Woodhouse Michael: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14580] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 One of the most important parts of the democratic process is the ability to debate the merits of a policy or a bill. Most of that happens in this Chamber or at select committees. That is the pointy edge of democracy I guess. So although there appears to be unanimous support for this bill we have heard a number of members on the other side of the House say that it is tinkering or that it does not go far enough and they want to ask the Minister this that and the next thing. If that is of such concern to those members where on earth were they at the stage of the bill when they could do just that—the Committee of the whole House? Although it is very rare to have a public health and disability bill passed unanimously through the House I am absolutely certain it is unheard of that such a bill is passed unanimously without a single word being said or question being asked of the executive by the Opposition at the Committee stage. 
It really does lay bare the empty rhetoric that we have heard including from the member who has just resumed his seat about all the concerns about cuts which frankly I would be very happy to refute emphatically. It is simply empty rhetoric none more so than what we heard in the call from the member Mr Lees-Galloway which I would describe as very articulate nonsense. He talked about there being no true public health strategy for prevention and he even accused National voters and supporters of not having diabetes heart disease or any other chronic illnesses. It was absolute nonsense. But here is what I would like him to do. I would like him to go to the 75000 homeowners who have had their houses insulated under the Warm Up New Zealand programme 55 percent of whom have a community services card and ask them whether the National Government has a public health strategy. When we had 30 percent increases in the price of tobacco— 
Hon Member 
: That was the Greens. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: That programme was a joint initiative no doubt but it did not happen under Labour; that is the point I am trying to make. National came up with the money. What else did not happen under Labour is 30 percent increases in the price of tobacco; again that is unprecedented in this country. If Mr Lees-Galloway thinks that this Government is in the pockets of the tobacco lobby and if he stands as the champion for Labour in tobacco cessation rates then he needs to explain why Labour when in Government did not take the same bold steps as a public health initiative. 
Thanks to the efforts made under this Government nearly 90 percent of our children are now fully immunised against vaccine-preventable diseases. Thanks to the Health Committee’s recommendations which will come out of the inquiry into how to improve childhood immunisation rates I have every confidence that that rate will go to 95 percent. It is absolutely unprecedented in this country and again certainly no public health initiative by the previous Government matched it. It is just a fallacy to say that this Government is not focused on public health. I suspect that Mr Iain Lees-Galloway cannot see the wood for the public health trees. 
There have been some changes. We might have dispensed with a few poster campaigns and we might have stopped funding a particular Internet programme that did not actually add any value because the Minister of Health has made it very clear that our limited resources have to be spent on services that will add value and I think a few of them did not. But it is not true to say that this Government does not fund public health. I think Mr McCully in his capacity as Minister for Sport and Recreation summed it up when he said that we could spend a lot of money on these poster campaigns or Internet campaigns or we can just give kids a bat and ball and send them out into the playground to exercise. I think that is where the merits of this Government lie. 
We heard from Ms Dyson that there was nothing from the Minister to reassure the public that their health needs will be met. Well the extra 25000 elective surgeries are a good start the reduction in cancer treatment waiting-times is a good start the really good performance in emergency department throughputs is a really good start as are our immunisation rates our improvements in our health workforce the voluntary bonding scheme—I could go on. The very fact is that much as the Opposition do not like to admit it this Government has managed to get a lot more for a little more. I think that is very commendable. I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time.