Stewart Barbara: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6553] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the third reading of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill. [ 
Interruption 
] It is an excellent decision. The bill is largely of a technical nature and amends some of the anomalies identified in the changes to the income and asset-testing regime that had been implemented. This bill also clarifies that people who receive a residential care subsidy for disability-related care can receive a disability allowance on the same basis as those who live in the community. That group of people definitely needed to have their residential care subsidy clarified. We also note that people who receive a residential care subsidy for age-related care may not receive a disability allowance because the residential care subsidy is intended to meet their assessed disability-related needs. 
We approve of the changes that were implemented to the legislation during the Committee stage of the bill; they were good changes. We were particularly pleased that the 28-day rule was extended to 90 days because we know that it takes a long time for a person to ensure that the necessary changes in his or her living circumstances are made. 
New Zealand First members believe that the treatment of our seniors sends a clear signal of our status as a developed nation—hence our Supergold card. With an ageing population we must have high-quality affordable care available for all older New Zealanders when they require it. Of course certainty is always needed about how much an individual needs to contribute towards his or her care. New Zealand First members are adamant that retired couples must be able to grow old together with all of their due entitlements. After all is said and done they have earned the right to do that and they need to enjoy life together for as long as they possibly can. 
We were very pleased to hear the message repeated by the Minister that retired couples under an occupation right agreement are able to stay together for as long as possible with all of their entitlements. We are adamant that with the passing of this bill any person eligible for a subsidy for care should receive the care component of the subsidy—including couples who reside under occupation right agreements. We raised that matter directly with the Minister of Health’s office and we now await the agreed outcome which is that district health boards will be encouraged to constructively engage with providers in order to find an agreed solution to that issue. Put simply the care component of the subsidy must be disentangled from the accommodation component. There are currently examples of district health boards and providers negotiating fair solutions to that issue. We believe that can and should happen right across the country. 
If someone with an occupation right agreement is assessed as needing rest home - level care to be provided at that person’s place then the Government should pay for that care and the owner of the facility should not be paid twice for the accommodation component. New Zealand First wants to ensure that if a senior citizen is eligible for a subsidy then he or she receives it. Additionally if individuals are receiving the same care package they should pay the same price. We have a commitment from the Minister’s office that the Government expects the parties to work together to find a solution. Residential care providers will need to address the way that they write their retirement village occupation right agreements and district health boards will also need to address the issue in their age-related residential care contracts. So we are confident of reaching a fair and an equitable solution on this matter and of course we will be monitoring the Government to ensure that it follows through on its undertakings. Couples who want to stay together must receive care together. 
The bill also allows those exempt from a financial means assessment—asset testing—to retain a personal allowance and it clarifies that any person who is needs-assessed as requiring indefinite long-term residential care in either a rest home or a hospital that has a contract with a district health board will pay no more than the maximum contribution for the services set out in the district health board provider contract for services whether or not that person is subsidised. The bill clarifies that if the cost of the contracted care services provided to a resident assessed as requiring care exceeds the maximum contribution the funder is liable to pay the difference. It is essential that if a taxpayer’s subsidy is paid a certain level of service is provided regardless of whether the person concerned is State-funded or self-funded. In this House we would all agree that for people to receive anything other than the same level of service or medical care would be totally outrageous and of course we are very aware that residents are able to purchase any additional services on top of those that are subsidised. The element of choice is still there. 
The bill makes it clear that even if people have assets of more than $150000 they will pay no more than the maximum contribution for their care. In this House we are all only too aware that the cost of residential care very quickly erodes the savings that many people have worked for and then very carefully put away for their senior years. We have all had people visit our offices and discuss that issue at length. 
We were pleased to read that the bill now treats New Zealand and overseas private pensions and annuities equitably. That means that in both cases only 50 percent of a private pension or annuity is to be included as income in a means assessment. Previously 100 percent of an overseas private pension was treated as income. The treatment of overseas private pensions as income for assessment was unfair and it is good to see that that anomaly has been amended and that those people will not be unfairly penalised. 
We in New Zealand First believe that in the future many elderly people will choose to opt for quality home-based support services but we are very aware too that the provision of those services is challenging. 
New Zealand First supports this bill. The matters raised in it do need to be resolved and we look forward to a very speedy resolution of them.