Chadwick Steve: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11072] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I certainly rise to support this bill. I found the speech made by the Opposition’s spokesperson for the older person very sad because they are now being led by a spokesperson who is carping on about not enough money going into care for older people. She has gone around Grey Power asking: “When is this Government going to keep its commitment to the older person to introduce asset-testing removal legislation?” 
Well here it is and thank goodness it has come in. When I go out to Grey Power its members are going to be very pleased to have certainty at last. Grey Power has not known how to manage its affairs when the Government has been saying that it would be bringing in the removal of asset testing. Grey Power members have asked: “When are you going to do it? I need to have certainty about how to manage my affairs in my old age.” 
I also found it amazing that the Opposition carps on about this bill saying that it will bring the residential aged-care sector to its knees. This is not about protection of the residential sector at all; it is about protection and certainty for older people so that they can have a decent standard of living in their old age and while they are saving for it. 
I am proud to say that I came from a socialist Government where I did not hang on the threads and from a family who also believed in looking after their old people. I never ever planned what I would do with the legacy my parents would leave behind for me. The legacy they gave me was about decency and looking after them in their old age. I did not give a hoot about an inheritance and frankly whatever I inherited was there to look after my parents when they went into aged care. I did not care what crumbs we got at the end of it. 
It is an appalling indictment to see the member talking about how we will protect the industry. That is not what this bill is about—this bill is about looking after older people. It is a substantial investment and the member could not even acknowledge that—a $110 million cost. That has been costed several times and that is why the removal of asset testing will be implemented progressively increasing by 10 percent per annum over time and is inflation adjusted. This legislation is about protection for older people and about certainty in their old age. 
In conclusion one thing I want to say about certainty in old age is this: let us ask that member in Opposition what her leader is going to do about superannuation for older people. Let us get honest about superannuation for older people because we know jolly well what will happen there for older people. I will be pleased to go around Grey Power meetings and tell them about the sort of security that that party is proposing for people in their old age. It is becoming manifestly apparent that all that party is interested in is propping up the residential-care sector. 
It is delightful to hear the Opposition talking about wages—improved wages for aged-care nurses and care attendants. Before we came into Government—and that member knows because she received the Nelson petition—the increases that went to nurse and care-attendant salaries over the 9 years National was in Government were absolutely abysmal. Wages were frozen and we have been having to incrementally increase their salaries as well as put money into ageing-in-place strategies.We cannot have it all. That is why this is a moderate bill bringing in the removal of asset testing over time. It has been costed it is very expensive and I am very proud to support its coming in today.