Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6255] 
Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak on the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill. I am a member of the Social Services Committee; in fact I am the deputy chair. As such I was part of the process of listening to the people who came to the select committee to submit in relation to this bill. 
When we look at the bill presented to us in the House tonight we see sadly that something is missing—that is there is no report from the Social Services Committee on this bill. Absolutely no amendments whatsoever are contained in this bill. There is a reason for that which is that the Government did not turn up in sufficient numbers to get its own bill through the select committee. So after all the submissions from submitters after all the hours we spent on the bill and after all the discussions the Government could not turn up in sufficient numbers to put through its own bill and that is an indication of a Government in crisis. The Government’s coalition and supporting parties turned up but the Government did not turn up. Those parties did their bit they did as they were told yet Government members did not turn up. Rather to be utterly correct they turned up and then went away. They did not turn up for the vote. But the most amazing thing is that the chair of the select committee—the person who actually controls the agenda—is a Government member. So the Government has lost control of its own chairperson. 
Unfortunately that means that in front of us tonight is a bill in its original form as presented to the House for its very first reading. But today is its second reading; we will have to wait until the Committee stage to debate the changes the select committee agreed to make—actually it did not agree to make; it wanted to make—which the Government will very soon be trying to push through on a Supplementary Order Paper. 
I commend to the House the Supplementary Order Paper to come in the name of my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison. One of National’s concerns about this bill is addressed by Dr Paul Hutchison’s amendment. His amendment would allow elderly people with up to $150000 worth of assets to purchase an apartment within a rest home and still retain their subsidy. Previously they unfairly lost the subsidy if they used their assets or money to purchase an apartment. Dr Hutchison has taken the stance of improving a bill that in one case in particular National does not agree with. 
The issue in the bill that we find so absolutely obnoxious apart from the point addressed by Dr Paul Hutchison’s Supplementary Order Paper is that the bill says to rest home residents that even if they want to pay more for a service they cannot do so. In fact it states that if a person in a rest home has been assessed as being in need of care that person cannot pay more for the service than that amount the Government has decreed. That might sound fine to people who feel that nobody should be able to rise above whatever they think the lowest common denominator is but it means that people who build rest homes or facilities for the aged and for those who cannot live either in their own homes or with their families will not be able to afford to build those facilities in areas where property values are higher than in other areas. It is as simple as that. At the end of the day a rest home is a business. Yes it is a provider of services for vulnerable members of the community but at the end of the day it is also a business. If we wish to ghettoise our elderly then this is exactly the sort of bill to pass. There are many good parts of the bill but this main part this utter disregard for the ability of the elderly to contract for services in their own right is an imposition on those people. It says they cannot live in areas they wish to live in they cannot pay for services they wish to pay for and that in fact they must have and pay for the lowest common denominator. 
What we find so offensive with this provision is not so much that that is what it says but that it also says that even if the elderly person is paying his or her own way—even if it is someone who has said “I don’t want a cent from the State. I have more of my own money.”—and even if that person is assessed in a medical sense then instantly his or her ability to contract for services which should be able to be provided at the rate he or she wants has been affected. That is treating the elderly who wish to pay their own way as though they are mere children. They are not mere children and that is the provision we on this side of the House find so utterly distasteful—that some bureaucratic body down in Wellington should tell our elderly people who wish to and can afford to pay for themselves in their old age what they can have and what they can pay for. [ 
Interruption 
] It is in effect as Dr Paul Hutchison has just said communism. It is absolutely distasteful to our elderly. 
We received submission after submission from people who objected to that sort of imposition. We heard from rest home people who said that frankly it means they cannot afford to have rest homes and provision for the elderly in suburbs where the price of land might be high because who could afford to have them? Rest homes will be ghettoised if this stupid provision prevails. National members see no problem with raising the asset level for means testing. We understand that absolutely and we think it is only fair in light of the inflation that has occurred in this area under this Government. 
But when we say to the elderly that we will treat them like children—that even if they are paying their own way we will treat them as though they are little children who cannot make up their own minds—that is an absolute breach of human rights. I am astonished that other parties in this House think it is OK to treat elderly people like that. We are all for saying to people that if the State is paying their way the State should have a say in what is provided for them. But if the State is not paying their way what in the world does the State have to do with telling them what they can get? 
