Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)Amendment Bill

I am very pleased to see Minister Maharey sitting in the Chamber. This bill epitomises to a tee what we in the Opposition like to call the “Maharey principle”—that is, and I am taking his own words: “That’s just what you say when you’re in Opposition”. Clearly, since the Labour Party has been in Government, it tends to do things other than what it said it would do when it was in Opposition. As I said, this Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill epitomises that principle to a tee. The Minister should not take that as praise being heaped on him at all. Obviously, it does him no credit that he made that comment. It does him no credit whatsoever.

What Labour said when it was in Opposition, which has already been referred to, but which I think deserves being said again, is that it would abolish income and asset testing. It was saying that at the beginning of the 1990s and throughout most of the 1990s, although by the end of the 1990s, that had been watered down to asset testing. This is a Government that says one thing in Opposition and does something else when in Government. Minister Maharey admitted that; he seems to be proud of that. I do not know why he is proud of it, because I would not be proud of that myself. [Interruption] It would be great for Minister Maharey to take a call, because the Minister in the chair, the Hon Ruth Dyson, has not responded to any of our requests for her to take a call. Maybe Minister Maharey might oblige us and take a call to tell us why he thinks it is OK for this Government to feel very proud of what it is doing. I do not think that Grey Power members out and about in communities around New Zealand are feeling very happy. The Minister should tell us why he thinks it is OK for Labour to say one thing in Opposition and do exactly the opposite when in Government.

It is not good enough. This Government was elected with a pretty clear mandate in 1999, so one would think that it felt that it had a mandate to keep the promises it made while it was in Opposition. But, disappointingly, no, it did not do it. So here we are in the Chamber tonight debating the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill, which basically delivers something, but falls far short of what this Government said that it would deliver when it was in Opposition.

In the rest of my time available I want to express my concerns and worries about the definition of “contracted care services”. The select committee made a change. Those services were originally defined as “specified care services”. For some reason the select committee thought that “contracted care services” would make a better description. Last night one of my colleagues, Dr Lynda Scott, who has huge experience in this area, raised the issue of what were the basic services that fall under the definition of “contracted care services”. I want the Minister to tell us what those services are. She should give us, and those who are already in long-term care and those who will be going there shortly, some peace of mind and reassurance that what would normally be regarded as a fair provision of services will still be available once the legislation comes into force. Probably Steve Chadwick could give us some peace of mind on that situation.

A couple of senior citizens have dropped me a note to express their worries about what that definition actually entails. The problem is that the funders themselves, the district health boards, are under huge funding pressures, anyway. We all know that. So we will have a situation whereby the services to be delivered, which fall under the term “contracted care services”, are not defined.

I rise to give a contribution on the title of this bill. The title that springs to mind is “Another Labour Party Broken Promise Bill”. This bill is a Labour Party broken promise and a half-hearted attempt to try to get it through before the election. However, we know that this legislation does not come into force until July, and also that the asset testing that will be addressed is simply a minimal part of what Labour promised at the 1999 election. I do think that a more appropriate title for this bill would be the “Crippling of the Aged-Care Sector Bill”. We heard from many submitters that if this bill goes through it will cripple the sector and drive many of the providers out of business, and that there is already a crisis in the sector. This is a crisis for those organisations that one could call social providers. They are the churches, the charitable groups—I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. What appears to be rather a robust conversation is going on.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): When members are speaking from the cross benches it is really difficult for the speaker.

The social providers are being crippled by this Government. The interesting thing is that a healthy society needs a vibrant and flourishing civil society. Social providers like The Salvation Army and Presbyterian Support New Zealand are organisations that are absolutely fundamental to the strength of civil society, and the Labour Government wants to close them down. I do not think that anyone would mind if it did it in an open and honest way and just shut them down, but Labour does it by stealth. It stabs them in the back and crushes them by stealth. How does it do that? It squeezes them out.

We heard from organisations that told us about the costs involved, such as $36,000 for an audit and $100,000 for certification. They talked about the increases in accident compensation levies that had been introduced by Labour, the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Service, the costs of the Employment Relations Act, the Holidays Act, and so on. It became very obvious that the sector, which did not have any increases at all at a time when Labour was increasing costs, was caught between a rock and a hard place, and, as we know, it had nowhere to go.

