Compulsory insurance for immigrants already on NZ First agenda

NZ First leader Winston Peters was sympathetic towards the proposal put forward. Photo / Sarah Ivey

Making immigrants take out insurance was rejected as "utterly disgraceful" by an NZ First MP - but his colleague has included a similar measure in legislation.

NZ First delegates voted against a remit to make all "new settlers" take out personal medical insurance for at least 10 years, during the party's annual conference last weekend.

The proposal, put forward by the Rodney branch and to which leader Winston Peters was sympathetic, caused heated debate, with NZ First MPs Denis O'Rourke and Mahesh Bindra both speaking out against it.

Mr O'Rourke told the meeting that the proposal was "completely contrary" to the Bill of Rights Act, and would be struck down by the Supreme Court.

"We would also as a party be held up to ridicule if we tried to put forward an idea as utterly disgraceful as this, which is clearly discriminatory and utterly unjustifiable," Mr O'Rourke told delegates.

"And if this party was to proceed with that kind of policy I would have to consider whether I could continue to be a member of it, because it really is disgraceful and it should not be considered."

A similar measure is already included in an Affordable Healthcare Bill put forward as a private member's bill by former NZ First MP Andrew Williams in 2013.

Since his exit from Parliament the legislation has been taken on by the party's health spokeswoman Barbara Stewart.

The Bill would require Parent Category migrants to have health insurance on arrival and to maintain it in New Zealand for 10 years. The health insurance would have to cover elective surgery.

The Parent Category allows parents of a New Zealand citizen or resident, who has been a resident for at least three years, to join them in New Zealand.

The category was relaunched as a two-tier scheme in 2012, where applications of those with wealthier sponsors would be processed faster.

Mr O'Rourke said he believed the measure's in Ms Stewart's Bill were fair.

"I think it is different...they are people who are coming in under the auspices of having family here already, and they are coming in to be reunited...so they would have the support of those people.

"And they are coming in, almost certainly, very late in their lives and are likely to have more health issues than others, and are a very small portion of a whole."

Mr O'Rourke said, from a human rights perspective, it was important whether conditions placed on a particular group of people were justifiable.

"And I think that's where that Bill of Barbara's falls."