Collins Judith: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Collins Judith: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6255] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak on the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill. I am a member of the Social Services Committee; in fact I am the deputy chair. As such I was part of the process of listening to the people who came to the select committee to submit in relation to this bill. 
When we look at the bill presented to us in the House tonight we see sadly that something is missing—that is there is no report from the Social Services Committee on this bill. Absolutely no amendments whatsoever are contained in this bill. There is a reason for that which is that the Government did not turn up in sufficient numbers to get its own bill through the select committee. So after all the submissions from submitters after all the hours we spent on the bill and after all the discussions the Government could not turn up in sufficient numbers to put through its own bill and that is an indication of a Government in crisis. The Government’s coalition and supporting parties turned up but the Government did not turn up. Those parties did their bit they did as they were told yet Government members did not turn up. Rather to be utterly correct they turned up and then went away. They did not turn up for the vote. But the most amazing thing is that the chair of the select committee—the person who actually controls the agenda—is a Government member. So the Government has lost control of its own chairperson. 
Unfortunately that means that in front of us tonight is a bill in its original form as presented to the House for its very first reading. But today is its second reading; we will have to wait until the Committee stage to debate the changes the select committee agreed to make—actually it did not agree to make; it wanted to make—which the Government will very soon be trying to push through on a Supplementary Order Paper. 
I commend to the House the Supplementary Order Paper to come in the name of my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison. One of National’s concerns about this bill is addressed by Dr Paul Hutchison’s amendment. His amendment would allow elderly people with up to $150000 worth of assets to purchase an apartment within a rest home and still retain their subsidy. Previously they unfairly lost the subsidy if they used their assets or money to purchase an apartment. Dr Hutchison has taken the stance of improving a bill that in one case in particular National does not agree with. 
The issue in the bill that we find so absolutely obnoxious apart from the point addressed by Dr Paul Hutchison’s Supplementary Order Paper is that the bill says to rest home residents that even if they want to pay more for a service they cannot do so. In fact it states that if a person in a rest home has been assessed as being in need of care that person cannot pay more for the service than that amount the Government has decreed. That might sound fine to people who feel that nobody should be able to rise above whatever they think the lowest common denominator is but it means that people who build rest homes or facilities for the aged and for those who cannot live either in their own homes or with their families will not be able to afford to build those facilities in areas where property values are higher than in other areas. It is as simple as that. At the end of the day a rest home is a business. Yes it is a provider of services for vulnerable members of the community but at the end of the day it is also a business. If we wish to ghettoise our elderly then this is exactly the sort of bill to pass. There are many good parts of the bill but this main part this utter disregard for the ability of the elderly to contract for services in their own right is an imposition on those people. It says they cannot live in areas they wish to live in they cannot pay for services they wish to pay for and that in fact they must have and pay for the lowest common denominator. 
What we find so offensive with this provision is not so much that that is what it says but that it also says that even if the elderly person is paying his or her own way—even if it is someone who has said “I don’t want a cent from the State. I have more of my own money.”—and even if that person is assessed in a medical sense then instantly his or her ability to contract for services which should be able to be provided at the rate he or she wants has been affected. That is treating the elderly who wish to pay their own way as though they are mere children. They are not mere children and that is the provision we on this side of the House find so utterly distasteful—that some bureaucratic body down in Wellington should tell our elderly people who wish to and can afford to pay for themselves in their old age what they can have and what they can pay for. [ 
Interruption 
] It is in effect as Dr Paul Hutchison has just said communism. It is absolutely distasteful to our elderly. 
We received submission after submission from people who objected to that sort of imposition. We heard from rest home people who said that frankly it means they cannot afford to have rest homes and provision for the elderly in suburbs where the price of land might be high because who could afford to have them? Rest homes will be ghettoised if this stupid provision prevails. National members see no problem with raising the asset level for means testing. We understand that absolutely and we think it is only fair in light of the inflation that has occurred in this area under this Government. 
But when we say to the elderly that we will treat them like children—that even if they are paying their own way we will treat them as though they are little children who cannot make up their own minds—that is an absolute breach of human rights. I am astonished that other parties in this House think it is OK to treat elderly people like that. We are all for saying to people that if the State is paying their way the State should have a say in what is provided for them. But if the State is not paying their way what in the world does the State have to do with telling them what they can get? 
The way around this will be that the elderly who do not wish to live in particular areas and who do not wish to be told what they can and cannot pay for will revert to serviced apartments instead. That will not help the elderly. It will mean that they will not have the same regulations or the same ability to have certain products and services that rest homes can provide. It will affect elderly people’s choice. Why is it that we think it is all right to treat our elderly people like that? In the National Party we do not think that. National agrees with certain provisions of this bill but not with that particular one or with the issue that Dr Hutchison’s Supplementary Order Paper will deal with. Those two concerns are absolute sticking points. 
I have to say that when we have a bill presented like the one we have today from a select committee that is controlled by the Government and its minor parties with not one scrap of the work of the select committee and its amendments included and with no commentary whatsoever we have yet again another piece of evidence that this Government cannot get the numbers even in its own caucus.