Healthworkers want MPs to waive private healthcare while in office
Politicians making critical decisions about the public health system system — to cut funding, defer maintenance, or implement restructures — should not be allowed to "insulate" themselves against the consequences, they write.
Their prescription?
All MPs — and the families of Cabinet ministers — should rely on the public system.
The group's spokesperson, Northland cardiologist Marcus Lee, said the public deserved leaders who were so committed to public healthcare that they were willing to stake their family's wellbeing on it.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Essentially, we want fair and transparent leadership with integrity. We want people who have skin in the game."
The test was whether politicians were "comfortable and confident" enough to rely on the public health system for their families, he said.
"If it's good for them, it's good for us. If it's not good enough for them, it shouldn't be good enough for anyone."
Nicola Willis and Simeon Brown in 2020 (Source: Getty)
The letter asks MPs to consider questions including:
Would I be comfortable with my child waiting six months for this procedure?
Is this emergency department adequate for my elderly parent?
Are these staffing levels sufficient for my family's safety?
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon did not believe having private health insurance meant he was out of touch with the problems besetting the public system.
ADVERTISEMENT
"I think we're well aware of the challenges in the healthcare system, which is why we've put a record amount of investment in," he said.
"We inherited again a botched merger that just created a layer of bureaucracy and we've put the money in, we're hiring more people, we've got clarity on the targets.
"We're starting to see some stabilisation of those targets and in some cases improvements on those health targets.
"But we now need a high performing Health NZ, and that's what we're fixated on."
Labour's health spokesperson Dr Ayesha Verrall said MPs with private health insurance were "betting their own money against the public system".
"Ministers of Health should place a bet on the public health system succeeding and meeting New Zealanders' needs. Having private health insurance is a sign that you're not willing to place that bet."
Labour health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall. (Source: 1News)
ADVERTISEMENT
Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins — a former health minister — took a less hard-line approach.
"I got health insurance 20 or 30 years ago as a union membership benefit and I've kept it since then, although I'm fortunate I haven't really had to use it.
"I'm not going to begrudge people who have it. But I want to make sure that, if you haven't, you still get the standard of care you deserve."
Health Minister Simeon Brown said he did not have private health insurance but he would not impose that choice on anyone else.
"Ultimately there's a large number of New Zealanders who use health insurance, that's a fantastic part of our health system, and ultimately people make individual choices."
Brown said his focus was on timely access to quality healthcare for New Zealanders, which included making better use of the private sector.
"We will work with private hospitals to unlock capacity, publicly funded [patients] but in private hospitals to speed up access."
ADVERTISEMENT
Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Education Minister Erica Stanford both had private health insurance.
Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey did not, saying he is "happy using the public health system".
Other National MPs were more coy.
Minister of Climate Change, Energy, Local Government and Revenue, Simon Watts: "I won't answer that, it's a personal question."
Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, Disability Issues, Social Development and Employment, Louise Upston: "That's not a question in the public interest."
Bay of Plenty MP Tom Rutherford: "I'm not interested in talking about that. It's not necessary for people to know — I don't go out into the general street and ask people about their health insurance."
Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March said it was "quite rich" to see politicians not being worried about the state of the public healthcare system, when they had the means to pay for private insurance or private care.
ADVERTISEMENT
"That is why we are really concerned with the Government's flirtation with privatising more of our public healthcare system, which will ultimately see our poorest less able to access basic healthcare."
For some Labour MPs, it was a matter of principle.
Kelston MP Carmel Sepuloni: "I believe, as politicians, if we're going to be working to ensure the healthcare system works for everyone, we should be reliant on it too."
Nelson MP Rachel Boyack: "My father was a public health chief executive so I've always had a strong belief in the public health system, and that the health system should be available to all New Zealanders, and that includes me as an MP."
Mt Albert MP Helen White could understand why some people opted to have it, but it was not for her: "I just think that I should live by my principles. Also I probably couldn't afford it. I know I'm on a decent salary, but it's a lot of money."
Mt Albert MP Helen White says she probably couldn't afford health insurance. (Source: 1News)
Labour MP Ginny Andersen said health insurance was not in her budget: "By the time I pay my mortgage and my insurance and my rates and feed my children."
ADVERTISEMENT
ACT Party leader David Seymour, who is also the Associate Health Minister, said the healthworkers made "an interesting argument" — but, in his view, MPs should come from a broad range of backgrounds.
