te Heuheu Georgina: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17355] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to see Minister Maharey sitting in the Chamber. This bill epitomises to a tee what we in the Opposition like to call the “Maharey principle”—that is and I am taking his own words: “That’s just what you say when you’re in Opposition”. Clearly since the Labour Party has been in Government it tends to do things other than what it said it would do when it was in Opposition. As I said this Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill epitomises that principle to a tee. The Minister should not take that as praise being heaped on him at all. Obviously it does him no credit that he made that comment. It does him no credit whatsoever. 
What Labour said when it was in Opposition which has already been referred to but which I think deserves being said again is that it would abolish income and asset testing. It was saying that at the beginning of the 1990s and throughout most of the 1990s although by the end of the 1990s that had been watered down to asset testing. This is a Government that says one thing in Opposition and does something else when in Government. Minister Maharey admitted that; he seems to be proud of that. I do not know why he is proud of it because I would not be proud of that myself. [ 
Interruption 
] It would be great for Minister Maharey to take a call because the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson has not responded to any of our requests for her to take a call. Maybe Minister Maharey might oblige us and take a call to tell us why he thinks it is OK for this Government to feel very proud of what it is doing. I do not think that Grey Power members out and about in communities around New Zealand are feeling very happy. The Minister should tell us why he thinks it is OK for Labour to say one thing in Opposition and do exactly the opposite when in Government. 
It is not good enough. This Government was elected with a pretty clear mandate in 1999 so one would think that it felt that it had a mandate to keep the promises it made while it was in Opposition. But disappointingly no it did not do it. So here we are in the Chamber tonight debating the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill which basically delivers something but falls far short of what this Government said that it would deliver when it was in Opposition. 
In the rest of my time available I want to express my concerns and worries about the definition of “contracted care services”. The select committee made a change. Those services were originally defined as “specified care services”. For some reason the select committee thought that “contracted care services” would make a better description. Last night one of my colleagues Dr Lynda Scott who has huge experience in this area raised the issue of what were the basic services that fall under the definition of “contracted care services”. I want the Minister to tell us what those services are. She should give us and those who are already in long-term care and those who will be going there shortly some peace of mind and reassurance that what would normally be regarded as a fair provision of services will still be available once the legislation comes into force. Probably Steve Chadwick could give us some peace of mind on that situation. 
A couple of senior citizens have dropped me a note to express their worries about what that definition actually entails. The problem is that the funders themselves the district health boards are under huge funding pressures anyway. We all know that. So we will have a situation whereby the services to be delivered which fall under the term “contracted care services” are not defined.