherding this bill through the House afforded it 3 minutes of time. We will not even get the chance for the people whom this measure concerns in this area—the 170 people who will be affected in the first year and their families, and the aged-care sector—to have their say, because this bill is not going to a select committee. This is being rushed through this House under urgency. So the process is shameful and awful.

You have got to ask why this is happening. Why is the Government doing this? Why is it picking on the elderly? Why is it picking on the elderly, and, at the other end of the scheme, why is it picking—

💬 Hon Member: They did kids yesterday.

Well, yeah, yesterday was kids’ day and today it is elderlies’ day, and maybe what is going to come beyond this Budget will affect the rest. The Government has already hit all Kiwis with its rise in GST in order to give its mates a tax cut, but I ask what is going to come next.

This is bad leadership, because there are serious issues around aged care that need to be addressed. I went to an aged-care centre in Ian McKelvie’s electorate. It is facing serious issues and it needs some serious thinking done about this issue. But what does it get? What do the residents and the staff at Edale residential home in Marton get? They get this: four pieces of waffle from National, which it claims is going to help sort out aged care in our country. What disrespect in another way can you get from this Government in terms of making sure that our elderly people are looked after?

This change was not telegraphed in the various statements that were made by all the National Party candidates. Mr Goff mentioned before that Mr Key said during the election debate that we judge a Government on how it treats our elderly. Well, this Government is treating our elderly with disrespect, because it is not giving them and their families and the aged-care sector a chance to come and have their say. It may not like what they say, but at least they should get their chance to have a say. People on the other side of the fence would get to have their say as well—those who agree with these measures. At least they would get their chance to have a say, and we as parliamentarians, who have a duty to make sure that we look after our elderly, would be able to ask questions of those who are concerned about this bill. They are people like the residents at Edale in Marton and people in a number of residential homes in my electorate, as well. Those people deserve to get the chance to have their say, but because we are here on a Friday—well, technically, not on a Friday; this is still Thursday—still talking about this bill under urgency, talking about the way that this bill changes the threshold for assets for residential care, they do not get to have their say. I think that is a shame.

It is a shame that this Government is doing it this way. It had the opportunity to do it properly and to make sure that we had a select committee hearing on what is a serious issue. I just want to repeat again that I ask the Minister in the chair to make a contribution. “Silence is golden but my eyes still see”.

I am really pleased to take a brief call on Part 2 of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. I want to commend my colleague Kris Faafoi, the member of Parliament for Mana, and back up his request to the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Social Development, to answer the questions that have been raised during the Committee stage. It is not as if we have another opportunity to have these questions addressed. We do not have a select committee process that we could look forward to or look back on; this is it. This is the final stage of the Committee stage of this bill, after which we will move to the third reading, and if the third reading votes follow the pattern of previous votes on this legislation, this will be law before this session of Parliament is over.

There is no chance for anyone to have a say. There is no chance for the bigger debate to be had on whether this massive visionary move by the National Government, taking $4.5 million out of the pockets of rest home and hospital care residents, which we are assured by National members will save our country’s economy, was the best or the only measure to take. That debate cannot be had and the Minister has not taken the opportunity to justify that. I am frankly in her court; I would not try to justify it either. I would not hold my portfolio on a continuing basis if I was asked to introduce a bill that I did not agree with, that was offensive, and that was wrong. I am stunned that the Minister for Social Development, the Minister of Health, and the Minister for Senior Citizens have not considered that is an option. I do not know how they can justify doing this retrospectively to older people, who are already in residential care, by changing the regime under which they bought into a contract to have their final months of life supported in the way that was needed. How can they justify this coming to the House at all, let alone under urgency?

Earlier on in the debate we had quite a lot of discussion about how this was signalled to the public. We know that it was not mentioned in the Budget speech. We certainly know it was not mentioned prior to that. The Hon David Carter is in the Chamber and he will recall the many times that we have stood on public platforms in opposition to each other, seeking the candidacy for the Port Hills electorate. During the last election campaign I listened to every word he spoke—you do not have much option, really, when you are on the same stage. I listened very carefully, and not once did the Hon David Carter say to the good people in the Port Hills electorate: “By the way, we are going to change the asset-testing regime for older people.” I bet the Hon Nathan Guy, who was in the chair earlier, did not mention that to his constituents either, and I bet not a single member of the National Party did.

