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:2536. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I am really pleased to take a brief call on Part 2 of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. I want to commend my colleague Kris Faafoi the member of Parliament for Mana and back up his request to the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development to answer the questions that have been raised during the Committee stage. It is not as if we have another opportunity to have these questions addressed. We do not have a select committee process that we could look forward to or look back on; this is it. This is the final stage of the Committee stage of this bill after which we will move to the third reading and if the third reading votes follow the pattern of previous votes on this legislation this will be law before this session of Parliament is over.  
There is no chance for anyone to have a say. There is no chance for the bigger debate to be had on whether this massive visionary move by the National Government taking $4.5 million out of the pockets of rest home and hospital care residents which we are assured by National members will save our country’s economy was the best or the only measure to take. That debate cannot be had and the Minister has not taken the opportunity to justify that. I am frankly in her court; I would not try to justify it either. I would not hold my portfolio on a continuing basis if I was asked to introduce a bill that I did not agree with that was offensive and that was wrong. I am stunned that the Minister for Social Development the Minister of Health and the Minister for Senior Citizens have not considered that is an option. I do not know how they can justify doing this retrospectively to older people who are already in residential care by changing the regime under which they bought into a contract to have their final months of life supported in the way that was needed. How can they justify this coming to the House at all let alone under urgency?  
Earlier on in the debate we had quite a lot of discussion about how this was signalled to the public. We know that it was not mentioned in the Budget speech. We certainly know it was not mentioned prior to that. The Hon David Carter is in the Chamber and he will recall the many times that we have stood on public platforms in opposition to each other seeking the candidacy for the Port Hills electorate. During the last election campaign I listened to every word he spoke—you do not have much option really when you are on the same stage. I listened very carefully and not once did the Hon David Carter say to the good people in the Port Hills electorate: “By the way we are going to change the asset-testing regime for older people.” I bet the Hon Nathan Guy who was in the chair earlier did not mention that to his constituents either and I bet not a single member of the National Party did.  
This is a dirty little secret that has been kept under wraps by the National Government not just until the Budget speech—because it was not mentioned in the Budget speech—but until later in the day. Suddenly we have a bill in the House of Parliament and we are told that it is getting rammed through all stages under urgency. The way it was signalled to the public was hidden in a 1½ line sentence in a press statement by the Hon Tony Ryall—not even the Minister responsible for it—under the heading “Health receives largest increase in spending in the Budget”.  
 Would anybody read that headline and think: “Oh they’re going to put the asset-testing regime on to a holding pattern. They’re going to freeze the asset-testing threshold.”? Nobody who read that press statement would have been able to determine the truth because this is a dirty little secret. It has been kept from the public until after the Budget speech was read in the House. It has had no opportunity to go to a select committee. There is no opportunity to hear from the 170 residents who are affected by this immediately and the others who will be affected in the future. I think it is an outrage. It is a breach of the privilege of this Parliament to use urgency for matters that do require the urgent attention of the House. The public should and I am sure will feel outraged at this breach.