Aged care emerges as hot 2026 election issue

Aged care emerges as hot 2026 election issue

Political juices are running hot among aged care groups in the country as their leaderships prepare for parliamentary lobbying in the lead-up to next year’s general election.

 Their collective aim is better health, home, and care services to provide for the 35 percent of the population now exceeding 65 or within five years of doing so.

There is no shortage of advocates – Grey Power, Age Concern, the NZ Aged Care Association, Citizens Advice Bureau, and the Office for Seniors, along with the Retirement Commissioner.

The key issues with which they are grappling appear to be divided into five categories, none of which are mutually exclusive and frequently overlap.

In no particular order they embrace retirement village residency; rest home semi-hospital level care (often associated with charity and retirement villages); home care and/or residency for the elderly dependent on either superannuation or only a little more income; rest home hospital level care for the low income group; and hospital level care for the aged who are unable to cope on their own 24 hours a day.

Finding answers for the provision of best possible services mixed with availability are complex and embrace a variety of issues depending on which of the categories is under consideration. An unending stream of money would help with the framing of solutions, but in its inevitable absence the advocacy groups have a difficult road ahead.

The retirement village residency sector comes in for criticism of its frequently used financial model. Dealings are, however, commercial between resident and village owner. Occupation lessee-owner arrangements are generally regarded as an agreement.

Major issues in this category, and that of category 2, are most likely to arise when elderly residents expect to move into a rest home unit with perhaps hospital level care within their village only to find that no space is available because a good deal of such accommodation has been taken up by non-village residents.

So, in regard to the first two categories, should hospital level rest home care in such villages be exclusively for residents, or not? If no, should these rest home care units be separate business entities to that of village residency?

Issues in the home care and rest home level care for low-income elderly are partly addressed through the availability of rest home hospital level care within retirement villages. But need is far greater than beds available in residential villages.

How it should be dealt with is an issue with which the government and the lobby groups are struggling. Can it be dealt with best through specialised homes with individual residential care rooms plus communal dining and lounge facilities with in-house medical staff? Should the government be involved in the provision of such facilities? Such villages might be structured to take care of categories 3 and 4.

Category 5, however, is on its own as an issue, perhaps best symbolised by the problem faced by North Shore Hospital in being required to provide beds for some 20 elderly who had no home to return to when able to be discharged. It may cover dementia, physical disablement or other illnesses making the individual dependent on assistance.

Should more special facilities be provided by the government for such patients who might or might not fit an elderly classification?

Answers to these issues have to be considered in the context of money available to government and the availability of doctors, nurses, home carers and medical specialists.

But answers will be pressed for by the advocacy groups. They themselves find pressures coming from their members for answers. Transfer of the demand for answers to whichever political party is government of the day following next year’s election will be a win for the groups, but foreshadow a rough time ahead for the new incumbent of the Treasury benches.

In the meantime, the coalition can expect to find that these groupings will be pressing their case in private; raising issues with media; and highlighting individual cases that they believe best demonstrate the need for action.

The problem for politicians of all parties is that their responses will be significant in the context of electoral success. The 65 years-plus vote represents more than 30 percent of the total. And turnout of this sector on voting day is heavier than any other in the community.

It is why the search for a solution to treatment of superannuation eligibility is proving a thorn in the side of the two main parties. Endeavours to find a solution to ensuring the future viability of universal non means-assessed superannuation at 65 keep floundering. Relevant in this debate is NZ First’s commitment to maintaining the status quo.

National has in the past wanted to raise the age to 67 about a decade ahead. Some in Labour have speculated that this might be all right if it were accompanied by an undertaking that 65 might remain available as a qualification on medical grounds. A National-Labour bipartisan agreement might help both off the “super” hook.