This is a dirty little secret that has been kept under wraps by the National Government, not just until the Budget speech—because it was not mentioned in the Budget speech—but until later in the day. Suddenly we have a bill in the House of Parliament and we are told that it is getting rammed through all stages under urgency. The way it was signalled to the public was hidden in a 1½ line sentence in a press statement by the Hon Tony Ryall—not even the Minister responsible for it—under the heading “Health receives largest increase in spending in the Budget”.

Would anybody read that headline and think: “Oh, they’re going to put the asset-testing regime on to a holding pattern. They’re going to freeze the asset-testing threshold.”? Nobody who read that press statement would have been able to determine the truth, because this is a dirty little secret. It has been kept from the public until after the Budget speech was read in the House. It has had no opportunity to go to a select committee. There is no opportunity to hear from the 170 residents who are affected by this immediately, and the others who will be affected in the future. I think it is an outrage. It is a breach of the privilege of this Parliament to use urgency for matters that do require the urgent attention of the House. The public should, and I am sure will, feel outraged at this breach.

The Minister for Social Development has now resumed her seat, in the chair, and I am asking her once again to answer the questions about why the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill is being introduced, why now, why it applies retrospectively, and why there was no consultation with anybody, other than a couple of Government departments and her own. Will the Minister stand up and answer those questions, because I know that at this moment Grey Power members are listening to this debate. They have already contacted members of this House, and they are waiting to hear from the Minister why she did not—when she meets with them on a regular basis—raise with them the issue of asset testing, knowing what a sensitive issue this has been over many, many years.

When National introduced asset testing, it caused an outrage around New Zealand. This Government should have known, when it was going to change it, that there would be many people who would want to know what research, what evidence National had in terms of what the effect would be. I say to the Minister: earn your money. Stand up and answer questions that have been put to you from this side of the Chamber by the parties that are participating in this debate.

I ask a person like Paul Hutchison, who is a man of compassion, why he does not stand up and tell this Committee why he thinks taking $4.5 million from the most vulnerable people in our society is a good idea. Tell us, Dr Hutchison, why doing it secretly is such a good idea. I do not believe that is something that Dr Hutchison would have supported. I suspect that the backbench members of the National Party had absolutely no idea that this policy was going to be introduced. They had no idea that a bill was going to be put on the Table of the House, and they are nothing more than fodder. They are fodder for the National Government. They have to stand up and defend it.

I ask Chris Auchinvole, who is also a man, I think, who is a thinking person, what he thinks about this bill. How does he feel about being used by Cabinet to defend a measure that, I guarantee, he had no say in? The first this caucus—

💬 Louise Upston: Do you even know what clauses we’re talking about right now?

The first the junior whip would have heard about this measure was when it was taken to their caucus just before the Budget was read. Just before the Budget was read they would have gone in and said: “By the way, you’ll have to stay here on Friday because we’re introducing a bill that is going to change asset testing in New Zealand.” That is what they would have done. So the cannon fodder on the backbenches is expected to leave this Chamber and go out and defend the decision to all the older folk around New Zealand. Well, you are going to find it heavy weather.

The first argument the older folk are going to put to those new backbenchers, who do not seem to be worried about it, is why National did not consult them. They will say: “Why didn’t you ask us and tell us that that was what you were going to do?”. They will ask why National could not have had the decency and the honesty to go out and say to them that National was thinking about changing the asset-testing regime, and ask them about it. The Government could have said: “There are a number of ways we could do it. We could leave it as it is, we could do it by the CPI, or we could do it in a number of other ways. What do you think the impact would be?”. If National could have talked to Grey Power, at least it has a big base of members it could go to—a large number of members it could go to and ask what they thought.

This is a particularly sneaky piece of legislation. I cannot think of a sneakier piece of legislation in recent times. Mr Auchinvole is laughing about it. I am sorry that he is doing that, because he obviously does not think it affects the older folk in New Zealand. You see, the people whom this does affect are not the wealthy people. Those who have money have no problems when it comes to paying for rest home care. It does not worry them at all, but it certainly worries those who have the least. They are the ones who are affected. Get on your feet, Minister, and answer some questions. That is your job.

