Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:9854] 
11.  
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why did the Ministry of Health end its 3-year contract with Hanmer clinics 14 months early and did the clinics fulfil their contractual obligations in providing services to drug and alcohol patients? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Although 13 months and $3.6 million of Government funding remain for the provision of services by Hanmer Institute Ltd the decision to end the contract was mutually agreed to by both parties because of the company’s financial difficulties. A recent audit report showed that the company was failing to perform its contractual obligations in a number of areas. 
Heather Roy 
: How did the performance of the Hanmer clinics compare with that of Te Whare Whakapikiora o te Rangimarie Trust and will the generosity of the Ministry of Health in paying that Maori health trust’s tax bill be extended to ensuring that the Hanmer clinics are not left in debt? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Ministry of Health has been incredibly generous to Hanmer Institute Ltd. For example in May 2000 the ministry gave it a suspensory loan of $300000 in January 2000 it gave additional funding of $275000 in May 2002 it gave additional funding of $250000 and in April 2003 it gave an advance of $100000. The Ministry of Health has been very generous and very patient but at the end of the day it will not allow more taxpayers’ money to go to a private business that is in serious financial difficulty. 
Mark Peck 
: Does the Ministry of Health have any responsibility for staffing issues at Hanmer Institute Ltd? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No it does not because Hanmer Institute Ltd is a private company and is therefore solely responsible for staffing issues. The institute and the ministry in an agreement to end the contract that was signed on 8 November agreed that the ministry would pay a sum of money to the institute to assist it in making payments owed to staff. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister believe that the inpatient drug treatment services at Hanmer provided a valuable service for those who needed treatment—I quote the Minister of Health Annette King—“far away in the bush somewhere”; and can we trust the grip on reality of a Minister who considers Hanmer as “far away in the bush somewhere”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not know whether the member has been to Hanmer recently but I think that if he had he would find it a little far away from the main centre of Christchurch. As I said the audit found that the services offered by Hanmer Institute Ltd did not meet all its contractual obligations. I find it fascinating that ACT and National are prepared to go in to bat for this particular provider when they are very quick to criticise any provider that happens to be Maori. 
Sue Bradford 
: How does the Government square the closure of the Hanmer Institute clinics with the overall nationwide shortage of alcohol and drug treatment services given the tough new Jobs Jolt policies which mean that in effect Work and Income will force beneficiaries whether they like it or not into drug and alcohol counselling on pain of losing their benefit? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As the Hon Jim Anderton pointed out in answer to a previous question there were 11 patients in the residential service at Hanmer eight of whom were public patients. For the member’s interest none came from Auckland because Auckland would not send patients to Hanmer—and had not for many years—and patients from the old midlands region went there only for the Taha Maori programme. So it was not accepted by the referring physicians as the most appropriate service. I thought it was interesting that a memo from staff written only 1 day ago stated how concerned they were at the financial mismanagement of this organisation. 
Heather Roy 
: Does the Minister agree with Janice Gemmell an organiser with the National Union of Public Employees who said last week: “It is our understanding that $3 million a year would fully fund the hospital so the Government’s $30 million contribution to Team New Zealand’s yachting campaign would fund a decade’s extension to Queen Mary’s life.”—and I have to say the saving of a great many lives—if she does not agree why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I do not agree because there is no justification for any Ministry of Health to pay a much higher rate to Hanmer Institute Ltd than to any other residential provider in New Zealand. That may have been the view of that particular person last week but the view of the employees this week was to suggest that “action should be taken to sue the directors of the Hanmer clinic and Queen Mary Hospital personally on the grounds of financial mismanagement. We feel we have sufficient documentation and evidence to substantiate such a claim.”