Goudie Sandra: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6478] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would like to make a contribution to the debate on this part because I think it is extraordinary that we would want to split up elderly couples who have been together for years and years. I know that my own parents would find it absolutely devastating if that were to happen to them. Every member in this Chamber should take a moment to reflect on and consider the situation of their own parents who may be living in accommodation of their choice such as an apartment or an ordinary little house in a retirement village. 
Those are lovely situations and they provide a form of security safety and peace of mind for the older people who live in them. I know that that is the sort of place my parents will be looking to retire to in the future when they can no longer look after the property they live in now. When they cannot do the lawns or the garden and when they become less able to move around as easily as they currently do they may then take an apartment in a residential care facility or retirement village. But if they are then required to split up because one has to go into hospital care and the other one is told that no he or she cannot stay in the apartment the couple had together then where does he or she go to? That partner does not get the same support as the one requiring hospital care. 
I think we should be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 63 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to ensure that we do not split up elderly couples who have been together for many many years. It is a gross breach of their human rights to do that. Dr Paul Hutchison has proposed a very good Supplementary Order Paper the explanatory note of which states: “Currently someone can have up to $150000 worth of assets and be eligible for a subsidy to receive residential care in a facility of their choice. The subsidy pays for accommodation and care in a single room. However DHBs currently refuse to pay an elderly person their subsidy if that person chooses to use their asset to purchase an apartment within a rest home.” We support choice and I think we should be supporting choice. The explanatory note goes on to state that in that instance: “The DHB refuses to pay the subsidy despite that person satisfying all financial eligibility criteria. This policy can lead to bizarre situations for elderly couples where one partner has to move out of their apartment into a single room next door in order to receive the subsidy they are legally entitled to.” Is that not just a bit bizarre? Is it not bizarre that those people have to move out of their apartment and move next door to their partner just so that they can be entitled to receive the subsidy? How stupid is that? 
That reminds me of residential villages retirement villages and apartment situations that cannot even provide home-care services. I think that is stupid as well because sometimes those services are far more effective than what one might otherwise be able to get. I think the ability to contract for the provision of home-care services within a retirement village should also be considered. I know that is a little outside the parameters of what we are discussing here but we really need to think about what we are doing to provide services for our older citizens knowing full well of course that those situations are likely to increase as our population ages. 
So what does Dr Paul Hutchison’s Supplementary Order Paper do? It proposes a new clause 8A “Funder’s liability in respect of persons whose assets are equal to or below applicable asset threshold”. It states: “Section 141 is amended by adding the following subsection: ‘(5) The funder’s liability arising under subsection (2) is not affected by the fact that a person to whom this section applies occupies or will occupy a dwelling or room within a rest home or hospital (as those terms are defined in the Retirement Villages Act 2003) under an occupation right agreement (as also defined in that Act).’ ” 
We know that the other issue to do with retirement villages relates to rates rebates and that many of the older folk who are paying a proportion of the rates are not necessarily able to claim a rates rebate. However I wonder whether if they send to the council an account that clearly shows the proportion of the rates paid there is a fair chance that some action may be taken to their benefit. What does Sue Bradford say in regard to that? The Greens are now saying that although they sympathise with National—that what National is saying is correct—they do not support Dr Paul Hutchison’s Supplementary Order Paper because they have one of their own and they think it is better than his. Well is it? 
Metiria Turei 
: Yes. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Well I beg to differ from the member on that and of course I would. After all Dr Paul Hutchison is a fine young man who has proposed an eminently sensible Supplementary Order Paper— 
Darren Hughes 
: She won’t agree to it you can guarantee that.  
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Well why not? Perhaps the member would care to take a call. I see two members who are dying to get on their feet and say something about the very important issue of protecting the marital status of our older people and their right to stay together. If members would like to get up and take a call that would be absolutely fantastic. 
Elderly couples who are entitled to an aged residential care subsidy are being prevented by district health boards from receiving their subsidy if they choose to own an apartment within an aged residential care facility. That is a fact. So what are we going to do about it? What is this Government going to do about it? Will it support Dr Paul Hutchison’s Supplementary Order Paper? Perhaps Government members—each and every one of them—would like to take a call. That would be interesting. Perhaps the Minister would like to take a call and give us an explanation. Should I be filibustering for the benefit of those members? Should we carry on here? Should I let them have the call? OK they can have it. Perhaps they may like to take a call give us an explanation of their view of Dr Paul Hutchison’s Supplementary Order Paper and say whether they really do support splitting up elderly couples who have spent all their lives together. 
The Government wants to split up elderly couples who are in their twilight years. Just because it has a policy in regard to district health boards—a bit of paperwork and bureaucracy—it does not want to let elderly couples be together even if one partner moves out and lives in the room next door to a partner who is in hospital care. This Government is not supportive of keeping elderly couples together; it wants to split them up. Why would it want to do that? Perhaps the Minister may like to take a call to give us an explanation of that.