New Disability Support Investment A Boost For Providers
The uplift in funding for High and Complex services, funding to meet demand and inflationary pressures across the disability support service portfolio and funding to address the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in care recommendations are also positive and welcome.
'Quality support needs sustainable funding, it's as simple as that. For Disability Support Providers who've negotiated restrictions and uncertainty while last year's Independent Review recommendations were being worked through, this is very welcome,' said Debbie Hughes, NZDSN CEO.
NZDSN is optimistic that sector financial constraints starting to be lifted from 1 July will be a boost for providers and the disabled people they support.
'This is potentially great news, we're looking forward to hearing more about how this will work. There's lots more to do in our sector, and we're keen to work with government to get it done.'
'Since the independent review recommendations were announced last year, there's been lots of consultation and work behind the scenes. The uplift in funding shows the Government listened to the sector during consultation, so we expect providers to be heartened by today's announcements of some tangible support,' said Debbie Hughes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
23 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Villages are a home, not a trap
Retirement villages are not a Ponzi scheme, Michelle Palmer writes. Brian Peat's recent column (Opinion, ODT 18.8.25) makes for fiery reading. He accuses the government of dragging its feet, calls contracts "unfair," and even compares retirement villages to a Ponzi scheme. It is a passionate critique, but passion should not come at the expense of accuracy and the facts. Retirement villages are not financial scams. They are home to more than 53,000 older New Zealanders who, week after week, choose this lifestyle because it works for them. Let us be clear: a Ponzi scheme is a fraud that collapses when no new money comes in. Retirement villages are the opposite. They are heavily regulated, legally transparent, and backed by bricks, mortar, and decades of investment. Residents receive independent legal advice before they sign anything. The licence-to-occupy model and deferred management fee (DMF) are disclosed upfront, and they fund the services, security and communities that villages provide. Throwing around words like "Ponzi" may grab headlines, but it insults both operators who act within the law and village residents who made an informed, deliberate choice. Peat's strongest criticism is over exit payments. He claims residents' money is "routinely held for years" and points to a figure of $2.8billion in "interest-free funds" as evidence. This is misleading. That number reflects the combined value of all resident units across multiple operators, not idle cash sitting in a bank account. Those funds are tied up in bricks and mortar, village infrastructure, maintenance and services, and they cannot simply be withdrawn on demand. The average time for repayment is about five and a-half months, longer than a year ago, but entirely in line with normal property settlement times and the realities of relicensing homes to new residents after refurbishment, marketing and settlement. Operators do not benefit from delay, they only receive their own return when a new resident enters. More than 60% now voluntarily pay interest if repayments take longer than six months, weekly fees stop when a resident exits, and the DMF is capped at that point. These are safeguards that ensure costs are not piling up after someone has left. The idea of forcing operators to hold all exit payments in trust sounds simple, but it is complete nonsense — who would pay the bank back for the cost of units and facilities if the money is held in trust? Retirement villages are long-term, capital-intensive projects that recent independent research by Grant Thornton shows takes more than 20 years to break even. Imposing rigid trust requirements would push up fees, increase entry costs, and ensure the demise of smaller community and charitable villages, precisely the people and places most at risk if reforms are done without care. Retirement village operators are investing in modern care facilities that directly support the wellbeing of older New Zealanders. They are the only parties building new care beds. Weakening the model would harm both the infrastructure and the people it cares for. We can see the consequences elsewhere. In parts of Australia, mandatory buy-back rules forced operators to pay out regardless of resale. The result was higher fees for residents, the closure of smaller villages, and less choice for older people. That is not the "fairness" outcome anyone intends. Mr Peat also suggests residents should share in "profits" if the model is resident-funded. That misunderstands what a retirement village is. Villages are not investment products — they are homes. The DMF is the mechanism that recovers the cost of running the community over a resident's time living in a village — staff, maintenance, facilities, and services — not a dividend pool. Without it, upfront and ongoing charges would rise dramatically, putting these communities out of reach for many older New Zealanders. None of this dismisses residents' concerns. We welcome the review of the Retirement Villages Act and support improvements like clearer contracts, fees stopping on vacation of units and stronger dispute resolution. But reform must be grounded in evidence and designed to preserve choice, not destroy it. Resident satisfaction cannot be ignored. Even Brian Peat acknowledges that all surveys consistently show over 90% of residents are happy with their decision, enjoying safety, companionship, independence, and certainty of cost and a pathway to care. To suggest they are "trapped" or "exploited" misrepresents reality and undermines the very people the column claims to defend. Older New Zealanders deserve fairness and they deserve choice. Quick fixes, sensational claims, and simplistic analogies will achieve neither. Of course, moving to a village is entirely your choice — no-one is forcing you. But about 130 older Kiwis are making that choice every week. Complaining about a choice made, especially after compulsory legal advice was required to ensure all terms were understood, is not the Kiwi way. Retirement villages are communities that thousands of New Zealanders call home and that deserves to be respected. ■ Michelle Palmer is executive director of the Retirement Villages Association of New Zealand.