The way around this will be that the elderly who do not wish to live in particular areas and who do not wish to be told what they can and cannot pay for will revert to serviced apartments instead. That will not help the elderly. It will mean that they will not have the same regulations or the same ability to have certain products and services that rest homes can provide. It will affect elderly people’s choice. Why is it that we think it is all right to treat our elderly people like that? In the National Party we do not think that. National agrees with certain provisions of this bill but not with that particular one or with the issue that Dr Hutchison’s Supplementary Order Paper will deal with. Those two concerns are absolute sticking points. 
I have to say that when we have a bill presented like the one we have today from a select committee that is controlled by the Government and its minor parties with not one scrap of the work of the select committee and its amendments included and with no commentary whatsoever we have yet again another piece of evidence that this Government cannot get the numbers even in its own caucus. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the second reading of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill. We understand that the amendments in this bill address a number of anomalies in the Social Security Act. I must say at the outset that New Zealand First does not have a member on the Social Services Committee so we did not participate in the select committee process. We are looking forward to ensuring that the changes discussed in the Supplementary Order Paper that the select committee worked on during the select committee process are implemented and discussed widely during the Committee stage as they appear to be sound additions to the bill. 
 In New Zealand First we recognise that the treatment of our seniors sends a clear signal of our status as a developed nation. We must have high-quality affordable care available for all older New Zealanders when they require this and of course everyone needs some certainty about how much money they will need to contribute to their care. In New Zealand First we are adamant that retired couples must be able to grow old together with all of their due entitlements. So we were very pleased to hear from the Minister prior to the dinner break that couples residing together in a retirement village under an occupation right agreement or a “licence to occupy” agreement are able to stay together when one partner has been assessed as needing care. Any separation of couples at this time in their lives—or at any time in their lives actually—is totally unacceptable and quite ridiculous. 
New Zealand First wants to ensure that if a senior citizen is eligible for a subsidy then that person should receive it and if that person is receiving the same care package then he or she should pay the same price. If someone with an occupation right agreement is assessed as needing rest home level care that is provided at that person’s place then the Government should pay for that care and the owner of the facility should not be paid twice for the accommodation component. 
Currently there are examples of district health boards and providers negotiating fair solutions to this situation and we believe that this can happen right across the country. The amended bill allows willing parties to find a solution to this problem and it is fair to say that the Government expects them to work together to come up with a solution. This means really that residential care providers will need to address the way in which they write their retirement village occupation right agreements and district health boards will need to address this issue in their age-related residential care contracts. So we were quite pleased that we were able to work with the Government to resolve this matter and reach a fair and equitable solution and we will be monitoring this situation very closely to ensure that it follows through on these undertakings. 
This bill as the Minister has also said allows those exempt from a financial means assessment—that is asset testing—to retain a personal allowance. The bill clarifies that any person who is needs-assessed as requiring long-term residential care indefinitely in a rest home or hospital that has a contract with a district health board will pay no more than the maximum contribution for the services set out in the district health board provider contract for services whether or not that person is subsidised. 
The bill clarifies that if the cost of the contracted care services provided to a resident who is assessed as requiring care exceeds the maximum contribution then the funder is liable to pay the difference. The bill also makes it clear that even if people have assets worth more than $150000 they will pay no more than the maximum contribution for their care. However after listening to previous speakers in the first reading debate it is fair to say that those people who have worked and saved towards this period of their lives may wish to have some additional comfort factors including some that they may have already had in their own home that can be provided in a residential care facility and that they will want to pay for and have. This issue does need to be considered. So we look forward to the Committee stage of this bill in order to have this issue discussed further. 
We understand that there are approximately 28000 people currently in aged residential care who will be affected by this bill. Many of us in this House are only too aware that the cost of residential care very quickly erodes the savings many people have worked for and carefully put away for their senior years. We have all had people visit our electorate offices and discuss this issue at length as they believe the exemption provides some challenges and I know that work on this issue is progressing. 
The annual clothing allowance that people are entitled to retain when they are in care is another issue being raised as a concern. Basically this allowance is insufficient when laundries at rest homes cannot adequately care for clothing. Woollen clothing in particular suffers when it is washed in a washing machine with very hot water—as it must be—and then put through a dryer. Quite often it is impossible to wear that singlet or that cardigan and of course those clothes never ever look the same again. They definitely look tatty and that is not the way many people would wish their elderly relatives to look. We know that clothing is often lost never to be seen again and it is becoming extremely challenging to ensure that the basic clothing allowance is adequate for any wardrobe. This area will need to be addressed again in the short term I am absolutely sure. It is very challenging for people to have to make the annual allowance of $255 stretch far enough for sufficient clothing for a winter and a summer wardrobe—and of course to cope with replacement and lost items. 
