Collins Judith: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Collins Judith: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16771] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The debate tonight has been very interesting. I particularly enjoyed the contributions of Paul Adams from United Future and of Dr Lynda Scott who speaks from the experience of being a geriatrician and a member of the Social Services Committee which dealt with the bill. I was on the select committee for the submission part of the process along with Paul Adams. The bill is a disappointment in many ways. I think we should acknowledge that there are some good moves in it but it is a tragedy that people are now being told that they will be able to retain some more of their assets when they go into a rest home when all around the country rest homes are in absolutely dire straits and are looking to close. The submissions to the select committee on the bill were an absolute eye-opener to me. Like many people in this House I had parents who were elderly before they passed on but I was certainly not aware of the dire straits in which many rest home owners and the people who work or live in them find themselves. That is because my mother always used to say to me when I was a little girl growing up that I should never put her in a rest home—and of course I never did; none of my family would ever have done that. 
One of the best things about the asset-testing regime is that it actually acknowledges that most people wish to age in their own homes with their own families. One of the really good things about the programme that National brought in in the 1990s is the ability for caregivers to come into the home so that people can age with dignity in their own homes. But there comes a time—and I certainly heard this from the submitters—when many people who are near to the end of their life simply cannot manage in their own homes and need to go into much more intensive care than they would have needed on average some 20 years ago when people often stayed in rest homes for 10 to 15 years before they passed on. We now find that people are often much sicker much older and much nearer to the end of their life before they enter a rest home. I understand—and I am sure Dr Scott can correct me if I am wrong—that the average time for a resident to be in a rest home is about 3 to 6 months. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: In geriatric hospitals. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: That is on the geriatric side. Consequently the costs involved for rest home owners have grown significantly. We have all been inundated by letters from rest home owners and from residents themselves about the dire straits that the owners are in. 
I was shocked that The Salvation Army came along to the select committee and said that it was thinking of closing its homes because it could not afford to keep them open. It is an appalling situation that such not-for-profit organisations are the very ones that are finding it harder and harder to keep their premises open and continue their operations. The Government has set in law a figure of $636 per week for the care of the elderly. That is the same as it has been for the last 10 years Mr Assistant Speaker. You may well raise your eyebrows at that and so may we all raise ours. The fee has been the same for 10 years. As Dr Scott quite rightly pointed out it is $78 a day. That is less than the cost of a motel that provides no care whatsoever. It is totally unfair to expect rest home owners who have to have qualified staff including registered nurses on at nights and other times—qualified enrolled nurses and caregivers who are now going through a qualifications process which is as it should be—to operate on that basis. Because the Government is so mean about giving people a fair go when it comes to paying for the costs of care rest homes are being run down and driven to the wall while all the time the Government consistently increases the costs for those small businesses—and it certainly has done that. 
I have had information given to me by a rest home which states that there was in fact a review by PricewaterhouseCoopers over 3 years ago and it showed that a 20 percent increase in funding was required then. Since then rest homes have not had anything. They have now been offered a 1 percent rise to pay for the additional costs and that is a total and an absolute insult. We have had the caregivers from those places coming along to the Health Committee and saying to us that they need to be given decent wages—and they do. Some caregivers who work in rural communities and who work outside the residences—the people who have to travel in their cars and get themselves to one home after another—are not getting any more after they pay their petrol money than about $4 or $5 an hour before tax. That is an absolute disgrace. This Government has sat there for 5 years and mouthed on about what it will do for the elderly yet it has allowed that situation to continue. Government members talk and talk about giving caregivers qualifications and about doing all sorts of lovely things like that but that does not pay the bills. Those people get $5 an hour for the hard job of looking after elderly people and making sure that their health is not worse today than it was yesterday. They often have to do all sorts of housework for them and to lift them in and out of the bath. 
Caregivers are being abused by the Labour Government which refuses to treat them with decency and honesty. If it does not have the money to increase the payment for care it should tell them so. But we know that the Government does have the money for that. The Government has more and more money for all sorts of little schemes that may win it a few votes yet it continues to treat caregivers like dirt. It does so mainly because the unions have sucked in those poor workers who think that the unions are on their side. If the unions were on the caregivers’ side they would be taking some action against this Government. They would be marching in the streets and I would be there with them. Those people are being abused and used practically as slave labour by the Labour Government which will not do a thing to help them because all that it is concerned about is sucking up to its mates. The Government thinks it can take those poor people for granted. The unions sell caregivers a T-shirt with a union logo on it and those poor people are supposed to think that the unions are on their side when they are not. The Labour Government has the power to do something about the situation—and it does have the money for that because it has so much in the way of taxpayers’ money—but it will not do anything for those workers. It is just not fair that caregivers are being treated like that day in and day out. 
Then we get this paltry pathetic excuse for a bill and we are all supposed to become excited about it. The only thing that I get excited about is the way that caregivers are being treated. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Who brought in asset testing? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: That member Lianne Dalziel turned up with a petition at the select committee. She has told us time and time again that she supports caregivers. I ask her who brought in the $4-an-hour pay rate for them. That member has been in power for 5 long years and she sits in the select committee and bleats on that she is there for the poor caregivers. Lianne Dalziel has been in Government for 5 long years and the Government has not given one thing to caregivers. Labour takes caregivers for granted and does not care one scrap for them because they are nice honest decent people who care about the people they are looking after. 
This bill is an absolute travesty. It does not go nearly far enough for the working people whom it should be for. It is all about giving them a little bit and making them think that that is OK. It is not OK—it is definitely not.