The Labour Government is squeezing those charities and organisations—which have been there for years—out of the sector. It is nationalising aged care in New Zealand by stealth. I believe that the Government should at least be honest. This bill should be called the “Nationalisation of Aged Care in New Zealand Bill”. If it had a title like that, then every Kiwi would understand what Labour is trying to do. The fact that the Minister has not taken even one call in this debate during the Committee stage means that we have hit the nail on the head. So the thoughts we have been promoting about how Labour wants to close down those social service providers are correct. Maybe the Minister in the chair will take a call to correct the record. Otherwise, what we know is that Labour intends to nationalise aged care in New Zealand and all those other providers will just have to wait. Their time will come and they will be squeezed out, as well.

It is a sad day when members have to take calls in debates like this. This is poor legislation. It is not good law. It will be incredibly costly to taxpayers in New Zealand. Many of them are already struggling. They do not need legislation that is designed to buy votes for Labour at the next election. That is not what the House should be all about. We should be passing good laws that are needed by our community and our society. We should not be passing laws that are simply aimed at trying to give the Labour Party another term in office. This is a sad day for New Zealand.

I still have some questions for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Ruth Dyson, and it is very interesting that she has not taken a single call during the Committee stage of this bill. The Opposition has asked a lot of questions about this legislation—and they are not just our questions; they were raised by most of the submitters to the Social Services Committee—for example, Age Concern, Grey Power, Presbyterian Support, the Anglican Methodist Family Care Centre, and The Salvation Army. Yet not one of those questions has been answered by the Minister. If this is such good law, why did almost every aged-care provider tell the select committee that the Government was doing the wrong thing? Why did almost every submitter—groups that are normally very supportive of the Government—tell us that this law was a recipe for disaster, because of the continued underfunding of the aged-care sector? Why did submitter after submitter tell us they would be getting out of the provision of aged care if some of their concerns were not addressed?

We began the Committee stage of the bill yesterday, and interestingly one of the major providers of aged care, The Salvation Army, told the New Zealand public that it was getting out of aged care and is selling 12 facilities. The Salvation Army has been involved in the care of the nation’s elderly for 70 years, but now it is getting out, washing its hands of it, saying that it has had enough, cannot cover its costs, and is sick of cross-subsiding aged care from other areas of its business. The Salvation Army has said it is getting out of running facilities and will concentrate on caring for people in their homes. The Government still remains silent. It has not explained why that is the case. It has not explained why there has been a broken promise. While in Opposition Helen Clark travelled this country from 1990 onwards, telling the New Zealand public that asset testing would be abolished under Labour. Labour spokespersons on health told the then National Government that the New Zealand people wanted some honesty about the health system.

Annette King said while in Opposition that people wanted some honesty about asset testing and the health system. In the same speech she went on to criticise the Government for sending people to Australia for health care, but that is a matter for another debate altogether.

Has the Labour Government not changed its tune? Now it is not interested in talking about honesty about asset testing, any longer.

💬 Steve Chadwick: We inherited big deficits when we came into power.

It is interesting that new members are piping up, but they were not here in Parliament when the promises were made. The Labour Government has given up on talking about its goal of abolishing asset testing, and is not talking about broken promises any more. It pretends that this partial removal of asset testing shows it is keeping its promise. But most of the groups that came before the select committee had seen through the Government’s clever talk, and realised it was breaking its promise.

This bill is very complex law. Some submitters said they did not quite understand what the implications would be and who would be covered—what was meant by “eligible person” or “contracted services”, and what would be covered. They found the price fixing of their business totally abhorrent. They saw this legislation as just another opportunity for the Government to meddle in their affairs and make it increasingly difficult for them to get on with the work they want to do: looking after the elderly and frail New Zealanders in their care. The Minister will have received many hundreds of letters on this issue—as I have—from a lot of residential care facilities in her own electorate. I have heard from Taieri Court Rest Home, and from Redroofs Rest Home—one of those to be closed down as a result of this legislation. People are worried about their jobs, and families are worried about the people in their care. People are worried about the continuity and quality of the service, yet the Government has not said one word about this bill. Not one Government member has taken a call to defend this bill, and to talk about some of its complexities. Is that not interesting? The Minister in the chair has sat there, call after call, without listening to the concerns reflected by the Opposition—which are the concerns of Age Concern, Grey Power, and a lot of the other groups that are interested in the care of the elderly.

My main concerns with regard to this legislation are not so much about what it does as what it does not do. As the previous speaker, Katherine Rich, said, the Government has been amazingly quiet during the whole of the debate on this legislation, and that is what the submitters told us at the Social Services Committee all the way through. They asked what the Government would do about the serious concerns that we are addressing. I received letter after letter from rest homes and other aged-care facilities, and I have also been getting letters from those who look after the disabled. I realised the bill does not cover that sector, but the disability sector faces very, very similar challenges in the care of disabled people, and we should also be very concerned about that. I implore the Government to become involved in the plight of those older people, and their families, who are dependent on the services of rest homes and private hospitals. As I understand it, since 1977 the rest homes have had only a 6 percent increase in the fees they can charge, which I believe happened in about June 2003, and the hospitals a mere 0.25 percent increase.

