Robertson H V Ross: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11185] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. When we were last considering this bill the honourable member Judy Turner had 8 minutes and 40 seconds remaining in which to speak. I have been informed by United Future that under Standing Order 117(2) its members have decided to share their speaking time. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 An asset-testing bill has at long last found its way to the floor of this Parliament. As all of us here in the House know the subject matter of this bill—asset testing for senior citizens—has been the subject of great controversy in this country for at least 15 years. My mind immediately goes back to the 1990 election when the National Party made a promise to the electors of this country that it would abolish asset testing. My memory also extends to what subsequently happened following that: the $650 million bail-out of the BNZ which in fairness National knew nothing about when it made that promise. The then Prime Minister the Rt Hon Jim Bolger had to break his word to the people of New Zealand. The circumstances were somewhat extenuating but nevertheless I think the lesson that every political party learnt from that episode was that it is better not to make a promise in the first place if it does not intend to keep it. 
Then of course the clock goes forward to 1999 and to the pledge card of the Labour Party. I have to be careful here because I am not sure exactly what was on that pledge card but in any event I do know that Labour promised to have a serious look at the possibility of repealing asset testing. What we have before us—somewhat late given that it is now 2004—is a bill that does not remove asset testing but at least relaxes the rules around it from here on in. 
At my age one of the things that I find quite remarkable about life is its brevity. All of us grow old. Many of the people who were around at the time when Jim Bolger originally broke the promise to repeal asset testing have by now gone on hopefully to better things. But we still have with us about 463000 people who are aged over 65. That figure will rise to about 551000 people by 2010 and to about 1 million people by 2030. Therefore the issue at the heart of this bill will affect the lives of most New Zealanders. This bill will affect directly or indirectly all people who live say beyond the age of 65. By that standard this bill is of great importance to the House. 
United Future along with Age Concern New Zealand believes that the era of asset testing is an era of social policy that is best forgotten. But important human rights lessons need to be heeded and learned from the unfortunate events that have accompanied this issue over the last 15 years. In an age when we value the dignity of people with disabilities—and no other group has to pay for long-term residential care—it has to be admitted that many senior citizens in this country and many of us who are fast moving towards that category saw the issue of asset testing as a core election promise. Age Concern though has expressed to us its worry that during the 5 to 6-year wait that has occurred since 1999 the abuse of senior citizens has been allowed to proliferate as families and caregivers have stopped elderly relatives from going into much-needed care so that their assets are not dissipated. That is an unfortunate comment is it not on the realities of human nature? It is good to know that as a result of this bill let us hope and pray most of that kind of abuse will quickly come to an end. 
At the time of their life where New Zealand citizens should have their assets working for them—after all all their lives they have put away a nest egg normally in terms of owning a home a car and a few other things on the side like small investments so those things can work to give them security in their old age—it is disheartening to think that successive Government policy was seen to have eroded that base. It is good that that will be restored through this legislation. United Future therefore welcomes the introduction of this bill and looks forward to seeing how the select committee addresses the concerns voiced to us by Age Concern providers and their fears—and these fears also come from the retirement village operators themselves—regarding the business viability issues that are raised by the bill. We will watch with interest the conclusions of the select committee. The demographic projections I mentioned earlier demand that we continue to encourage a greater level of personal responsibility for our own welfare when we become senior citizens or if we are already senior citizens. But at the same time we must develop certainty about the support we can expect from the Government so that retirement planning can be realistically geared. 
With those few remarks I have pleasure in signalling United Future’s support for this bill.