Rich Katherine: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Rich Katherine: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17278] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 As I rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill I have a question for the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson. If this bill is so great why was there almost universal opposition from most of the residential care providers who came before the Social Services Committee to tell us of their views on this bill? We heard from far and wide. We heard from a lot of the groups that have been involved in long-term residential care for many many years. They are not fly-by-nighters. Rather they include groups like the Christian-based groups such as Presbyterian Support New Zealand The Salvation Army and Age Concern. Group after group came before the select committee and pointed out what they thought were some pretty serious errors in the bill. Groups like Presbyterian Support told us that if changes were not made to the present mode of funding there would be a mass exodus from the industry. Presbyterian Support as one example pointed out that it had already exited long-term residential care over a period of years but that it would be forced to further leave the industry if it was not in a position where it could cover its costs. Group after group particularly our Christian-based social services said they were actually cross-subsidising their long-term residential care and using money they were getting from other areas to put into their care services. That was something that was of huge concern to us. 
The select committee also heard from The Salvation Army. It said that it was at that point considering departing from the provision of long-term residential care. At the time some members scoffed. They believed that that was just something that was trumped up as a way of making the point at the select committee but it was interesting was it not to read the newspaper today and see that after many many decades of providing residential care— 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: For 70 years. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: My learned colleague tells me they have been providing that care for 70 years. After 70 years of providing care in this community it is now saying that it has had enough. It is getting out of that particular area of work and will move to helping people more in their own homes. Well that does not suit everybody. One of the things the residential carers were saying was that the people coming to their facilities were people who had significant problems because they had waited in their homes for too long. The Salvation Army at the time it came before the select committee had 13 facilities. I have read in the paper that it now has 12 which it is going to put up for sale. 
We have to look at that mass exodus from the industry and start to ask why. This Government likes to champion public provision yet it is creating an environment where those public-spirited organisations and those that are not private providers are frankly not in a position where they can stay and provide services. Like many of my colleagues in this Chamber I have had letter after letter from groups from parents from children and from all sorts of workers in the sector who are saying that working in this particular area is just not an easy job. I have here sitting on my chair about a hundred different letters and that is just one of the files I have brought to the Chamber. 
Here I have a letter from a daughter of a resident at St Barnabas. She says: “Each day I see the tremendous job the staff do. It is not an easy job to care for frail elderly people who can be very demanding.” She goes on to say that she is concerned about the legislation because she sees some of those who provide the services as simply not being able to stay within the sector if they are not compensated to a level that allows them to stay in business. We are going to see a continuing exit from the sector—that is for sure. Groups like Presbyterian Support New Zealand are saying: “We are providing these sorts of services as much as we can but we are not going to be mugs about it. If we are not going to be compensated if we are not going to be in a position where we really can cover our costs we can’t continue to cross-subsidise this part of our work with other areas we work in.” 
I think it will be a shame. A lot of these groups are the ones that look after those who do not have too many other options. One of the things that will happen as many groups leave the sector is that we will see more reliance on the Government.