Lole-Taylor Asenati: 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 
Lole-Taylor Asenati: 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:2534. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 Talofa lava. It is “Lole-Taylor”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Lole-Taylor then. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: Thank you. The argument that the New Zealand population is one that is ageing and we do not have enough care facilities to cope with demand is a pathetic excuse to cut down on services. Why does this Government not take some of its newly proposed Future Investment Fund and invest in our elderly? The injection of nearly $12 million into aged care should be used to open up new aged care facilities. This National Government is willing to put $40 million into dementia services hoping—hoping—that the elderly will forget about the new Budget measures. Would the Minister open her home to those who will be reduced to a less-than-dignified state of living? Because that is exactly what will happen as the result of this Social Security (Long-term Residential Care—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. That is exactly what will happen.  
The Minister for Social Development has dumped this bill on to us knowing full well that this had been planned for weeks if not months in advance. The Minister has dumped this bill on to the New Zealand elderly and she has dumped this bill on the New Zealanders who are vulnerable. Shame! Shame—it has to be said. The Government is paying into those big pockets of its mates but bugger the rest—I am not sure if I am allowed to use that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No you are not. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: I apologise. The threshold for the subsidy is now dependent on the rate of inflation—CPI. This means that at any stage the threshold is vulnerable and can either not change or change very very minimally. What we get is the forcing of the hand of the elderly to sell off their assets that they have worked so hard for all their lives. Paula Bennett has introduced this bill because she needs money for the welfare budget so we take from the old in order to provide for welfare reforms that are destroying New Zealand society. The Government has looked at this subsidy because it did not realise that the 10 percent increase in thresholds would be yearly and it was worried that this meant the window for the subsidy would widen dramatically.  
New Zealand First does not support this bill. It is a direct undermining of elderly people in residential care. Elderly people will be forced to either sell their assets or apply for a residential care loan in order to pay for residential care in a rest home. Setting the rate of the applicable asset threshold used in determining the amount residents in aged residential care have to contribute to the costs of their care to change according to the CPI gives uncertainty to the scheme. It will most probably now take longer for the elderly based on the value of their assets to become eligible for the residential care subsidy. The elderly will be forced to find other means of paying for residential care. Some may even become more dependent on their children. Of course that is the usual situation. It is something that happens quite a lot in the Polynesian community especially those in South Auckland—something that Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga should be familiar with. Even member Alfred Ngaro should know better or even Dr Cam Calder—that is right. They are from South Auckland and they should be familiar with what it is like for the Polynesian people in South Auckland to try to save for assets. Now they will find it a lot harder much harder to even get into residential care. It is National’s direct and quick way to try to cut areas in welfare not only to force New Zealand to sell its assets but also now to force the elderly to sell their assets. Thank you.