There have been additional costs coming upon those institutions every day, especially when one considers a lot of the compliance costs that have been put upon them, which they have had no control over. Many of them have said the cost of doctors’ visits can be $70 to $110 per visit, and many of their residents need to have those visits if the facilities are to truly care for residents. They have pharmaceutical costs, which have increased with the introduction of the pharmaceutical schedule change, as well as with the normal cost increases. Medical supplies and all those things have gone up. Health and disability sector standards compliance costs require significantly more time to be spent on documentation and reporting than has ever been required before. Many aged-care facilities have been telling me that they now have to employ extra staff just to deal with those particular issues, not to mention the occupational safety and health compliance costs involving the widespread purchasing of various types of lifting equipment. All those costs have come on and been forced upon rest homes, and they have had no choice but to comply with them.

I urge the Government to address that issue. As we heard time and time again at the select committee as submitters brought up those issues, it is a Government policy issue. Well, if it is a Government policy issue, as it obviously is, then I would urge the Government again to pay serious attention to making changes in its policy at the earliest time, because there are challenges in the aged-care and disability sectors. I do not think it is acceptable, when it is a core business for those people—and yes, they do have a genuine heart for those they care for—that they are virtually hamstrung with things they have absolutely no control over, whatsoever. The aged-care facilities do not want to close, putting the elderly back into unacceptable living conditions. They want to look after them. But it came through clearly at the select committee, through all the submissions, that the aged-care facilities are not able to do an adequate job. They are unable to do their job effectively and give residents the care and attention that most of them desire to give, because of Government policy. United Future would again strongly encourage the Government to deal with the policy issues and put in place a regime that pays reasonably well, so that elderly people can be cared for correctly.

Clause 1(1) states, ironically: “This Act is the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Act”. The emphasis should certainly not be on “long-term”. I think the title should be changed to the “Social Security (Short-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill”, because that is exactly what will happen to the elderly people who at present live in The Salvation Army’s residential care units. I go back to what Major Herring said regarding the fact that the money for that has not been adjusted since 1994. He said, back in May of this year, that if such an adjustment were not made, it was likely not-for-profit providers like The Salvation Army would have difficulty in remaining in the residential care market. Well, that prediction has certainly come true, and Major Herring gave exactly that warning to the Labour Government, which ignored that very, very excellent organisation. Instead, the affected residents are to be moved into alternative care.

Major Herring went on to say: “Not-for-profit providers are in the residential care market out of concern for older people and a desire to provide high-quality care.” That is the sort of person whom the Minister in the chair, Ruth Dyson—who has stayed silent throughout this debate—has totally ignored. That epitomises the promises that Labour members campaigned on for 10 years while in Opposition during the 1990s, but that the Labour Government has since broken. Since the Minister will not take a call, maybe the Hon Steve Maharey, the master or the archdeacon of the flip-flop—the U-turn—may be prepared to take a call to explain his principles and explain why the Labour Party campaigned for a decade that it would remove asset and income testing, and then absolutely changed its mind once it came into Government, thereby defrauding many elderly people.

Perhaps other names for this bill could be the “Labour Government’s Broken Promise to the Elderly Act”—that is one title we have talked about—the “Labour Government (Let’s Help The Salvation Army Exit Elder Care) Bill”, or the “Labour Government (Let’s Dupe the Elderly) Bill”. I have seen in Port Waikato, up and down the electorate, the smaller rest homes predictably just not being able to survive, because of the totally unrealistic way that the Labour Government has supported the elderly, despite report after report.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Spend, spend, spend.

Minister Cullen says: “Spend, spend, spend.” He has spent $3 billion more on the health system, yet productivity has gone down. There are fewer operations now, and he is spending more than previously. He and this Government have presided over the creation of the most complex bureaucracy in health that this country has ever known, and clearly, productivity has gone down, as shown by report after report. Talk about spending! Dr Cullen would be the champion of spending—and spending poorly, when it comes the health sector. He cannot, for one moment, talk about spending effectively when we talk about the health sector or about the very, very important area of elderly care. We have had the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which the Government totally ignored. In fact, just a little while ago, in June 2000, a report stated the Ministry of Health had attempted to change the report’s intended purpose—that relates to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report—and to use the findings selectively, to suit its own cost parameters.

I move, That the question be now put.