Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill

Today we heard that the Salvation Army is selling all its residential homes. I wonder what this Government has to say about that—this Government whose members, when in Opposition, professed to care so much about older New Zealanders. However, today there is no comment from it, as the Salvation Army, following the example of Presbyterian Support Services, decides to sell all its residential homes. Why is the Salvation Army selling up? Two years ago Dave Nelson brought a petition to the Health Committee about aged care and residential care that stated that his home, which was mainly geriatric hospital beds, could not keep going at the current rate of funding. The reason he could not keep going, and said that they would have to cut care, cut costs, or close, was this bill.

This bill, the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill, is the income and asset testing bill. It has a very long history, with a promise that this Government made time and again to older New Zealanders to remove income and asset testing. The money it has put aside to increase the assets a person can keep is why the Salvation Army is selling all its homes and why Presbyterian Support Services has already sold all its homes. Kemp House says that it will have to cut corners or close, because it has had so little increase in funding, when increased costs have gone up, that it cannot manage to deliver aged-care services at a level that it finds acceptable. So this Government, which proposes that it really dislikes private providers, is pushing all of aged care into the hands of private providers, and that is because of this bill.

Before I came to Parliament I worked as a geriatrician through the 1990s, so I have a lot of experience of rest homes, dementia units, hospitals, and the assessment of elderly people. I heard the promises from the Labour Party, year after year, up and down this country, saying that it would get rid of income and asset testing. It started back in the early 1990s. The history of this bill is that we have an ageing population. In the early 1990s a lot of aged care was provided by local public hospitals. Over the 1990s public hospitals became a place to deliver acute-care services, but not to deliver long-term care. During that time the decision was made to move people into the community, rest homes, hospitals, and dementia units.

In 1994, 10 years ago, $636 was the amount set by Jenny Shipley for hospital care. However, when this Government came in, no change was made to that amount. Previously, rest homes used to subsidise the hospital section. Now, unless there is a retirement village that can subsidise the rest home and the hospital section, proprietors cannot afford to stay in business. They cannot afford to pay the wages, the increased electricity and food costs, or to keep paying medical expenses and the cost of taking people to doctors. Today The Salvation Army decided to pull out.

We heard Labour say continually that it would get rid of income and asset testing. However, this bill, the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill, does not do that. In no way does it do that. What it does do is increase the level of assets that can be kept. A means test on income still will occur, the regulations and the actual legislation remains, and all that is changed is the amount that a person can keep when he or she goes into residential care. People may be able to keep more money, but they will have to start paying for a whole lot more when they get into residential care. We will see a two-tier level. We will see that those homes that are paid the contract price only, and provide only that level, will go back to having more than one person in a room. I can bet anything one likes that that will be the only way, unless rest homes can on-charge for extra services. That is what will happen, I say to the Minister. If the Minister travels around the world he will see that aged-care services in New Zealand have been delivered at an extremely high standard. I have been to homes in the UK, Australia, and the USA where there are two, three, or four elderly people in one room—but not in this country.

New Zealand First will support the bill with the recommended changes by the Social Services Committee. This bill amends the income and asset testing regime that applies to residents of long-term residential care, regardless of what National has said. Along with that the resident can, if he or she wishes, access financial support for care costs administered by the Ministry of Social Development. The purposes of the bill are to progressively increase the value of assets that people may retain before being required to use those assets to pay for care. At one stage, this was never ever deliberated on or taken care of, but for New Zealand First this is a step in the direction that will help people retain more of their assets.

The bill will remove asset testing for those aged 50 to 64 who are at present being required to use their assets to pay for their care. It will exclude from the income test the earnings of the spouse of a person in care, and it will specify that $636 per week is the maximum contribution, adjusted annually. New Zealand First has always been concerned about the care of our elderly in rest homes. Whether or not they have been taken care of privately, we have always been concerned.

I refer to the main changes that will take place. One change is the maximum contribution and setting mechanism. The next is the meaning of “region”, and those things that are concerned with the region. There is also the matter of gifts and means assessment, and the mechanism for adjustment of excluded income.

