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:2550. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 Sam Lotu-Iiga said that the Opposition has been shouting and screaming to be heard. Well yes we have and I will tell you why: because no one over there is listening. No one over there has had their ears open to anything that has been said by the Opposition side of the House today. I heard Tim Macindoe and I have got one question for him: did he tell his constituents his elderly constituents before the election that he intended through his Government to change the asset-testing regime? Did he tell his constituents? Well I know what the answer is. The answer is a big fat no. He did not tell his constituents. 
I have to say that his Cabinet did not tell him either. The backbench members did not know that the Government was going to bring this measure in. I feel sorry for the suckers. They did not know that the Government was going to bring in this measure until they trooped into the caucus room yesterday. They sat down and Bill English proudly held up his Budget and said: “By the way we’re going to introduce a little bill just a few minor technical amendments and we’re going to change the asset-testing regime. You sit on your chuffs in the House and say nothing because that is what your job is. You’re the suckers for our policy.” That is what happened. I know that is what happened. I have to say that it is pretty blimmin poor for the older people of New Zealand. 
Tim Macindoe said we all have to make sacrifices. Well is it not interesting: members opposite are going to take $4.5 million off the poor old people who spend on average 18 months in a rest home but guess how much is going into VIP limos? Guess how much is going into VIP limos? There is $8.2 million for the big limos. I am going to say they are taking the money off the old people so that they can have their BMWs. That is what it means—take it off the old people so that Government members can pay $8.2 million for their limousines to drive around in. 
There is one word for this Cabinet—and I am not going to include the backbenchers because they did not know about this bill the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. There is one word for this Cabinet: arrogant. What an arrogant Cabinet. You know during the Committee stage of this bill would those arrogant Ministers stand up and defend this bill? No they would not. They sat on their behinds in this House and would not say a word. What do they earn their money doing? I am sure that Tau Henare when he was a Minister would have been on his feet. He would not be able to resist it. But did we hear from Paula Bennett? Did we hear from Nathan Guy? No they sat there with their heads down. They could not defend this measure. Why could they not defend it? Because they consulted with nobody and it was a sneaky secret little deal. It was a secret deal done in Cabinet that did not even include their backbench colleagues. They said they consulted on it. Tony Ryall: “We consulted on this bill.” Do you know what? They consulted on this bill at about the same time they told the backbench—yesterday. Is that consultation? Does that constitute consultation? You ring up Age Concern and Grey Power and say: “By the way we’re going to change the asset-testing regime in the Budget in half an hour.” Is that consultation? No it is not. It is arrogance. That is what it is. 
The Minister for Social Development said when she did finally speak in the third reading—a well-prepared 2-minute speech—that this was a responsible framework. She said that the fact is that it is a good deal. It is a good deal for whom? It is certainly not a good deal for older New Zealanders. And she said that it is a priority for this Government. When did it become a priority for this Government to change a regime that has been in place for almost 10 years and that older New Zealanders and people who are moving into the years when they will need rest home care were relying on? They had no idea that something that had been on the books for 10 years was going to be changed at a swipe of a pen under urgency and through a very secret sneaky little deal done in Cabinet.  
Andrew Little 
: Shameful 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Shame! It is shameful. It is very shameful indeed. This measure is not a priority for this Government. It is nothing but meanness. I think those members ought to be ashamed of themselves. They are taking $4.5 million off the most vulnerable. 
Then they told us that they were doing it so that the older people could have certainty. Well do you know what? They had certainty. They had the certainty of a 10-year-old policy that the National Party did not change in the first 4 years that it was in Government. It never mentioned it never changed it never said it would change it. Older people had certainty for 10 years and then at the drop of a hat National changed the policy. It changed it for $4.5 million. It is OK to spend $8.2 million on limos but you cannot spend $4.5 million on the most vulnerable in our society. 
I have to say it is the beginning of the end for older people in New Zealand under a National Government. I have seen it all before. Bill English in 1998 said that he would not get rid of asset testing although he had promised in a coalition deal with New Zealand First that he would. He welshed on the deal under National which refused to get rid of asset testing. In this Budget National has frozen the Rates Rebate Scheme. There is no more money for the Rates Rebate Scheme. That is another kick in the guts for older New Zealanders. And there is no money to promote the Rates Rebate Scheme. Do not tell them there might be a little bit of help for them. The way to reduce expenditure is to never tell them that they are entitled to it. That is the way that this arrogant Government is carrying on. 
I have to say I liked the analogy from Ruth Dyson. She said Government members were putting their hands in the dressing gown pockets of older New Zealanders and performing the old loaves and fishes act by taking $4.5 million off the old people then claiming somehow that they were putting so much more money into residential care and home care. Well for those members over there who obviously know nothing there is no extra money for those people who are in home care. There is no extra money for those in residential care. The money merely covers the increase in the number of people going into rest homes and it merely covers the number of people who need home care. 
The members over there might like to have the wool pulled over their eyes but I can tell you something that I know about older New Zealanders: they do not. I would say that Government members when they sulk home out of this House are going to face some older people who will say: “You could have changed it. You could have asked us though. You could have consulted us. You could have said ‘Is there another way to do it?’ but no you kept it secret.” They will remember that this is an arrogant sneaky Government that when there is urgency will do what it can to undermine the most vulnerable in New Zealand. Well good luck to you because I can tell you they will not forget it.