Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:3987] 
8.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What are the Government’s priorities in health? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Government’s top priority in health is to make a world-class health-care system affordable and accessible for all New Zealand families. I have also set out specific priorities for the coming financial year which I would be happy to provide for the member if he is looking for ideas for his long-awaited National Party health policy. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What does it say about the Government’s priorities in health that the Government is funding $1.5 million for a stop-smoking programme that involves giving away hundreds of free state-of-the-art videophones and what sort of message does that send to the many young New Zealanders who do not smoke and will not qualify for the free give-away of cellphones? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I invite the member to hold his judgment. He seems to be in favour of doing nothing to stop smoking whereas we know that reducing smoking is one of the key ingredients in having a healthy population. The member has the view that we should do nothing positive to help someone get off smoking; that all we should do is just berate that person. That does not work. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has he seen any reports on political support for the Government’s health priorities? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have seen many reports of support from around the House but not from the National Party which opposes affordable primary health care; opposes expenditure increases in health in general; wants to involve the private sector for the sake of doing so; is secretly wedded even now to part-charging for services; has nothing to say about beating diabetes; and seems to be against smoking cessation. The exception is Dr Brash’s view that people who overeat should not get dialysis treatment. That may be National’s policy. It is the only glimpse I have had of its policy after 7 years of it being in Opposition. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What has the Cancer Control Council done to date to address its key purposes of reducing the incidence and impact of cancer and reducing inequalities in respect of cancer treatment? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Cancer Control Strategy launched last year by my predecessor is getting underway and will have a very significant increase in funding from Saturday. I met with the chief executive of the Cancer Control Strategy this morning. We launched a programme that ensures that people who had cancer as children receive better care as adolescents and adults because it has become apparent that young adults who suffered cancer as children often suffer subsequent chronic disease. That is an interesting undertaking it is the first time that any country in the world has followed children through into older age and it is something the House should be proud of. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does he really think that wasting money on free videophones is a priority for the health system—and if he does not realise that some young people are going to milk this programme to get a free videophone then he does not deserve to be Minister of Health? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I suspect that the member should suspend his judgment take a closer look at the programme get an understanding of how it is being made to work and wait for its evaluation; then he can come up with his bumptious judgments. He should suspend them until then. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will he explain how giving away hundreds of videophones to young people will stop them smoking and does he not realise that this sounds so much like the freephones offered by Te Wananga o Aotearoa where people stampeded to get the phones only never to be seen again? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is a spoiler: by nature he is a negative person; by nature the glass is always half empty. He cannot stop grizzling. I ask the member what his viewpoint would be if 1 year from now we evaluate this programme—this new different innovative has-not-been-done-before programme—and find that it works. I wonder what he would say then. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: How does the Minister reconcile the wasteful videophone giveaway with Mr Maharey’s stance on the use of inducements for enrolment in tertiary courses: “We want students to think carefully … and to not have these decisions influenced by free goods or other offers.”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Has it not occurred to the member— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order please! It is again becoming difficult to hear. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Has it not occurred to the member that taxpayer funding is already going into Quitline the subsidising of chewing gums etc. and counselling and that that is having an effect because the prevalence of smoking is now down to 23 percent. What is more it has become apparent that those who do smoke have reduced their daily consumption from 20 cigarettes to 13. Reducing the incidence of smoking is the most significant thing—apart from reduction of obesity—that can be done in the public health arena to improve New Zealanders’ health. I am appalled that the National Party opposes experimenting with it. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: What message does it send to young people who do not smoke that this Minister is prepared to give a videophone to their mates who do smoke and does that not continue the Government’s theme that the more irresponsible people are the more it will give them? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I offer the member the same advice that I offered his colleague. Would he please take the time to have a close look at the programme to look at the incentives and disincentives embedded within it and to take a look at those who have planned it and see whether he can come to the view that maybe—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I cannot hear and the Minister is right beside the Speaker’s chair. Would the Minister please repeat the answer. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am happy to do so Madam Speaker. I advise the member in the same way as I advised his colleague. I invite him to take a close look at the programme to look at its design to see whether the incentives or disincentives may work to suspend judgment until we have given this thing a go and to consider the possibility that if it is successful because it is innovative then we should be celebrating it. It is OK to take a risk with some taxpayers’ money sometimes if the possibility exists that we can get kids to stop smoking. I point out that having kids stop smoking is a good thing to do.