My comments on this bill will be very brief. We have committed ourselves to accepting this bill, and the changes that will take place. New Zealand First recognises that there is a need to support residents who are in long-term residential care, as a token of respect for and recognition of their contribution to the nation and to our society and community. New Zealand First will support this bill and hopefully, in the future, as time goes by, adjustments will be made as we look at the economy, the contribution of our nation, and as we look at and respect the dedication and support that our elderly folk have contributed to our nation. So without further ado, we support this bill and we will ensure that we hold the Government to account for any changes that will take place in the future. Those changes, if recommended, should contribute to a more enjoyably lifestyle for our elderly folk.

As I rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill I have a question for the Minister in the chair, Ruth Dyson. If this bill is so great, why was there almost universal opposition from most of the residential care providers who came before the Social Services Committee to tell us of their views on this bill? We heard from far and wide. We heard from a lot of the groups that have been involved in long-term residential care for many, many years. They are not fly-by-nighters. Rather, they include groups like the Christian-based groups, such as Presbyterian Support New Zealand, The Salvation Army, and Age Concern. Group after group came before the select committee and pointed out what they thought were some pretty serious errors in the bill. Groups like Presbyterian Support told us that if changes were not made to the present mode of funding, there would be a mass exodus from the industry. Presbyterian Support, as one example, pointed out that it had already exited long-term residential care over a period of years but that it would be forced to further leave the industry if it was not in a position where it could cover its costs. Group after group, particularly our Christian-based social services, said they were actually cross-subsidising their long-term residential care, and using money they were getting from other areas to put into their care services. That was something that was of huge concern to us.

The select committee also heard from The Salvation Army. It said that it was at that point considering departing from the provision of long-term residential care. At the time, some members scoffed. They believed that that was just something that was trumped up as a way of making the point at the select committee, but it was interesting, was it not, to read the newspaper today and see that after many, many decades of providing residential care—

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: For 70 years.

My learned colleague tells me they have been providing that care for 70 years. After 70 years of providing care in this community, it is now saying that it has had enough. It is getting out of that particular area of work and will move to helping people more in their own homes. Well, that does not suit everybody. One of the things the residential carers were saying was that the people coming to their facilities were people who had significant problems because they had waited in their homes for too long. The Salvation Army, at the time it came before the select committee, had 13 facilities. I have read in the paper that it now has 12, which it is going to put up for sale.

We have to look at that mass exodus from the industry and start to ask why. This Government likes to champion public provision, yet it is creating an environment where those public-spirited organisations and those that are not private providers are, frankly, not in a position where they can stay and provide services. Like many of my colleagues in this Chamber, I have had letter after letter from groups, from parents, from children, and from all sorts of workers in the sector who are saying that working in this particular area is just not an easy job. I have here, sitting on my chair, about a hundred different letters, and that is just one of the files I have brought to the Chamber.

Here I have a letter from a daughter of a resident at St Barnabas. She says: “Each day I see the tremendous job the staff do. It is not an easy job to care for frail elderly people who can be very demanding.” She goes on to say that she is concerned about the legislation because she sees some of those who provide the services as simply not being able to stay within the sector if they are not compensated to a level that allows them to stay in business. We are going to see a continuing exit from the sector—that is for sure. Groups like Presbyterian Support New Zealand are saying: “We are providing these sorts of services as much as we can, but we are not going to be mugs about it. If we are not going to be compensated, if we are not going to be in a position where we really can cover our costs, we can’t continue to cross-subsidise this part of our work with other areas we work in.”

I think it will be a shame. A lot of these groups are the ones that look after those who do not have too many other options. One of the things that will happen as many groups leave the sector is that we will see more reliance on the Government.

In many ways this bill epitomises the deceit of the Labour Party. During the 1990s—and I hope the Minister will take a call—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Would the member withdraw that word please.

I am prepared to withdraw it, but I must say I believe that the Labour Party has been somewhat slippery. I hope the Minister will take a call and tell us what she campaigned on during the 1990s, because the clear message from the Labour Party was that it would remove asset testing for the elderly. In fact, it started off as more than that: it said it would remove asset and income testing for the elderly. That was altered slightly as the decade wore on, but during the 1999 election campaign, the clear message was that the Labour Party would remove asset testing.

