Bayly Andrew: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBayly Andrew: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 02 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8486. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): 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 5000 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.