"I don't think you should have to fit into a sort of ideological straight-jacket to do that."
The healthworkers behind the letter said MPs who refused to give up their private safety net would be revealing "exactly what they really think about our healthcare system".
"We'll be watching to see who has the courage to put their family where their policies are."
rnz.co.nz
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
42 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Winston Peters: ‘Careless' immigration ‘transforming cities', Nigel Farage's Reform ‘compelling'
Peters, who is the Foreign Affairs Minister, spoke about what he described as an 'alarming development' overseas. 'People are concerned as to where their countries are going, and New Zealanders are no different. They are more acutely aware of the problem we're dealing with here than the politicians are. 'They have seen the international circumstances of careless immigration policies transforming cities, changing cities, changing centuries of development and social life, and people feel at risk because of it.' He pointed to several European countries, including England, where he said there were concerns about 'people who have come there who don't salute the flag, don't salute the values of the country, don't salute the people who were there before them, don't respect the right to have your own religion'. 'These sorts of things are values that we need to stress. If you don't subscribe to that, don't come here.' He believed New Zealand was experiencing similar issues. 'Some of these people are out there celebrating diversity, flying all sorts of flags. We have one flag in this country and it's been there since 1904 ... That's what they should be saluting. People have died for it.' NZ First leader Winston Peters speaks to the Herald about his party's view on immigration. Photo / Mark Mitchell His comments come against the backdrop of the rising popularity of Nigel Farage's Reform UK party. It has soared past Labour and the Conservatives in recent polls, though a general election could be several years away. Peters has told the Herald he is 'friends' with Farage and that they communicate. He was 'entertained' by the Reform leader last time he was in the UK. 'I think that there are things to do with that party and New Zealand First which are so similar. That is why we've got confidence going into the future.' Those similarities were 'true grit, determination and principles'. Asked whether he looked at Reform and its targeting of immigration, Peters responded: 'Yes, I do. It's very compelling, but that they had to come to that is a serious worry'. Farage, best known for his Brexit advocacy, takes a hardline approach to immigration policy. Last year, he said British culture was 'under threat' and 'in decline', and proposed a freeze on non-essential migration. He warned of riots last year if migrants did not 'integrate' into their communities. While Farage has faced allegations of emboldening racism – he denies this and says Reform is 'non-racist' - his party appears to be influencing the public debate in the UK about immigration. An Ipsos poll in May found Reform had the highest level of trust on immigration policies, while Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour Party has taken a stronger line on border issues. In a May speech, Starmer said the UK risked becoming an 'island of strangers'. He later expressed regret after criticism that his comment echoed British politician Enoch Powell, who said in 1968 that the UK's white population could find themselves 'strangers in their own country'. Massey University distinguished professor Paul Spoonley previously told the Herald that he didn't believe there was a similar anti-immigration sentiment here. 'Australia, Canada and New Zealand target skilled migrants, and we use our point[s] system to identify who's going to be appropriate. We have a very managed immigration system. Most of Europe does not.' Winston Peters met Reform UK leader Nigel Farage in the United Kingdom last year. Photo / Facebook/Winston Peters 'Still our plan', 32 years on The interview with Peters was held as NZ First celebrates its 32nd birthday. When it was formed, the party laid out 15 principles, including acknowledging that, while New Zealand would need 'overseas skills and expertise', it did not want immigration to be 'an excuse for our failure to train, skill and employ our own people'. That remained 'as much a principle now as it was back then', Peters said. 'We, like wise countries, have always believed we should be training and employing our own people first and not use immigration as an excuse not to do that. That is still our plan.' He expressed concern about the current number of migrants to New Zealand. In the year to May 2025, there was a net migration gain of 15,000, driven by 140,000 arrivals offset by 125,000 departures. The number of arrivals is down from a peak of roughly 235,000 in late 2023, but still above the long-term average of 119,000. However, due to the large number of departures, the net gain is below the average of nearly 28,000. Peters' concern about the immigration figures is in part prompted by his desire for New Zealanders to be employed, but he also remembers a time when arriving migrants were supported by appropriate infrastructure. 'There was a time when we were getting people from around the world putting down £10 to get here. They were coming to a job and a house and infrastructure, schooling, everything. Teachers and doctors and all sorts of people were coming here.' New Zealand's infrastructure deficit and pressures in the health system are well-reported, and Peters said work was under way on a population policy that he hoped would be revealed this term. 