Shearer David: SuperGold Health Check Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShearer David: SuperGold Health Check Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 24 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4758. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I welcome that speech by Shane Reti for three reasons. Firstly it did not make any sense at all and that was absolutely obvious to anybody who is watching this debate; secondly it shows the National Party members for who they are: heartless and unable to understand the benefits that can be contributed to our society from making sure that our older people are well looked after; and thirdly older people vote—90 percent of them vote. If they are watching tonight they will be saying to the National Party: “That’s the last time I vote for them—those heartless illogical people opposing this bill.”The SuperGold card has been one of the real triumphs of the last 10 years. I have to say that most of the credit has gone to the man with the golden card Winston Peters—but remember it was actually done and agreed to under a Labour Government. I have to say that now belatedly we want to take a little bit of the credit for it. Quite frankly the SuperGold card has made an enormous amount of difference to New Zealanders and older New Zealanders right across the board. I do not mean just the fact that they can be helped out by getting on to a bus or whatever else needs to be done when they do it. The fact is that—and so many people say this to me—they are getting out. That is the most important thing. They are getting out there in the community taking their trip across to Waiheke Island. I know that Bill English does not like the fact that they are charging up all this money but actually the money is so insignificant compared with the benefits to those people getting out of their homes getting real value out of that SuperGold card and being able to get out there and prolong their lives and be healthier as a result.This bill is simply extending the value that is already there which is to provide free doctors visits three times a year. I mean three times a year? Is this Government really opposing their visiting a doctor three times a year so that they can get checked up and so they can get to know what the problem is before it gets complicated into something that will hospitalise them? In hospital as the previous speaker Shane Reti knows that is going to cost them—how much does it cost in hospital fees for one night?Louisa Wall: $1400.DAVID SHEARER: It is $1400 compared with going along to see a doctor which might cost $50. This is actually a saving in health services not a cost. So I do not understand for one minute what the logic is in opposing this bill. Firstly the bill makes good common sense; secondly frankly it means that these people who are some of the most vulnerable in society get to be seen; and thirdly ultimately it will save money.It makes absolutely no sense to oppose it. But I am absolutely delighted that the Government is opposing this bill because anybody who is watching this on television tonight will say: “What a heartless out-of-touch arrogant Government this is.” This is from a group of people who vote in every single election. That will be felt at the ballot box. It will be felt by this Government and they will see this Government for what it is—not standing up for the elderly in society. Those people have contributed and those people have paid their taxes all throughout their lives. They are being denied the opportunity of getting along to a doctor three times a year to get a check-up to save us—us taxpayers and everybody out there watching as well—more money as a result of their being able to go along and get that ailment or whatever it is seen to early rather than having it get complicated and their having to go into hospital at $1000 a night. This is illogical. The National Party should be backing this bill just as the Labour Party is backing New Zealand First.