Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:21191] 
1. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How much pain and discomfort does someone have to be suffering in order to get treatment within 1 year in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Any New Zealander who requires acute or urgent treatment is dealt with within hours or days. People who are assessed by clinicians as being able to wait are treated in order of clinical priority. This was introduced through the booking system in 1998. The existence of pain and suffering is one of the important factors that clinicians take into account when determining the appropriate course of action for a patient. 
Rodney Hide 
: What then does the Minister say to Mrs Beryl Wright who is here today watching whose son Alvin is suffering advanced Huntington’s disease and who suffers severe toothache because he needs 10 decayed teeth to be removed under general anaesthetic only to be told by the dental department at Wellington Hospital that he would have to wait a year because his case was “only semi-urgent” and that others were waiting 2 years especially in light of the fact that the chair of the Health Committee Steve Chadwick called out in this House yesterday that no one was queued up on the waiting list in pain? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am advised by Capital and Coast District Health Board that Alvin Wright was seen at the Porirua dental department on 3 May 2005 for a routine dental check-up. Following the assessment his mother decided he should have a full dental clearance and details were noted about what needed to be followed up in his care. I am advised that the patient notes record “no pain no swelling and no evidence of urgent treatment”. The assessment was that he would be booked for semi-urgent care and that the standard advice to patients and family is that if the person’s condition deteriorates he or she will be reassessed. There is no record for reassessment in this case. 
Lesley Soper 
: Does the Minister consider that the total number of publicly funded operations could be increased if more surgery were performed in private hospitals? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. As many surgeons work in both the public and private sectors performing more operations through the private sector would mean a corresponding reduction in the number of operations performed in the public sector. District health boards already fund operations through private hospitals where it is appropriate to do so. As private hospitals do not have the facilities for intensive care units it is not appropriate to carry out all surgery in the private sector particularly if there is a risk of complication so I think that those who say the answer to our problems is that we do more in private hospitals or use more private health insurance ought to rethink their strategy. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why does she continue to deny the facts around her failure to manage the New Zealand health system when only yesterday she denied the latest benchmark report that showed that 14 out of 21 district health boards failed to attend to serious conditions such as heart attacks massive bleeding and concussion within the target time frames with the nonsensical reply: “Any patients who present with these conditions should be seen within that time and I believe they are.”—that is nonsensical blather; why does she deny her own ministry’s facts? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: First of all I never denied the report. After all it is on the website for every New Zealander to look at—something that was never done under a National Government. Anybody can look up the benchmark report any day of the week. If the member were to speak to clinicians they would tell him that no person who has had a heart attack or who is haemorrhaging waits longer than he or she needs to. The way it is recorded is by recording the time on a computer when a person finally gets around to recording it. The specialists themselves say that that is a poor way to measure triage times and that it ought to be changed. 
Peter Brown 
: Has the Minister had the opportunity to study the document I tabled the other day in regard to Mr Anthony Russell or is she taking the same line as her colleague David Cunliffe who when he went to see Mr Russell promised everything and effectively did nothing; notwithstanding any of that when can I expect a response? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think it is fair to say that I always take seriously issues raised with me. In fact the leader of the member’s party raised an issue of a drug yesterday and asked when I would provide that information. I went straight back to my office and noted that I had sent a letter to Winston Peters on 10 May. I take these issues seriously and as members know I reply. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not think that I asked anything at all about what Winston Peters asked the Minister. I accept her explanation but I did ask about a Mr Anthony Russell who is no longer on any waiting list whatsoever. He is just one of the people who have been cast off. He has been to David Cunliffe who apparently promised help and did nothing. I have asked the Minister and I have tabled the documents; when will I get a response? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: When the member asked the question he made an assertion at the end of it of a general nature which is what the Minister replied to. If the Minister wishes to add to her answer she can feel free to do so. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I assured the member that I will give him a reply. That is what I did and I pointed out my record of giving replies. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Has the Minister seen any proposals that could have the effect of reducing the amount of money going into health and therefore making people such as Alvin Wright wait even longer for treatment? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I believe I have. I read the transcript of a speech by Rodney Hide yesterday in which he said we ought to be putting more money into the private sector and private medical insurance. I have also seen Treasury’s response to the notion of a rebate on private medical insurance. Treasury questions both the impact of private medical insurance on the length of waiting in the public sector and the effect of the growth in private medical insurance on spending in health. As Mr Hide quoted Treasury report after Treasury report as justification to attack Government health policy yesterday I have no doubt he will now withdraw his latest policy announcement. 
