Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15660] 
7.  
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What was the total number of people at the end of June 2004 who following first specialist assessment were on waiting lists booked or given certainty of treatment within 6 months on active review or had been referred to the care of their general practitioner? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: In June 2004 the number booked or given certainty totalled 25028. This compares with the 30 June 1999 figure of 18075 in those categories. There were 31099 on active review as at 30 June 2004 many of whom were assessed and rebooked. That compares favourably to the 55066 who were languishing on the residual list as at 30 June 1999 with no continuing care. 
Heather Roy 
: Given that there were 50000 people on residual waiting lists when Labour was elected that the Minister has just told us there are 25000 people booked for or given certainty of treatment and that 31000 patients—as given to me in answer to a parliamentary question—are on active review is the Minister now telling us that the waiting lists are longer that more people are waiting for treatment than when this Government came to power? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: There is not a country in the world that is not grappling with the challenge of public health sector funding and treatment and New Zealand is doing better than most. This year alone—the 2004-05 financial year—this Government has allocated two hospitals a further $296 million without any constraint whatever on how they can use that funding. That is the kind of commitment this Government is making but with an ageing population and new technology there will be a consistent challenge before any Government to deal with the health system. I have yet to see any realistic alternatives to those that the Government is following at the present time. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I listened very carefully to the answer given by that Minister and I listened very closely to the question that was asked which was very specific. The question asked whether waiting lists were longer today than when the Government came to office. It was a very simple succinct question and there were no other parts to it. The question asked whether the Minister could confirm that waiting lists are longer today than they were when the Government came to office. He did not answer that question at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister to address that part of the question. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: If we were comparing exactly the same circumstances that would be a fair comparison but the circumstances are different. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hesitate to raise this point because I know you are not responsible for it but the Minister was also asked in the primary question how many patients had been referred to the care of their general practitioner. As I heard it the Minister did not address that at all. What has happened is that the books have been cooked so that we now have three categories rather than just one. I think it would be helpful if you could ask the Minister to address that part of the question. If he cannot do it now in the House perhaps he could do it if given some time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the Minister did address the question. He gave a number of statistics in response to quite a few parts of the question. If he wants to add anything further later he can. 
Darren Hughes 
: Is the Minister aware of any advice given to hospitals when the system was first introduced as to how they might manage waiting list growth? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes. I have received that advice. The then Minister of Health the Hon Bill English wrote to chief executives on 16 September 1997 and advised them: “It is the Transitional Health Authority’s responsibility to manage growth in the number of people who have been placed on a waiting list after 7 May 1996. This can be achieved through either raising the interim and/or financially sustainable threshold or by diverting resources. No additional funding will be made available from the Government to clear growth in waiting list backlogs since May 1996.” 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister remember the comment of Helen Clark in November 1995: “I give you my word: Labour will blitz those waiting times for hospital treatment.”; and can the Minister confirm that the word “blitz” when used by her Labour Government means to throw thousands of people off the waiting list and to force those remaining into a revolving series of lists only one of which means an operation this side of the grave? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I remember every comment made by the Prime Minister of New Zealand at the present time—both currently and in the past. Those comments have come true: waiting times are down. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does the Minister of Health have any concerns regarding the burgeoning health bureaucracy given that Ministry of Health staff numbers have more than doubled since 1999 and is she confident that it has not been at the expense of reducing waiting lists? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Well one could call more nurses and doctors for example burgeoning bureaucracy. But I can advise the member that in 2002-03 there were 267374 surgical procedures in New Zealand hospitals. This year to date—and the figures for the full financial year are not in yet—that figure has improved to 272881. 
Heather Roy 
: Given that $188 million in operating spending for the last financial year was unspent when it could have been used to cut the waiting lists or active review lists can the Minister of Health deny that this money was announced as part of last year’s Budget was not spent and was announced again as part of this year’s Budget; if not what has actually happened to the $188 million? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: In terms of bureaucracy I recall when there were regional health authorities all over New Zealand and now there are functioning district health boards in—[ 
Interruption 
] In regard to the member’s question she will have to repeat it because I have actually lost the plot. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please repeat the question. 
