Affordable Healthcare Bill

When we were last considering this bill Andrew Bayly had the call, and he has 4 minutes remaining to speak if he so wishes.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Best member for Hunua ever.

Yes, it is a pleasure to be talking on this bill that the former MP for Hunua has been promulgating. Of course, this bill is a good bill, in fact, because there is such a laudable objective about it. There is a lot to be commended about it, and, of course, it fits very nicely with the constituency that the Rt Hon Winston Peters is representing in Parliament, but in my view it is simply misdirected.

Let us look at it; why do I say that? It has got three parts to it. First of all, it requires all those migrants who fit within the parent category or are a secondary applicant to a main application for immigration to have health insurance for 10 years after the time they come to New Zealand. Secondly, it removes the fringe benefit tax (FBT) on health care. Thirdly, it introduces a 25 percent rebate for superannuitants on a SuperGold card, up to a maximum of $500.

The main reason why I do not think we should be supporting this bill is, quite simply, the cost. As some of you who listened closely to the Minister of Health back on 11 November will be aware, this bill would cost $150 million—$150 million. Secondly, by dealing with issues such as FBT, what it does is it cuts across the incomparable tax system that New Zealand has. We have a very clear tax system. It is very transparent. It is very clear, in the sense that it does not have a lot of exceptions. Of course, what this bill does immediately is to introduce an exemption to that clear tax policy. Thirdly, it would perversely induce employers to put in place health care schemes. Those schemes normally benefit high-income and high-salary earners and, in fact, not the constituency that the member who has introduced this bill is seeking to represent, namely older people and those in care. Fourthly, there is the sheer cost of $150 million being ploughed in to this initiative. Although, as I said, the aims are laudable, there are other opportunities, and this is an opportunity cost—a $150 million opportunity cost.

Finally, I think the reason I cannot accept it is that this Government has invested strongly and heavily into health. We are currently at $15.9 billion we spend every year on health care in New Zealand, and, of course, much of that goes to the benefit of our older people, which is quite rightly so. We have heard earlier from the Minister of Health that he put another $50 million into orthopaedic surgery and other main surgeries. Of course, some of the prime beneficiaries of that are older people. We are increasing our funding; we have got another extra 5,000 people getting access to elective surgery every year.

So already we have a fantastic health system. We are putting the money where it counts. We are concerned about our older people, and they are participating, as quite rightly they should be, in our health care system. On that ground I simply cannot support this bill, and I think, from a Government perspective, we are better to look at other opportunities where we can spend $150 million for the benefit of our older citizens in New Zealand. Thank you very much.

The health insurance industry, health professionals, and the general public have expressed dismay at the opposition from the National Party to our bill. Parliamentary videos show the famously apoplectic David Bennett spouting on, in his ignorance, and frenzied attacks by National MPs, including the Minister of Health tossing around unsubstantiated figures, but none of the benefits. We got Business and Economic Research Ltd to do the work for us. It said that the benefits were up to $250 million. We do not want to hear from another MP who by a tea party, back-stabbing attack on the good Dr Hutchison got into this Parliament. That is why he represents Hunua. The whole thing stinks.

This is the National Party’s double-talk at its worst. Compulsory health insurance for migrants is already in New Zealand immigration law. Migrant work visas, investor migrants, and retirement-category migrants are all required to take out health insurance—so much for the Attorney-General’s New Zealand Bill of Rights Act nonsense; it was just debunked, in three easy examples. The Affordable Healthcare Bill is only adding a category of elder migrants that was missed by past legislation because, not like them in Parliament today, we did not allow this rampant influx of people. There is now over 80,000, over 8 percent already, added to our superannuation bill. That is what we are trying to fix up. Like the retirement visa migrants, most in this category are older migrants who will add more heavily to public health care costs. There is no requirement for any of them to have contributed to our economy in order to access all these benefits. You cannot find one other country on earth that allows this.

As to removing fringe benefit tax (FBT) from workplace insurance—why, the Prime Minister publicly supports this health insurance measure every chance he gets, to appease the business community. Here are his words: “At the moment any employer who offers health insurance gets hit by a fringe benefit tax. I think it’s crazy. The more we can encourage employers to provide wholesale medical insurance for their staff the better.” Who said that? Why, John Key, their glorious leader. Then—here we go; here we go—another example: “Elimination of FBT on health insurance in the workplace is a good start.” Who said that?

💬 Hon Member: It was “Flip-flop Key”.

That is right—the serial flip-flopper. He said it again in August this year at the Upper Hutt Chamber of Commerce. This is what he said, as reported by the Upper Hutt Leader: “Key favoured wiping fringe benefit tax on companies that pay health insurance for employees.” That was reported in the local newspaper, the Upper Hutt Leader, with his photo, along with a photo of another MP. Guess who? Take a wild guess: Chris Bishop, who had got up and ranted and raved against the introduction of the bill.

What a bunch of double-talking, serial flip-floppers. There would be wide economic benefits for the economy if employers were encouraged to participate more in the health of their workers. The cost-benefit analysis speaks for itself: higher workplace participation in health insurance would result in shorter sick days and getting workers back to work earlier, and if more people retained health insurance it would allow wider allocation of public health spending and shorter waiting lists to the balance of New Zealanders.

Finally, our 25 percent SuperGold insurance rebate—why, guess who also supported that at one stage? Well, if you go to the 2008 National Party manifesto, there it is. Yes, 30 percent—30 percent. There is plenty of pre-sale, like before the election of 2008—lots of pre-sales talk, no after-sales service. In fact, you have just got walking, talking hypocrisy posing as an opposition.

The Government’s enraged rhetoric against the Affordable Healthcare Bill indicates that this bill must have the National Government worried. If health Minister Jonathan Coleman should come down and speak on this, which he did, he at least could actually read the bill and compare it with National’s own policies, which he did not, and not make himself look stupid. We expect more of him—he is a doctor, for goodness’ sake. That is why I always admired the previous MP for Hunua. He was a standout doctor, a good man. He represented the people of Hunua, not just his own little mates.

The last thing is that this bill will free up public health services and short-circuit surgery lists for the chronically sick, the disadvantaged manual workers around this country, and the poor. God knows that under this Government they desperately need it.

I think it was Mr Bennett and Mr Peters who were exchanging comments across the House while the vote was taken. I think both members have been here for some time and realise that they are not meant to do that.