NZ Herald
12 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Should you quit Spotify, Substack? Why some Kiwis are leaving the popular platforms
Green MP Tamatha Paul and journalist David Farrier are among high-profile New Zealanders quitting billion-dollar platforms Spotify and Substack over concerns including spending on weapons, the use of AI and a lack of content moderation. In June, Spotify chief executive and co-founder Daniel Ek announced that through
Scoop
13 hours ago
- Scoop
Leadership Rumour Laughed Off As Willis And Sepuloni Clash
You can listen live to RNZ's political panel on Morning Report at 8am every Wednesday. Analysis - Finance Minister Nicola Willis' seven interruptions in 30 seconds is a targeted attack on Labour's rumoured capital gains tax policy reminiscent of Sir John Key's "show me the money" moment. But the strategy this early is not the slam dunk Key's jibe - less than a month before the 2011 election - was hailed as by columnists. Speaking on Morning Report' s political panel, opposite Labour's deputy Carmel Sepuloni, Willis interrupted her opponent to ask - six times - how Labour would pay for its promises, with a distinct seventh interruption half way through for good measure. Labour's promises at this point are, however, only promises to reveal policy at some point including a tax policy before the end of the year, which could explain how other promises would be paid for. This takes some sting out of the Finance Minister's criticism, but also leaves Labour without an effective way to combat it. The panel started with host Ingrid Hipkiss asking about Willis' recent trip to London. "If we're really quiet, Carmel, do you think we'll be able to hear the gentle whispers coming that we may be speaking with New Zealand's next prime minister?" she said, referring to a social media post by a former gossip columnist Willis had laughed off the previous day as coming from "an exuberant fan". Sepuloni was quick to emphasise the rumour of division, saying "the conversations around rolling the leadership really ramped up" during the London trip last week. Willis again laughed the suggestion off, saying a leadership spill was "not on the cards" and suggesting that while plenty were quick to criticise, "every now and then, there's a fan who's just as exuberant in the other direction, and that's all there is to it". She said the trip had been "fantastic" and allowed her to speak lenders the government was borrowing from, and "they can see that we're a sensible government, doing the right things to manage the public finances, they back our plan". Sepuloni said Willis needed to recognise "much of that debt has actually been built up under her watch". "They decided to give out tax cuts that they were told were unaffordable and give tax breaks to places like landlords, 2.9 billion to landlords, tax breaks to the tobacco industry. I think New Zealanders are questioning the priorities of this government." Hipkiss asked Sepuloni the inevitable question about what Labour would do, leading to the following exchange with Sepuloni talking over Willis' interjections: Sepuloni: Our priority would certainly be on what I've mentioned already. We need support Willis: How would you pay for it? Is the question. Sepuloni: need support for New Zealanders to get into work.... Willis: How would you pay for it? Sepuloni: Well, we certainly wouldn't be giving tax breaks.... Willis: How would you pay for it? Sepuloni: ... value of 2.9b ... Willis: so you wouldn't give tax relief to people struggling. Sepuloni: to landlords, our focus would be on work ... Willis: How would you pay for it? Sepuloni: ... and jobs. We wouldn't have been pausing and ... Willis: How would you pay for it? Sepuloni: ... and ending up with 18,000 fewer jobs in the ... Willis: How are you going to pay for it? Sepuloni: ....construction industry. It's about choices Nicola, and your government have made choices that are completely out of step with what New Zealanders want. Willis: Okay so she gave a long answer, and this is exactly Labour's problem. They want to promise everyone everything, and they will not front up with how they want to pay for it, because the way they want to pay for it is putting new taxes on an economy that is already struggling. Factual errors The discussion soon veered back to the coalition's approach, with Willis again highlighting the crackdown on local councils' spending and the government's "concerns" about keeping food prices under control. "The last government attempted some reforms in that area. It's pretty clear they're not delivering enough. So we are working hard on what the next steps are," she said. Sepuloni came in with an interjection of her own - Labour's frequent refrain that the government has been unable to find a single family receiving the maximum $250 a fortnight from the FamilyBoost scheme. Willis had to rework the scheme after it was revealed to be less effective than expected. "This was a government that promised thousands of families $250 extra a fortnight through their FamilyBoost scheme and now they can't identify one family who have received it," Sepuloni said. "I am just going to correct a factual error there," Willis said, "because there are more than 60,000 families that have received a cheque - money into their bank account." "Everyone who has applied has received their full entitlement, and actually now there's a human reality to that I saw at Parliament a couple of weeks ago, an Uber driver, he stopped me, he said 'I want a photo with you, because that family boost money has made such a difference to my family'." It was unclear what "error" Willis was referring to: many families are receiving some funding but no evidence has been forthcoming of any families being eligible for the maximum amount under National's tax policy from the last election. "I'm glad you had another exuberant fan," Hipkiss observed, "let's move on to teachers and correcting factual errors". Public Service Minister Judith Collins corrected herself on Tuesday after claiming last week striking teachers were earning an annual salary of "about $140,000", far more than what most would earn. "It's actually really disappointing that we've got a government who have been pointing the finger at our teachers and blaming them for going on strike when actually this is off the back of them having their pay equity claims pulled, and now what we're seeing is that they've been offered a 1 percent [annual] increase," Sepuloni said. "We're just saying 'look (secondary teachers' union) PPTA, represent your workforce fairly, come and do your job which is negotiate with us, let's strike a deal," Willis replied. "We value teachers very, very much. They are going to be the key to us lifting educational achievement in our schools. They're going to be the key to getting a replacement to NCEA working and we want to negotiate with them to get a fair deal." Collins last week billed the strikes - taking place today - as a "political stunt". On Tuesday she said it was a case of mixing her messages up a bit.
