Rich Katherine: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Rich Katherine: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17357] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 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. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: 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.