Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:621;Page:16786] 
3.  
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How many people in total were waiting for a first specialist assessment at the end of August 2004 and does she consider her health policy a success? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Patients referred for first assessment as of the end of August 2004 numbered 110879. Of this number 20 percent had been waiting longer than 6 months. In other words the total includes people who were referred on 1 August and people referred earlier. The policy is working because in 1999 when the policy started 34 percent of people referred for first specialist assessment were waiting longer than 6 months. This is a huge improvement. 
Heather Roy 
: How can she credibly claim success when her own new official figures show 110879 people are waiting when in Opposition in August 1998 she labelled the then waiting list of 96000 as “criminal” and said that people could be dying while waiting; and what is her explanation to this House as to why 96000 people waiting is criminal and 110000 is not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Easily because in 1998 96000 was a rough assessment of people waiting. It is criminal because nobody knew how many were waiting no records were kept on how many were waiting and as I said only 20 percent of those currently waiting have waited longer than 6 months. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What is the total number of first assessments done in a year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Over 450000 first assessments are done in a year plus nearly 1.1 million subsequent assessments are done. These figures show a substantial improvement since 2002 and they cannot be compared with the 1990s because no such figures were kept. 
Judith Collins 
: What comfort can she give New Zealanders when the first specialist assessment waiting list exceeds 110000 despite another $2 billion each year being wasted by this Minister under her watch when in 1999 she said that New Zealanders could take little comfort from a waiting list that was then fewer than 110000? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: People can take a lot of comfort from the $2 billion extra we have put in—in fact it is more than $2 billion; the member’s figures are wrong. We have an almost 50 percent increase in funding. The people of New Zealand do not think it is wasted—especially those who are now getting knee and hip replacement operations because of the additional money we have put in. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In respect of whether she considers her health policy a success why did she claim yesterday that in the 2003-04 year 15 new medicines were listed on the pharmaceutical schedule of New Zealand not one when in fact only one of those 15 was placed on the schedule with full funding the rest were all restricted access and therefore not available to New Zealanders who would require that drug? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because the figure is the figure provided by Pharmac. Fifteen drugs are placed on the schedule. Of course some of them have co-payments; they always have. Not all of them are fully subsidised. 
Judy Turner 
: Will she give serious consideration to the idea of establishing a contestable fund in order that both public and private health providers could tender to provide elective surgery services within the guidelines set by the Ministry of Health and does she agree that if this concept can be applied to roading policy it can also apply to elective surgery; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. 
Judith Collins 
: Why has Mr John Power a World War II veteran who has paid his own way all his life had to wait 4 long years for a knee replacement operation which still has not happened despite the Minister’s bluster and an extra $2 billion of taxpayer funds wasted each year by this Minister? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I cannot answer why the particular patient has not had an operation but I can tell the people of New Zealand that there are many— 
Opposition Members 
: Four long years! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister needs to have a reasonable opportunity to answer with no waving of hands or things like that. The member asked a question and she can expect an answer. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can tell the people of New Zealand— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you are being rather hard on members on this side of the House. The Minister started by saying that she could not answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and the member knows it. He has now had two non – points of order; there are not very many to go. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: What I said was that I could not answer about— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a well-established principle in this House that Ministers cannot go on to say that they cannot answer a question asked but that they can provide some other answer and that is what the Minister started to say—“but I can tell the questioner this”. That is out of order and it has never been allowed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not and it has been allowed ever since I have been in this House. Sometimes a Minister cannot give all the facts but can give some of them and the Minister is entitled to do so. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In this Parliament I have answered questions for many more years than you have. In fact not many members in this House have answered them for as many years as I have. I can assure you Mr Speaker that it is not in order. If you check the Standing Orders you will see that Ministers have to answer a question. They cannot provide any answer they choose to give. They must answer the question asked. If the answer is that they do not know they cannot then say that they offer some other answer. That is out of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not. As long as the facts that the Minister gives are relevant it is in order. The member should read the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is impossible for any Minister of Health to know the situation of an individual patient. I cannot answer about Mr John Smith or whatever his name was. If the member were serious about this person she would make representations on behalf of him. 
Heather Roy 
: Given her concern— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please start with a question word. 
Heather Roy 
: Following her statement in 1999— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No please start with a question word. 
Heather Roy 
: Why given her concern in 1998 that some of the 96000 patients could be dying—[ 
Interruption 
] Shall I start again Mr Speaker? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
Heather Roy 
: Why given her concern in 1998—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not mind whether it is Wednesday and it is members’ day but it is still question time and we still have rules to accept. I want to hear the member’s question in silence. 
Heather Roy 
: Why given the Minister’s concern in 1998 that some of the 96000 patients could be dying while waiting does she accept that after her 5 years in charge of health some of the 110000 patients are also dying while waiting now and does she consider this to be criminal? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No because 20 percent of people on that list have waited longer than 6 months. The rest have not waited longer than 6 months. In 1998 many of those 96000 people had been on the list for years some of them died on the list some went to Australia and some were waiting for operations that were no longer carried out. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How many of the 15 new medicines that the Minister claimed yesterday to be listed in 2003-04 were actually new if any; second why is she setting up a two-tier health system in this country—one for those who can afford pharmaceuticals and one for those who cannot—given that Pharmac underspent its budget by $25 million in the last year through delays in negotiations reneging on agreements and restricting access to products that could benefit New Zealanders; and how could she call that a successful administration? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I will have to table the list. I did not bring it down with me as the question did not relate to it but I am happy to do that. We do not run a two-tier system in terms of pharmaceuticals. There is provision for a pharmaceutical in all the categories that are subsidised available to New Zealanders. What the member has overlooked is that it is this Government that has reduced the cost of getting the pharmaceuticals particularly for our older people to $3 a prescription. Thousands of New Zealanders can now afford to pick up their prescriptions— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Cheap products. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No they are not cheap products. Some of them are generic as we had when that member was Treasurer. Some of them are list pharmaceuticals that are brand names. 
