King Annette: 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 
King Annette: 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:2537. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 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? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: 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.