Fairbrother Russell: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6261] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 Having listened to the last contribution and the one before it by Ms Judith Collins I feel it incumbent— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Great speeches. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I have not started yet but I thank Mr Tisch very much. I will continue to entertain him and try to educate him and lead him to the light. 
I must say what happened in the Social Services Committee—both matters alluded to by Ms Collins and that was all of her speech because she had not read the bill. She had not read it at the select committee either and that was why National took a smart trick. Nor did Dr Hutchison seem to understand the bill because at the select committee when those members had an opportunity to have a commentary brought forward to this House articulating their concerns based on fact based on reason a clear exposition to the world for an all-time record in this House they took the most slight opportunity to eschew that chance. They took the first opportunity to give themselves a miss— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: You weren’t there. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I was there. Perhaps if the member had been sitting in the chair he would have seen over the top of the table. He must have been standing and could not see me. 
If National Party members were serious about their laments in this House today they would have taken the time to allow the select committee to bring forward a report that would have articulated any cogent and coherent concerns. But lacking any such concerns in the report they took that rather shifty opportunity when a temporary member on the committee—because of proper commitments of Government members—was distracted. As soon as the chair realised this and sought the leave of the committee to delay the vote until the member came back Dr Hutchison and Judith Collins leapt into the breach and thought: “We can shaft the older people in this country; we can deny them any factual basis for this bill; and we can take a petty approach to caring for older people.” So the older people in this country were once again delivered a huge disservice by people who stand up in this House shedding crocodile tears but have no logic. 
What the National Party does not like about this bill is the simple fundamental truth that underlies it. Labour as National knows is committed to families young and old. Labour as National knows believes in fair treatment and dignity for our senior citizens. That is why National pulled that swifty in the committee. That is why those members took advantage of the mistake of a fleetingly temporary member to try to exploit the chance to deny posterity a record of the select committee hearings. That was a cheap shot I have to say. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Are you going to support the amendment? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: No I do not need to because the maximum contribution is agreed on by the funders and providers. Under this bill it is the same for all needs-assessed residents in a region. It is region based so all long-term residential care providers in a region have consistency. That means the older people who need to go into long-term residential care know that whatever provider there is whether or not from a rapacious right-winger or one from a very community-minded operator the cost is the same because the region sets the standards regardless of the type of care needed—rest home; in the case of Dr Hutchison dementia; continuing hospital; or specialist hospital care. So regardless of the type of care needed for one region it is the same cost for all those who have to take advantage of our long-term residential care provisions. 
So this is Labour exercising its commitment to families. This is Labour providing treatment and dignity for our senior citizens. This bill also— 
John Hayes 
: Overtaxing everyone else. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Listen to the trite rubbish that comes out from Arbor Motel! This is the man who runs out clichés instead of argument; the man who sticks his hair up with a hairdryer in the morning so he can stand above his colleagues. This bill differentiates between those who receive disability road services and claim disability allowances and those who receive age-related care. This difference is needed because of the different contracting arrangements. 
I was going to talk about some of the more detailed provisions of the bill in the time left available given the misrepresentation to this House of the actions of the select committee—and listeners to Parliament and readers of  
Hansard 
 will understand—that reflects on the integrity of the submissions from Dr Hutchison and Judith Collins. The integrity of what they said can be measured against the accuracy of their reflection of the select committee trick they played. It behoves me only to go back to basic principles. The bill is not introducing new policy. It clarifies existing Government policy. It makes sure that all older people in long-term residential care are treated fairly. That is the rub is it not I say to Dr Hutchison—that all old people in long-term residential care are treated fairly. 
The clarifications in this bill are designed to remove any ambiguity about Government policy and avoid varying interpretations or legal challenge. We want to get the facts on the floor and this bill does that. One of the elementary facts which has been distorted by speakers on the other side is this thing about no ability of disparate pricing. There is nothing in this bill that prevents an older person from agreeing to pay extra for additional services they have agreed to receive over and above those set out in the Government contract. That is a fundamental truth of this bill. It flies in the face of the assertions made by those of the National Party who seem not bothered to have read the bill and pulled fast tricks to prevent a report from the select committee being filed in this Parliament for posterity. I will repeat that. There is nothing in this bill that prevents an older person from agreeing to pay extra for additional services he or she has agreed to receive over and above those set out in the Government contract. 
What must also be pointed out to members opposite is that the maximum contribution policy provides certainty and fairness for vulnerable older people in our society. Who can quibble at that? Who can dare deny that fact? Who is failing to address that part of the bill in the submission to the National Party? The maximum contribution policy provides that certainty and fairness. I belong to a party that respects the older generation and wants to provide those people with the very best in their old age. 
This bill also ensures realistic adjustments in line with changes to the rest home contract price. Those changes usually occur as Dr Hutchison may know when district health boards and providers review the contract for long-term residential care. Those adjustments are reflected equitably in this bill. As I draw to the end of my contribution to the second reading I say that I look forward to the chance in the Committee stage to elaborate further on the detail of the bill. I think that we must go back—but not for Mr Tisch who seems to have trouble listening as well as standing. The Government’s policy on long-term residential care is that if an older person is assessed as needing long-term residential care indefinitely there will be a limit on what that person pays to receive a basic package of services from an aged residential care facility that has a contract with a district health board. This limited amount is referred to as the maximum contribution and applies to the services set out in the district health board provider contract. 
This bill makes two changes to the Act: a clarification of eligibility for disability allowance in residential care; and a redefinition to ensure that overseas private pensions and annuities are treated the same as New Zealand private pensions and annuities thus removing the inequity whereby overseas private pension recipients have to pay 100 percent of that. There are nine key points to the bill and I wish that time would allow me to deal with those in a proper and fulsome manner. What I will say is that I will return during the Committee stage to re-emphasise those nine points. 
As I finish my second reading speech I will restate a fundamental fact: this Government is committed to families young and old. It believes in fair treatment and dignity for our senior citizens. This bill continues to make progress on both fronts. It provides certainty for all. It provides dignity for our older citizens. It provides equity and fairness—concepts that are foreign to the National Party.