Hutchison Paul: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17353] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I was interested to hear Darren Hughes say just a short while ago that tonight the Government is delivering. There is no doubt that what it is delivering in this bill is a legacy of broken promises. Part 2 is testimony to that when one goes into its details particularly in new section 153 in clause 4. 
I see the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson is smirking. We have repeatedly asked her to take a call to explain to the Committee why she and the Labour Party went around the country for a decade campaigning on abandoning asset and income testing. They modified it towards the end of the decade to abandoning just asset testing. All that this bill does is modify or change the amount that the elderly have to pay. We must again remind the Minister in the chair what the Prime Minister said about asset testing. She said: “We say asset testing older people is wrong. It will go.” 
What do we have in new section 153(1) in clause 4? It states: “The maximum contribution is the amount to be prescribed by an Order in Council made by the Governor-General that is $636 per week adjusted by an amount that reflects the movement in the All Groups …”. The concern about this provision is that it is totally unrealistic. As I pointed out in the debate yesterday it was The Salvation Army spokesperson Major Alistair Herring who said that The Salvation Army believes that this bill should at the very least commence with the adjusted figure of $757.14 which adjusts the rate back to 1994 when Jenny Shipley set the initial figure of $636. The effect of this has been the absolutely unrealistic stance that the Labour Government has taken towards the elderly and elder care in the last 5 to 6 years. 
 I will go back for a moment to a comment on the Ministry of Health’s response to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report which was that since receiving the final report on residential care pricing implementation in June 2000 the ministry has attempted first to change the report’s intended purpose and second to selectively use the findings to suit its own cost parameters. In Port Waikato the electorate I so proudly represent I know that rest homes up and down the electorate are closing because of this Government’s absolutely unrealistic pricing policy. It goes further than that because it extends throughout New Zealand. 
Of course we have heard the news that The Salvation Army is closing its residential units. It is an indictment on the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson that during her watch The Salvation Army is exiting residential care. It is one of the trusted organisations in New Zealand and an organisation that the elderly do trust. Why is it exiting? It is exiting because of the refusal of this Government to acknowledge just what it costs to run residential care homes. Every time I have spoken in the debate I have asked the Minister to come and tell us why the Government reneged on the promise it campaigned on for 10 years. Is she prepared to front up and explain that to people of New Zealand particularly the elderly? 
There is no doubt that National supports improving asset testing for the elderly but we support it being done in a realistic way. We support this bill but we are deeply concerned about the absolute inconsistency that the Government has displayed in bringing the bill to the House.