Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19160] 
10.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What assurances can she give the House and the New Zealand public that every person who should receive the flu vaccine will receive a fully effective vaccine this winter before the flu hits? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am advised that the—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated or conduct the conversation outside while the question is being asked. Thank you. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It has been a convention in the House that whips and leaders are able to go back and talk to members. It may well be that under your Speakership you are changing that convention. But I want an assurance that if that is happening when we see Government whips—and members as I have already seen in this question time—going to speak to one another the new convention will apply; or is there one rule for the Labour Government and another rule for the ACT party? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It has been accepted that when a question is being asked it will be heard in silence. Interjections certainly are permitted during answers but while the question is being asked it will be heard in silence. That is what I was seeking. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I am quite concerned about that statement because people listening to this question time on the air will think that the ACT leader had made an interjection which he had not. He had just come back in order to speak to me. You have singled him out and given the impression to the whole country that we are behaving in a disorderly manner when in fact he is following a convention of this House. At the same time during this question time you have allowed Government members to interject. You took no action until the point was raised by an Opposition member and I do say to you that one of the requirements for being Speaker is to be fair. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The ACT party or at least Mr Hide continues to defy you by continuing to stand in the aisle while the point of order is being taken. That is actually completely a challenge to your authority. I suggest to you that there is quite a difference between members moving around and speaking to each other and members standing in one of the aisles. That is not appropriate behaviour during question time when questions are being asked. The whips on both sides of this House do not stand in the aisles—and particularly not in that aisle—while questions are being asked. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Now we have the Deputy Prime Minister absolutely making something up. I have been a whip in this House and actually a whip for his party and I must assure you that whips move around the House as do leaders and they often stand in the aisle in order to speak to one of their own MPs. Mr Hide was not trying to interfere with the conduct of the House; he was speaking to one of his own members. If you are to now adopt Dr Cullen’s rulings then every time I see a Government whip standing in the aisles in front of the Ayes lobby which one sees every day we will be raising points of order. I suggest that you have made a mistake and that you owe Mr Hide an apology. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I would just point out to you that Mr Hide continues to stand in the aisle while the point of order is being taken. He is not supposed to do that while a point of order is being taken. He should return to his seat. He cannot possibly be conversing with another member of the House while you are dealing with a point of order in front of the House. So even if we take Mr Prebble’s point seriously Mr Hide is now clearly out of order and is being insolent to the Chair. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The point I was concerned about was that the Minister was about to address the question and that people were speaking during that time. I am aware that there is latitude in this House for people to walk around and to be able to converse with members. However in my judgment the member did not appear to be doing that at that time and that was the only point I was attempting to make. So I suggest we now resume the business of the House. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am advised that medical practitioners experienced in this matter will say that no flu vaccine is 100 percent effective against influenza for two main reasons. Firstly whilst the World Health Organization chooses which strains will be included in the vaccine each year no vaccine can guarantee the strains that will affect any one county in any one year. For example last year’s vaccine did not include the Wellington strain; it was a new mutation. Secondly at least 15 percent of people who receive the vaccine do not develop a full immunity response to influenza. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why did the Minister reportedly say on 14 March that she was told “in the last few days” of the problems with the flu vaccine effectiveness when the Prime Minister told the House this afternoon that Mrs King knew about those problems on 28 February? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Prime Minister is absolutely correct. On 28 February I was advised that there was a problem with the vaccine. On 7 March I was told what the problem was. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will be heard in silence. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What did the Minister mean by her comments in the  
Dominion Post  
on Saturday 12 March when she reportedly said that she had been aware of the problems for only a matter of days and that it was not her role to act on them and why will she not take responsibility for this major public health crisis that affects over 700000 people? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: On 28 February Wayne McNee from Pharmac phoned me and said: “We have a problem with the vaccine.” I did not know what the problem was. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it is quite inappropriate for that kind of barracking noise and hooligan laughter to occur in question time. I think it is quite clear that if Ministers are going to have to give answers against that background of noise they simply will not bother giving them. It would be much better for them to simply sit down because there is no reason why a Minister should have to shout over the top of that kind of hooligan barracking from a bunch of ill-behaved Opposition members. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We will not take that sort of lecture from the Deputy Prime Minister. That Minister is answering a question in a way that is just not plausible. If Ministers stand up and make complete plonkers of themselves by the answers they are giving the only expectation they can have is that the House will have a pretty robust view of that particular performance. For the Deputy Prime Minister to say that Ministers will not answer questions in the future simply confirms what most of the country has known for the last 5 years. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Minister said that she was informed on 28 February—I note that that is some 12 days before her reported statement in the  
Dominion Post 
; a matter of days 
— 
of a problem—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The point of order will be heard in silence and will then be ruled on. 
