• Full Story

Labour releases Aged Care plan

Email
Print

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 4:17a.m.

Labour’s plan includes government-funded training for all aged care staff

Labour’s plan includes government-funded training for all aged care staff

The Labour Party has released a new Aged Care policy aimed to address the health needs of New Zealand’s ageing population.

Aged Care spokesperson Steve Chadwick says aged care in New Zealand “faces significant strain” as costs rise.

“This requires a comprehensive, well thought out and long-term government plan of action – but this government is avoiding the issue.”

She says competent, trained staff are key to providing quality care, and the sector is facing “a critical shortage of qualified staff”. 

Labour’s plan includes government-funded training for all aged care staff, minimum staffing levels and, where government finances allow, pay parity between aged carers and their public health system equivalents.

Home-based care is a central part of the plan, Ms Chadwick says, as Labour knows “the best place for New Zealanders as they get older is in their own homes where their health outcomes are demonstrably better".

“For those who do go into residential care it is vital there is an environment that provides the highest quality services to keep people healthy and supported.”

The Green Party supports the new charter, in particular the drive for pay parity and regulated staffing levels, which spokesperson Sue Kedgley says are “essential” to guarantee older New Zealanders receive good care.

“In the absence of any minimum staffing levels, the care provided to older New Zealanders is inconsistent, and often inadequate,” she says.

“Workers in aged care are amongst the lowest paid in New Zealand, despite the invaluable work that they do.”

Industry bodies have also supported the plan, with the Service and Food Workers Union (SFWU) calling the policy “courageous and long-awaited”.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

30 Sep 2011 03:34p.m.

Wolfman wrote:

I never thought I would see the day that The Loony's mouthpiece Clarke would concede defeat for this election, but reading his comments here it's quite obvious. Now we will have to listen to his rants and raves for another 3 years. God help us.

30 Sep 2011 01:21p.m.

brian wrote:

Roxanne: You state "rest homes .. charge a bomb" where did you getting your comparisons from? In developed countries, NZ is the lowest funded. By 1997 'care' was in crisis mode, homes were folding but our organisations finally got their act together and took North Health to Court for the huge underfunding since 1993 when NH stopped passing on the full annual - inflationary - increases they received. We won, but this wasn't addressed properly. No automatic adjustments were applied and soon after NH was canned. RIP. Unfortunately the Ministry of Health took over and totally fragmented the whole Care continuum. DSW, prior to 1988 had a simple but effective methodology that worked well, and cost Govt, US THE TAXPAYERS, little. Unfortunately petty bureaucrats started fiddling, and - as per usual - got it wrong. Costs spiralled out of control by the employment of ever more village idiots, sorry PB's. During the 9 years of the "L" catastrophe PB #'s went up from ~ 28,000 to 43,000, too many in the health sector and resulted in a substantial slow down to almost no activity visible in the real world, but obviously heaps of "paper shuffling" within the PB. In the 80's a new resident was "funded" by DSW within 2 weeks, by the 90's this had escalated to 6 or more weeks. During the 2000's it could take 6 or more MONTHS before funding started, and it's even getting worse now, WHY? Too much PB shuffling paper. Even their left hands not knowing what the right hands are doing. Again "Health Care" is in crisis mode and with the majority of all "care" in the hands of a small minority of mostly foreign conglomerates. Now it's all about to hit the fan. Where will Govt suddenly find 30,000+ beds when these conglomerates say "THIS IS OUR NEW FEE STRUCTURE" OR ELSE. PB has killed off most of the small providers of health care with excessive requirements that reduces resident contact by staff now being forced into ticking boxes for the PB to their, our residents - and our - detriment.

30 Sep 2011 10:54a.m.

Clarke wrote:

@Roxanne ACT are the only party proposing that the retirement elligibility age be raised. Just as they are the only party advocating the abolishment of minimum wage. National has to give ACT one of its platform policies to form a coalition. The likelyhood is National will abolish minimum wage however ACT could use the elligibilty age as a sticking point and refuse to sign a coalition arrangement with National if they hold a strong enough position over Key.

30 Sep 2011 08:01a.m.

Roxanne wrote:

Under Labour we are going to need this support as they intend to make us work a lot longer before we are eligible for Super. Not sure these ideas are going to reduce the costs of rest homes which already charge a bomb.The elderly cannot afford the present level of "care"