Goodhew Jo: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3096] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill. I heard a whisper in front of me just before that this is the “Look after ‘Bob the Builder’ Bill” but in fact it is not. Bob is way too young— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must use the member’s full name. 
JO GOODHEW 
: The bill will be called the “Look after Bob ‘the Builder’ Clarkson Bill”. There is a bit of alliteration there. The Hon Tony Ryall has spelt the situation out this evening. We have some questions for the Minister the Hon Pete Hodgson and for Government members who should answer the questions if they can. Maybe they will not be able to dispel National’s disquiet and concern about this bill. I am speaking along with my colleagues in support of the bill but with severe qualifications to that support. 
What is the reason for this bill? The explanatory note states: “The amendments address anomalies in the Act so that the Government’s policy decisions in relation to long-term residential care for older people can be fully implemented.” What does that mean? I have a couple of suggestions—one of them my own and the other someone else’s—as to what it may mean. The first—my suggestion—is that the Government mucked the legislation up and now needs to fix it. It is time in fact to have a second try at getting it right. The second view is from some of the providers who say: “The bill Ruth passed last time was poorly drafted so we are going to spend good taxpayers’ money to do it again.” Those are not my words but they are nevertheless quite succinct. The last 6 years have been a litany of unintended consequences and the taxpayers are the poor sods who get to foot the bill again and again. We know what we are here to do. If we do it what will happen? 
Here I will digress. I will tell those present tonight and anyone who is listening to this debate how I spent part of last Friday night. The Strathallen Lifecare Village a rest home and hospital held a ball to celebrate 10 years of that institution. I was a special guest and I had several hats on. I spent the early part of the evening pinning corsages and buttonholes on the residents who were attending the ball. They arrived in wheelchairs or on walking frames some shuffling and others walking. Some were with their lifelong partners and some were on their own. They purposefully went towards the decorated hall attired in their glad rags. Some of them had their own glad rags which had been saved from times gone by when they had attended parties and balls. Others were attired in garments from the drama league—and the rest home provided a large selection of drama league garments for those people to wear. I can tell members that they all looked amazing and they obviously felt amazing. There was much pride as I pinned buttonholes or corsages on the ladies and gentlemen. 
Members may wonder what that has to do with the bill. As I waltzed with the beau of the ball maybe not as skilfully as Georgina Beyer or Rodney Hide could perhaps do—but one never knows; maybe I was as skilful— 
Steve Chadwick 
: You could be one day. 
JO GOODHEW 
: I might be one day indeed. Maybe one day we will try it out. I realised what a huge commitment it was for the rest home—that organisation—to put on the ball. By commitment I mean the commitment of all the staff. Every single one of them was present whether or not he or she was on duty. Those who were not on duty had returned from home in order to help the residents to get ready. They helped the women to put on their best lipsticks and get their hair looking great and they helped the men to look dapper—and they were dressed in their glad rags as well. About 130 residents were involved. 
What about the costs associated with putting on the event? There was a three-piece band there were drinks decorations and party food and the families were gathered there. Now I come to another one of my hats on this occasion: my grandmother was there as well—she is a resident of that rest home. She is 90 years old and celebrated her birthday just recently. She was dressed in a beautiful jade outfit; she looked fabulous. My parents were there with her and my uncle was there as well. That event came at quite a cost which was met by the organisation. Were the wages paid for the extra staff that came back? I am sure they were not. There is no fat in the system to pay the staff who came back for the ball. 
I spoke with the senior manager who was also the manager of a facility here in Wellington and of others elsewhere in New Zealand. We talked about the two risks that face that organisation—and one of those risks is attached to this bill. One of the risks that may result in the ball not continuing—it is the fourth such event over a 10-year period; it happens every 2 years—is the increasing acuity of the residents. What does acuity mean? It means that those residents are sicker. It means that the residents who enter the facility are becoming much sicker as the years go by. Yet the funding has not changed and the qualifications of the staff have not changed. More hospital and dementia care residents are coming in. Those residents will enjoy fewer of those events over the years. 
The other risk is this bill. Let us concentrate on the element of the bill that has been mentioned already which is that the Government wishes to cap one particular funding stream that is currently available to rest homes. It wants to restrict cap and interfere—members can call it what they like. Currently the funding for subsidised residents would not cover extras; it barely covers the staff now. The funding certainly does not meet the cost of wages that compare with those paid to district health board nurses. Events like the Strathallen Lifecare Village hospital and rest home ball may be a casualty. Where is the aged care sector now? In my electorate we have the highest over-65-year-old population of any district health board in the country—it is 17.2 percent. The caregivers worry about existing on the poor wages. The managers worry about replacing the staff; they find it very difficult to compete with the district health boards. 
So what do the representatives of the sector say about the bill? There is a consensus so that is healthy. They say there is some merit in improving the lacklustre original bill—again there is some consensus on that which is healthy. But we find that the agenda that worries them intensely is again that the method of funding will be capped—that they will find that people will not be able to negotiate the level of care that they can afford. I make reference to what Judy Turner has already said this evening. If people have saved hard for their retirement but they find they have been assessed as needing residential care why would they not want to use their savings for their own benefit? Some people would like to do so and they should be able to. Representatives of the industry fear this legislation and the ramifications it may cause. They are after all business people; they try to operate a business and this is a problem for their funding. They want to keep afloat. Forty providers have exited the industry which is not the small number that Judy Turner has suggested it is. Will this measure bring them back? No it will not. 
I will finish by speaking briefly on one topical issue at the moment. “I wore a pedometer and did more than 17000 steps on a single shift. Ten dollars fifty an hour is not enough—not with our baby.” Are comments like that any justification for the appalling photographs that have appeared in the  
Kaitiaki 
 magazine—a magazine I used to value as a New Zealand Nurses Organisation member? No they are not. That is yet another issue we will have to address if it is the sort of— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: You’re in the wrong party. 
JO GOODHEW 
: I am not in the wrong party. I say to the Minister that I know value when I see it. I tell members that issue was a dreadful indictment of that organisation and a case of appalling judgment. 
Having made those final comments I finish by saying that I support this bill but with severe reservations. 
Bill read a first time.