Tisch Lindsay: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17418] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 It has been an interesting debate. When we look back to 1996 at the Labour Party’s policy in this area it said in its manifesto that it would remove asset testing. Labour repeated that at the 1999 election and many older folk voted on the basis that asset testing would be reduced. This was not about reducing or diluting asset testing but in fact that it would be abolished. This bill moves in the right direction but still does not go as far as National would have expected. Although we will be supporting this as we have done thus far we have some major concerns in the whole aged-care area—home care rest homes and other residential-care facilities. In fact as one member previously said: “It is in crisis mode.” I have been to see a number of rest homes in my Piako electorate in Cambridge Matamata and Huntly over recent times and they tell me that the viability of their operations is becoming very suspect. It is suspect because of increasing costs that they are having to incur with the movement of people from the district health board hospitals back out into rest homes. They are not able to handle it. They have a fixed price in which to operate and are expected to pick up more and more of the costs for those residents. 
I have heard the Government say “Ah but rest homes are doing extremely well.” Well some are. But if we look at those that have done well they have been cross-subsidised. They are being subsidised because they have a hospital unit attached to them or more particularly they have a retirement village associated with them. So if we were to look at those in their context one could say that with a degree of cross-subsidisation they are doing OK. But those stand-alone rest home operators who have to have a registered nurse on call 24 hours a day are at the stage now where the viability of their operation is very very suspect. In fact in our area there is one operator that is moving into receivership. I have met with them and the viability and the whole concern over patient care rest care and security for those residents is very much up in the air. 
If we were to look at what is happening in the home-care sector that astounds me as well because of the low pay that we are expecting the providers to give to their workers. I had a lady come to me about a month ago who had not had a shower for 10 weeks because the provider providing that service and being paid for it did not turn up. I have certainly taken that on board. 
The other area where there have been huge costs associated with this sector is in the certification. Members will be aware that certification came in in October and all rest homes had to meet certain standards. That is fine. There is no difficulty with that. But when it comes off the bottom line and the costs of some of the certification have reached in excess of $30000 to $40000 then that is very hard to recoup. With the audits that will come up on an 18-month basis once again there will be compliance costs that are not being funded by the Government or by the residents who in most cases do not have the ability to pay. 
On top of that the other compliance costs that have been mentioned by previous speakers in the Holidays Act the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill and Occupational Safety and Health Service regulations all impose great constraints on the ability to be able to operate a viable proposition. 
Where there is only one rest home in an area that becomes the focal point for a lot of people in that region. In the electorate I represent that is the case. When that rest home closes and moves into receivership there is a crisis at hand. The Government should say that it will provide security and supply the quality of care that is important for our ageing population. While asset testing and what this legislation aims to do is fine in that respect it will be no good for those who need rest home care when there is no place for them to go. I am afraid that that is what is happening in rural areas in particular where costs are extremely high people need to have transport to get to the doctor and to be able to bring in supplies. It is not like living in a city where people can go to the local pharmacist and people can get to the local hospital if they need to be there. In provincial New Zealand the task is serious. 
To the Government I say that this is a very serious matter. While we agree with and support the bill in its context major challenges are ahead and they rest in the Government’s hands.