Rich Katherine: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Rich Katherine: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11186] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 As I rise to speak to this bill it is interesting to hear Mr Benson-Pope sayhe welcomes this bill. I can say to the House today that this bill will not be welcomed by those people in organisations involved in the care of the elderly. This bill will not be welcomed by people who are in elderly care themselves—be it rest home care care for people with dementia or hospital care—because what we see in this bill is just another example of broken promises by this Government. 
Mr Benson-Pope also said he had some regret about the pace of the introduction. Regret seems to be the theme of today—as we saw in question time when the Hon Lianne Dalziel used that word time and time again to describe her performance over the last couple of days. 
In 1993 Helen Clark then an Opposition member was absolutely outraged when asset testing was first introduced. At that stage she said she would repeal the legislation on asset testing. That promise has been made in election manifesto after election manifesto. If members look at the 1996 manifesto—which those over on the Government side of the House seem to conveniently overlook—they will see it states quite clearly that Labour will abolish National’s asset testing for older people: abolish—not reduce not dilute not soften but abolish. 
When Helen Clark went to look at the Cashmere View Hospital in Christchurch in 1993 she told the residents there that the Labour Government would remove the asset test. She said it was causing some older people not to get the care they needed because they were worried about their homes. Helen Clark has now had 10 years of saying that she will repeal asset testing and she has not done it. Grey Power is looking at this Government seeing it become increasingly ideologically driven and seeing it as a Government that has broken promise after promise and not delivered on some of the clear statements Labour made about asset testing in particular. 
 I would like to look at some of the comments made by Michael Cullen. He said in February a couple of years ago that Labour had “undertaken to deal with another source of anxiety and pass a measure to remove asset testing for long-term elderly care.” Well Labour has not done it. Those members said they were going to do it in the second term—they were going to introduce legislation to do it. What we have today is a diluted bill that does nothing to repeal anything. It does nothing to remove the test. Despite all the comfortable smarmy spin around this bill this Government has quite clearly broken a promise and is not going to deliver what it has promised to a lot of elderly New Zealanders. 
Sadly those whom Helen Clark visited 10 years ago at the Cashmere View Hospital might or might not be around today to see that broken promise but I can tell by the look on the face of that lady there that she believed Helen Clark 10 years ago. I am sure that if she were up in the gallery she would be very disappointed to hear that Helen Clark has broken that promise today. 
Let us also look at some of the comments by the Hon Lianne Dalziel although I have to say that after her performance over the last couple of days all listeners and members in the House will be wondering whether they should believe a single word that Minister says. Here is her speech to Southland Grey Power. She said: “And there’s more to come with work well under way to introduce legislation repealing the asset test for residential care and I am working closely with Margaret Wilson on this.” That is all very interesting because here we are 2 years down the track and what we have in front of us has nothing to do with the repeal of the asset test. 
There is another reason that those involved in the businesses of residential and elderly care will be very disappointed in this bill. It is because the Government has fixed the price for the provision of services. Once this bill is passed all businesses—all residential care facilities—will not be able to charge more than $636 per week. That said many businesses already charge a lot more than that because they offer a quality service to people who want choice in the sort of care they receive. This bill treats all elderly New Zealanders as if they are the same. I say that if one is in a rest home a dementia ward or in a hospital ward one expects and deserves different standards of care. Someone in a dementia ward needs a lot more care and attention than someone in a standard rest home facility. 
The prices of course do vary depending on where one happens to be. Someone trying to offer the service in the middle of Auckland where property prices are a lot higher than elsewhere will find it incredibly difficult and will have to cut back on the services he or she is offering some elderly New Zealanders who are presently enjoying those services. I agree with our spokeswoman Lynda Scott on this issue. That particular provision has the ability to bring some rest home facilities to their knees because a lot of them are struggling already. 
I have been speaking to a number of people working in this area in Dunedin and they said already the cost of bed nights is not meeting a lot of the cost of the services they want to be able to provide to worthy New Zealanders who need their care. This is nothing more than price fixing. When Governments get involved and try to tell businesses what they can charge for their services they are getting into areas they know nothing about and that will only end up being to the detriment of a lot of private sector organisations that are providing good services. [ 
Interruption 
] 
It is very interesting to hear Mr Benson-Pope calling out because in his electorate of Dunedin South this issue really does concern groups and organisations—including many church groups—that are involved in providing good services to elderly Dunedin people. I have three words to say to that member: “Don’t be negative!” He should stay there and be quiet. Either that or he should get his ears checked because he seems to be very very— 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Hard of hearing. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Perhaps he needs residential care Dr Scott? Perhaps he needs to go into rest home care or a dementia ward. 
This bill will be going I think to the select committee I sit on and I look forward to hearing some of the submissions about it. I expect that we will get a wide range of opposition to it because a lot of organisations from both the private and public sectors will be very alarmed when they read the detail of this bill. Hopefully a lot of groups—particularly groups like Grey Power and others that purport to represent senior citizens in this country—will hold the Government to account for a broken promise that has been repeated time and time again over the last 10 years. I imagine it will be very difficult for the Government to talk its way out of this one because what we have here is not a repeal or a bill that will abolish anything. We have a bill that will only dilute the present circumstances that many senior citizens find themselves in. 
This is certainly a broken promise. Anyone can look at past Labour Party manifestos and see it in black and white—spin removed. There are quite clear comments from the likes of Steve Maharey Lianne Dalziel and Ruth Dyson as well as from many other Labour Party members who have travelled the country telling elderly New Zealanders that they will abolish asset testing—and income testing for that matter. What we have here is a bill full of broken promises which we will address during the select committee process.