Hodgson Pete: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6480] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I could not turn down the opportunity to take a call. I will explain to the Committee why the Government will be voting against the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison but before I do let me respond to an earlier comment made by Anne Tolley. 
She said that her party was opposed to capping on the grounds that it made it more difficult for a rest home to be built in a well-to-do area or alongside the seashore or wherever it might be. I say to the member that there is plenty of choice here. If the member wishes to leave the Chamber set up a rest home and have private residents in her rest home she can charge whatever she likes—the Crown has no interest in what she charges. If however she decides to put out her hand for a taxpayer subsidy she is required to provide a certain level of service for that subsidy. If in addition to that she wants a private payer to receive the same service she must not charge that private payer any more than what we pay her in the taxpayer subsidy. The reason for that is that if two people are living in the same rest home—[ 
Interruption 
]—I did not mutter a word while that member was making her contribution if that is what one can call it—one of whom is funded by the taxpayer and one of whom is self-funded and both are getting the same service somehow or other it seems reasonable that both should pay the same amount. That is the fee cap. Of course one can buy on top of that; it is a free world. 
In respect of Dr Paul Hutchison we have had some talk about a couple who have been living together for 60 years and have lived for the last 5 years say in an apartment in a retirement village. The acuity of one of them reaches a stage whereby he or she needs to move to rest home care. People are saying that the couple is being split unreasonably and unnecessarily and that Dr Paul Hutchison has a fix. Well let us look at what Dr Paul Hutchison’s fix does. A rest home provides hotel services and additional services. Indeed an apartment is a hotel service if you will and one can purchase a series of services on top of that. What Dr Paul Hutchison’s amendment does—let us be generous and say it does it unwittingly—is allow the owner of the retirement village to double-dip once from the married couple and once from the taxpayer. Is that a good idea? I do not think it is. So we will be voting that Supplementary Order Paper down. 
Alternatively Sue Bradford has come up with a Supplementary Order Paper that acknowledges that double-dipping is occurring acknowledges that double-dipping is a bad idea and seeks with some carefully worded language to try to address that. I say in sadness that I have had lots of legal advice on the Green Party’s remit and we were hoping to support that Supplementary Order Paper but my advice is that it does not get us there. I will say however that district health boards want to get there anyway. They are very happy to say to people who own retirement villages that if they can put a split between the hotel services and the other services provided in their rest homes then the district health boards will pay for the other services. They will do that. 
That actually leads to another point. In considering the case of a person who has moved 100 metres from an apartment to a rest home—we are trying to avoid that and we seem to think that is a good idea—can we please spare a thought for a couple who have been together for 60 years and who live 100 metres in another direction in an ordinary suburban street outside that retirement village. When we start thinking that way we start to realise that the future—[ 
Interruption 
] The member’s colleague put her finger on it: the future lies in quality home-based support services so that those people even though they are eligible for rest home care can choose to live at home because they will be more comprehensively supported there than they are at the moment. This is called restorative home-based care. It has been piloted in this country. We have the results of the pilot and it appears to be working. 
In summary Labour will be voting against Dr Paul Hutchison’s Supplementary Order Paper because it is dumb. We will be voting against the Green Party’s Supplementary Order Paper more in sadness because it does not quite get us there. I say to the Green Party and to the Committee that I am very happy to take it upon my shoulders to work with the district health boards to progress this issue anyway and that we need also to think about people who are not in apartments in retirement villages but live 100 metres on the other side of a retirement village. Once one starts thinking that way then one realises that restorative home-based care is the way to go. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 74 in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 6 be agreed to.