Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)Amendment Bill

In the first reading the Minister, when speaking to the House, foreshadowed, as required under Standing Order 282(1), that there would be a motion to refer this bill to the Health Committee. She has discussed this matter with the whips of all parties, and has received their approval for me to seek leave to alter that foreshadowed motion in order to refer the bill to the Social Services Committee.

Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. When we were last considering this bill the honourable member Judy Turner had 8 minutes and 40 seconds remaining in which to speak. I have been informed by United Future that under Standing Order 117(2) its members have decided to share their speaking time.

An asset-testing bill has, at long last, found its way to the floor of this Parliament. As all of us here in the House know, the subject matter of this bill—asset testing for senior citizens—has been the subject of great controversy in this country for at least 15 years. My mind immediately goes back to the 1990 election, when the National Party made a promise to the electors of this country that it would abolish asset testing. My memory also extends to what subsequently happened, following that: the $650 million bail-out of the BNZ, which, in fairness, National knew nothing about when it made that promise. The then Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, had to break his word to the people of New Zealand. The circumstances were somewhat extenuating but, nevertheless, I think the lesson that every political party learnt from that episode was that it is better not to make a promise in the first place, if it does not intend to keep it.

Then, of course, the clock goes forward to 1999, and to the pledge card of the Labour Party. I have to be careful here, because I am not sure exactly what was on that pledge card, but in any event I do know that Labour promised to have a serious look at the possibility of repealing asset testing. What we have before us—somewhat late, given that it is now 2004—is a bill that does not remove asset testing, but at least relaxes the rules around it, from here on in.

At my age one of the things that I find quite remarkable about life is its brevity. All of us grow old. Many of the people who were around at the time when Jim Bolger originally broke the promise to repeal asset testing have by now gone on, hopefully to better things. But we still have with us about 463,000 people who are aged over 65. That figure will rise to about 551,000 people by 2010, and to about 1 million people by 2030. Therefore, the issue at the heart of this bill will affect the lives of most New Zealanders. This bill will affect, directly or indirectly, all people who live, say, beyond the age of 65. By that standard, this bill is of great importance to the House.

United Future, along with Age Concern New Zealand, believes that the era of asset testing is an era of social policy that is best forgotten. But important human rights lessons need to be heeded and learned from the unfortunate events that have accompanied this issue over the last 15 years. In an age when we value the dignity of people with disabilities—and no other group has to pay for long-term residential care—it has to be admitted that many senior citizens in this country, and many of us who are fast moving towards that category, saw the issue of asset testing as a core election promise. Age Concern, though, has expressed to us its worry that during the 5 to 6-year wait that has occurred since 1999, the abuse of senior citizens has been allowed to proliferate, as families and caregivers have stopped elderly relatives from going into much-needed care so that their assets are not dissipated. That is an unfortunate comment, is it not, on the realities of human nature? It is good to know that as a result of this bill, let us hope and pray, most of that kind of abuse will quickly come to an end.

At the time of their life where New Zealand citizens should have their assets working for them—after all, all their lives they have put away a nest egg, normally in terms of owning a home, a car, and a few other things on the side, like small investments, so those things can work to give them security in their old age—it is disheartening to think that successive Government policy was seen to have eroded that base. It is good that that will be restored through this legislation. United Future therefore welcomes the introduction of this bill, and looks forward to seeing how the select committee addresses the concerns voiced to us by Age Concern providers, and their fears—and these fears also come from the retirement village operators themselves—regarding the business viability issues that are raised by the bill. We will watch with interest the conclusions of the select committee. The demographic projections I mentioned earlier demand that we continue to encourage a greater level of personal responsibility for our own welfare when we become senior citizens, or if we are already senior citizens. But at the same time, we must develop certainty about the support we can expect from the Government, so that retirement planning can be realistically geared.

With those few remarks, I have pleasure in signalling United Future’s support for this bill.

I am pleased to rise briefly in support of this bill. We welcome it in the House, just as many members in the community will welcome the progressive removal of asset testing for older people in long-term residential care. I guess we all regret that that has to be an incremental process, but one of the many things the community welcomes about this Government is its fiscal responsibility. Indeed, there is a degree of confidence and trust that this Government, while delivering on its social objectives, will do so in a way that the whole community can afford.

As I rise to speak to this bill, it is interesting to hear Mr Benson-Pope say he welcomes this bill. I can say to the House today that this bill will not be welcomed by those people in organisations involved in the care of the elderly. This bill will not be welcomed by people who are in elderly care themselves—be it rest home care, care for people with dementia, or hospital care—because what we see in this bill is just another example of broken promises by this Government.

Mr Benson-Pope also said he had some regret about the pace of the introduction. Regret seems to be the theme of today—as we saw in question time, when the Hon Lianne Dalziel used that word time and time again to describe her performance over the last couple of days.

In 1993 Helen Clark, then an Opposition member, was absolutely outraged when asset testing was first introduced. At that stage, she said she would repeal the legislation on asset testing. That promise has been made in election manifesto after election manifesto. If members look at the 1996 manifesto—which those over on the Government side of the House seem to conveniently overlook—they will see it states quite clearly that Labour will abolish National’s asset testing for older people: abolish—not reduce, not dilute, not soften, but abolish.

