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:17359] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Clause 1(1) states ironically: “This Act is the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Act”. The emphasis should certainly not be on “long-term”. I think the title should be changed to the “Social Security (Short-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill” because that is exactly what will happen to the elderly people who at present live in The Salvation Army’s residential care units. I go back to what Major Herring said regarding the fact that the money for that has not been adjusted since 1994. He said back in May of this year that if such an adjustment were not made it was likely not-for-profit providers like The Salvation Army would have difficulty in remaining in the residential care market. Well that prediction has certainly come true and Major Herring gave exactly that warning to the Labour Government which ignored that very very excellent organisation. Instead the affected residents are to be moved into alternative care. 
Major Herring went on to say: “Not-for-profit providers are in the residential care market out of concern for older people and a desire to provide high-quality care.” That is the sort of person whom the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson—who has stayed silent throughout this debate—has totally ignored. That epitomises the promises that Labour members campaigned on for 10 years while in Opposition during the 1990s but that the Labour Government has since broken. Since the Minister will not take a call maybe the Hon Steve Maharey the master or the archdeacon of the flip-flop—the U-turn—may be prepared to take a call to explain his principles and explain why the Labour Party campaigned for a decade that it would remove asset and income testing and then absolutely changed its mind once it came into Government thereby defrauding many elderly people. 
Perhaps other names for this bill could be the “Labour Government’s Broken Promise to the Elderly Act”—that is one title we have talked about—the “Labour Government (Let’s Help The Salvation Army Exit Elder Care) Bill” or the “Labour Government (Let’s Dupe the Elderly) Bill”. I have seen in Port Waikato up and down the electorate the smaller rest homes predictably just not being able to survive because of the totally unrealistic way that the Labour Government has supported the elderly despite report after report. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Spend spend spend. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Minister Cullen says: “Spend spend spend.” He has spent $3 billion more on the health system yet productivity has gone down. There are fewer operations now and he is spending more than previously. He and this Government have presided over the creation of the most complex bureaucracy in health that this country has ever known and clearly productivity has gone down as shown by report after report. Talk about spending! Dr Cullen would be the champion of spending—and spending poorly when it comes the health sector. He cannot for one moment talk about spending effectively when we talk about the health sector or about the very very important area of elderly care. We have had the PricewaterhouseCoopers report which the Government totally ignored. In fact just a little while ago in June 2000 a report stated the Ministry of Health had attempted to change the report’s intended purpose—that relates to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report—and to use the findings selectively to suit its own cost parameters.