Bradford Sue: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Bradford Sue: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6555] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the third reading of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill. Although we would have preferred to see the asset test for long-term residential care abolished completely—and for that matter the Social Security Act itself completely rewritten—we remain happy to support the tidy-up provisions contained in the bill. However when the bill was before the Social Services Committee one particular issue was drawn to our attention by submitters which was that of people in need of long-term residential care who are unable to obtain a residential care subsidy because of the nature of the contracts between district health boards and care providers. 
 The standard district health board contract contains a clause that precludes care providers from entering into service arrangements such as “licence to occupy” agreements that result in the provider receiving payment benefit or value from the district health board or anyone else including the resident for the provision of such services to residents. The consequence of such a clause has been the anomalous situation whereby residents who meet the needs and means assessments for residential care subsidies have been denied them because of the nature of the agreement they have with their care provider. In some situations this has resulted in the bizarre scenario that Paul Hutchison talked about earlier of a couple having to effectively separate with one partner in a “licence to occupy” unit and the other bundled off to a room somewhere else in the rest home facility so that the subsidy can be provided. That approach harks back to the dark ages when people with disabilities were separated from their families and led a lonely existence hidden away from society—days that I hope are long since past in this country. 
I agree that it is not acceptable for providers to double-dip by obtaining funding from the district health board and other sources for the same service but this is an issue that could have and should have been properly worked through with the providers and preferably through the legislation that went through the Committee stage yesterday. 
From recent discussions with aged-care providers I learnt that they have been attempting to resolve this problem with the district health boards for some considerable time. Providers reported reluctance from district health boards to negotiate the issue in good faith. I therefore proposed a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage that would have had the effect of setting a 6-month time frame for the district health boards and providers to negotiate the unbundling of “licence to occupy” agreements into their care and non-care components which would stop the double-dipping aspect of it. My Supplementary Order Paper would have precluded the district health boards from contracting to providers in a manner that excluded residents with “licence to occupy” agreements from funding. 
Unfortunately business in the House proceeded more rapidly yesterday than a lot of us anticipated it would and I was unable to be present for the Committee stage of the debate. However I thank the Maori Party in particular for its support for the Green Party amendments. Although the Government did not find its way clear to vote for our Supplementary Order Paper I also thank the Hon Peter Hodgson for his comments indicating that he and the Government are taking this issue seriously. I hope he will be able to persuade the district health boards to negotiate through the issue with better faith and greater enthusiasm than has been demonstrated to date. 
In conclusion I acknowledge all of those who took the time to make submissions on this bill. I know that the whole submission-making process sometimes feels like a thankless task especially on bills like this where not a lot of public or media attention is paid to what is happening. But as ever submitters are making an invaluable contribution to the workings of democracy and we MPs do listen to them even if our amendments do not always get through.