Adams Paul: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Adams Paul: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16768] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 Poor Judith Collins! She has been so patiently trying to get a call. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: I would rather listen to you dear. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I thank the member. This bill is interesting. I found it a very interesting bill to deal with at the Social Services Committee. I heard young Darren Hughes the only passionate member of the Labour Party speak on this bill. He probably looks at me and thinks that I am elderly also. I say to him that one thing about becoming old—as long as one does not die in a crash or something else—is that it happens to us all. 
It is interesting to think of the people this bill will affect. They are people who have lived through a period of time that has probably seen more changes than any other generation. I think of my children’s great-grandmother. She recently passed away at 98 years of age. She saw many changes in her generation yet she still had certain principles in her life. Even in her latter days when she was living by herself in her own home on her little pension she was still able to pay out cash from the savings that she had prudently put away to her many children grandchildren and great-grandchildren. 
This legislation deals with those elderly people. If we are honest we would say that there are two areas of society that we really need to take care of: children and the elderly. In many ways there are similarities between the two groups. Little children do not understand every issue of life and they can often be confused and fearful if they are not understood. Likewise as we age similar concerns can come back to us. In other words we can tend to become like little children in our old age. Therefore I think that if we are to be a responsible Parliament passing legislation that affects the elderly we must be concerned with all generations yet too often we look at things and ask what they will cost us now. Sometimes things do need to cost us now. 
As has been said by previous speakers many of the elderly have worked very hard. Many of them have contributed greatly to our country. Many of them have raised their children well and many paid a tremendous price as they lived through the Depression and wars. Yet I have noticed as the bill was going through the select committee that while United Future is supporting this bill—because we absolutely support the removal of asset testing on our elderly—the Labour members of the House have been very quiet with regard to broken promises. I do not think it is acceptable for Labour members to say: “Well we didn’t say exactly that.” I say to Darren Hughes that in the simplicity of campaigning people understand what we are saying. They understand a broken promise. 
I think the Labour Government needs to look at what has happened in the elections in the United States and Australia. People have been getting tired of all the testing with regard to families and society in general and they are swinging back in a huge way to a more conservative view on life. Some parties in this House are taking no notice of that. I want to address the press tonight and say that they are taking no notice of it. I point out to them that they have missed it in every election in the United States and Australia of late. They need to wake up and understand that there is a swing in this nation that will gain momentum. It will not slow down. People are becoming concerned about their families. 
What frustrated me during the select committee process was that we would continually hear something brought forward—for example the issue of rest homes and their daily rate of pay—and were told that that was nothing to do with this legislation; that it was Government policy and that we could not address it. If as we now understand those major issues facing the care of our elderly in this nation are Government policy then I encourage the Government to address them. Rest homes are businesses. There is nothing wrong with making a profit in business but those rest homes are competing for staff such as nurses and others who are needed to care for the elderly. The staff are unable to get an increased income until the Government decides to change the policy. It needs to be done this side of Christmas but I suspect after reading these Supplementary Order Papers that it has already been pushed way out into the new year. I say to the Government that that is totally unacceptable. The elderly in this country deserve to be cared for correctly and properly. They need to know especially if they are prepared to contribute to their own costs that they can have the type and standard of life in their latter days that they desire. I think that to treat them like a political football is absolutely disgusting. 
This bill was not contentious at the select committee. I notice that the only minority view is from the ACT party which opposes the bill because of the asset-testing scenario. I think that in general all members on the select committee were frustrated that most of the submitters’ concerns on the issue of caring for the elderly in this country were thrown straight back at them with the explanation: “That is Government policy”. If this Government is interested in Grey Power members and in the elderly in this country then all members in this House need to put pressure on Cabinet to address those issues because they certainly need to be addressed. 
We have an ageing population. Surely the Government wants to make sure that long-term residential care systems are in place and that care of the elderly becomes a growth industry. There will be more elderly people in the future yet I have heard as I have visited rest home after rest home that many are having to close their doors. At two or three rest homes I have been to people have said that it would be best to stop caring for the elderly and put the rooms out as student accommodation instead. In Auckland for example where there is Massey University and Auckland University the owners of many of the facilities that currently care for the elderly could make far more money by turning their properties into accommodation for students. 
One thing that did impress me about the owners of all those homes is that they would do that as an absolute last resort. Those people are not in that business because they want to make money. The people who work and labour in those homes have a personal relationship with their customers. They know them by name they know their various needs and they know their various medical requirements. They really do love those people and those people love them. The rest home is a place where they can gather and have social contact. They can have games together and go on visits together. 
I believe that the Government which is failing to address the urgent issues that are currently before it needs to hang its head in shame. The select committee could not address those issues much as we wanted to. The select committee—and I believe this was the case across all the parties—could hear the heartfelt cry from those people. We could see the need. As I listen to the Government members tonight it absolutely amazes me that this disgusting state of affairs is taking so long to be addressed. The Government needs to address it and needs to do so tonight. 
United Future is supporting the bill because at least the bill is going in the right direction with regard to the removal of asset testing. But that is not the major problem that is currently facing the many elderly people and the many rest homes in this country. I challenge the Government tonight. We will support this legislation but when will the Government address the parts of its policy that only the Government can address? Will the Government do so this side of Christmas? Will it bring some relief for the elderly?