Hutchison Paul: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6552] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill. National is indeed opposing this bill and the reason we are opposing it is that it represents a reminder once again that Labour has failed the elderly in the detail. That is very much the case in this particular bill. We heard Georgina Beyer chairman of the Social Services Committee say that Labour is committed to certainty for all. How wrong that was for the elderly couple who were married for 57 years and Labour had through this bill the opportunity to ensure that they would be able to age together. I put up an excellent amendment to ensure that that would happen and the Minister totally ignored it. So when we have the chairman of the select committee who went painstakingly through this bill say that Labour provides certainty for all this bill is a living representation that this Labour Government once again fails the elderly when it comes to detail. 
National does acknowledge that there are some useful aspects to this bill and one of them was mentioned by the Minister when he talked about the 28-day rule being extended to 90 days so that elderly couples would have the chance to make arrangements without penalty when one went into long-term residential care. I think that was certainly an important aspect. But I go back to the two parts of this bill that are very concerning and are an indictment on this Labour Government if it claims it really cares for the elderly. 
The first one of course is in relation to ageing together which the Labour Government claims it is for and that so flagrantly is opposed by its action in this bill. The second one relates to the freedom of New Zealand’s elderly to be able to choose whether they can live in the retirement home of their choice; but instead the Labour Government chooses to cap the subsidy so that that choice is taken away from them. 
We hear a gasp from the Labour Government but that in principle just represents the grey socialistic ethos of this Labour Government deciding that everybody in New Zealand should have the same and should not have choice. It is the reflex reaction that it has had for many years and just cannot get over. 
I want to go over the situation of this couple who were married for 57 years. As they did not have assets of their own their daughter bought an apartment for them valued at $150000 that was attached to a rest home so they would be able to live there. The wife on clinical needs assessment and on financial assessment was indeed eligible to receive a subsidy from the State. But when it came to the actuality of it the district health board refused to pay that subsidy and the only way that that couple could have gone on was for the wife to move through the wall next door and away from her husband of 57 years. That is the situation and the Labour Government had the opportunity to correct it. 
Let us just hear what the Minister said in his second reading speech: “There is one last matter …” and it is interesting that the Labour Government put this matter last. But anyway he said: “I am aware that the National Party has indicated that it is introducing a Supplementary Order Paper. It asks that an additional amendment be made to the bill to ensure that couples residing together in a retirement village under an occupation right agreement—a ‘licence to occupy’; sometimes known as an LTO—can stay together when one has been assessed as needing care.” Then he goes on to say and we dare not say that “h” word: “The Government also believes that couples should be able to stay together as long as it is possible and safe.” He says even further: “There seems to be agreement across the House about that. That is the aim of the Government’s older people strategy.” 
Why on earth did not the Minister agree to support my amendment or the amendment of Sue Bradford from the Green Party—either of those amendments—and make that possible? But he chose to say: “No we won’t do that.” He goes on to say: “National’s amendment perhaps unwittingly allows for that double-up payment to occur.” Well maybe it did but that could have been solved by the Minister making an appropriate amendment himself. He says: “The Government expects parties to work together to find a solution and some providers and district health boards have already done just that.” Well I ask the Minister to name one district health board that has done that. 
Then he goes on: “Residential care providers will need to address the way in which they write their residential village occupation rights agreements and district health boards will need to address this issue in their age-related residential care contracts.” They are empty words. We know that time and time again this Labour Government has failed in detail for the elderly. It had an opportunity here but on this occasion it decided outright that that elderly couple were not going to be able to age in a place together. 
The reason we are cynical is that it was only a month or two ago that Dr Nick Smith brought up in the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill the situation of an elderly man aged 90 and his wife also married for 50 years where the wife had to go into care because of Alzheimer’s. The Labour Government made it not possible for him to have a living alone entitlement. That is how miserable it was. Nick Smith first of all wrote to the Minister and the Minister refused him not once but twice. He then went to the Human Rights Commissioner who ruled that this was a flagrant abuse of that elderly man’s entitlements; and it took that to happen before the Labour Government took notice. But then what happened? Michael Cullen decided that the amendment Nick Smith put up would increase the Crown’s total operating expenses and total operating revenues by approximately $600000 so he decided to refuse that elderly man. 
 Here we have two occasions in a few months showing why we should not trust this Labour Government when it comes to details in terms of caring for the elderly. The Government clearly has very wide and altruistic rhetoric that when it comes down to detail simply means nothing. Labour had the opportunity twice in this bill by means of an amendment from National and an amendment from the Green Party to have sorted out the problem for that elderly couple. Instead it chose very cruelly not to. 
With the district health board situation right now there are dozens of elderly couples—some not in the position to have a daughter pay for them as was the case of this couple—who will literally be torn apart because of the lack of care by this Labour Government for elderly couples when it comes to details in legislation. Unfortunately the National Party cannot support this bill because once again it realises that the Labour Government simply does not care when it comes to the detail in looking after New Zealand’s elderly.