Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and speak to this Budget. Let's start with the prescription co-payment first of all. The policy of this Labour Government is to fund the wealthy for free medicines—that's what this is. It's medicines for the wealthy it's drugs for the wealthy—that's what this Labour Budget policy is. It fails every sense of equity of access where the wealthy get the same benefit as the vulnerable. So here's a question to the other side: given the policy removes the co-pay for those who pay $5 will it also be removed for Australian and UK tourists who currently pay a $5 co-pay? Is the Government now subsidising tourists as well? Explain that to us. This Budget co-pay policy is better called Labour's drugs for the wealthy. That's what it is and it's not surprising that the media called it silly" and "garbage"—not my words. On the day of the Budget a "silly" policy and "garbage" policy is what independent commentators called it. We had a co-pay policy already in progress that we've announced that removes the co-pay but targets the most vulnerable. There are three entities: community service card holders beneficiaries and SuperGold card holders—everyone that the opposite side is talking about who will benefit by removal of the co-pay—but those who can pay are then asked to pay the sum of $100 capped in total per family for a year. The Government says it'll benefit 135000 adults who didn't collect their prescription. Here's the question: isn't it highly likely that many of them are community service card holders are SuperGold card holders and are beneficiaries? Surprise surprise it's exactly those who we were anticipating targeting and if you don't think that's correct then show me the data. Show me the data on community service card holders beneficiaries and SuperGold card holders in that 135000 people that you're claiming did not collect their prescriptions and I bet you'll find that they sit well within our policy. So why make a universal policy? Our policy is targeted. Well Grant Robertson actually had something to say about that. When asked immediately after the Budget why the co-pay was universal Grant Robertson said "We don't means test health." Now let me just think about that for a minute: "We don't means test health."—what a load of rubbish. He's already damaged the economy. Don't come into health and do any more damage than Ayesha Verrall and Andrew Little have already done. They're doing fine thank you very much Grant—they don't need you to make it any worse. But no no he had to open his mouth and say "We don't means test health." Explain to me then the means test for the community services card which accesses health services or the aged residential care summary which has a financial means test which also comes from Vote Health. Of course as a Government they means test health and so for Grant Robertson to use that as an excuse was pathetic and it showed he did not understand the domain. Go back and keep ruining the economy; don't come and ruin health. They're doing a good enough job by themselves thanks very much. There's also a trust factor here with Minister Verrall on 2 May—two weeks before the Budget—when asked if she would remove the co-pay telling Pharmacy Today "The Government still has no plans to scrap the co-pay." Two weeks before the Budget when asked by Pharmacy Today whether she would remove the co-pay she said "The Government still has no plans to scrap the co-pay." Clearly that was not correct and it calls into question what other statements presently in the past and going forward we should also anticipate as being not correct. When she will blatantly tell journalists that "No we are not considering removing the co-pay." no more than two weeks before she did I think there's a credibility issue right there. Let's look at how the Budget 2023 weaves into the campaign Budget of 2020 and the promises they made. This is the campaign 2020 from the Labour Party and three Budgets they've now had to address these issues. Let's see how the final Budget did. The last one they're ever going to do—and my goodness we all hope it is the last one. But in the last Budget they did just a few weeks ago let's see what they said. Campaign 2020: fund 20 additional mobile dental clinics. Where are the dental clinics? This was the last Budget—where are they? Campaign 2020 promised $37.5 million—where are they? I asked Andrew Little where they were and in fact the media did when they asked them the same question when it didn't appear in 2021 Budget or in the 2022 Budget. Here's what he said. Andrew Little said that the Government was still committed to its dental policy: "That's our promise we went with into the last election we haven't got it in this Budget we've got two more to go and I'm determined we will fulfil that promise." he said. "We don't get to do everything in a single Budget. It remains a promise to be fulfilled by us but we're in Government for three years—this is the first Budget of that three-year period and we'll come back again. We have that commitment and I'm determined to see it through."