Lole-Taylor Asenati: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lole-Taylor Asenati: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2548. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First while at the same time I am trying to find a good reason to agree with the previous member’s speech. I believe that Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga is rather confused about which bill is being discussed right now; nor is he aware of what is being said. In fact the previous speaker reminds me of the lyrics of an Irish song that go something like “For all the languages we cannot communicate.”—“For all the languages we cannot communicate.” There seems to be no clear communication from the Government nor is it able to say anything that will provide any comfort to any of our senior residents at residential homes.  
It is strange to tell that National earthen lot that some of us over on this side of the House can articulate what they cannot—clearly they cannot. I thought it was very strange to hear the Minister for Social Development say that she sees the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill as a fair bill. For years our citizens who should be cared for fairly—“fairly” is the word—in residential care have been demanded by Government departments to complete forms. If they need long-term residential care in hospitals they need to complete these forms. There is also another demand of them and it goes like this: “You may be able to get a residential care subsidy from the Ministry of Health.” Note the word “may”; it is only a three-letter word. Why is that? It is because the Ministry of Health determines whether a person may get a residential care subsidy. Our senior citizens may get a residential care subsidy if they are assessed as needing long-term residential care in a hospital. It also depends on how much they and their spouses earn.  
These residents have spent many years of their lives serving this country. Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga would not understand that. These residents have spent many years of their lives contributing to and building the economy of this country. Somebody should tell that to Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. These residents have spent many years of their lives fighting hard to ensure that people like those members over there on that side of the House have a better future. They have worked really hard to provide for a brighter future and a healthy environment for all New Zealanders not just for the few—and not just for the few wealthy friends of the National Government. Sadly the Government has failed to take that into account. In fact the response it has is always “Aye. Aye.” “Aye” becomes the only vocabulary of members on that side of the House in their everyday language leaving common sense outside of Parliament altogether.  
The Minister who introduced this bill Paula Bennett is obviously confused about what planet she is on given that her welfare destruction bill says yes to some sort of youth training and no to sensible New Zealand First policies that create jobs. The bill strikes at the hearts of our elderly citizens by determining that their assets should be used to pay for the cost of their contracted care services. Instead the Government just responds with “Aye” to anything and everything. I am reminded of an old saying: 
The ball no question makes of Ayes and Noes 
But right or left as strikes the player goes;  
And [she] that toss’d thee down into the field  
[She] knows about it all—[she] knows—[she] knows.” 
How naive of this Government to quickly forget about many years of service and positive contribution. This Government needs to wake up and start introducing some better solutions. These welfare reforms will have skilled Kiwis packing their bags for Australia or being reduced to student wages. While we are on the exodus path we might as well send our elderly off with them! At least in Australia they may have a better hope of holding on to their assets.  
Has anyone thought of the effects that this new Budget measure will have on low-income families? Alfred Ngaro will forget that—oh yes. Those families will be forced to provide for the care of their parents and grandparents. National members cannot sit there and complain that Pacific people are the highest statistics on the unemployment scale when the Government is forcing them to stay home to look after their elderly because Pacific people simply cannot afford to have their elderly placed in care. I know this for sure. Pacific people cannot afford to go to work because they have to stay home and look after their papas and mamas from the Cook Islands and their tina and their tama from Samoa. I know that those small-minded National members will say: “Well these people do not have any assets so they won’t be affected.” Well this Budget measure is surely going to say to these people: “Don’t bother attaining assets.” That is what this bill is all about.  
In 2010 19000 depended on the residential subsidy. This rate is likely to drop dramatically. What the Government is saying to the children of New Zealand is: “Don’t bother having savings don’t bother having assets and don’t bother with the bright future because this will mean absolutely nothing when you are older.” That is what this bill is all about. People need not bother having assets that are worth more than $213000. Have those members seen the prices of houses in Auckland especially in Manukau? The average price of a house—just in case Alfred Ngaro has forgotten—is $345000 in South Auckland. As we get closer to central and east Auckland this price increases to $800000. I am sure Housing New Zealand Corporation will be grinning with glee at these facts because there will be an increase in the number of people renting their homes after hearing about the threshold which will be so low that they cannot even buy a parking slot in the city. National members will come back with the argument that the families of the elderly or the younger spouses can live in their houses so that they are not affected by the threshold.  
This zero Budget—or zero initiative we might as well call it—is dependent on volatility. The Government has decided to base the job market on Christchurch. Well let us face it; we are not even sure whether that is going to happen or whether it is going to bounce back. Now the Government will base how the elderly are going to be cared for on a CPI rate of 2.1 percent. I have constituents a couple who are reaching the age of retirement and have saved up in order to buy the State house they have been living in for a number of years. They were informed in April by the Housing New Zealand Corporation that they could actually buy this property. That was last year. This year they were told that the offer has been withdrawn. I suspect that the Housing New Zealand Corporation knew that these people and those in a similar age bracket were best not to buy their houses because of the Budget announcement yesterday. So what are they left with? Well there are no assets to pass on to future generations just so they can have a subsidy to allow them to stay in a rest home. The reality is that rest homes can come pretty close to eating up a person’s entire wealth. We do not support this bill.