Faafoi Kris: 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 
Faafoi Kris: 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:2525. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Taloha ni Mr Chair and talofa lava manuia le aso in Samoan Language Week. It is a pleasure to take a call in the Committee stage of this bill the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. The Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development in her first reading speech mentioned that this is a priority for the Government. Although the debate has been robust I would like to take a little bit more of a serious approach in the Committee stage. 
Tim Macindoe 
: Oh no! 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: Yes I am sorry Mr Macindoe. I will take a slightly more serious approach in my Committee stage contribution because I wish that this was a priority for the Government. The aged-care sector and the way that we look after our older New Zealanders are very very serious issues going forward. The fact that Part 1 introduces indexation as opposed to raising the threshold by $10000 per annum does not really do a lot in terms of addressing some of the serious structural issues that we will face soon in terms of looking after our older New Zealanders. 
We need a much much broader approach to looking after our elders and that is why we believe that in terms of this change the indexation to the CPI it would have been good in this instance for New Zealanders who are affected and New Zealanders who are concerned to have the opportunity to speak at a select committee hearing. I would like to ask the Minister why this bill is going through under urgency and why New Zealanders are not going to be able to have their say in a select committee hearing. Having spoken to Roy Reid last night I know that he is very concerned about the fact that this will provide New Zealanders with a disincentive to save for their retirement. As I have earlier spoken about at the first and second readings of this bill there is also a difference of opinion from the Aged Care Association. It is welcoming this move. 
But I would have liked the opportunity as the Labour Party spokesperson on aged care to ask questions of those people and to hear the opinions of Kiwis who have concerns about how their parents or their grandparents are being cared for and to hear how this change might affect them. So again I put forward my question to the Minister as to the rationale for this bill going through Parliament under urgency and I ask why those people who will have concerns out there in the community are not being given the opportunity to make a submission at a select committee hearing.  
Part 1 introduces a change to the asset threshold for residential care for our elderly. In the first year according to the regulatory impact statement there will be savings of $4.5 million. There is also an estimation I guess from the Ministry of Health that this will affect around 170 residents at any one time. This does not address the issue that the aged-care sector and Kiwi families are facing at the moment. It is tinkering. We have heard from the opposite side of the Chamber that this is a measure for achieving a sustainable long-term plan for the care of our elderly. But in the first year we are going to look at $4.5 million and in the fourth year this is going to be increased to $16.4 million. So in no way does this significantly address the issues that we as a country have to— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Would that pay off Government debt? 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: No it will not pay off Government debt. It in no way addresses the significant challenge that we face in terms of our elderly. The $4.5 million in the first year will pretty much pay for the pens and the paper clips at the Ministry of Health. So the reason why the Government is in Part 1 changing from the $10000 threshold to indexation to the CPI troubles me in terms of whether or not this Government has a long-term plan or a long-term vision in this area. One would think not because this is the bill that is before the Committee and that is troublesome. If the big silver bullet from the Government is CPI indexation of the thresholds and not what has been practised for the last I believe 7 or 8 years then we as a nation are in big trouble if we do not have any more—[ 
Bell rung 
] Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Kris Faafoi. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: Thank you Mr Chair. I want to make just one more point. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Make a few more. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: Make a few more—OK. Actually sorry there are two more points I want to raise. One is the way that this bill has been introduced to the House through the Budget process. We have had clarification since the debate began on the bill. In the beginning we heard that it was not mentioned at all in the Budget speech from the Minister of Finance and we have confirmed that. That is a fact. We have trawled through the press releases looking for a press release on the issue. We were not able to find one but we were able to find a press release in the name of the Minister of Health the Hon Tony Ryall where there is a very fleeting mention of the measure that is being debated at the moment. There were one and a half sentences in a press release and there was not one mention in the Budget speech about this change to the thresholds from the increases of $10000 each year to CPI indexation. If this is a priority for the Government it is not cheering it and it is not putting it out there as a priority at the moment.