When Helen Clark went to look at the Cashmere View Hospital in Christchurch in 1993, she told the residents there that the Labour Government would remove the asset test. She said it was causing some older people not to get the care they needed, because they were worried about their homes. Helen Clark has now had 10 years of saying that she will repeal asset testing, and she has not done it. Grey Power is looking at this Government, seeing it become increasingly ideologically driven, and seeing it as a Government that has broken promise after promise and not delivered on some of the clear statements Labour made about asset testing, in particular.

I would like to look at some of the comments made by Michael Cullen. He said in February a couple of years ago that Labour had “undertaken to deal with another source of anxiety and pass a measure to remove asset testing for long-term elderly care.” Well Labour has not done it. Those members said they were going to do it in the second term—they were going to introduce legislation to do it. What we have today is a diluted bill that does nothing to repeal anything. It does nothing to remove the test. Despite all the comfortable, smarmy spin around this bill, this Government has quite clearly broken a promise, and is not going to deliver what it has promised to a lot of elderly New Zealanders.

Sadly, those whom Helen Clark visited 10 years ago at the Cashmere View Hospital might or might not be around today to see that broken promise, but I can tell by the look on the face of that lady there that she believed Helen Clark 10 years ago. I am sure that if she were up in the gallery, she would be very disappointed to hear that Helen Clark has broken that promise today.

Let us also look at some of the comments by the Hon Lianne Dalziel, although I have to say that after her performance over the last couple of days, all listeners and members in the House will be wondering whether they should believe a single word that Minister says. Here is her speech to Southland Grey Power. She said: “And there’s more to come, with work well under way to introduce legislation repealing the asset test for residential care, and I am working closely with Margaret Wilson on this.” That is all very interesting, because here we are 2 years down the track and what we have in front of us has nothing to do with the repeal of the asset test.

There is another reason that those involved in the businesses of residential and elderly care will be very disappointed in this bill. It is because the Government has fixed the price for the provision of services. Once this bill is passed, all businesses—all residential care facilities—will not be able to charge more than $636 per week. That said, many businesses already charge a lot more than that, because they offer a quality service to people who want choice in the sort of care they receive. This bill treats all elderly New Zealanders as if they are the same. I say that if one is in a rest home, a dementia ward, or in a hospital ward, one expects and deserves different standards of care. Someone in a dementia ward needs a lot more care and attention than someone in a standard rest home facility.

The prices, of course, do vary, depending on where one happens to be. Someone trying to offer the service in the middle of Auckland, where property prices are a lot higher than elsewhere, will find it incredibly difficult, and will have to cut back on the services he or she is offering some elderly New Zealanders who are presently enjoying those services. I agree with our spokeswoman, Lynda Scott, on this issue. That particular provision has the ability to bring some rest home facilities to their knees, because a lot of them are struggling already.

I have been speaking to a number of people working in this area in Dunedin, and they said already the cost of bed nights is not meeting a lot of the cost of the services they want to be able to provide to worthy New Zealanders who need their care. This is nothing more than price fixing. When Governments get involved and try to tell businesses what they can charge for their services, they are getting into areas they know nothing about, and that will only end up being to the detriment of a lot of private sector organisations that are providing good services. [Interruption]

It is very interesting to hear Mr Benson-Pope calling out, because in his electorate of Dunedin South this issue really does concern groups and organisations—including many church groups—that are involved in providing good services to elderly Dunedin people. I have three words to say to that member: “Don’t be negative!” He should stay there and be quiet. Either that, or he should get his ears checked, because he seems to be very, very—

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: Hard of hearing.

Perhaps he needs residential care, Dr Scott? Perhaps he needs to go into rest home care or a dementia ward.

This bill will be going, I think, to the select committee I sit on, and I look forward to hearing some of the submissions about it. I expect that we will get a wide range of opposition to it, because a lot of organisations from both the private and public sectors will be very alarmed when they read the detail of this bill. Hopefully, a lot of groups—particularly groups like Grey Power and others that purport to represent senior citizens in this country—will hold the Government to account for a broken promise that has been repeated time and time again over the last 10 years. I imagine it will be very difficult for the Government to talk its way out of this one, because what we have here is not a repeal, or a bill that will abolish anything. We have a bill that will only dilute the present circumstances that many senior citizens find themselves in.

This is certainly a broken promise. Anyone can look at past Labour Party manifestos and see it in black and white—spin removed. There are quite clear comments from the likes of Steve Maharey, Lianne Dalziel, and Ruth Dyson, as well as from many other Labour Party members who have travelled the country telling elderly New Zealanders that they will abolish asset testing—and income testing, for that matter. What we have here is a bill full of broken promises, which we will address during the select committee process.

I am very proud indeed to stand to support this bill. I am pleased because it is about time we reciprocate the hard work and the contribution that our elders have made over the many years. Government members are keeping our word through this piece of legislation. We are a Government that is consistent about keeping its word, and working within fiscal constraints. The bill will allow for the progressive removal of the asset testing of older people in long-term residential care, from 1 July 2005. We welcome that, and I am sure the majority of New Zealanders will, too.

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 $913,000 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: $50,000?

My colleague has underestimated it. This Labour Cabinet has expensive tastes. It cost $154,519! 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 $7,726. 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.