Heather Roy 
: Given that $188 million in operating spending for the last financial year was unspent when it could have been used to cut the waiting lists or the active review lists can the Minister of Health deny that this money was announced as part of last year’s Budget was not spent and was announced again as part of this year’s Budget; if not what exactly has happened to the unspent $188 million? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: In a health budget of approximately $10000 million $180 million is a very small amount to be carried forward. That money was carried forward from the previous year because it had not been totally expended but it will continue to be allocated to the programmes that it was allocated to in the first place. Is the member suggesting that it should be removed from the health system? This Government does not agree with that. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is the precise trouble we get into in this House. I ask you to consider this for this Minister. I know he is not the real Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be concise. Those comments do not help the point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: Well the specific question was that as the Government had announced that it was going to spend an extra $400 million and as $188 million had not been spent—money is fungible; it is the same money—what had happened to that money and had it been announced twice. The Minister got up and gave a long verbose answer. We just want to know what has happened to the $188 million and why the Government promised us an extra $400 million of spending. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Rodney Hide 
: Well let me finish. Putting it in the context of saying that the health budget is a big budget—$10 billion—does not get away from the fact that it was this Government that sat here during the last Budget and paraded the fact it was spending an extra $400 million but it actually did not spend it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point of order was far too long. The member must be more terse in future. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The last point was totally irrelevant and purely debating material which is why the member should have stopped when I rose. The Minister gave a perfectly adequate answer: the money was carried forward from last year to this year—much of it in fact because meningococcal meningitis vaccination money was unspent and was carried forward to the current year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question was addressed. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just struggling to find the particular Standing Order that requires members’ words to be taken as honest because they are honourable members. In respect of the Standing Orders I have to say I have noticed we have a rather large gathering of senior New Zealand citizens in the gallery. Whilst the Minister was giving his answer on waiting lists they were shaking their heads. If they cannot believe him why should we be required to? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is being given a final warning. I should have asked him to leave the House. He knows full well that no one may refer to anyone outside the 120 members of this House. He knows that is against the rules. If he did not he now does. 
Heather Roy 
: Did the Minister of Health a Labour Minister in a Government that has experienced large surpluses actually cut real per person health spending in the 2001-02 financial year; if so why? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: What I can tell the member is this: of approximately $800 million of discretionary funding that this Government had in that financial year $400 million—in other words 50 percent—was allocated to the health budget. Any Minister of Health who achieves that deserves an accolade not criticism. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to respect Parliament and question time. I know that you are not responsible for the quality of the answers but it has to be unacceptable for a Minister who has been asked a specific question to answer that question with “What I can tell you” then talk about something completely different. That cannot be considered under any interpretation as addressing the question as required by the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can tell the member that if that was all that the Minister said then of course it would not be acceptable but he then went on—[ 
Interruption 
] The member is very very lucky that I am in a generous mood. I can tell the member that that was not all that the Minister said; he did go on to address the question. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 147/1 which states that replies should be “no longer than need be in order to answer the question adequately” and which should be read with Speaker’s ruling 146/7 which states that the Speaker will call the Minister to order if an entirely unrelated subject is addressed and may permit further supplementary questions to a particularly uncooperative Minister. In this particular series of questions we have repeatedly had answers of completely unnecessary length which is obfuscation. I ask you to consider offering some extra supplementary questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I will not be doing that. But I can say to the Minister that his replies have been too long. I think he should be concise in his replies and I shall be watching him very closely. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek leave to table three documents. The first is an answer to a parliamentary question that shows that from Treasury’s estimates the real per capita spending per person dropped— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that question. Is there any objection? There is. 
Heather Roy 
: The second document is an answer to a parliamentary question showing that the number of patients on active review in June 2004 was 31000. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Heather Roy 
: The third document is another answer to a parliamentary question that shows that the amount of operating funding underspent in the 2003-04 year was $188 million. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that question. Is there any objection? There is. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have brought up this issue before. I refer to Speaker’s ruling 127/8 which states: “Leave should only be sought to table papers that are not readily available from other sources.” Parliamentary questions by definition are available to all members of this House. I think the member is trifling with you and the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I repeat that the chances of documents like that being tabled are very remote but every member has a perfect right to ask because that is in the Standing Orders. I am required to use the Standing Orders and members themselves would be very cross with me if I did not. The member is entitled to ask but I do happen to agree with the member that the particular issues raised—answers to parliamentary questions—are already printed and available for everybody. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I seek leave to lay on the Table of the House the letter from the Hon Bill English on waiting time funding when he was the Minister of Health. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.