Dyson Ruth: 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 
Dyson Ruth: 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:2526. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I was I must admit expecting the Minister of Health to take a call on the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill because as my colleague Kris Faafoi the member of Parliament for Mana has just explained after searching and searching and searching for a press release in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett or the Hon Jo Goodhew the current Minister for Senior Citizens or the Minister of Health announcing to the public that not only was the asset-testing regime being changed but it was being frozen and that this change in legislation was going to be put through all stages under urgency without giving the public any opportunity to have a say at all I thought that the Minister of Health would be taking a call. Because it was the Minister of Health who made this massive announcement but not as a press release titled “Asset testing regime to change” or “Breach of contract with 170 residents in residential care” or “Massive investment in New Zealand’s economic growth because of a saving this financial year of $4.5 million”. No it was just one and a half sentences snuck halfway down in a press release announcing all the other major changes in the health budget. So it was not even in the name of the Minister who introduced the legislation and whose name will remain on this change in the statute. The Minister in charge of the legislation said nothing to the public about this. The Minister for Senior Citizens made no public comment at all in relation to the asset-testing regime despite her portfolio giving her the advocacy mandate for senior citizens in New Zealand. So I would expect the Minister of Health to take a call. I thought he would take a call immediately after my colleague Kris Faafoi but he did not do that. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Talofa to you Mr Chairman. First of all I want to express my disappointment that despite acknowledging Samoan Language Week you did not acknowledge to the senior whip from Labour and other members of the House that it is also Hug a Ginga Day. You may want to take the opportunity before the House rises later on to address that with the many members of the House. The Hon Kate Wilkinson is smiling in anticipation of this so I look forward to the Hon Kate Wilkinson leading the queue to have that interaction with the Chairman.  
I am really pleased to conclude my first contribution in the Committee stage of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill by repeating my call that I made prior to the lunch adjournment to the Minister of Health or indeed to the Minister for Social Development to take a call in this Committee stage and explain to particularly the 170 current residents in residential care why the $4.5 million that they are being asked to pay this year is necessary. Why is it necessary for them to contribute that amount of money given the range of other options that I am sure both Ministers considered? Why is that being described totally incorrectly by National members as the way of securing the long-term sustainability of the asset-testing regime? Because it is not. In fact what this does is fundamentally alter the asset-testing regime as was very appropriately commented on by Kevin Hague in his earlier contribution to this debate.  
What it actually means is outlined very well in what I do not think is the greatest regulatory impact statement that I have ever seen but perhaps it was because the officials did not have very much notice to put it together but certainly the fiscal savings which is all the regulatory impact statement describes are very appropriately laid out. For a person who currently is under a contractual understanding that their asset threshold would be at $220000 the CPI indexation would mean that it would be at $213297 and that is with the assumption that there is a 2 percent increase in the CPI from year to March 2013 and onwards. As I said that is outlined in the regulatory impact statement.  
A lot of National members do not seem to think that this is a problem. You know what does it matter if older people who are in a rest home have to have fewer assets before they qualify for this asset-testing regime? But what it actually means for the average resident again according to the regulatory impact statement is that they will have to pay an extra $70 a day and the difference between the current amount and the new amount is that they will not become eligible for the full income subsidy for 96 days longer than they currently would. Again National members would say “Well older people are a problem. What’s 96 days?”. I have heard in speech after speech in the earlier stages of this debate National members referring to older people as a problem. I find that offensive. I also think that it indicates that they are totally out of touch with reality if they think that the additional 96 days of paying $70 per day is not much. It is a lot and particularly it is a lot when you face the harsh reality of the fact that the average stay in a rest home for older New Zealanders is now around 18 months. The brutal reality of this is that these people do not have very much longer to live. That is borne out by the facts.  
You would think—Mr Chairman I apologise for referring to you in that manner—one would think that at most times at all times preferably but certainly at the time when people are nearing the end of their life this would be the very time that they should be treated with the utmost dignity and respect. Instead what people who are facing or living in residential care are being told is that without them having an opportunity to have a say personally or through an advocacy organisation such as Grey Power or an organisation such as Age Concern or through their family members and without any opportunity for them to have a say to a select committee the asset-testing regime is being completely changed. The threshold levels are being effectively frozen rather than progressively increased so that the asset-testing regime would completely phase out as was our commitment in 2004 in the legislation and at this time people are being treated with total disdain and disrespect. I find that offensive. I am really really puzzled that neither the Minister for Social Development nor the Minister of Health let alone the Minister who should be the advocacy Minister the Minister for Senior Citizens—none of them—have bothered taking a substantial call and explaining to people why this fundamental policy change. Instead of having a progressive phasing-out of asset testing we are now moving to the freezing of assets and we are doing this under urgency with not one single member of the public being entitled to have a say to a select committee. How can that be justified?  
If this is the answer to the financial situation that the Government insists New Zealand is facing—$4.5 million being saved in the next financial year from older New Zealanders who are at such a high level of health need that they are in a residential facility—then heaven help the future of this country. I think it is offensive that we do this sort of legislation under urgency when there is clearly no need. The only reason that the Government could justify this legislation under urgency is if failing this on 1 July we would fall over as a country financially. I do not think that $4.5 million is going to save us from that crisis if that is as bad as it can be. There is no reason for this to go through Parliament under urgency. Every older New Zealander should be saying to their National member of Parliament: “How dare you treat us with such disrespect.” I am sure they will. I have seen the press statements from Grey Power. I have had phone calls and email messages from different branches of Grey Power and indeed from Age Concern from around the country. People are so upset that without any notification without any justification this has now been rammed through under urgency with the backing of National the Maori Party the ACT Party and United Future.  
This was not part of the National Party’s great plan for the future outlined during the election campaign. Not once did I hear my National Party opponent or any other member of the National Party say that in order to get through the next 3 years we are going to have to freeze the asset-testing regime for older New Zealanders in rest homes or hospital-level care. Not once was that mentioned.