Let us have a look at this bill. When do its provisions commence? On 1 July 2005. That is almost 6 long years since the Labour Party campaigned on an absolutely clear-cut issue—categorically, it would remove asset testing for the elderly. But what is this bill really about? If we look at it, we see that it is to progressively increase the value of assets that people may retain. There is nothing about removing asset testing and, though I am not allowed to use the “d” word, I do believe that it is quite right to say that the Labour Party has been as slippery as a Waikato River eel in terms of that—and that is insulting the Waikato River eel! [Interruption] That is right—absolutely. But this is a very serious matter. Obviously, that was a promise to older people, and the Labour Party has made an absolutely clear backdown on it.

A little while ago my colleague Dr Linda Scott was talking about The Salvation Army withdrawing from the residential care sector. I was not on the Social Services Committee during the submissions, but I note that Major Alistair Herring said that the legislation was based on the false assumption that the bottom-line weekly payment of $636 represented the actual cost of providing basic residential care for an older person. He said that a more realistic bottom-line figure would also take into consideration the 21 percent increase in the consumer price index since 1994. Again, the Labour Party has absolutely ignored that. It has absolutely ignored the reality of what has happened since 1994.

Clause 3, the purpose clause, goes on to state that the bill’s purpose is: “(d) to clarify the funder’s obligations to pay for contracted care services associated with long-term residential care;”. What does Major Herring say about that? He says he believes that there will be many opportunities for district health boards to disagree about payments for services deemed by the provider to be additional services. That is a sort of fine-tuning, and an example is specialised equipment, such as a shower chair for a morbidly obese resident. There could be disagreement between providers and district health boards as to whether a shower chair is covered in the contract, and there will be example after example in terms of the detail. Yet that has been totally ignored by the Minister. I hope the Minister will take a call and explain just where this very, very important fine detail is indeed defined in the bill—because it is not. This Labour Government has presided over the genesis of one of the most complicated health bureaucracies ever known to mankind.

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on this section of the bill. I was on the Social Services Committee as this bill progressed. That was probably one of the most frustrating times I have had on a select committee, because we discovered that the majority of the submitters’ concerns were not actually being addressed in this legislation we are dealing with tonight.

The elderly are a segment of the population that we really do need to be concerned with and care for. We will all become elderly, and some of us sooner than others, of course. I am probably in the latter category. One of the major concerns submitters had was the cost of caring for the elderly. Apparently, it is a Government decision to increase it, and it is not dealt with in this legislation. That frustrated me and frustrated a lot of submitters, but I think the main concern we have, as has previously been said, is that these particular facilities are closing down. We just cannot have that. We even have major problems with the pay structure for those who care for the elderly, and it is a competitive market out there. We are thankful in this country that we have low unemployment, but when we are starting to deal with the elderly and these types of issues, we need to be very careful that we do not put those in desperate need into an even more desperate situation.

I believe that the Government has a responsibility to attend to the conditions and careers of carers in New Zealand, especially that dedicated group of people who care for the elderly in rest homes. I believe that if the Government is sincere in its intention to promote the care of the ageing in those homes, then it must walk the talk. United Future has previously spoken on this bill and called on the Government to take the initiative, gather the sector’s stakeholders, and find a way out of this hole in respect of care for the aged. I note that around 31,000 people—which is 7 percent of those aged 65 and over—are in long-term residential care. That is a lot of people.

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: An ageing population.

It is an ageing population, as my colleague has just said. On average, people spend 2 years in long-term residential care, and I know that many members in this Chamber would have gone through some of those rest homes and seen those people. They would have seen how they enjoy the company of others, how they are well cared for, how they are taken out on trips, and that they do many other things. In those final years, that is very, very important. United Future is supporting this bill because we welcome the fact that asset testing has been removed—

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: It hasn’t been removed.

—well, it has been improved dramatically—but we have major concerns with the fact that we need to address the issues of the costs of the homes and the pay rates of the staff. Those issues are highly important to us, and we hope that the Government will address them sooner rather than later.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak during the Committee stage of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill, and I have to say from the outset that our party will be opposing this legislation.

