Hutchison Paul: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6260] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill. I must say it is good to hear that the Green Party is taking seriously this amendment which is an outstanding example of how the Labour Government has once again failed the elderly of New Zealand. This may be a small incident but it was very important for an elderly couple who had been living together for 57 years to age together. This was so important for them that their daughter bought them an apartment—they had no assets themselves—worth $150000 next to a rest home. But due to the Labour Government’s policies and to one of the 21 district health boards that it has unnecessarily imposed on the New Zealand public this elderly couple was prevented from receiving the subsidy that the wife was legitimately assessed for. 
It is an utterly deplorable situation when the Labour Government which talks so often about ageing together and which talks with such largesse about its care for the elderly does not worry about the details when it comes to an elderly couple such as this one. It is no coincidence that this bill has no commentary. That is because the Labour members of the Social Services Committee failed to turn up to a select committee meeting on the bill that was very important to the elderly. It has taken a very good amendment from the National Party in my name to put right the situation that this elderly couple suffered in in order to ensure that they could stay in the apartment they had bought. The extraordinary thing about this situation is that fortunately their daughter had enough money to be able to support them even though they did not have the subsidy. But many dozens if not hundreds of elderly couples in New Zealand will be in a similar situation and will not be able to afford that luxury. 
I was very glad to hear the Green Party constructively suggesting that it will if not support the amendment at least work with National to ensure that this flagrant anomaly that was created by the Labour Government is indeed sorted out. 
I also remind the House that this Labour Government also ignored the PricewaterhouseCoopers report of 2000. The aged-care sector has been chronically underfunded. One would have hoped that in a time of reasonable economic growth the Labour Government would respond to its own report but it totally ignored it. Even worse is that an incident like the one that concerns this couple was sorted out in the House just a couple of months ago with the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill. In that instance a 90-year-old pensioner who was living alone while his wife who had Alzheimer’s was in a residential care unit was denied the living alone allowance for a superannuitant because of this Labour Government’s rules. The Hon Dr Nick Smith took the case— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Talk about the bill. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: This subject is absolutely about the bill because this was the second time within a few months that the Labour Government had failed the elderly. In this particular instance the very good constituent member Nick Smith took the case to the Labour Government which denied it not once but twice. Then he took the case to the Human Rights Commissioner who said that this elderly man ought to be given the living alone allowance. What did Dr Cullen say to that? He said that the amendment would increase the Crown’s total operating expenses and total Crown operating revenues by approximately $600000 and therefore he was not prepared to put it through. That is how mean-spirited he was. Members can put that in the context of the election bribes that the Labour Government passed only a year ago—$1.5 billion for the Working for Families package and $1 billion for the interest-free student loans. I remind the House of the other lengths the Government went to—passing retrospective legislation to ease its members’ consciences for using taxpayers’ money for a corrupt practice. That is how far Labour members go but on the other hand they forget the elderly of New Zealand. 
I have to acknowledge that since the select committee got together with National’s support some useful improvements have been made to this bill one of which was the extension of the 28-day rule to 90 days. Thank goodness for the support and care of the National Opposition to ensure that the elderly who clearly cannot be rushed into making their residential care arrangements in 28 days are now given 90 days to make this arrangement. That is a very useful amendment. 
But National opposes this bill for a very fundamental reason and that is that the socialist Labour Government is imposing a cap on the amount that elderly pay for long-term residential care even if they do not receive a subsidy from the Government but pay the money themselves. The Labour Government is interfering with basic freedoms that most New Zealanders would hope to enjoy. In fact this is a gross infringement on personal rights and it is a classic case of the grey communistic union-inspired ethos of the modern Labour Party—that is exactly what it is. This bill does not represent the third way; it is back to the grey communistic ethos of what the union-inspired Labour Government is all about. This is Labour at its worst trying to create the  
Animal Farm 
 for the elderly where everybody is the same; and it is disgraceful. 
Putting a cap on private individuals who have had a needs-assessment for long-term residential care but who pay their own way is as undemocratic and impractical as it is stupid. These changes reduce consumer choice build inflexibility into the system and allow Crown entities to intrude into a private law arrangement. I am sure that if Mr Fairbrother really thinks about it he will know that it is not a good thing for any modern Government to impose on the elderly of its country. Setting a cap on what private individuals can pay will reduce the scope of options available to senior New Zealanders as providers will not take on the risk of building and developing certain types of facilities in a capped market. It ignores the partnership funding approach that Labour so often talks about yet cannot quite get around to putting into practice. 
National opposes this bill on the one hand because it infringes the freedom of choice for elderly New Zealanders and on the other hand because Labour has shown once again when it comes to practical detail that it does not think carefully about the repercussions on elderly New Zealanders. Only 2 months ago the Government was too mean to pay an elderly man whose wife had Alzheimer’s disease a disability allowance. Today the Government is too mean to allow an elderly couple to stay in an apartment together. I do hope it will see reason and support my amendment to allow that elderly couple to age together.