Flavell Te Ururoa: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6556] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. This week as I returned to Parliament I brought with me a very special portrait. It is a portrait of a renowned weaver the kuia Ranginui Parewahawaha Leonard. She is a woman of much significance so much so that my first-born child is named after her. Ranginui Parewahawaha was my grandmother and as it happens one of her great-grandchildren is sitting in the gallery tonight. She was 112 years old when she passed away some 22 years ago yet my memories of her are very vivid as were her piercing eyes. Her tiny frame was rather deceptive; her strength was formidable. Her nimble and meticulous skills in particular with raranga—that is weaving for those who do not know—stayed with her right through to the end. She was one who at the age of 100 years would still carry her firewood in a sack on her back from my uncle’s place to hers—a trek of some 800 metres or so. 
So she was a very strong woman and as we come to this bill the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill I think of her. For her first century she lived pretty proudly in her own home only conceding to be cared for by my mother and my auntie in the last few years of her life. It was a life that I would think must have been very hard but a life that was fairly fulfilling. It was a life of independent means of strength and of good heart. So in this bill tonight we of the Maori Party bring the aspirations that the proposals to amend the income and asset testing regime for elderly people requiring indefinite long-term residential care will guarantee the same autonomy and good health that my kuia enjoyed in her time. 
A critical component of well-being is of course financial stability. We welcome the proposals that the people assessed as requiring indefinite long-term residential care will pay no more than the maximum contribution for care whether or not they are subsidised. People who have assets over the applicable assets threshold and who receive contracted care services that cost more than the maximum contribution will pay only the maximum contribution. That sense of a cut-off point from which no other charges will be incurred is an important one. The Maori Party supports these changes to the means-testing policies because we believe that they bring with them the capacity to truly ensure manaakitanga is applied when considering the care of pakeke. 
We were disappointed that the bill was reported back to the House with no amendments and that no report or commentary on this bill was tabled by the Social Services Committee. It was not as if the submissions received by the committee were of little significance. Indeed I am told that at the time of the second reading of this bill my colleague Tariana Turia referred extensively to the expert advice and counsel of the submitters particularly the macroeconomist Susan St John. It was St John’s contention that the opportunity to consider the appropriate funding of long-term care had been lost with the fast passage of this bill. Her advice to the Social Services Committee made it clear that the legislation had arisen solely to meet the obligations of a political promise. 
Last night I laid in the House the longest place name in Aotearoa. It was an 85-letter word. 
Anne Tolley 
: You gave the short version! 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: That is true. Tonight I have another word for the House. It is not quite as long. In fact it is only 12 letters in all but it is one that we must all wrap our lips around and commit to memory if we are truly to be representatives of the people. What is the word? It is “consultation”. Consultation is critical to the attainment of quality policy. A commitment to produce effective policy means that it would likely be useful to get the views of New Zealanders in developing options and assessing them. Without a proper consultative process and a serious effort to define and address the actual problems New Zealand faces in the provision of long-term residential care policy will be created in a vacuum. In addition consultation offers new approaches for considering the dilemmas associated with such variables as income assessment including the income-from-assets exemptions for couples and residential care subsidies for disabled-related care. Effective consultation enables us to point out pitfalls or gaps in our thinking—and of course to raise issues we have not considered. 
There is a particular reason why the Maori Party is identifying the lack of consultation in this bill and that is of course as a result of the responsibilities the Crown has through Te Tiriti o Waitangi. At its heart the Treaty confirms the relationship with Maori. It promises commitments to a constructive and mutually respectful relationship. So we look to the proceedings in this House to learn what our kaumatua kuia and koroua have thought about the current asset-testing regime. We are interested in the perspectives of whanau hapu and iwi in regard to funding for the provision of services and care to older people. 
The nation is entitled to transparency in discussions regarding payments for long-term care. I understand that the ropu HealthCare Providers New Zealand came to the select committee stating that it did not support raising the threshold for asset testing. The Royal New Zealand Returned Services Association suggested that we should remove asset testing in total as soon as possible. I am told that the Salvation Army presented a submission stating that the residential care sector had to be better funded. It was the Salvation Army’s view that given the demographics it is likely the market will develop a form of care that sits outside the regulations. The logical flow-on effect of that would put older people potentially at risk of inadequate and costly care. 
I have mentioned just a few of the submissions that were heard in my attempt to ensure that the  
Hansard 
 record is a more fulsome one than perhaps the one we would otherwise receive. But the broader issues of a fairer and sustainable sharing of long-term care must be examined in a public forum. We absolutely endorse the views of Susan St John that there is not enough transparency or discussion with regard to paying for long-term care. It was for that reason that we were interested in the royal commission of inquiry. 
Earlier tonight I paid tribute and made reference to my grandmother Ranginui Parewahawaha Leonard and said that our family was fortunate we were able to care for her. The future however is not so clear. As the demographics indicate the proportion of our population requiring residential care and the needs of our elderly people will grow. We think that we must prepare; we must take every care every effort to consult to care and to plan reasonably for the future. It is with this in mind that the Maori Party supports this bill.