Tolley Anne: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6476] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 When it became evident earlier that we would get to this bill on the Order Paper I went looking for the bill to speak on it tonight. I looked for the bill as reported back from the Social Services Committee and I flicked through it and could not understand why it had not been changed or amended. Then of course I remembered that this bill was the one for which the Government could not get the numbers to the select committee in order for it to be amended. The senior Government whip had left the committee early thinking that everything was OK and Lynne Pillay was late so the Government did not have the numbers to pass the amendments that had been agreed to at the select committee. The bill before us is the original bill without the National Party’s minority report. 
We are opposing this bill and in a way that is unfortunate because there is much in this bill that we do support. In particular in Part 1 we support eligibility for the disability allowance so that people in the community who receive the residential support subsidy will still be eligible for a disability allowance for the things that the residential support subsidy does not cover like some medical costs medicines and related services. We also support the change to backdate the residential care subsidy from 28 days to 90 days to cover the time that it takes for people to have their financial assessment undertaken. 
However that is where our support comes to an end. For us the most important part of this bill is the maximum cap and we have to oppose that. A number of submitters told the select committee that the Government’s imposition of the maximum cap is removing choice for people. They said that whether or not they pay for the services themselves or the State subsidises them they have no choice because the services must be provided at a certain cost. The providers came to the select committee and said the maximum cap obliterates any options for those who want to provide residential care to make any choices about where they site those facilities. For instance if they wanted to build a premium facility on Oriental Parade they could not do so because the cost of the land would be too great and the maximum cap would reduce their ability to get any sort of return on their investment. 
So the effect of the maximum cap reduces choice for people who want to go into or have to go into long-term residential care. But more important again this Government is reducing everything down to the lowest common denominator so that all these facilities can be built only in average or less than average geographical locations in cities and towns in order to maintain any sort of return on investment based on what the Government will pay for basic care. 
Some members on the select committee said the providers could charge a bit extra for this and that but when we read the fine print we see they are not able to charge extra for the basic services. If they add on services for things like an en suite bathroom Sky TV or newspapers and other extras they are able to charge. But the basic fee that will be paid by the Government under this bill will be the same at a similar cost whether or not the people are paying for it themselves. That is not right. People should have the ability to choose a premium facility. If they have worked hard and saved for their retirement and want a bit of extra they should be entitled to purchase that rather than have nanny State say: “No this is the only standard you’re allowed. We control that and you’ll have to do what we want regardless of your ability to pay.” National does not think that is right and that forms one of the major reasons why we oppose the bill. 
I want to mention the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison. He will be bitterly disappointed that he is not here tonight to speak to his amendment. Currently people 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 district health boards currently refuse to pay elderly people their subsidy if a person chooses to use his or her asset to purchase an apartment within a rest home. The district health boards refuse 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 that the person is legally entitled to. 
That does not make sense for a couple who may well have been together for 50 or 60 years. The effect of the bill without Dr Hutchison’s amendment would be to separate that couple in order to satisfy some bureaucratic machinations. That is inhuman. This amendment would change that and allow that couple to remain together. The Supplementary Order Paper is worthy of support. It is humane and it recognises that just because people may well be incapable of looking after themselves or looking after their partner that does not destroy the partnership they may have enjoyed for many many years. So I ask the Committee to support Dr Hutchison’s Supplementary Order Paper when we come to vote on it tonight.