We are pleased to see that this bill now treats New Zealand and overseas private pensions and annuities equitably. This means that in both cases only 50 percent of a private pension or an annuity is to be included as income in a means assessment. Previously 100 percent of overseas private pensions were treated as income. The treatment of overseas private pensions as income in that assessment is unfair and it is good to see that this anomaly has now been amended. 
So New Zealand First supports this bill. With an ageing population it is absolutely essential that we ensure those requiring long-term residential care have the best possible care and some certainty about the costs of that care. Thank you. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 This Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill as even its most avid supporters I think will agree is simply aimed at fixing up some of the confusions and anomalies discovered after the passage of the parent Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Act in 2004. The Green Party has no problem with continuing to support the key goals of this amendment to the amendment Act. The changes made here are on the whole technical ones and the low number of submissions from the public to the Social Services Committee—only eight altogether—seems to indicate that this bill overall does not deal with matters of intense controversy or matters of deep immediate concern for most New Zealanders. However we are also aware that a huge number of people are in fact affected or are potentially affected by the provisions of this bill. 
First of all we are pleased in particular that this bill does clarify that people with disabilities who are living in community residential services and who are receiving a residential support subsidy are also eligible for the disability allowance. Secondly we are also completely behind the extension of the current backdating period for a residential care subsidy from 28 days to 90 days. As several submitters pointed out at the select committee there are a number of circumstances in which the 28-day rule does not allow for the realities of someone’s situation to be taken into account. Thirdly we are also pleased that the bill enables the continuation of a personal allowance and that clause 12 restores the discretion that was perhaps inadvertently removed by the 2004 legislation in terms of how the ministry deals with cases where people are found to have deprived themselves of assets and income directly or indirectly prior to their means assessment. 
I will now turn briefly to the matter that has been raised tonight by other speakers before me: the situation of people in “licence to occupy” units who become eligible for subsidised rest home care. Dr Paul Hutchison from the National Party will be putting forward an amendment attempting to deal with this during the Committee stage of the bill and Green Party members have been having serious discussions of our own about whether to support Dr Hutchison’s Supplementary Order Paper and/or to find other ways of making progress on this issue. Like many in this House Green Party members feel it is unacceptable that one partner of a couple who becomes injured ill or impaired to the point that that person needs full care services and who is otherwise eligible under the income and asset testing regime should not be able to stay with his or her partner in a “licence to occupy” unit or apartment rather than being forced to move to another part of a residential complex. There seems to be an inflexibility on the part of both the district health boards and in some cases the providers in trying to work through this situation. 
I have been stunned to find that as part of the district health boards’ standard Age Related Residential Care Services Agreement clause A14.1 states outright: “To avoid doubt you must not be party to any other arrangement (for example a licence-to-occupy or similar arrangement) that results in you effectively receiving payment benefit … to a Subsidised Resident …” and so on. I would have thought that the Government as part of its “ageing in place” strategy should be doing everything it could to encourage people to stay in their own homes for as long as possible rather than the district health boards having a national policy of forcing people apart should they still be fortunate enough to be a couple. 
It was heartening to hear the Minister of Health say earlier tonight that he was interested in calling on residential care providers and district health boards to address this issue—in the case of the providers how they write their occupation right agreements and in the case of the district health boards how they write their residential care contracts. But I am unsure as to how forceful the Minister’s message will be without legislative backing. It is not that the Green Party wants to see providers double-dipping in any way; it is just that we cannot see why someone who would be eligible for the residential care subsidy anyway and who happens to live in an appropriate level apartment or unit as part of an existing complex—profit or non-profit—should not be able to receive the subsidy without having to move into another part of the complex without his or her partner. 
However having said this I point out that we have some reservations about the National Party’s amendment. Although we sympathise with the amendment’s intent we feel unsure about whether it will achieve its goals in its current form. I am keen to discuss the amendment further with Dr Hutchison and other colleagues in the hope that we may find a clear sensible way through this problem without allowing inadvertent double-dipping or other unintended consequences. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill. I must say it is good to hear that the Green Party is taking seriously this amendment which is an outstanding example of how the Labour Government has once again failed the elderly of New Zealand. This may be a small incident but it was very important for an elderly couple who had been living together for 57 years to age together. This was so important for them that their daughter bought them an apartment—they had no assets themselves—worth $150000 next to a rest home. But due to the Labour Government’s policies and to one of the 21 district health boards that it has unnecessarily imposed on the New Zealand public this elderly couple was prevented from receiving the subsidy that the wife was legitimately assessed for. 
