Dyson Ruth: 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 
Dyson Ruth: 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:2505. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I want to begin by extending my sympathy to the Minister for Social Development who introduced this bill the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill by delivering a 3-minute speech. I have never ever in my years in Parliament seen a Minister less enthusiastic about legislation in her name. I notice that she is not even able to continue contributing to the debate. She did interject though— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! The member knows she cannot refer—when the member said the Minister would not contribute there was an inference that the Minister had left the Chamber. Just be careful. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You inferred it; she did not. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I am just saying to be careful in the future. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The Minister however in an interjection did refer to a press statement that had been made on this issue. I invite the Minister to table the press statement which may have been in her name—that would be logical as she is the Minister who introduced the legislation. It may have been in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall the Minister of Health. It may have been in the name of the Hon Jo Goodhew the Minister for Senior Citizens. But whoever’s name the press statement is in they should go back to their office and tell their press secretary to put it on the National Party website alongside every other statement that has been issued in relation to the Budget. Jo Goodhew who is now claiming credit for this asset-testing legislation must have forgotten to get her press statement put on the New Zealand National Party website because it is not there. So either Paula Bennett made a mistake in saying that a press statement was released in relation to this bill or her press secretary has forgotten to put it on the National Party website. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They forgot to put it in the packs that were given out to the media yesterday. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It was not in the packs given to the media my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard has reminded me. It was not in the Budget speech delivered by Bill English earlier. It has not been mentioned anywhere but suddenly under urgency we are introducing legislation that in my view breaches the contract at the least that has been made with 170 people who are currently in residential care who went into residential care on the understanding that they would be subject to the legislative asset-testing regime. Those 170 people deserve an apology from the Government in my view. But if that is too good for the Government to offer at the very least they deserve an opportunity to have their say before a select committee.  
The Minister for Social Development in her introductory speech said that this legislation was necessary for the sustainability of the asset-testing regime. In this financial year it will save $4.5 million. The Government will spend $94 billion in the coming financial year. If it is necessary for the sustainability of this regime to save $4 million then this Government has put us into a bigger financial crisis than any of us has imagined. We had earlier in this debate around the Budget the tragic sight of Bill English turning the poor old paper deliverers upside down and shaking them to get their few cents’ worth of tax money out of them and now we see the same Minister saying to the elderly of New Zealand: “There is nothing for you in this Budget but actually can we have $4.5 million out of your pocket this year so that we can continue giving tax cuts to the wealthiest New Zealanders?”. Budgets are about choices. There are always limits on what can be spent. That is what Budget decisions are about. But to pretend that this is necessary for the financial sustainability of the asset-testing regime beggars belief and Minister Bennett should be ashamed of herself. 
Tim Macindoe in his equally short and thoughtless contribution on this debate— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It was one of his better ones though. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: —it was one of his better speeches—referred to the aged being an increasing percentage of the population in New Zealand as a problem. Well he is part of that problem. He is part of the generation that will increase the percentage of total people in New Zealand who are older. 
Hon Member 
: None of us are getting younger. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I agree with him on that point. He is a problem. People in the Waikato have been referring to him in that way for some time. But I do not consider that this is a problem that we should therefore park on the sidelines and say: “Let’s get money out of them.” The fact that we in New Zealand will have an increasing percentage of our population who are older should be celebrated because it means we have improved the health and well-being of people. We need to ensure that those people have genuine choices about what they do and how they participate in our society. They should be respected not classified as a problem and then used as a way of penny-pinching and getting money to pay for other things that the Government has chosen to pay for. The sum of $4.5 million is not going to save New Zealand nor will it be part of a great vision for economic growth and prosperity. The  
Dominion Post 
 editorial got it right this morning when it said: “Loose change won’t pay the bills”. It was referring to the tax grab by the Government from the poor old paper deliverers. The youngest kids in our society who are working are now having to pay tax. The  
Dominion Post 
 tomorrow should repeat the headline but talk about the difference that the $4.5 million that this Government is penny-pinching under urgency in its change to the asset-testing regime will make. 
 As I said earlier I do not think this move is going to solve any issues at all that New Zealand is facing. It should not be a move that is considered under urgency. We should give older New Zealanders the decency and respect that they deserve and at least refer this legislation to a select committee. Other colleagues from Labour New Zealand First and the Green Party have made very important contributions about the nature of this debate. A select committee would enjoy that debate because it is an important one to be held. This bill being introduced under urgency and passed through all stages is the biggest mark of disrespect that older New Zealanders could have and I say to the Minister responsible Paula Bennett and to the Minister for Senior Citizens Jo Goodhew that they should be ashamed of this move.