—there's the first failed campaign 2020 promise. The 20 mobile dental caravans have disappeared. Let's look at what else was a campaign promise and if it wasn't so sad this would be a comedy: Labour will reduce planned care waiting lists by investing a further 200. How has that gone for you? How has it gone for you reducing the planned care waiting lists? I can tell you: they've quadrupled they've expanded way beyond what they were when we handed over in 2017 and yet in your 2020 campaign promise you said "We will reduce planned care waiting lists."—no you won't. You won't. You have no chance of reducing them by the time of the campaign. In fact with the winter coming up it's highly likely to be worse. There's two failed campaign promises that this Budget had its last chance to attend to particularly with the 20 mobile dental caravans and they just did not appear. They've disappeared—the first failed 2020 campaign Budget. I want to talk now about the concern I have about how bad the health system is and I want to ask the question why Ayesha Verrall hates the Waikato. That's the question I want to ask: why does she hate the Waikato? Why I say that is because what we are aware of is several things. First of all when ambulances divert it's a big deal. This was a diversion from Auckland Hospital on 8 March. So that's front page news and it led TV's One News. When ambulances divert effectively you shut the hospital and say "Drive past us and go somewhere else." Front page news it led One News and all the rest of it. OK explain to me why then last month—in the month of April—Waikato Hospital had three ambulance diversions in the month of April. The instructions to the diverting ambulances because Waikato Hospital was so full was that the ambulances could divert from Matamata and I think it was Te Aroha and maybe go to Tauranga. That was the advice: "Don't come here we are full. Go to Matamata or Tauranga." That's a tragedy. Who would have known that there were ambulance diversions at Waikato Hospital last month or that indeed an ambulance did divert as the Minister wrote to me in answer to written question No. 11431 saying that an ambulance did divert to Tauranga Hospital—unbelievable. There were ambulance diversions at Waikato Hospital last month and yet we have no remedy for Waikato Hospital. It is not one of the eight emergency department (ED) hotspots. How do we explain that? It is one of the most troubled EDs—they've got ambulance diversion for goodness' sake—and they're not one of the eight hotspots. Even worse Minister Verrall's vaunted winter plan: minor ailments for pharmacists and it arranged 24 things actually. Explain to me why Waikato is not part of the winter plan—how does that work? I've just said to you that they had three sets of diversions in April that at least one ambulance was diverted to Tauranga—and it is not a short distance. If you're going from Matamata or Te Aroha and you go past Waikato Hospital and go all the way to Tauranga that is not inconsequential and yet Waikato Hospital is not considered an ED hotspot and Waikato Hospital does not get the winter ED plan. It was something that said that pharmacists for example could deal with minor ailments and yet Waikato is one of about 10 regions as we add them up that is not part of the winter plan. I come back to my first statement: why does Minister Verrall hate the Waikato? I think that needs an explanation because every action she does and every indication she gives is that she hates the Waikato. They are desperate and they need help and they are not to be dismissed by a Minister who is out of touch and won't even call it a crisis. I want to talk then to GPs. GPs are finding it very hard-going. This statement—so the Minister made an announcement about a nursing pay boost and on that same day one of the GP organisations replied "Nurse pay boost announcement is premature and insulting". The average rise was 8 percent. They were having discussions the day before with the Minister and she went out pre-emptively and already said what they were going to get. Let's look at the 2022 Budget which had $44 million to community care coordinators. It turns out none of that has been spent because they can't organise themselves into what community care teams should be. When I asked the Minister "Well what sort of roles could it be?" she said "Well care coordinators pharmacists physio and kaiāwhina." I then said "And how much might they be paid?"—and here's what's riling general practice up. So in this Budget this Government is going to pay a care coordinator $127869 a year; a pharmacist $158242; a physiotherapist $148936; and a kaiāwhina $99784—all for teams that haven't even been constructed yet and they haven't used any of the 2022 Budget. This Budget is a shocker. Thank you."