It is an utterly deplorable situation when the Labour Government which talks so often about ageing together and which talks with such largesse about its care for the elderly does not worry about the details when it comes to an elderly couple such as this one. It is no coincidence that this bill has no commentary. That is because the Labour members of the Social Services Committee failed to turn up to a select committee meeting on the bill that was very important to the elderly. It has taken a very good amendment from the National Party in my name to put right the situation that this elderly couple suffered in in order to ensure that they could stay in the apartment they had bought. The extraordinary thing about this situation is that fortunately their daughter had enough money to be able to support them even though they did not have the subsidy. But many dozens if not hundreds of elderly couples in New Zealand will be in a similar situation and will not be able to afford that luxury. 
I was very glad to hear the Green Party constructively suggesting that it will if not support the amendment at least work with National to ensure that this flagrant anomaly that was created by the Labour Government is indeed sorted out. 
I also remind the House that this Labour Government also ignored the PricewaterhouseCoopers report of 2000. The aged-care sector has been chronically underfunded. One would have hoped that in a time of reasonable economic growth the Labour Government would respond to its own report but it totally ignored it. Even worse is that an incident like the one that concerns this couple was sorted out in the House just a couple of months ago with the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill. In that instance a 90-year-old pensioner who was living alone while his wife who had Alzheimer’s was in a residential care unit was denied the living alone allowance for a superannuitant because of this Labour Government’s rules. The Hon Dr Nick Smith took the case— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Talk about the bill. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: This subject is absolutely about the bill because this was the second time within a few months that the Labour Government had failed the elderly. In this particular instance the very good constituent member Nick Smith took the case to the Labour Government which denied it not once but twice. Then he took the case to the Human Rights Commissioner who said that this elderly man ought to be given the living alone allowance. What did Dr Cullen say to that? He said that the amendment would increase the Crown’s total operating expenses and total Crown operating revenues by approximately $600000 and therefore he was not prepared to put it through. That is how mean-spirited he was. Members can put that in the context of the election bribes that the Labour Government passed only a year ago—$1.5 billion for the Working for Families package and $1 billion for the interest-free student loans. I remind the House of the other lengths the Government went to—passing retrospective legislation to ease its members’ consciences for using taxpayers’ money for a corrupt practice. That is how far Labour members go but on the other hand they forget the elderly of New Zealand. 
I have to acknowledge that since the select committee got together with National’s support some useful improvements have been made to this bill one of which was the extension of the 28-day rule to 90 days. Thank goodness for the support and care of the National Opposition to ensure that the elderly who clearly cannot be rushed into making their residential care arrangements in 28 days are now given 90 days to make this arrangement. That is a very useful amendment. 
But National opposes this bill for a very fundamental reason and that is that the socialist Labour Government is imposing a cap on the amount that elderly pay for long-term residential care even if they do not receive a subsidy from the Government but pay the money themselves. The Labour Government is interfering with basic freedoms that most New Zealanders would hope to enjoy. In fact this is a gross infringement on personal rights and it is a classic case of the grey communistic union-inspired ethos of the modern Labour Party—that is exactly what it is. This bill does not represent the third way; it is back to the grey communistic ethos of what the union-inspired Labour Government is all about. This is Labour at its worst trying to create the  
Animal Farm 
 for the elderly where everybody is the same; and it is disgraceful. 
Putting a cap on private individuals who have had a needs-assessment for long-term residential care but who pay their own way is as undemocratic and impractical as it is stupid. These changes reduce consumer choice build inflexibility into the system and allow Crown entities to intrude into a private law arrangement. I am sure that if Mr Fairbrother really thinks about it he will know that it is not a good thing for any modern Government to impose on the elderly of its country. Setting a cap on what private individuals can pay will reduce the scope of options available to senior New Zealanders as providers will not take on the risk of building and developing certain types of facilities in a capped market. It ignores the partnership funding approach that Labour so often talks about yet cannot quite get around to putting into practice. 
National opposes this bill on the one hand because it infringes the freedom of choice for elderly New Zealanders and on the other hand because Labour has shown once again when it comes to practical detail that it does not think carefully about the repercussions on elderly New Zealanders. Only 2 months ago the Government was too mean to pay an elderly man whose wife had Alzheimer’s disease a disability allowance. Today the Government is too mean to allow an elderly couple to stay in an apartment together. I do hope it will see reason and support my amendment to allow that elderly couple to age together. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 Having listened to the last contribution and the one before it by Ms Judith Collins I feel it incumbent— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Great speeches. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I have not started yet but I thank Mr Tisch very much. I will continue to entertain him and try to educate him and lead him to the light. 
