Taieri MP responds to taxation questions
Taieri MP Ingrid Leary is rightly appalled at the number of declined medical referrals (ODT 25.4.26).
Can she, then, firstly explain how three free GP visits per year, thus far the only policy we have seen from the Labour Party, might address this problem?
Secondly, has she, or any of her colleagues, encouraged Labour Party decision makers to accept the fact that without broad and fundamental changes to our taxation regime (far beyond the relatively trivial capital gains tax already proposed) no government will have the wherewithal to address this or any other problem?
[Ingrid Leary, MP for Taieri, replies: "The data makes clear that declining referrals are being driven by system pressure — workforce shortages, limited diagnostic access, and growing demand — not a single policy lever. The proposal for three free GP visits is not intended as a standalone fix, but as part of addressing those pressures earlier in the pathway.
Evidence consistently shows that when cost is a barrier, people delay care and present later with more complex conditions. As Labour has set out, three free GP visits a year is designed to cover the routine care most people need, while those with higher needs will continue to receive additional support through existing funding and clinical prioritisation.
Labour’s plan is to remove that barrier so issues are identified and managed earlier, reducing avoidable referrals and easing pressure on specialists. At the same time, the policy sits alongside measures to expand capacity — including freeing up around 4.5 million GP appointments through smarter systems and supporting more clinics in under served areas.
On funding, Labour has been explicit. Three free visits are paid for through targeted tax changes — including a capital gains tax on property profits excluding the family home — with revenue ring-fenced for healthcare. This is part of a broader approach to ensure the system has sustainable funding while remaining fair, with most New Zealanders paying no additional tax."]
Encore
Once again the manipulative media trot out their tiresome "who will Winston and NZ First coalition with this election?" articles.
The only answer to avoid another, at best mediocre at worst malign, debacle that the main parties continue to bring, is to elect NZ First to an outright majority. Which prospect, the polls tell, seems much more likely than ever.
With the oncoming worldwide recession, neither National or Labour have the policy wherewithal to handle the poisoned chalice of government. For their long-term, power gaining strategy, they'll both recess.
Hoping to return in three years, when they can blame everything on NZ First's rule, instead of having effective policies themselves. Deja vu all over again.
One good thing
We have heard from both Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis in recent days decrying Winston Peters for being "the man who put Jacinda Ardern into the prime ministership".
For all Winston’s failings — and there are many — this shines out as a singularly redeeming act, as anyone who has watched Prime Minister on Netflix or attended the warm dialogue between Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson at the Regent can attest.
In the context of what has been on display during the term of this prime minister and his two deputies we can only remember wistfully what principle, clear well-crafted public speaking and, yes, kindness, looked like and how envied by the rest of the world, though not by some in New Zealand, it made us.
Discharge permission belies pristine claims
I love this country but have become dispirited and pessimistic when it comes to believing we are one of the most environmentally conscious and unspoiled parts of the world.
Degraded river quality has become the norm here. Reading that E. coli levels in the Shotover were above acceptable levels, I then read that the local council is asking for another 35 years of permission to keep discharging supposedly treated waste. Why was this even agreed to in the first place? How do we allow these things to be even considered?
Fix your infrastructure first and then we will look at any further development should be the norm.
As if that isn't galling enough, most every day we read of applications in and around the town for permission to build a huge amount of housing and similar, all this whilst the current infrastructure isn't able to cope with the most basic requirement of treating human waste in an environmentally safe and accepted way. Short-term gain, long-time pain. Where is the gatekeeping in this?
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: letters@odt.co.nz