I would like to start my contribution by noting that the date for commencement of the Act, which is written in Part 1, is 1 July 2005. I make the point to the Committee that that seems to me to be yet another Labour Party election bribe. If we have an early election, we can just imagine what the Labour manifesto will say: “Vote for us if you are an elderly New Zealander, and we will remove asset testing.” If the election comes after 1 July 2005, then the election manifesto will say: “Look at the Labour Party. Aren’t we clever? We have started to remove asset testing.” But is it not interesting that I seem to recall from a few years ago that a promise was made that the Labour Party would remove asset testing—full stop? But here we are; we have a half-hearted attempt to start backtracking, because—guess what? We have an election around the corner, and the Labour Party is positioning itself with the elderly vote in its sights.

I would like to make the point here that the cost of this legislation will be literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars a year, as time goes by. Others in this debate have already made the point that we have an ageing population, and what will happen is that people who could well afford to pay for themselves in residential care will be subsidised by hard-working taxpayers, who can ill afford to pay their mortgages let alone the high taxes that will be necessary as time goes by and as the changes to the asset-testing regime progress.

I would say that this bill has to be one of the most irresponsible bills that any Government could bring in. The Labour Party knows full well that by the time it has long gone from the Treasury benches some other poor Government will have to pick up the cost of what will be hugely expensive legislation. As we all know, it is very difficult to repeal a lot of social legislation once it has been put in place.

I have to say it is bizarre that the day the Committee stage of this bill is taking place is the day on which The Salvation Army has signalled that it will get out of the residential care business. It warned the select committee in no uncertain terms that unless the Government changed the legislation in a way that would allow such social service providers to be in this business, it would simply have to quit. Did the Government listen? No way! The Government did not listen. The Salvation Army also warned, in its submission, that Labour's removal of the asset-testing regime signals that the Government will become a monopoly purchaser of residential care services. It is the nationalisation of residential care for the elderly by stealth. That is what we are seeing today because almost no one, eventually, will have assets that are high enough for them to pay privately.

Members of the Opposition who are opposing this bill, as well as people listening, are seeing another example of nationalisation by a Labour Government that wants to regulate almost every sector of our society. It is hitting hard at private charities—organisations like The Salvation Army and Presbyterian Support New Zealand, an organisation that has been around for 100 years. They have been around and in the business of providing care for the people who most need it, and the Labour Government, in a bizarre fashion, is forcing them out of the business because it thinks that the Government knows best. I say to the Minister in the chair, Ruth Dyson, that if I have that wrong I would like her to stand, take a call, and explain to members why it is that today The Salvation Army is quitting the business.

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”.

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.

In speaking to the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill, I would like to echo the words of my colleague—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Is that because you've got her speech in front of you.

No, no. I say to the Minister that we do not necessarily always speak from prepared speeches.

We know the intention of this bill and we are incredibly concerned. As members have already heard, providers are getting out of residential care because they are not being supported by the current Government. One has to ask oneself why they are not being supported by the current Government. I am reminded of a press release written by Simon Carlaw. He used the words socialisation and de-privatisation to describe this Government's policy and direction. De-privatisation is exactly what the Government is going to get, because residential care providers are getting out of the business.

The Salvation Army is getting out. It is getting out of Ohinemuri, an aged-care house in my electorate. It is no longer worth The Salvation Army's time and effort to go down this path when it is not supported by the current Government. That is a huge concern. What will happen? Where will those old folk go?

The current ideology is that all those old folk will be looked after in their own homes. Well, that is really fine and dandy. Who will help to look after them in their own homes? Caregivers are in crisis at the moment because they are not getting funding or support, either. So what will happen to those old folk? Is this really going to cut much mustard with them?

Yes, the Government was going to scrap income and asset testing, but with this bill it has allowed old folk to keep at least more of their assets. But how will that help them? What actual benefit will that be to them if they require caregivers or residential care? Who will provide those services? Will it be the Government? Hello, no; I do not think so—because it is not cutting the mustard right now. It is not doing that.