I must say what happened in the Social Services Committee—both matters alluded to by Ms Collins and that was all of her speech because she had not read the bill. She had not read it at the select committee either and that was why National took a smart trick. Nor did Dr Hutchison seem to understand the bill because at the select committee when those members had an opportunity to have a commentary brought forward to this House articulating their concerns based on fact based on reason a clear exposition to the world for an all-time record in this House they took the most slight opportunity to eschew that chance. They took the first opportunity to give themselves a miss— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: You weren’t there. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I was there. Perhaps if the member had been sitting in the chair he would have seen over the top of the table. He must have been standing and could not see me. 
If National Party members were serious about their laments in this House today they would have taken the time to allow the select committee to bring forward a report that would have articulated any cogent and coherent concerns. But lacking any such concerns in the report they took that rather shifty opportunity when a temporary member on the committee—because of proper commitments of Government members—was distracted. As soon as the chair realised this and sought the leave of the committee to delay the vote until the member came back Dr Hutchison and Judith Collins leapt into the breach and thought: “We can shaft the older people in this country; we can deny them any factual basis for this bill; and we can take a petty approach to caring for older people.” So the older people in this country were once again delivered a huge disservice by people who stand up in this House shedding crocodile tears but have no logic. 
What the National Party does not like about this bill is the simple fundamental truth that underlies it. Labour as National knows is committed to families young and old. Labour as National knows believes in fair treatment and dignity for our senior citizens. That is why National pulled that swifty in the committee. That is why those members took advantage of the mistake of a fleetingly temporary member to try to exploit the chance to deny posterity a record of the select committee hearings. That was a cheap shot I have to say. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Are you going to support the amendment? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: No I do not need to because the maximum contribution is agreed on by the funders and providers. Under this bill it is the same for all needs-assessed residents in a region. It is region based so all long-term residential care providers in a region have consistency. That means the older people who need to go into long-term residential care know that whatever provider there is whether or not from a rapacious right-winger or one from a very community-minded operator the cost is the same because the region sets the standards regardless of the type of care needed—rest home; in the case of Dr Hutchison dementia; continuing hospital; or specialist hospital care. So regardless of the type of care needed for one region it is the same cost for all those who have to take advantage of our long-term residential care provisions. 
So this is Labour exercising its commitment to families. This is Labour providing treatment and dignity for our senior citizens. This bill also— 
John Hayes 
: Overtaxing everyone else. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Listen to the trite rubbish that comes out from Arbor Motel! This is the man who runs out clichés instead of argument; the man who sticks his hair up with a hairdryer in the morning so he can stand above his colleagues. This bill differentiates between those who receive disability road services and claim disability allowances and those who receive age-related care. This difference is needed because of the different contracting arrangements. 
I was going to talk about some of the more detailed provisions of the bill in the time left available given the misrepresentation to this House of the actions of the select committee—and listeners to Parliament and readers of  
Hansard 
 will understand—that reflects on the integrity of the submissions from Dr Hutchison and Judith Collins. The integrity of what they said can be measured against the accuracy of their reflection of the select committee trick they played. It behoves me only to go back to basic principles. The bill is not introducing new policy. It clarifies existing Government policy. It makes sure that all older people in long-term residential care are treated fairly. That is the rub is it not I say to Dr Hutchison—that all old people in long-term residential care are treated fairly. 
The clarifications in this bill are designed to remove any ambiguity about Government policy and avoid varying interpretations or legal challenge. We want to get the facts on the floor and this bill does that. One of the elementary facts which has been distorted by speakers on the other side is this thing about no ability of disparate pricing. There is nothing in this bill that prevents an older person from agreeing to pay extra for additional services they have agreed to receive over and above those set out in the Government contract. That is a fundamental truth of this bill. It flies in the face of the assertions made by those of the National Party who seem not bothered to have read the bill and pulled fast tricks to prevent a report from the select committee being filed in this Parliament for posterity. I will repeat that. There is nothing in this bill that prevents an older person from agreeing to pay extra for additional services he or she has agreed to receive over and above those set out in the Government contract. 
What must also be pointed out to members opposite is that the maximum contribution policy provides certainty and fairness for vulnerable older people in our society. Who can quibble at that? Who can dare deny that fact? Who is failing to address that part of the bill in the submission to the National Party? The maximum contribution policy provides that certainty and fairness. I belong to a party that respects the older generation and wants to provide those people with the very best in their old age. 