'If you're going to bring in people that you essentially need, we've got to make sure we've got the infrastructure for them,' he said. Net migration gain is below the long-term average, but about 140,000 people still arrived here in the year to May. Photo / Alex Burton In 2003, while speaking from the opposition benches in Parliament, Peters complained that 'a hundred thousand New Zealanders are out of work, yet we are bringing in tens of thousands of immigrants'. With Peters now in power, the Herald put it to him that, at the end of June, 216,000 people were receiving Jobseeker support while thousands of migrants were arriving. He responded that, if his party's message had been given more prominence, it would have 'far more members and we'd be in control of the circumstances now'. 'Unfortunately, you didn't, and we're working for the next campaign to ensure that this time our voices are heard on the way through. 'We are still saying that the drivers to take people from secondary school into employment aren't strong enough. 'Too many people are able to access social welfare without making every effort to get employment, to get jobs. How come we've got so many people who are so-called job-ready but not in jobs?' Part of NZ First's coalition agreement with National included strengthening obligations for beneficiaries and sanctions if those were not fulfilled. Coalition engagement While NZ First may have strong views on immigration, it's National MP Erica Stanford who is the Immigration Minister. 'She's inherited the most difficult portfolio, and it's very hard to try to meet the demands of employers who need essential workers when we've had such a haphazard system,' Peters said. The Government announced last month that it would establish a Parent Boost Visa in September. Based on a National Party election policy, it will allow the parents of migrants to visit New Zealand for up to 10 years as long as they fulfil certain criteria, including having health insurance. As the Herald has reported, the visa has no cap, but Stanford doesn't expect it will lead to an 'explosion' in migration. However, Cabinet documents warned there was 'significant uncertainty' about how many people might take up the visa and that there would be impacts on the health system. Asked for NZ First's view on the policy, Peters stressed that conditions attached to the visa required migrants to pay their medical costs. 'There'd be no cost on the New Zealand taxpayer. Why should the New Zealand taxpayer be paying for someone to come here as a worker, but also now they've got somebody else who is coming here to access our social welfare for free? 'The condition was they would not be required, would not access our social welfare system. That's still our position.' Officials' advice, however, highlighted that, even if the parents had insurance, they could take up spots in GP clinics and emergency rooms. Peters said it was the Government's responsibility to fix 'our GP problem'. He also suggested that, while the visa had no cap, there was a limit on how many people would meet the criteria. Ministers were warned of an impact on the health system from Parent Boost. Photo / File In 2023, NZ First campaigned on having a cap of 1000 on the Parent Resident Visa. It's currently 2500. Asked if he was happy with that cap, Peters responded: 'There are a number of things we're not happy with, but we're working on them every day and every week with the ministers who are concerned. 'We want the outcome and the finality of a policy to be accepted and hopefully across the political divide.' So why should people vote for NZ First over National or Act when it comes to immigration policy? 'There's only one nationalist party in this country, and you're looking at it. The rest are globalists. They don't deny that. 'We're a nationalist party, and I see the success of Croatia, modern Croatia. I see the success of modern Poland. These countries are focused on their people's national interests first and foremost because that's what democracy is answerable to: the people, not the world, but your own people.' Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Shane Te Pou: Tāmaki Makaurau byelection a chance to test out campaign machine
No electorate belongs to any party and Peeni Henare (who was Tāmaki Makaurau's MP for three terms until he lost to Kemp by 42 votes) has every right to try to win the seat back. And, contrary to some claims that Henare winning would mean fewer Māori in Parliament, if he wins the electorate, Labour will have an empty list seat, with the next in line being the wāhine Māori Georgie Dansey. Labour's Peeni Henare was Tāmaki Makaurau's MP for three terms and is fighting to win the seat back. Photo / Mark Mitchell Having a contested campaign is good for Labour and Te Pāti Māori. It will allow both parties to give their election campaign machines a run and put forward their vision to people who have been hard hit by this Government's poor decisions and negligence. According to the latest census, construction is the biggest employer for Tāmaki Makaurau voters. It's also been a sector that's been hammered by the Government stopping large infrastructure projects mid-stream and cutting off funding for building more state houses. Oriini Kaipara is the Te Pāti Māori candidate for the Tāmaki Makaurau byelection. Photo / Supplied