Wong Pansy: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Wong Pansy: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11188] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I find it incredible that Winnie Laban who usually speaks from the heart would actually stand up and say she was proud of this piece of legislation. That does nothing but show up that the Labour Government is breaking a very long-held promise which started with the Rt Hon Helen Clark. 
My colleague Katherine Rich mentioned that Miss Clark our current Prime Minister of New Zealand made that promise way back in 1993. She reaffirmed it in 2002 in her statement to Parliament. She said: “Legislation to repeal asset testing of older people in rest homes and geriatric hospitals will be introduced …”. Does this legislation repeal asset testing? Anybody who has time to read the legislation knows that it does nothing like that. I advise Winnie Laban to start reading the legislation. That promise came from the Prime Minister who values integrity and honesty and says she always delivers what she promises. In 2002 in her statement to Parliament she said that her Government would introduce legislation to repeal the asset testing of older people. I wonder what happened between 2002 and 2004. I think there was an election; the year 2002 was before the election and the year 2004 was after the election. The statement that she makes to Parliament somehow has changed a bit. In her statement this year she states that legislation will be introduced to begin the phasing out of asset testing. It is interesting to compare that with the Prime Minister’s statement before the election when once again she had to gain the votes of the elderly; after the election she did not have to. 
I also want to comment on a point made by the senior whip of the Labour Government David Benson-Pope. He said today that he regrets that broken promise; he had the good sense at least to show a little bit of regret at that broken promise and to say that he is not proud of this legislation being introduced into this House. He said the Labour Government is breaking the promise because it is a fiscally responsible Government and cannot afford the money. It cannot afford the money so it has broken its promise. Whoever has been following the promises of the Minister of Finance the Hon Michael Cullen to younger working families will know that this year he will be an early Father Christmas distributing lollies to those families. I reckon the Hon Michael Cullen has done the sums and realised that the number of people in working families is larger than the number of elderly. So what does he do? He gives away money to working families and holds it back from older citizens. 
But I have more evidence to show that this Labour Government is far from being a fiscally responsible Government. For a start how much do members think this Government has spent on its new Cabinet office? It has spent over $913000 on the Cabinet office. How many people benefit from that for how many hours a week? Suddenly a Cabinet table that has served Cabinet for I do not know how many years is not good enough for this Labour Government. Guess how much it spent on a single new table for the Cabinet office? 
Katherine Rich 
: $50000? 
PANSY WONG 
: My colleague has underestimated it. This Labour Cabinet has expensive tastes. It cost $154519! Not only does the Labour Cabinet have an expensive taste in tables; it also says it needs expensive chairs to go with it. Each chair costs $7726. I see that Mr Assistant Speaker is indicating that I am going wide of the bill but the senior Government whip assured the country that this Government is responsible and careful in spending money. I just want the senior citizens out there to listen. Members of this Labour Government after 11 years of making promises to do away with asset testing would rather spend money on doing up the Cabinet office and treating themselves to expensive tables and chairs. This year the Minister of Finance will say that we are having a good year and have another good surplus but will those members honour their promise? No they will not. So I remind this Labour Government that we are looking forward to hearing some of the submitters to the select committee ask them some of those hard questions. 
But I also want to repeat a point that was made by my very good colleague Dr Lynda Scott. She is very popular and has a lot to do with senior citizens as the National spokesperson on senior citizens. She knows their needs. She knows the importance of their care. She is a doctor who actually specialised in geriatric care. She cares and she understands that it is important that the elderly keep as mobile as possible. So we want this Government to tell us—that is if another Labour MP will take a call—whether when it increases this threshold when it siphons some money off the health care of the elderly to this area it will guarantee that the same group of senior citizens that we are talking about will still be subject to quality care amenities that help them to keep their mobility. Will the Government honour that or is it simply going to pinch money from their care which is also important to make up for this increase in the threshold? 
Labour MPs could really learn by listening to the intelligent argument put by my very good colleague Katherine Rich. She says it is silly to put on a cap and say that these homes cannot charge above $636 per week. For me as a member from Auckland once again I want the next Labour MP if Labour actually cares to take a decent lengthy call to explain that to the senior citizens from Auckland. It is very expensive to live in Auckland. I want Labour to guarantee and promise—make another promise— to those senior citizens that if this $636 cap stops new hostels and new care facilities from being built the Labour Government will place every one of them. I think Labour members should make that promise because there is no point in their feeling good and looking good because of what is on a piece of paper if senior citizens end up with no place to go when they need that care. The Labour Government is always very good at doing that. Labour members tell people for example that there is free childcare and that they do not need to pay the doctor’s fee but then we see doctors on television telling them they will not be able to continue in practice because they do not have enough money to make up for the Labour Government’s shortfall. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Social Services Committee.referred to the Social Services Committee