Power Simon: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17346] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I find myself taking a keen interest in the bill and an even keener interest in Part 2—which of course is where we are up to at present. I note that Part 4 the three schedules and of course the title clause still have to be debated prior to the conclusion of this matter. Turning specifically to Part 2 it seems that the Social Services Committee spent some time on proposing minor amendments to the principal Act relating to— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Part 3. 
SIMON POWER 
: Yes quite right—but in Part 2 of the bill. Perhaps the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson would like to take a call and clarify the issue for me. This part makes minor amendments to the principal Act relating to new Part 4 which is as the Minister rightly points out now in new clause 3A. Specifically and interestingly it repeals paragraph (c) of section 61EA(4) of the Act and substitutes a paragraph that unequivocally states: “is a resident assessed as requiring care (as defined in section 136)” of the principal Act “in respect of whom a funder (as defined in that section)” which is presumably section 136 of the principal Act “is paying some or all of the cost of contracted care services (as defined in that section)”—which is presumably again a reference to section 136—“under section 141 or section 142;”. To the uninitiated in respect of this bill that amendment may at first glance appear confusing. That would be understandable but legislation such as this needs to be if nothing else clear unambiguous and easy to follow. 
I noted last night that when we were debating this bill in Committee the Minister was reluctant to take a call although members of the Opposition who have extensive knowledge of these matters were contributing to the debate on Parts 1 and 2. I do not fit into the category of being a member who has extensive knowledge of these matters so I ask the Minister directly to take a call and explain the impact of the new provisions in Part 2 to the uninitiated—in other words to all the members of the New Zealand public who are not intimately involved in this industry and who at some stage in the future may well need to have matters relating to their long-term residential care clarified as they reach the magic age at which they have predetermined they will seek such care. There will be members of the public who find this legislation very confusing indeed. 
The Minister to be fair is regarded as a fair Minister although she is one who has clearly been beaten down by her Cabinet colleagues on the issue of asset and income testing with regard to this bill. I think that is disappointing and I have said so prior to the Committee stage; in fact I may well have said so during the first or second reading debates on this bill. I get around the sector a bit and I know that the Minister is regarded as if not a bit left wing somebody whose words can be relied on from time to time. And now the Minister finds herself in the situation where that is not actually the case. The Minister has been trampled by her Cabinet colleagues into backing away from a pre-election promise on asset and income testing and a pale imitation of that campaign promise is what the Committee now has before it. 
It would help the Committee if the Minister would rise and do us the courtesy of clarifying for the benefit of those members who are less informed on these matters—such as me—the impact of new clause 3A in a way that leaves those who wish to take up long-term residential care at some stage in the future in no doubt as to their entitlements and their obligations and more important their own responsibilities when moving into such care.