Genter Julie Anne: 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 
Genter Julie Anne: 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:2523. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. I rise to take a short call on the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. Obviously the Green Party will not be supporting it as my colleague Mr Hague made clear earlier. There are a number of reasons for that which I think he outlined very well: the problems with asset testing and why it is discriminatory. 
I rise to speak on this bill with a feeling of misgiving because this bill and other Budget legislation are being rushed through under urgency. In my short time in this House I have been really impressed by the quality of submissions and the level of engagement in our legislative process by knowledgable affected citizens. I acknowledge that many of my colleagues have spoken about this already but I would like to say that an opportunity to come to a select committee and explain how one will be affected by proposed legislative changes is not just a privilege and it is not just an opportunity to engage in the democratic process; it is actually a really useful tool for us as legislators. It gives us essential information that ensures that there will be a robust policy that will actually serve all New Zealanders and that we are taking into account all of the costs all of the benefits and all of the trade-offs. 
The very very brief regulatory impact statement on this bill which was clearly delivered just a few days ago—not a lot of research went into it as far as I can tell—is just another example of bureaucrats in Government departments being told to make choices about how we can find fiscal savings. That is the entire objective: how can we find fiscal savings? There is no real consideration of what the human cost of it is. Really the only way to know that is to go out and talk to the people affected. I would like to see more of that in our legislation—that we are actually hearing from New Zealanders about how they are going to be affected. 
I have to acknowledge what Ms Jacinda Ardern said earlier. We really do need to have a debate about the sustainability of superannuation and we need to start having that debate now. Let us imagine if this National Government for example was going to be forced to deal with that problem which is a problem of debt. It is interesting to hear those members saying that we are not willing to engage with the problems that we are facing when in fact it is about choices and some of the debt problems we are facing have been created by this Government’s choices. Although it is quite happy to spend billions on tax cuts for the rich it is looking to find fiscal solutions elsewhere and savings elsewhere. It is not willing to have a debate about superannuation. But if National is in Government in 2020—which it probably will not be—when this starts to become a serious problem it seems to me by the example that has been shown today that it would not engage with New Zealanders not have a conversation about it but just wait until Budget day and rush it through under urgency without any sort of consideration or advanced warning. I think that is really unfortunate. That is really all I have to say. Thank you.