Stewart Barbara: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3090] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this Social Security (Long-Term Residential Care) Amendment Bill) going to the Social Services Committee. We believe that the bill contains some potentially contentious issues. As the Minister said it contains some technical amendments and we know that other substantive amendments will be proposed during the select committee process. It will be absolutely essential to have the input of many submitters into this legislation particularly those involved in private care. It is really important to ensure that this legislation which affects 28000 New Zealanders is as good as it can possibly be. We need to know that the services are right. We know already that the workforce numbers are a challenge and we hope that area will be addressed smartly. 
The bill amends the Social Security Act of 1964 in relation to the income and the asset-testing regime for people requiring long-term residential care. I must admit I was very pleased to hear the Minister state that this bill gives certainty to those requiring residential care particularly in the costing structures. 
Sandra Goudie 
: No not if there are no residential service providers; they will all have left the industry. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: That will be challenging. Many of us here in the House know that the cost of residential care quickly erodes the savings that many people have worked for throughout their lives and carefully put away for their senior years. We have a most interesting argument there and I will be pleased to see submitters’ comments on this aspect. One of the key changes this bill makes is that people who are needs-assessed as requiring long-term residential care indefinitely in a rest home will pay no more than the maximum contribution for care whether or not they are subsidised. Many people will applaud this change and of course we know that rest home providers will have some queries about it. 
The second point worth noting is that people who have assets that are over the applicable assets threshold and receive contracted care services that cost more than the maximum contribution—services they enjoy and have had often for many years—pay only the maximum contribution. The downside of this is that some of these services will be cut which we do not want to see happen because the funder as we note in the legislation is to subsidise them by paying the amount above the maximum contribution. So the funder liability in this bill is interesting. We all want people requiring care to have the best possible care and we do not want the viability of any rest home to be put into question. We know that many rest homes have closed down over the previous few years. We do not want to see any more of them close down particularly in view of our ageing population. 
It is worth noting that residential care providers who have been charging residents with assets over the threshold more than the maximum contribution for the same care provided to subsidised residents are not likely to be happy with these amendments. No doubt the select committee will hear more on this. We will be following that up. New Zealand First believes that this is one of the potentially very contentious matters although we contend that when it comes to this type of care there should be no difference in the type or amount of care people are entitled to receive regardless of whether they pay privately or are State subsidised. 
 We note that although the residential care subsidy is intended to meet all disability costs it is possible that there may be a shortfall in terms of both transport costs and some one-off costs such as dentures glasses and hearing aids that many people in age-related care may require. That is one matter that needs to be addressed and it is one that New Zealand First will be following through very carefully. We are aware too that people receiving a residential care subsidiary for age-related care may not receive a disability allowance because the residential care subsidy is intended to meet their assessed disability-related needs. As I said earlier New Zealand First is concerned about that shortfall. 
We note that the legislation to allow exempted persons to retain a personal allowance expires on 30 June 2006 so it is really essential that legislation be passed quickly to address that matter. When one reads the commentary on the bill it is interesting to see there will be uncertainty as to how assessments of deprivation will be treated if challenged on appeal as the wording of the deprivation provision differs from that of the former provisions interpreted by the courts. We are pleased to see that New Zealand and overseas private pensions and annuities will be treated equitably. The bill provides for overseas private pensions and annuities to be treated in the same way as New Zealand private pensions and annuities. In both cases only 50 percent of a private pension or annuity is to be included as income in a means assessment. 
New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee. With this country’s ageing population we believe that the viability of rest homes is absolutely paramount as also is the care of residents in long-term residential care. We want to see the best possible care for the people in residential care facilities and we look forward to ensuring that as we follow the select committee process.