Here I have a press release from Mayor Lawrence Yule of Hastings. He is ready to go to Wellington to fight funding cuts for the elderly and disabled in Hawke’s Bay. Why is that? Because agencies there are grappling with what he states is a multimillion dollar cut in funding for the elderly and disabled.

So I ask the Government what this bill is really doing for the elderly? The Government is just not doing anything.

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: Where is all the money going?

That is a good question. That is something we find difficult to understand with this Government. The money certainly is not going into looking after the elderly. It is not going to residential care providers, and it is not going to caregivers to help them to look after the elderly in their own homes.

All we have to do is to look at the multitude of press releases about caregivers: “Low pay for caregivers blamed on woes”; the numbers are not there. “Radius polishes its services via home-help stake”; they are not there! “Qualified caregivers ‘will be sought after’ ”—why? Because they are not there. “Seminars boost for caregivers”; look, there is a whole heap of hooey and no “do-ey”! There is review after review, and pilot programme after pilot programme—and what is happening? Caregivers are still in crisis, and old people are not getting residential care because people are getting out of the business.

This bill does not help that in any way, shape, or form. Although those elderly people can retain a greater proportion of their assets, it does not help them. If they cannot go into residential care provided by a private provider, then will the Government provide residential care? I would think not and, if it did, I would be very sorry to see that day arrive.

This bill also provides for an increase in the consumer price index. That will not go anywhere near matching compliance costs and increased costs. [Interruption] Yes, I am talking about the preliminary provisions in the bill; I understand that we are talking about Part 1, “Preliminary”. The bill does allow for an increased consumer price index, but nothing is allowed for the cost of the Holidays Act—because the Government did not allow for it, either. It did not assess the impact on the health and disability sector and, of course, there are all those other increased costs from employment, occupational safety and health requirements, electricity, cultural sensitivity, and goodness knows what else, in order to meet obligations, requirements, and standards.

As we have been hearing tonight, Part 1 states that we will see the implementation of this legislation in 2005. Back in 1998 National increased the income and asset level that people could keep when they were in residential care. At this time, 6 or 7 years later, I certainly support an increase once again in the level of assets that people can keep when going into care. It is a principle that National established, and the level has increased over time. The problem is that this bill will not be implemented until 1 July 2005. The reason the date is so far away is that when Labour became the Government, it realised how much this promise would cost. This legislation is costly because we have an ageing population, and aged-care services are expensive.

Members should think about what the elderly can get for $636 per week. We are talking about specialised care. No longer do rest homes have to have a set number of parking spaces for residents. People do not drive to the door of a rest home any more—they come in an ambulance. The level of disability and the level of care is much, much higher than it was in 1994, when the figure of $636 was set. The people who come in an ambulance to a rest home are generally very physically frail or have some form of dementia. They may not be bad enough to go into a dementia care unit—if they are basically in a semi-terminal phase, they will go into a hospital—but rest home services provide very high levels of care now. What do residents get for $636? They want to have a rest home with good facilities, in terms of the size of the rooms and the showers. The home has to have equipment. It has to pay for doctors, be warm, provide good food, and often cater for special diets. The home has to provide for medications. All those things come out of that figure—one does not get a lot for $636 per week.

Time after time the Social Services Committee heard submissions from the rest home sector, which was concerned about that $636. The Salvation Army has said clearly today that, after 70 years, it can no longer afford to provide rest home care. This Government has kept between $100 million and $200 million in order to honour part of a promise. While in Opposition Labour members irresponsibly said that Labour would take off income and asset testing. It came into Government, found out that that was an extremely expensive promise, and has backed off it ever since. It has come up with what we see in Part 1 today, which allows people to keep $150,000 worth of assets. Those assets really are for the relatives, not for the person in care; it is the relatives who get those assets when someone dies.

