Clark David: 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 
Clark David: 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:2552. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I think the time has come to put this debate in some context. It is in the context of a Budget with zero ideas and zero hope and a Government that is failing. The previous speaker Dr Cam Calder tried to paint the context of the global financial crisis as though it had just happened as though this Government had not had opportunities to address it as though this Government had not had opportunities to promote pro-growth tax policies and as though this Government had not had the opportunity to direct money towards research and development. The previous speaker unfortunately is defending a status quo Government. If we do not change things nothing will change. We will continue to buy more from overseas than we export. If we do not look after our exporters who grow our economy we will not succeed as a country.  
What we are debating here in this bill the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill is a threshold test change. It is a threshold test change that normally involves $10000 a year over 4 years. This is the big idea of the Budget—this is the big idea of the Budget. Sadly the reason we know it was the big idea was that it was kept secret. It was one line in a press release. The backbenchers opposite knew nothing of it so it must be the big idea. The Government did not want it to get out. This was the big idea that was going to change the economy around. That is why we are in urgency. That is why we are trying to get this bill through so that New Zealand will be put on the right track because of a $10000-a-year threshold test change.  
It follows on from picking the pockets of children in the previous legislation. We can see the theme: it is tinkering about the edges of tax law. It is not addressing the fundamental change that we need as a country if we want to grow our exports and make our country a better place to live in.  
What this bill is not doing is the big issue. As my colleague Jacinda Ardern said in a previous stage of the debate there is no discussion on superannuation. There is no real fruitful discussion on superannuation in the Government’s documents. It does push out KiwiSaver another year it puts off savings as a country for us all but it does not discuss the big issue of retirement age. It is really tinkering with a small group of people who are on this threshold.  
They are real people with real lives and real concerns and there is no doubt about it that they need their voices heard. This is where this goes really wrong because this Government is not following the usual process. It is not following the select committee process. It is not letting people have a say. It is not consulting. It is not asking whether we could do this a different way. Instead it is getting on with it. Instead of following the usual process this Government is pushing through this legislation because it knows it will be unpopular. It knows that cutting away—I say “cutting”; there is no other word for it—this threshold means that those who live independently will see their assets eroded away. They will be paying for their own care. They will be losing the subsidy that they are used to. This may be a good way of going about things at the margins but they are not being allowed to have a say about that.  
These old people are also concerned about intergenerational equity. I have spoken with them. They are concerned about their grandchildren. They are worried about the costs in the health system of looking after older folk. They are worried about the opportunities that may not be there for their grandchildren as a result of an ageing population and they want to be a part of this debate. But this process does not allow them to do that.  
That is why we are opposed to this legislation. It has not allowed the conversation to happen that should happen. It is tinkering about the edges. It is not making the changes that we need to make and then we have Ministers unshamefacedly seemingly standing up and trying to spin this as something other than a cut. We have the numbers in the regulatory impact statement that show that in 2012-13 instead of the threshold being $220000 it will be $213297. How that is not a cut I do not know.