Hodgson Pete: General Debate 
Hodgson Pete: General Debate 
[Volume:640;Page:10032] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. To my right is the given leader of the National Party Mr Key who wants a loose fiscal policy. To my left is the other leader of the National Party Mr English who wants a tight fiscal policy. The leader to my right wants large tax cuts now; the other leader to my left wants small tax cuts later. The leader on the right wants to ditch part of the Working for Families package now to fund those tax cuts. The other leader to my left wants to keep the Working for Families package. The leader on the right the given leader of the National Party wants to review monetary policy. The other leader the co-leader of the National Party the person to my left Mr English does not want to review monetary policy. The person on my right Mr Key the given leader of the National Party is in favour of the Reserve Bank intervening in respect of exchange rates. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but would members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly. Show some courtesy to the member trying to address it. Courtesy is contagious. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: But the leader on my left does not think the Reserve Bank should have done anything like that at all. The leader on the right—the fellow who says he is the real leader of the National Party Mr Key—does want taxpayer investment in broadband. The leader on the left says he does not want taxpayer investment in broadband. The leader on the right Mr Key the given leader of the National Party does support 20 hours’ free early childhood education and the leader on the left the other leader of the National Party does not want 20 hours’ free education. Finally the leader on the right Mr Key does want to tighten asset testing for rest homes and the leader on the left the numbers man does not want to touch the asset-testing regime at all. 
We have the aspirational leader and we have the numbers leader. We have the hollow man and we have the angry man. We have “Mr Hollow” and “Mr Angry”—aspiration and numbers. That is what we have and the divide continues to grow as they try to keep up appearances that there is no divide. 
While all that is going on amongst two members of the National Party from Sunday week this Government completes the roll-out of the Primary Health Care Strategy low fees programme. This is a remarkable package. This is a package that could have occurred only under a Labour Government. It could not have occurred had Annette King not started it. It could not have occurred had Helen Clark not been chair of Cabinet. It could not have occurred if the Minister of Finance had not been Dr Cullen. 
On 1 July Sunday week 4 million New Zealanders will find that they have access to cheap doctors’ fees and what is more that their prescription fees fall from $15 to $3 in most cases. In most cases doctors’ fees will come down by about 25 bucks and in most cases prescriptions will come down by about 12 bucks per script. That is the difference between Labour and National. National went into the last election saying it would not do any of that. National went into the last election saying it would double the fees. National went into the last election saying it would put the prescription fees up again. That is National’s policy: to reverse the single most important change in the New Zealand health system in recent times which is cheaper access to primary health care to general practitioner services to practice nurses and to all of the other people who work in the primary health care sector. 
The reason that matters is that better health is the result. This is not just a subsidy. This is a policy change designed to ensure New Zealanders can get access to primary health care earlier and can go to a doctor more often should they choose. For someone who needs to go to a doctor often—a person aged 65 or over for example—the savings in that household will be significant: maybe from about $800 per annum on average down to about $350. It will depend on the superannuation couple. Generally speaking the aim is to ensure that better primary health care is delivered to New Zealanders in a timely and affordable way. Why does that matter? Because it means that there are fewer hospitalisations or that hospitalisation is delayed. It means that the severity of conditions is reduced. It means that management of chronic disease can occur in a more reliable way. 
This is a significant policy change in our health system. It is one that has been put in place by a Labour Government over a 7-year period and it is one that National—should it ever be elected to the Treasury benches—is on the record as saying it will reverse. Of course Mr Key and Mr English may have different views on that as well.