That change means people will have to pay for a lot more services. Part 1 clearly clarifies: “… the funder’s obligations to pay for contracted care services”. District health boards are now contracted funders. District health boards from all over the country are screaming about the risk that has been handed to them by our aged-care services. Every district health board that came to the select committee said that it was really worried about the devolvement of aged-care funding to district health boards and the financial risk they were taking on. We see that they have offered rest homes a 1 percent increase in funding, when the rest home and hospital sector says it needs at least a 20 percent increase. This Government has devolved its responsibility to district health boards and has kept the money that should have gone into improving services, in order to fulfil the half-promise that it irresponsibly made to older New Zealanders.

National has never promised that it would totally remove income and asset testing. We have never said that. We certainly support increasing the asset level, but we have not broken a promise. We realise the financial implications of this legislation for New Zealand, given our ageing population.

The residential care sector has changed dramatically in the last 30 years. As my colleague Lynda Scott said, not only have expectations of the level of care changed—people arrive at the facilities with more extreme conditions, less able to look after themselves, and more in need of quite specialised care—but the expectations of family members and residents have changed, as well. I visited the Montecillo Veterans’ Home and Hospital in Dunedin just before it was decided to move the facility altogether. The person who ran that facility said that when family members come to look at the facilities now, they have a much higher expectation of what they want for their parents than they did even 10 or 20 years ago. Families are no longer satisfied with little shoebox rooms and single beds. They want en suites, colour televisions, and a lot of the other things that residents were used to when they lived independently—and rightly so. They want a standard of care that they feel comfortable about putting their parents and other family members into.

That has meant that a lot of residential care facilities have found it very difficult to upgrade. I believe that is why some of the Christian-based social services agencies are getting out of providing residential care—because they simply cannot look at refurbishing their facilities, given the $636 cap on the funding that the Government offers them to provide care. That is why we are seeing a greater amount of cross-subsidisation than we had in the past. In my home town of Dunedin we have a number of very good facilities, such as Taieri Court Rest Home, Birchleigh Village, and Ross Home and Hospital—all facilities that have looked after many friends of our family and also members of my own family. But I must admit I do worry when I get an increasing number of letters from the staff of those facilities, from family members of residents, and from clients—from residents—who are simply worried and who express concerns about how those services are going to continue in light of the present environment.

We have heard a lot about broken promises. That is something we do not hear Labour mention in this debate. Labour members say they deliver; they say they keep their promises. I think this would be a good idea for a new Tui beer commercial, if Age Concern wanted to pay the money: “Let’s get rid of asset testing. Yeah, right.” That is basically what Labour said in the 1990s it would do, and it has not done it. Labour is going to make a song and dance about partially keeping a promise, but how does one partially keep a promise? The removal of asset testing is one thing that Labour has not delivered on, although Helen Clark went from Kaitaia down to Invercargill, telling elderly folk that that was exactly what she was going to do. She has not done it, and I do not think that has gone unnoticed by Age Concern and Grey Power, who are deeply disappointed that the Government has not kept its promise. The Government got all the kudos and the bouquets at the time when it announced that policy, and yet when push comes to shove it has not been able to deliver. That promise was not on the pre-election credit card, funnily enough, because even when the Labour members were in Opposition they knew, I think, that that promise would be very difficult to deliver on, simply because of the cost. When we on the Social Services Committee looked at the cost projections of this particular piece of legislation we got into quite large sums of money that are difficult to imagine, particularly when looking at the baby-boom bump coming through in the demographic profile.

I think one of the ironies of this legislation is that it will put the squeeze on the not-for-profit sector. At a time when the Government is making it far more difficult for private providers to continue to provide early childhood education, it is doing exactly the opposite of that when it comes to providing residential aged care. We will see an increasing number of groups leave the residential care market.

I move, That the question be now put.

Before I go to the next part, I note that there seemed to be some surprise that I took the closure on Part 1. I gave it a lot of consideration, actually. I did think that that particular part was constraining members because they were wandering fairly widely, in a way that I thought would be more appropriate to Part 2.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. While you are making that point of clarification in respect of the closure motion, I wonder if you could advise the House whether in fact that was the first closure that was sought.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Yes, it was. That is why I commented on it. To save members continually repeating themselves, I thought we would move to Part 2. I thought that was appropriate.

Part 2 Amendments to principal Act