I want to pick up where my colleague the Hon Annette King has left off. We have been sitting in this Chamber now for some time. We have been waiting for the Minister for Social Development to get to her feet to justify what she is doing in the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill, why she is rushing it through under urgency, why she has not consulted with any group or individual in New Zealand about it, and why she will not have the Government front up at a select committee and explain to people why the National Government kept this as a dirty little secret that it did not tell the electorate about. I am surprised that this Minister has not got to her feet to defend this legislation. She prides herself on being a westie—you know, one of those people who tell it as it is, who are ready to get up and stand behind what they do and justify it. But she has been nailed to her seat. She has not taken the call. She has not answered the questions. She has not had the courage of her convictions to get up to say to the country why she is doing this.

And we have that row of backbenchers over there. Maggie Barry is from the North Shore. There are a lot of elderly people on the North Shore. I wonder whether Maggie Barry fronted up before the election and said to them: “Well, I’ve got to tell you this: the Government’s got to make hard calls, and what we’re going to do is stop the process of exempting your assets from asset testing when you’re in the last 18 months of your life.” I wonder whether she got up during the election campaign and said that.

💬 Maggie Barry: It wasn’t known at that stage, Phil. I’m not a clairvoyant.

Jami-Lee Ross was in a by-election and an election campaign.

💬 Hon Annette King: She just said it wasn’t known.

It was not known! Oh, it was not known. I think that Annette King is right, you know. I think those backbenchers are sitting there like stunned mullets, ashamed, embarrassed, and not prepared to get to their feet to defend their Government, because this bill was dumped on them. They did not know a thing about it. Well, welcome to the world of politics, Maggie Barry! You did not know—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

You did not know about it, but you are—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

—part of the team and you will have to take responsibility. You will have to be accountable for what you did, but you will not be.

💬 Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is a very longstanding tradition that you are not brought into the debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is very true and I had pointed it out to the member.

I apologise to the Chairman, because I know that you, Mr Chairman, would not have had anything to do with this. You would have had the courage of your convictions to speak—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member knows that he cannot challenge someone’s courage. He is a very longstanding member and knows better than anybody else.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairman, far from challenging your courage I was saying you would have had the courage. By inference maybe the others did not—but that is only by inference.

I want to know why this National Government, which knew before the election all of the things that it knows now, never told the people of New Zealand what it intended to do. Why did the National Government keep this as a dirty little secret that it would not share with the country? Did it tell the elderly people of this country what it was going to do? Did it tell the elderly people of this country that it was not going to index the rates rebate, so that those people who had worked hard all their lives and were struggling to pay their rates would not get assistance to match inflation and the high rise in rates that has occurred? Did Government members tell New Zealanders—here is another dirty little secret—that they would remove the promotional budget for the Rates Rebate Scheme? They will not necessarily have what it takes to remove rates rebates, but they do not want people to know about it so that they can take advantage of it. That is another sneaky little secret that those members did not warn people about.

You know, what is it that this Government has got against the elderly? In the last term it actually took away the home help that many elderly people relied on so that they could stay in their own home. They are being forced out. I was in Kris Faafoi’s electorate during the by-election, and we came across a 91-year-old lady in Tītahi Bay who was being forced into a rest home because the National Government had cut her home care. Now that she has been forced into the rest home, the Government is going to make sure she has to use up more of her assets to be able to meet the costs of care—after it put her in that position. Why is it that this National Government, in everything that it has done in this Budget, has picked on the most vulnerable? From the young paper boys and girls it is now taking away their tax rebate. How pathetic is that? There are 68,000 young people out there in the rain, and the wind, and the cold in Wellington, delivering the newspapers, and the Government takes away their tax credit. It knows that people cannot vote at that age, and it knows that the elderly, the most vulnerable, are not in a position to defend themselves.

No wonder not one of those backbench members will get to their feet and defend this. No wonder the Minister, time and again, will not take the call. I hope she will, under this provocation. I hope she does have the courage and the conviction to get up and say to this country why this National Government has done something that it did not tell the country about, and why it is not prepared to go to the country to consult—to let people come to a select committee and say what is wrong with what she is proposing. No wonder every National backbencher and the Minister in this Chamber today are too ashamed to speak out to defend what they have done to those who are defenceless, those who are most vulnerable, and those who will be paying a price for something that the National Government never had the guts to tell the country about—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!