Turei Metiria: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6478] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I would like to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 74 in the name of my colleague Sue Bradford who like National wants to make some changes to this bill. The issue is around the question of district health boards whose contracting practices mean that if there is another arrangement in place then the partner of a person in long-term residential care would not be able to stay in the hospital part because he or she would also have a contract to occupy the premises. 
I would like to reiterate some of the concerns that my colleague Sue Bradford talked about during the second reading of this bill. She said it was a real concern that people will be in this situation and that we consider it unacceptable when one partner of a couple becomes ill to the point that he or she needs full-care services and would otherwise be eligible under the income and asset-testing regime for that person not to be able to stay with his or her partner in a licensed occupied unit because he or she is forced to move to another part of a residential complex. The inflexibility of the district health board arrangements and in some cases the provider’s arrangements have caused real problems for these families and these people. She was particularly concerned too to note that the district health boards’ standard age-related residential care services agreement actually states in clause 14 that one must not be a party to any other arrangement—for example a licence to occupy or a similar arrangement—that results in one effectively receiving payment to a subsidised resident and it goes on. There is a Government aged-persons strategy in place which sets out a priority and concern for keeping elderly people together in their own home wherever possible and the way these arrangements are set up directly contravenes that strategy. 
We do not want to see providers being able to engage in double-dipping but that is no reason why someone who would otherwise be eligible for a residential care subsidy and who happens to live in an appropriate-level apartment or unit as part of a whole complex should not be able to receive that without having to move away from his or her partner. We are aware that the Government intends to do something about this. The Minister has agreed that he will work with district health boards and providers to sort out these arrangements but we are concerned that the law should reflect that requirement. We urge the Committee to support the Supplementary Order Paper that will make those changes. I know that National is proposing Supplementary Order Paper 63 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison which is very similar but we have some concerns about it. We think that ours is clearer and sets out the specifics around the contracts in a more coherent and cohesive way. We will therefore not be supporting the National Party amendment even though it goes to the same issue. Rather we urge National to support our amendment because it is clearer more specific and more explicit about the problems this issue raises. 
It is generally a good bill. The Green Party is generally in support of its provisions but on this matter there is a hole that people are falling through right now and if we can find a way of fixing that right now then we should do that rather than wait until later. That said work is being done and we look forward to seeing it come to fruition if our Supplementary Order Paper does not pass tonight.