This bill also ensures realistic adjustments in line with changes to the rest home contract price. Those changes usually occur as Dr Hutchison may know when district health boards and providers review the contract for long-term residential care. Those adjustments are reflected equitably in this bill. As I draw to the end of my contribution to the second reading I say that I look forward to the chance in the Committee stage to elaborate further on the detail of the bill. I think that we must go back—but not for Mr Tisch who seems to have trouble listening as well as standing. The Government’s policy on long-term residential care is that if an older person is assessed as needing long-term residential care indefinitely there will be a limit on what that person pays to receive a basic package of services from an aged residential care facility that has a contract with a district health board. This limited amount is referred to as the maximum contribution and applies to the services set out in the district health board provider contract. 
This bill makes two changes to the Act: a clarification of eligibility for disability allowance in residential care; and a redefinition to ensure that overseas private pensions and annuities are treated the same as New Zealand private pensions and annuities thus removing the inequity whereby overseas private pension recipients have to pay 100 percent of that. There are nine key points to the bill and I wish that time would allow me to deal with those in a proper and fulsome manner. What I will say is that I will return during the Committee stage to re-emphasise those nine points. 
As I finish my second reading speech I will restate a fundamental fact: this Government is committed to families young and old. It believes in fair treatment and dignity for our senior citizens. This bill continues to make progress on both fronts. It provides certainty for all. It provides dignity for our older citizens. It provides equity and fairness—concepts that are foreign to the National Party. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I came to the House tonight in readiness for the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill but I have to say that Dr Hutchison has moved me to take a short call on this Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill. Although I am well accustomed to the rampant—I cannot use the word that begins with “h” I will not use it; I cannot even refer to it so I apologise for even implying the word—I simply could not remain seated having observed the crocodile tears and listened to the mock concern for the elderly from that man Dr Hutchison. He came to the House I think genuinely relatively recently. 
Hon Member 
: He came elderly of course. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: He came elderly but I thought he also came with some genuine concern for the elderly. I have to say that in contrast to this Government’s commitment to essentially establishing fair treatment and dignity for our senior citizens we have observed yet again from the Tory benches not only crocodile tears but also I think the ideological nonsense that drives so much of the mean-spirited nastiness that would be visited upon New Zealand if ever in the distant future New Zealanders were foolish enough to allow those members near the Treasury benches. 
The party opposite is the party that despite those crocodile tears about the poor elderly in 1999 legislated to reach into the pockets of pensioners and take out $38000 a week in my electorate alone from their pensions. That is what it would have cost the people whom that member opposite claims to be so concerned about. Every week $38000 would have gone from the pockets and purses of pensioners in my electorate—that is their ability to buy a loaf of bread—and into the coffers of the National Party. That was National’s care for the dignity of the elderly. So Dr Hutchison should not come to this House and pretend to have concern for the elderly. He should not come to this House and dare to use words like corruption when attacking the provisions for fair treatment of the elderly that this Government is ensuring are provided. 
Similarly the member deviated from the bill and talked about student loans. It was a great piece of Tory lateral thinking. The relief of student debt—which is something clearly beneficial clearly positive and clearly good for the well-being not only of our individual students but of our community as a whole—was attacked as being some sort of bribe because National had to try to discredit it. I say to the member opposite that Labour will not apologise for taking care in legislation of the needs and well-being of the elderly. We will not apologise for taking care by relieving student debt of the needs of young people who are struggling because of National Party indifference and poor decisions in the 1990s. 
I observed on television yet another example. I thought I had seen it all until I saw Nick Smith with crocodile tears coming down his face standing next to a poor constituent. I did feel some empathy for the woman—who I understand was self-employed—who was on the news with her member of Parliament Dr Nick Smith crying and lamenting at the poor condition she found herself in. It appeared that she did not qualify for parental leave support when she was having a child. That member’s party voted against that provision applying to every single New Zealand parent yet Dr Smith had the absolute gall to go on nationwide television and pretend some sort of sympathy. 
I say to members opposite that it will not do. They can come into this House and ramble on about corruption but the truth will out and the truth is that this Government is about the people’s business. This Government is about looking after and caring for the interests of New Zealanders. Those members opposite have nothing more on their minds than cheap nasty slogans and the juggling of who sits in that vacant seat on the front bench. I wish them all well. It will not make any difference because they will be shuffling the deckchairs on that side of the House for a very very long time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time.