te Heuheu Georgina: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17281] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 The Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill is a perfect example of what is produced by a cynical Government that campaigns on one thing and then delivers exactly the opposite. Colleagues who have spoken earlier have asked the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson to take a call. I reiterate that request. I want the Minister to stand up and reconcile this matter for those who are listening—probably the elderly because the elderly often listen to the radio at night. Some elderly people cannot get to sleep at night and so unlike lots of others who are doing other things they often listen to the radio—[ 
Interruption 
]. The Minister is very much awake. Mature New Zealanders often listen to the radio at night. Although sometimes I wonder why in the case of this legislation I have no doubt at all that some of our senior citizens will be listening to the debate. I think it is only fair that the Minister should stand take a call and respond to the question of why she was happy to be part of a Labour Opposition that campaigned on a plank of getting rid of asset testing. 
My colleague Dr Hutchison says that Labour started off the first part of its 9 years in Opposition by saying it would abolish asset and income testing. By the time we got to 1999 it was promising to abolish asset testing only. Of course this bill does not deliver this. Labour has been in Government for nearly 6 years now and one has to ask when it will deliver on its promises. This bill does not do that. It creates a huge expectation for one part of the community but lays some costs on another part. I want the Minister to stand up and explain why she was happy to say in the second reading of this bill: “We consider that it is legitimate to expect people to contribute towards some of the costs of care because those costs would need to be met if the person were living at home. As such the income test is retained.” That is in direct contrast to what I have no doubt that the Minister as part of the Labour Opposition— 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: It's the “Maharey principle”. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: My colleague Dr Scott calls it the “Maharey principle” which means to say one thing when in Opposition and do exactly the opposite when in Government. I know that this Minister does take calls so I ask her to seriously consider getting to her feet and explaining why she can sit there with her chest puffed out and be proud of what this Government is doing in what is really a shambolic bill and answer the question of why Labour is not doing what it said it would do when it was in Opposition. We know why: the reality is that once a party gets into Government it has to come up with solutions. I would not say that this bill is a solution though. 
I have to agree with the previous speaker Muriel Newman who raised the issue that this legislation will in the long run create huge huge costs. In pretending to be doing something that is close to what it promised but not actually going quite to the point of getting rid of asset testing Labour is piling on a huge cost factor which we will all pay for some time in the future. Given that there are now providers exiting the sector we will probably start paying that cost a lot sooner than anybody thinks. I think it is a cynical Government that will do this to some of the most vulnerable people in our community. However I am sure that in our senior citizenry we have intelligence and common sense. Those citizens will not be fooled by this—they just will not be. They deserve far better than this at their time of life. It is not right that not so very long ago promises were made that today can be seen for what they are—a total sham. It is obvious that the Minister will not get to her feet and she should.