Collins Judith: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17411] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 In following on from the Minister I tell the House that I was a member of the Social Services Committee for part of the process of this bill so I would like to thank her for acknowledging the work of the members of that select committee. Unfortunately often in the House Ministers thank only the chair of a select committee and forget that committees sit only because there is a quorum and only because other members are involved and take an active part in committees. In terms of this particular bill we in the National Party are supporting it but not without some reservations. Certainly the area of long-term residential care for the elderly is absolutely fraught with difficulties. We have an ageing population. At the moment when other people look at the population and see people of my age they ask whether there will be anyone available to pay for our old-age care. That is a long-term concern and it is why some of the changes were made in the last decade in relation to trying to keep people in their own homes for as long as possible. That was one of the reasons for that because obviously the taxpayers of New Zealand could not continue to keep paying for the full cost of care for people unless there was a real and an absolute need. 
Some particular concerns were raised at the select committee. I would like to thank the submitters to the select committee because those people were from various walks of life. They put together submissions that were incredibly helpful because they often spoke from personal experience. In this particular area submissions came from people who provide or have provided care for the elderly and also for family members of the elderly from the New Zealand Law Society—which always puts in very sensible submissions—and from groups like Age Concern which I have had quite a bit to do with recently over a matter. In relation to the submissions one of the most disturbing things was to find that agencies like The Salvation Army are finding it and have now found it just too hard to be providers in this area. That is to do with costs. 
We already know that we cannot have a bottomless pit when it comes to the costs of caring for the elderly but unfortunately the costs imposed on the industry extend well past the very small increase that it had in about 2002 I think it was—or something like that. That was a very small increase. Since then the industry has had extra occupational safety and health costs extra accident compensation levy costs and the Holidays Act costs. And of course the businesses are a 24-hour 7-day-a-week job so they cannot say they are going to close on some days— they cannot take that measure. Then there has been the extra cost of rates. Many of us who own property know that council rates have gone up. There is also the cost of food which has risen substantially in the last 5 years and the providers have had to wear that increase. Then there has been of course the sherry tax. The one little bit of gladness that many of the elderly have is a little drop of sherry but its cost has gone up. 
The biggest increased cost that the elder-care area is about to face is in the wages of caregivers. We in the Health Committee—a different select committee—have been hearing submissions in relation to the wages of caregivers and I think that it is appropriate to discuss at this moment the fact that we know that caregivers who work in long-term residential care establishments are not being paid enough. We know that many of those people work for less than the minimum wage if we take into account some of the costs they have to incur and that they are in fact the people who keep our elderly going. It is a real travesty that on the one hand we are saying that we will increase the asset-testing level for the elderly—which National supports—but on the other hand we have whole groups of providers in the industry like The Salvation Army going out of business. At the same time we have the caregivers existing on wages that are simply not acceptable in a country that likes to think of itself as part of the First World. 
One of the interesting things I found was the fact that the not-for-profit organisations that own residential care facilities were often in a tougher position and were finding it harder to survive than some of the bigger profit-based organisations. I think that that is to do with the fact that the not-for profit organisations are often looking after older premises and the cost of maintaining them is often higher than that of newer premises. In fact those organisations may not have the same business systems in place as the profit-based organisations or they may have cultures that are not necessarily focused on being able to do the best they can. Often they cut corners which is really hard for the elderly. It is an absolute tragedy that Presbyterian Support services have exited the area and that The Salvation Army has said it will sell all its facilities—that is if it can find a buyer. One of the really sad things is that it has to be able to find a buyer—and for what? Yet at the same time The Salvation Army is being told in legislation that there is a set amount it will be paid. I cannot for the life of me understand why we stipulate in legislation exactly what the price is to be when we should take into account the fact that prices must and do rise with inflation and the fact that there will be extra fuel costs and extra heating costs. Electricity costs for instance have gone through the roof in the last 5 years. 
We should be able to have a mechanism in the bill that states to the people who do provide long-term residential care for the elderly that we can as a country and as taxpayers take those costs into account. So I do not know why we are putting through legislation that states the exact amount of the payment when that could be more easily and much more succinctly dealt with in terms of regulations or even by way of a ministerial or a Ministry of Health ruling. Putting the amount into legislation sets it now and we will not be able to change it for some time because of the long legislative process that that involves. The Government has been sitting on this legislation for the last 5 years so there has hardly been a fast turn-round. I do not think a change will happen for a little while yet—not until after the next election when we are in power. 
One of the things that is very very important is to keep promises. The Labour members told people all the way through the 1990s and all the way through the last couple of elections that they would remove asset testing for the elderly. They knew that there was no realistic opportunity to do that without putting the country into a dire financial situation and they said it anyway. Unfortunately Labour has delivered to the elderly in New Zealand yet another half-truth. Unfortunately it has said to the elderly it will pass this legislation for them but it will make it harder for them to even get a place in long-term residential care because it will make it harder for the providers to make a living and because the wages of the caregivers as we know are very low. Labour has gnashed its teeth and talked about this issue a lot. It has been in power for 5 years and has not done anything about it. 
We now have an aged-care situation that is absolutely chronic. I have a family member who works in that area and I know that the people who work in the area go the extra mile. They are often dealing with people who are much more unwell and elderly than they were 20 years ago when they went into rest homes private hospitals or long-term residential care. Now we have a situation whereby as the Minister said to us last night the elderly going into those facilities stay on average only 18 months. Twenty years ago the average might have been 10 or 20 years—a much much longer time. That is because people are going into care later in life when they are much more elderly and much sicker. They are often near the very end of their lives so the intensity of care and nursing has increased. Yet we are keeping the providers down to levels of pay that basically mean that staff have not had pay increases for over a decade. That is a travesty and it is one that we in the National Party are very concerned about. We are very concerned that that strategy does not help our elderly and does not help their families.