Stewart Barbara: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6257] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the second reading of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill. We understand that the amendments in this bill address a number of anomalies in the Social Security Act. I must say at the outset that New Zealand First does not have a member on the Social Services Committee so we did not participate in the select committee process. We are looking forward to ensuring that the changes discussed in the Supplementary Order Paper that the select committee worked on during the select committee process are implemented and discussed widely during the Committee stage as they appear to be sound additions to the bill. 
 In New Zealand First we recognise that the treatment of our seniors sends a clear signal of our status as a developed nation. We must have high-quality affordable care available for all older New Zealanders when they require this and of course everyone needs some certainty about how much money they will need to contribute to their care. In New Zealand First we are adamant that retired couples must be able to grow old together with all of their due entitlements. So we were very pleased to hear from the Minister prior to the dinner break that couples residing together in a retirement village under an occupation right agreement or a “licence to occupy” agreement are able to stay together when one partner has been assessed as needing care. Any separation of couples at this time in their lives—or at any time in their lives actually—is totally unacceptable and quite ridiculous. 
New Zealand First wants to ensure that if a senior citizen is eligible for a subsidy then that person should receive it and if that person is receiving the same care package then he or she should pay the same price. If someone with an occupation right agreement is assessed as needing rest home level care that is provided at that person’s place then the Government should pay for that care and the owner of the facility should not be paid twice for the accommodation component. 
Currently there are examples of district health boards and providers negotiating fair solutions to this situation and we believe that this can happen right across the country. The amended bill allows willing parties to find a solution to this problem and it is fair to say that the Government expects them to work together to come up with a solution. This means really that residential care providers will need to address the way in which they write their retirement village occupation right agreements and district health boards will need to address this issue in their age-related residential care contracts. So we were quite pleased that we were able to work with the Government to resolve this matter and reach a fair and equitable solution and we will be monitoring this situation very closely to ensure that it follows through on these undertakings. 
This bill as the Minister has also said allows those exempt from a financial means assessment—that is asset testing—to retain a personal allowance. The bill clarifies that any person who is needs-assessed as requiring long-term residential care indefinitely in a rest home or hospital that has a contract with a district health board will pay no more than the maximum contribution for the services set out in the district health board provider contract for services whether or not that person is subsidised. 
The bill clarifies that if the cost of the contracted care services provided to a resident who is assessed as requiring care exceeds the maximum contribution then the funder is liable to pay the difference. The bill also makes it clear that even if people have assets worth more than $150000 they will pay no more than the maximum contribution for their care. However after listening to previous speakers in the first reading debate it is fair to say that those people who have worked and saved towards this period of their lives may wish to have some additional comfort factors including some that they may have already had in their own home that can be provided in a residential care facility and that they will want to pay for and have. This issue does need to be considered. So we look forward to the Committee stage of this bill in order to have this issue discussed further. 
We understand that there are approximately 28000 people currently in aged residential care who will be affected by this bill. Many of us in this House are only too aware that the cost of residential care very quickly erodes the savings many people have worked for and carefully put away for their senior years. We have all had people visit our electorate offices and discuss this issue at length as they believe the exemption provides some challenges and I know that work on this issue is progressing. 
The annual clothing allowance that people are entitled to retain when they are in care is another issue being raised as a concern. Basically this allowance is insufficient when laundries at rest homes cannot adequately care for clothing. Woollen clothing in particular suffers when it is washed in a washing machine with very hot water—as it must be—and then put through a dryer. Quite often it is impossible to wear that singlet or that cardigan and of course those clothes never ever look the same again. They definitely look tatty and that is not the way many people would wish their elderly relatives to look. We know that clothing is often lost never to be seen again and it is becoming extremely challenging to ensure that the basic clothing allowance is adequate for any wardrobe. This area will need to be addressed again in the short term I am absolutely sure. It is very challenging for people to have to make the annual allowance of $255 stretch far enough for sufficient clothing for a winter and a summer wardrobe—and of course to cope with replacement and lost items. 
We are pleased to see that this bill now treats New Zealand and overseas private pensions and annuities equitably. This means that in both cases only 50 percent of a private pension or an annuity is to be included as income in a means assessment. Previously 100 percent of overseas private pensions were treated as income. The treatment of overseas private pensions as income in that assessment is unfair and it is good to see that this anomaly has now been amended. 
So New Zealand First supports this bill. With an ageing population it is absolutely essential that we ensure those requiring long-term residential care have the best possible care and some certainty about the costs of that care. Thank you.