Newman Muriel: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Newman Muriel: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17280] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak during the Committee stage of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill and I have to say from the outset that our party will be opposing this legislation. 
I would like to start my contribution by noting that the date for commencement of the Act which is written in Part 1 is 1 July 2005. I make the point to the Committee that that seems to me to be yet another Labour Party election bribe. If we have an early election we can just imagine what the Labour manifesto will say: “Vote for us if you are an elderly New Zealander and we will remove asset testing.” If the election comes after 1 July 2005 then the election manifesto will say: “Look at the Labour Party. Aren’t we clever? We have started to remove asset testing.” But is it not interesting that I seem to recall from a few years ago that a promise was made that the Labour Party would remove asset testing—full stop? But here we are; we have a half-hearted attempt to start backtracking because—guess what? We have an election around the corner and the Labour Party is positioning itself with the elderly vote in its sights. 
I would like to make the point here that the cost of this legislation will be literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars a year as time goes by. Others in this debate have already made the point that we have an ageing population and what will happen is that people who could well afford to pay for themselves in residential care will be subsidised by hard-working taxpayers who can ill afford to pay their mortgages let alone the high taxes that will be necessary as time goes by and as the changes to the asset-testing regime progress. 
 I would say that this bill has to be one of the most irresponsible bills that any Government could bring in. The Labour Party knows full well that by the time it has long gone from the Treasury benches some other poor Government will have to pick up the cost of what will be hugely expensive legislation. As we all know it is very difficult to repeal a lot of social legislation once it has been put in place. 
I have to say it is bizarre that the day the Committee stage of this bill is taking place is the day on which The Salvation Army has signalled that it will get out of the residential care business. It warned the select committee in no uncertain terms that unless the Government changed the legislation in a way that would allow such social service providers to be in this business it would simply have to quit. Did the Government listen? No way! The Government did not listen. The Salvation Army also warned in its submission that Labour's removal of the asset-testing regime signals that the Government will become a monopoly purchaser of residential care services. It is the nationalisation of residential care for the elderly by stealth. That is what we are seeing today because almost no one eventually will have assets that are high enough for them to pay privately. 
Members of the Opposition who are opposing this bill as well as people listening are seeing another example of nationalisation by a Labour Government that wants to regulate almost every sector of our society. It is hitting hard at private charities—organisations like The Salvation Army and Presbyterian Support New Zealand an organisation that has been around for 100 years. They have been around and in the business of providing care for the people who most need it and the Labour Government in a bizarre fashion is forcing them out of the business because it thinks that the Government knows best. I say to the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson that if I have that wrong I would like her to stand take a call and explain to members why it is that today The Salvation Army is quitting the business.