Fifteen thousand construction jobs have been lost in the past two years. Nationwide, the economy has lost 34,000 jobs in the past year and Māori unemployment is over 10%. Rising costs for basics such as food, GP visits, prescriptions, and electricity are hitting whānau who are dealing with job losses, all while being characterised as dole bludgers by a Government that seemingly has no solutions. With 79% of Tāmaki Makaurau voters renting, they're also feeling the pinch of continuing rent rises. The reality is most of our people work, but no matter how hard they work, even holding down two jobs, they just cannot get ahead in life. Many whānau live in overcrowded homes, with the constant spectre of having nowhere to live as the Government has brought back no-cause evictions and cut off access to emergency housing. Anyone who walks the streets of our largest city knows that the number of homeless people in Tāmaki Makaurau is growing, and many of them are Māori. Labour says its focus is on jobs, homes, health and the cost of living. Those are clearly key issues for voters, who are unimpressed by this Government's lack of delivery and their carelessness towards the hurt people are feeling. But voters aren't yet ready to fully embrace Labour – probably because of the lack of a vision and policy to go with those priorities. This byelection is an opportunity for Labour to start putting some meat on those bones and present themselves as an alternative government that people can trust with their vote. For Te Pāti Māori, holding on to Tāmaki Makaurau will be an important goal, to cement their hold on the Māori seats and prove that 2023 wasn't a passing high-tide mark, like 2008 was. It will also be a test of how they handle more mainstream media attention. Next year, National will spend a huge amount of money and energy trying to show that a vote for Labour is a vote for Te Pāti Māori and that they are too extreme to be let near power. It will be up to Te Pāti Māori to prove that fear-mongering wrong. Labour and Te Pāti Māori will need to use this byelection to show they can compete while keeping things civil and positive. Oriini Kaipara and Peeni Henare are excellent candidates, and I'm not making a pick on who will win. I am confident that whoever is elected will be able to represent our people well. I hope that the winner will work tirelessly for more jobs, more houses and better public services. Two years of cuts and negligence have left our people hurting. It's time for some hope.
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Dropkicks? Shouldn't we make it easier for people to vote?
This week, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced what he described as a 'significant, but necessary change' to New Zealand's electoral laws. He said this will address 'strain on the system'. The most controversial of these changes is stopping same-day enrolment for voters in a general election. Same-day enrolments are counted as special votes, which can take about 10 times longer to count than ordinary votes. Special votes have become more common in recent elections and a Regulatory Impact Statement from the Ministry of Justice said there had been an explosion as more people enrolled or updated their details on the day they voted. There were about 300,000 to 350,000 same-day special votes cast at the last election. The total number of special votes was 602,000, or about 20.9% of all ticks made. The Electoral Commission forecasts this will rise to 739,000 special votes in the 2026 election. So, to ensure the final results for our election don't take too long, the ability to enrol to vote will stop 13 days before election day. Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said anyone who can't get their A into G in time was a 'dropkick'. 'I'm a bit sick of dropkicks who can't get their lives organised to follow the law, which registering to vote is a legal requirement. Then going and voting to tax away hard-working people's money and have people that make laws that restrict their freedoms.' After his somewhat partisan comment, Seymour went on tell reporters, 'If you can't be bothered doing that, maybe you don't care so much.' But it is obvious these people – hundreds of thousands of Kiwis – do care. They care enough about our democracy and the future of this country to go to a polling station on election day, register and vote. The Act leader also said people are fighting around the world for the chance to vote in a democracy. This is true, but the irony appeared totally lost on Seymour as he argued about the merits of a law that would restrict the opportunity for people to do just that. This country loves a battler and treating thousands of everyday New Zealanders with disdain rarely returns a positive result. Seymour might be well served to dropkick his descriptor quickly, or the battlers may dropkick him at the polls. Along with concerns about turnout, the Electoral Commission advised that special votes are more likely to come from areas with high Asian, Māori and Pacific communities. Younger people are also more likely to cast special votes – particularly first-time voters. Labour leader Chris Hipkins called the proposed changes 'draconian'. That is hyperbole. But he is right that it's anti-democratic. Perhaps any law that restricts a person's opportunity to vote should require a supermajority in Parliament? This might also stop the ridiculous see-sawing we see every government cycle around prisoner voting. Sign up to the Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
