In the lead-up to Election 2023 in October, we’re posting a series of blogs written by our members and kaimahi. The aim of this series is to highlight present challenges but look toward the future with optimism. We have to admit – it’s been difficult to achieve that aim with this week’s blog.

NZCCSS sent a series of questions about policies supporting older people to the political parties currently in Parliament. In this blog Rachel Mackay (Kaitātari Kaupapa Here Matua | Senior Policy Analyst) takes a closer look at their answers and finds they all come up short.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ensuring that older people are valued and supported has always been at the core of our mahi at NZCCSS. Our advocacy and the work of our members reflects the value that we see in Aotearoa’s older people, however the conclusion of our recent Te Kōrero mō ngā Kaumātua report (read it here) showed that there are significant gaps in the support network for this group. Many of these issues stem from a lack of specific, elder-centred policy, and as a result we wanted to know what our political parties had to say specifically about older people.

We reached out to the five political parties currently in Parliament with the same questions, sourced from our policy analysts and members from our organisations, to see if and how older people would be served under their policies. We are yet to hear back from Te Pāti Māori but would still welcome their insights. You can see the questions and answers in full here.

When asked about benefit and economic supports for older people, all four of the responding parties responded with their plans for superannuation, with National, Labour and the Greens stating they will increase the current eligibility amount, and ACT reiterating its plan to increase the eligibility age. National also mentioned their commitment to increase the age of entitlement to 67. To maintain the superannuation fund, National explicitly stated that they would continue to contribute funds. Labour responded that they would “not do what National did last time they were in government”, and that contributions to both the Super Fund and KiwiSaver are essential.

When asked about their party’s commitment to older people’s educational benefits, or their commitment to the education of those who support older people, Labour instead opted to respond with their Older Worker’s Employment Action Plan and the implementation of flexi-wage for Older People. National and ACT focused on their Health Workforce plans, and while both mention the implications of an ageing population and workforce, neither have specific focus on improving gerontological training for GPs or nurses. The Greens reiterated their student policies, which are not targeted to older people, but do include this group (current education benefits have a cut-off age).

Our request for specific policies regarding older people’s health was met by all parties with commentary on how the whole health system needs to be improved, and referenced broad policies which may also improve the health of older people. No specific policies were identified. ACT was succinct in answering that they supported and had voted for an Older Person’s Health Strategy to be included in Te Pae Ora. National took this opportunity to restate that Labour had voted against the Supplementary Order Paper to include such a strategy. The Greens stated their commitment to Te Pae Ora and the Healthy Ageing Strategy but did not extend this to a standalone Older Person’s Health Strategy. Labour outlined other strategies that are in place but did not extend support for an Older Person’s Health strategy.

ACT’s consolidated response to all questions regarding rights and housing for Older People was to defer to the upcoming consultation regarding Retirement Villages. In their answer surrounding housing, National also referred to the Retirement Villages Act Review. Access to Retirement Villages is an area of notable inequity, stemming from the increasing percentage of people who do not own their own home and can therefore not afford to buy into a Village. Policy which addresses this is important but fails to consider the large (and growing) cohort of older people who are not lucky enough to have access to retirement villages.

Labour mentioned the Retirement Villages Act review as well, but also discussed the Better Later Life Action Plan and the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act to capture those who are not ageing in homes they themselves own. Additional policies regarding Healthy Homes and Accommodation Supplement were also mentioned.

The Greens took aim at the for-profit model of Retirement villages and noted the rights disparity between residents and tenants, and that they would make 25% of retirement village homes affordable rentals to reduce the equity gulf between those who own their homes at retirement and those who do not. Related to this, they reiterated their Renters Rights bills which would extend to all renters, including those in these retirement rentals. They also referred to increases in funding for kaumātua housing in a papakāinga model.

When asked about a commitment to assessing the cost of Aged Residential Care, the Greens answered again about Retirement Villages – an entirely separate and unrelated form of housing for older people. None of their answers indicated an understanding of how the Aged Residential Care sector functions and the challenges that it is facing. Labour answered that they had not finalised their manifesto in this area, but that their appointment of an Aged Care Commissioner fulfilled their previous manifesto obligations. National acknowledged the challenges in the Aged Care Sector, but stated that it was not currently their policy to provide infrastructure funding, nor commit to a review of the funding model. More than anything else, the answer to these questions once again magnifies the lack of focus and understanding in this area from every point on the political spectrum.

Our question regarding the policies related to the protection of rights for older people seemed to shed light on what each of the parties consider a right, and who had them. Labour responded that their focus was in supporting the livelihoods of older people through the Better Life Action Plan, protecting their right to work and earn. The Greens spoke about the right to fulfilling lives, where people have the basics that allow them to enjoy one, reiterating their Home For Everyone policy and community health service plan. National and ACT only answered once again regarding the Retirement Village Act review, protecting the assets of those who could afford them.

Answers to policies around Ageism were similar – National acknowledged that the issue exists but that they have no specific policy to address it, Labour spoke about having introduced the Elder Abuse Prevention Fund, the Greens committed to resourcing the Humans Rights Commission to fight all intersecting biases, and ACT did not specifically respond to this question.

We asked all parties if they would commit to an Older Person’s Poverty Monitor. The Greens and National indicated that they would be open to an investigation in this area, while both saying that the best way to end poverty among older people is to lift the whole nation. Labour responded with unrelated policy. ACT did not specifically respond to this question.

A major issue with asking for and analysing both National and Labour policies has been the lack of full manifesto. Both stated that a full manifesto of policy was not yet complete as of their response, and that they would be regularly releasing policy in the lead up to the election. As a result, it was difficult for them to answer specific questions. We express concern around policy still being developed less than two months before the polls open. If the political parties themselves are yet to decide what they stand for, then how can their constituents decide to stand with them? ACT stated that all their policies were available on the website, but they continue to release policies in the weeks since we received their answers – none of them have been in relation to older people.

Another point of both concern and frustration was receiving generic answers to specific questions. While we understand that, for example, the healthcare system cannot be made better for only older people, and that a well-resourced and efficient system will inevitably improve outcomes for older people, it does not address the sector-specific concerns we are asking about. The specific needs at the intersection of age and health, age and education, age and housing, and age and wellbeing, are all being addressed by broad policy that neither recognise nor prioritise the specific needs of this cohort.

These answers reinforce our findings from Te Kōrero mō ngā Kaumātua that older people are not a political priority point, and we will continue to advocate for innovative, holistic, respectful, and progressive policy that supports our older people. When it comes time to ask these questions at the next election, we hope that our work will have made the answers we receive from all parties clearer and more considered.