Kedgley Sue: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17415] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this legislation because it is our policy to abolish asset testing for residential care for the elderly. Like many of the submitters to the Social Services Committee we see the current asset-testing regime as iniquitous as it discriminates against one part of the population—the elderly. We note that in 1999 the Labour Party did make a solemn promise to remove asset testing. At that time the Labour Party seemed to appreciate—as the Green Party does—that older people have already spent a lifetime paying taxes which they presumed would assist with their care and support in later life when they would need help the most. Through the asset-testing system they now become the only category of citizens who are required to pay twice for long-term residential health care—once out of their taxes and then all over again if they have sufficient income and assets. They are essentially taxed twice. 
The bill moves in the direction of Green Party policy with regard to asset testing but it only moderates asset testing for residential care rather than abolishes it as other speakers have pointed out and it will not be removed for another 20 years. 
The Labour Party announced before the 2002 election that it would introduce legislation before the end of 2002 to phase out the asset test for residential care. So the bill is a year late in that context and furthermore it does not phase out asset testing as promised by the Labour Party. 
However we do feel that although it does not go far enough and remove asset testing altogether we will be supporting it but we are also concerned that it does not solve the other very real problem of adequate funding for residential care all around. However it does take some steps in the right direction. Like most other submitters apart from the ACT party—I am not sure what those members’ intentions might be for the elderly or how they envisage they will be treated when they are unable to care for themselves or for their own care—we support the legislation. 
I would also like to touch on the other issue that a number of other members in the debate have already touched on which is the incredible state of crisis in the aged-care sector. It is basically that the aged-care sector is in a state of crisis. Only today the Health Committee has released a report. We were looking in particular at home-care workers in the aged-care sector but the Health Committee in its entirety acknowledged that the sector is in a state of crisis. We were warned by submitters during our select committee inquiry that the entire sector could hit meltdown at Christmas if urgent action is not taken to not only significantly increase home-care workers’ wages but also the wages of aged-care workers in residential homes. We are extremely concerned that this would put the safety and care of vulnerable elderly New Zealanders at risk; in fact we believe that the crisis in the sector is already putting the safety not to mention the quality of care of our elderly at risk. 
There are turnover rates of home-care workers in some areas of New Zealand of 88 percent and it is 40 percent all around the country. Providers are pulling out of the market because of the acute chronic underfunding of the sector. So we believe that elderly being looked after in their own homes and in aged-care residential homes are becoming increasingly vulnerable and their care is at risk. Frankly the wages and conditions are rock bottom workers in the sector are being treated like Third World workers and home-care workers themselves are expected to provide their own transport and pay for their travel costs from their already rock-bottom meagre wages. It is in our view quite frankly shocking. As a result home-care workers and others are walking away from the industry which was already in crisis. 
The Government must do something to address this crisis other than pass this legislation because otherwise the elderly will really be at risk in their own homes and in the aged-care sector. 
It is tragic to see a wonderful institution like The Salvation Army which has been providing care for more than 70 years announcing that it is pulling out of the sector. It is a well-respected carer. I remember The Salvation Army marching alongside the Labour Party on the Hikoi of Hope and now it is having to pull out of providing what it wishes to do. It has been providing care for the vulnerable elderly of New Zealand for 70 years in a very respected way. It is having to close down for no other reason than lack of funding. 
I have a release here from the sector basically stating that make no mistake about it there is a direct correlation between the Government’s mean-spirited 1 percent funding offer and The Salvation Army being forced out of residential care for the elderly. That release is from Martin Taylor the chief executive officer of Residential Care New Zealand. The question we have to ask is what this says about the values of a Labour Government that would let this situation happen. The sector is basically urging at least a 3 percent counteroffer from the Government to address this year’s inflation. If it does not offer that what will happen to the elderly in New Zealand? 
I am sure that all of us in this House and most New Zealand families have elderly relatives in residential care and aged-care facilities. We are acutely aware on a daily basis of the crisis that is affecting the elderly. I have a number of direct family members in the aged-care sector and in their particular home there was a crisis. There was a threat and a risk that the whole home would be shut down. That is tragic to someone who has been living there for a number of years. What do we do with them and what do we do with that sector? 
In summary the Greens are pleased to support this bill. It takes a modest step in the right direction although it does it over a much longer period of time than we would wish. It is our policy to abolish asset testing for residential care altogether. We do believe that it is iniquitous. We are extraordinarily concerned as other speakers have said about the deepening crisis in the aged-care sector and in residential care homes. We urge the Government to listen to the two petitions and the select committee report today and to do something to increase the wages of homecare workers. The truth of the matter is that when we take out the cost of driving between clients homecare workers are receiving below the minimum wage and in some cases as little as $2 to $3 an hour. That is scandalous.