Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘senior citizens’

Peter Harris on NZ Super

Posted by Chris Hipkins on May 13th, 2010

Peter Harris has done an interesting guest post over at Policy Progress on New Zealand Superannuation. Peter puts forward a compelling argument that the Brash Taskforce was wrong to argue that NZ Super is overly generous. He draws on data that shows average post-tax pensions in OECD countries to be about 70% of earnings after tax. Here in NZ it is 42%, making us the 5th lowest in the OECD.

Peter argues that the universal nature of New Zealand Superannuation makes it more equitable than equivalent arrangements in Australia, where differentials in earnings during someone’s working life are replicated in their retirement.

In defending the universal nature of NZ Super, he quotes Michael Cullen, who argued that providing basic income security in retirement is both the least and the most citizens should expect from the state. In other words it is the state’s role to ensure pensioners don’t live in poverty, but it is not the state’s role to ensure that their earnings in retirement reflect their earnings during their working lives.

Peter’s final comment focuses the debate not on whether the scheme is generous or affordable, but how we should pay for it:

By any standard, New Zealand Superannuation is affordable and sustainable. A programme that costs at peak no more than 10% of GDP is both. The legitimate question is whether that is the priority that the citizens want. Debate that by all means, and debate how it is to be funded, but please, as a matter of analytical rigour, do not prejudice the path of that debate by making the assertion that our scheme is “generous”.

For me that last comment is the critical one. How are we going to pay for it? Over the next 10-20 years the number of people over the age of 65 will roughly double while the number in the workforce will stay about the same (although it goes without saying that as we live longer more and more people are likely to continue working, thus paying PAYE tax, beyond the age of 65).

National cut contributions to the NZ Super Fund last year and has yet to demonstrate how it will make up the shortfall. Both John Key and Bill English are playing the short game on NZ Super – they’re kicking it to touch for a future generation to deal with.


More on home help cuts

Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 15th, 2010

Back in February I posted on cuts to home help. My offices here in the Hutt Valley have been dealing with a steady stream of complaints from older residents who’ve had home help hours cut. Last week the Hutt News picked up the issue and on Friday I met with staff from the Hutt Valley DHB to talk about it. I generally have a very good working relationship with our local DHB and I think that overall they’re doing a great job. However on this particular issue I still have real concerns.

The Hutt News article revealed some salient statistics. Between October 2008 and December 2009 reviews of home help to 1950 Hutt Valley elders were carried out. 810 had hours cut, 820 had no change, and just 320 got more hours. In the 12 months to Jan 2009 the DHB spent $3.9 million on home help. Last year they cut $700,000 out of that spend. I simply don’t accept that cost-cutting isn’t part of the agenda here.

Cutting home help is so short-sighted. We should be trying to keep our older citizens in their own homes as long as possible. If a few hours help with the housework and/or grocery shopping helps them to do that then why penny-pinch? More people in rest homes will cost the health system a lot more than a few home help hours will.


Home help cuts disgusting

Posted by Chris Hipkins on February 8th, 2010

Recently my electorate offices have been deluged by complaints about cuts to home help hours. I’ve asked Hutt Valley DHB what’s going on several times and they have constantly claimed there have been no budget cuts, they are just doing a regular review. Frankly that’s rubbish. From what I’ve seen the cuts are deep and they’re disgusting. They are putting the health and wellbeing of our older citizens at risk.

It’s stupid and short-sighted. More seniors will end up in hospital. More will end up going into full-time care. It will cost the DHB a lot more. I just don’t know what they think they are doing. The families concerned are worried. They’re trying to do their bit to help out but often they’re balancing full-time work with raising their own families. There are limits to what they can do.

The carers are worried too. They’re often the people who have the most regular contact. If I were to ask them who will end up in hospital in the next few months, I reckon they could predict it with about 90% accuracy. Why aren’t the DHB tapping into that expertise. Surely prevention is better than treatment further down the track?

I find it particularly disgusting that many of these cuts are being done over the phone. How on earth can someone tell whether or not it is fair/safe to cut an elderly person’s home help hours based on a 5 minute phone call?

I’ve often quoted Hubert Humphrey’s remark that a society should be judged by how it treats those in the dawn of life (children), the twlight of life (the elderly) and the shadows of life (the sick and the needy). If that’s our measure, then sadly we’re not doing too well at the moment…