Rich Katherine: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Rich Katherine: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17350] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 As the debate resumes on this very important bill I think it is important to talk about honesty. Members opposite when in Opposition travelled from one end of New Zealand to the other talking about how they would abolish asset testing for the elderly. Helen Clark kissed and hugged a lot of elderly folk all over the country then said that the Labour Party would abolish asset testing—not get rid of it not partially remove it but totally abolish asset testing. How it has changed its tune now it is in Government! 
Today the debate started with Government members talking about honesty. They gave us a series of lectures on honesty. One could say: “If only they would listen to their own advice.” If there is one thing that New Zealanders crave from Governments it is honesty. There has been an honesty deficit from this Government. If Government members were to turn up at any public meeting that was not organised by their own party they would hear from members of the public about honesty. Guess who said: “People want some honesty about asset testing.”? It was Annette King when she was the Opposition spokeswoman on health. Throughout  
Hansard 
 Annette King has made comment after comment not about partially removing asset testing not about kinda sorta nearly or almost getting rid of asset testing but about totally abolishing asset testing. If Labour Party members want to talk about honesty one would think they would do it while they were in Government. But no they have changed their tune since they were in Opposition. 
Judith Collins 
: The “h” word. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: The “h” word as my learned colleague Judith Collins has said They have changed their tune because they know they cannot deliver on that election promise. It is just not possible at this point. 
We are debating a bill that is very complex but in reality I think we will create a few problems out there in the residential-care sector. We have already seen The Salvation Army pull the pin. Members of The Salvation Army came before the Social Services Committee and told us they were having difficulty. They told us that they would have to reconsider their investment in the residential-care market if they were unable to cover the basic costs of looking after the elderly in their care. Some of the select committee members scoffed and said: “This is just posturing designed to convince the Government that they are serious.” Unfortunately some of the Government members did not take The Salvation Army seriously and we read in the paper only yesterday that The Salvation Army is to exit the residential-care market. It is putting 12 of its facilities on the market—one of them Red Roofs happens to be in Dunedin—and will get out of that part of the business altogether. 
One of the things that the Government should be concerned about is what will happen if there is a mass exodus from the residential-care market. Who will provide all those beds? Of course more and more New Zealanders will look to the hospital system to provide that care. If we talk to any carers out in the community—any nurses who are out there working on the ground—they will say that too many people spend too long in their own homes these days. It is almost as if the pendulum has swung too far. That is why some of the residential carers say that when people come into their residential-care facilities they have more extreme conditions than perhaps they did 10 or 20 years ago when people used to drive to the care facility as opposed to being brought in by ambulance. That is why the facilities are seeing people who need longer stays people who have more extreme health conditions and people who require a higher standard of care than perhaps was the case earlier. 
With that higher standard of care comes of course a cost. One of the things that is of great concern in this part of the bill is the fixing of the pricing cap—the $636 cap that people talk about. One of the strange things about this bill is that the Government is saying that it will determine not only what the people who are funded by the public system will pay and be asked to pay but also what the private sector can ask private payers—people who contract and make their own decisions—to pay. That in a sense is price fixing. The Government has not attempted to do it in any other sector but it is doing it in the residential-care market.