Rodney Hide 
: Could the Minister explain to the House why the number of people waiting on the list when National was in power—96000—was “criminal” with people dying while on the list and why now that she is the Minister 110000 is somehow not criminal; and could she please do so without her usual bluff and bluster because there are New Zealanders who are very concerned about having to wait for a hospital bed? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because the figure of 96000 in 1998 was a rough estimate of just a list. The people who are now having first assessment are moving through the system. Of those 110000 people only 20 percent have waited longer than 6 months. There is a huge difference between those who had waited on a list year in and year out with nothing happening to them and those who are being seen and moved through the system as happens now—far more than happened when the system was first set up. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister making these outrageous claims given that before the creation of Pharmac New Zealand’s per capita spend on pharmaceuticals was 3 to 4 percent higher than Australia’s and is now 53 percent second by OECD standards? New Zealand is spending a fraction of what OECD countries spend—the OECD spends 15 percent and New Zealand spends 5 percent which equates to the following amounts: last year by OECD standards this Minister should have spent $1.6 million and she spent $504 million a fraction of what should be paid to people in terms of First World drugs. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think the member would be very interested to know that the OECD members are very interested in how New Zealand is able to ensure we can afford drugs. Governments in the European Union and in America itself—the home of the drug companies—have found that they have been unable to control the growing cost of drugs to the extent that the Americans are now parallel importing drugs from Canada so that they can afford them. We in New Zealand have been spectacularly successful in ensuring that we have high-quality drugs and good access to them while being able to ensure that money goes into health where it is needed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: On the issue of the Minister considering her health policy a success I ask her whether it is true that Kim Carter previously a director of nursing services at the Auckland District Health Board and until 2 weeks ago a director of nursing at the South Canterbury District Health Board was escorted from the premises and allegedly received a golden handshake of tens and tens of thousands of dollars? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Obviously I cannot answer that. First of all I do not have responsibility under the Act for employment issues. However if the member were to put a question to the district health board’s chief executive officer who has responsibility I am sure that he would if he could provide the answer. It is absolutely stupid to think that a Minister can come to the House and know about one employee out of the 8000 employees of the Auckland District Health Board and be able to tell the member what happened to that particular employee. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would the Minister expect to be told as Minister—given the tremendously sincere way she campaigned in 1999 about golden handshakes and the way her Prime Minister behaved at that point in time on such an odious thing as golden handshakes—whether that allegation which relates to the sum of about $100000 was proved to be true? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I would not expect to be told about which employees were leaving and what they were paid. However we have been trying to stop the very dopey employment contracts put in place under the previous Government that we had for chief executive officers which enabled them to go on leave for year after year if need be and still be paid. 
Rodney Hide 
: How can the Minister claim any success with her health policy when—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There was an interjection made by somebody. That person will leave the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: I know exactly who it was if you need any help. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any help because the member will also be leaving. I want the member who made that interjection to leave the House please. I heard an interjection made. 
Hon Dover Samuels withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rodney Hide 
: How can this Minister claim any success for her health policy when despite spending an extra $2 billion there are now 110000 patients waiting for first specialist assessment and another 62700 in the waiting list booking system—a total now of 172000 people waiting for treatment—or is she going to contest her own numbers? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: With confidence—because those figures are considerably better than what they were when we became Government. 
Deborah Coddington 
: How given the Minister’s description of 96000 people waiting as “criminal” would she describe 110000 people waiting which is about 15 percent more—is it: firstly seriously criminal; secondly very seriously criminal; thirdly definitely unspinnable; or fourthly time to bluff and bluster? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: None of the above. 
Judith Collins 
: I have several documents I seek leave to table. The first is a media statement dated 8 July 1999 from the Hon Annette King which is headed “110000 still wait for specialist assessment”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a  
New Zealand Herald  
report of 4 July 2003 referring to the case of Mr John Power the man referred to by the Minister as Mr John Smith. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that newspaper article. Is there any objection? There is. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a copy of a letter from the Minister of Health’s private secretary to Mary Clist John Power’s daughter dated 31 October 2002. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a copy of a letter from me to the Hon Annette King relating to Mr John Power dated 1 April 2003. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Minister of Health’s private secretary to me regarding Mr Power dated 6 September 2004. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a copy of a letter to me from the senior adviser to the Minister of Health relating to Mr John Power dated 1 October 2004. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I seek the leave of the House for the Minister’s answers to be printed and sent to those 110000 people who will be pleased to know that it is successful that they are waiting on a waiting list. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek the leave of the House to table two documents. The first is of New Zealand health information statistics from a division of the Ministry of Health with figures showing that 110000 patients were waiting for first specialist assessment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Heather Roy 
: The second document I seek leave to table is a press report from August 1998 in which the present Minister of Health claimed that having 96000 people on the waiting list was criminal. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.