Opposition Member 
: It’s not a point of order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: —it most certainly is—with the vaccine but not what the nature of the problem was. At that point there was an eruption of hooliganish laughter from members opposite. It is very hard to understand what they find difficult to understand about that particularly when they failed to react to an email that went to all members of Parliament some days later and had to wait for the media to tell them the news about it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Of course interjections are permitted when answers are given but caterwauling does not enhance the answers given to those questions. I would ask members please to keep the level down. Of course interjections are permitted but if members cannot be heard it defeats the whole purpose of the exercise. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: On 28 February a Dr Wayne McNee phoned me and told me that there was a problem with the vaccine and that there would be a delay in delivery. At that stage I was not aware—and I do not think that Pharmac was aware—of the nature of the problem. It was not until I received a briefing from Pharmac on 7 March that it identified the nature of the problem. The problem was that a vaccine with three strains of influenza in it had two of the right potency and one not of the level of potency we had contracted for. That meant that it was 7 March when I was advised of that and that is a matter of days before the  
Dominion Post  
posed the questions to me. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: If the Minister was made aware of the problems with the flu vaccine only in the last few days as she claims why was Solvay Pharmaceuticals Australia contacted and asked to supply some of its vaccine 2 weeks ago; and why did she not ask what was wrong? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As I said in my answer Pharmac advised me of a problem of supply. Pharmac immediately moved a day after being told there was a problem of supply to seek supply—which is right and proper and the right thing to do. It advised me on 7 March about the nature of that problem; I support the action the company took. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What does the Minister intend to do about the fact that Pharmac was explicitly advised and warned by tendering vaccine suppliers to have a split tender so that New Zealanders would be put at less risk than from a sole-supply agreement; and what does she intend to do about Pharmac’s reply which was: “It’s not our way; the winner takes all.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Pharmac followed the request for proposals process that has been in place for 7 years starting under Bill English— 
Hon Bill English 
: So it’s our fault! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is not a matter of blame; it is a matter of process. The same process for a sole tenderer has been carried out for 7 years. Pharmac carried out exactly the same process that had been carried out previously. However it has said today that it is prepared to look at a sole-tender process in the future. Having done this process for 7 years it is prepared to look at it. I also have to say that Pharmac disputes that any tenderers told them to go for a split tender. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I ask the Minister in the light of that last question whether it is a statistical fact that if two vaccines have an equal probability of failure it does not matter whether there is a split tender because the total probability of failure will remain the same. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can confirm that. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is from the  
New Zealand Herald  
where Minister King says: “We want a flu vaccine but we certainly wouldn’t have a flu vaccine that didn’t work.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection. There is; the document will not be tabled. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The second document cites the March  
New Zealand Medical Journal 
 article where Dr Michael Baker and others suggest that a flu pandemic could see up to 3700 New Zealanders die and where the Director-General of Health Dr Karen Poutasi said that the figures are sobering but are no surprise to the ministry which has long been concerned about influenza pandemics.  
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection. Yes there is. The document will not be tabled.