Rodney Hide 
: How can New Zealanders have any confidence in this Minister’s bluff and bluster about the health waiting lists when mothers like Beryl Wright know that the real truth is that their sons daughters husbands mothers and fathers are queued up in pain despite what this Minister claims—I can assure her that Alvin is in pain and so can Alvin’s mother and so can Alvin—and what will this Minister do for Beryl Wright’s son Alvin especially since the Minister seems to have plenty of money for sex-change operations and none for a dying man who is suffering to have his teeth repaired? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: First of all I think it is absolutely disgusting that Rodney Hide is using a person—talking about him dying—to try to make a cheap political point. If he really cared about Mrs Wright’s son he would have pursued this issue in the appropriate way. He did not. He chose to come to Parliament to show off. I say to Mrs Wright that if her son is in pain she should contact Capital and Coast District Health Board today because it has assured me that if a patient is in pain he or she will be seen immediately. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister further clarify—for the House and for the district health boards which seem unclear about the parameters in this matter—her earlier comments that there are certain conditions under which surgery can be performed in the private sector? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not think district health boards are unclear about the matter. For example under the orthopaedic project a number of district health boards are having major hip and knee replacement operations done in the private sector. In cataract surgery they are having operations done in the private sector. This is done by arrangement with the private sector through the district health board. District health boards are not confused as to what they can and cannot do. There are very clear protocols. In fact when we announced both of those projects we announced that if there was capacity in the private sector operations could be done in the private sector. 
Heather Roy 
: Does the Minister accept that her own answer to question for written answer No. 13655 and the September 1999 Heath Funding Authority report show that in September 1999 the total number of patients on all waiting lists was 176000 that her own answers to questions for written answer Nos 5986 and 5984 confirm that at the end of March 2005 the figure was 181000 and that there is no arguing that more people are waiting now than when she came to power? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: One of the features of the booking system introduced in 1998 is not how many people are on a list but how long they actually wait for first specialist assessment and for an operation. In 1999 50 percent of those waiting for first specialist assessment had waited longer than 6 months. As of now the number of people who have been waiting longer than 6 months is 21 percent. That is a huge drop in the waiting time for first specialist assessment something the member likes to raise all the time. She does not understand how the system works. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister think it is acceptable that cancer patients in Wellington who have endured anxiety and uncertainty for years about their ability to access cancer services at the one time in their lives when they need it now face double waiting times while the Wellington Cancer Centre is relocated; and given that this is a scheduled change is it too much to ask that there be planning to minimise this kind of disruption? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No it is not too much to ask and I am reassured by Dr David Lambie’s comments that this will be managed within the time frame that is expected. We are talking about a new linear accelerator—not a replacement—which is due in July next year and I am assured that they will have it by July next year. 
Heather Roy 
: Can the Minister then deny in light of her answer to my previous question that under her watch she has created the category of Active Review a category that hides over 29000 patients which her own ministry defines as patients “for whom surgery is the best option but can’t get it within the current funding or provider capacity”; why is it then that 2138 of those suffering patients have been waiting for over 2 years and 90 of those for over 4 years? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister not think that her desperation is scraping the barrel given that she criticises Mrs Beryl Wright for coming to see a member of Parliament to seek help for her son; this Minister simply says she should try and get in touch with Capital and Coast District Health Board even though Mrs Beryl Wright went to Capital and Coast District Health Board filled out all the forms waited day after day and heard nothing then rang after 3 weeks only to be dismissed and told that Alvin would have to wait at least a year and then rang again but could not get any sense out of Capital and Coast District Health Board; after that Alvin’s caregiver was so concerned as to pursue the matter and now finally Alvin has an appointment on 31 July for a reassessment; why is she critical of Mrs Beryl Wright who simply wants her son treated? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Minister it is probably appropriate to remind members of the discussion that we had yesterday that both questions and answers should be given concisely. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I certainly did not criticise Mrs Wright; I criticised Mr Hide. 
Heather Roy 
: What reassurance does the Minister think her answers will be to the families of two men who were admitted to Wellington Hospital twice for heart surgery were twice sent home and who died while on her waiting list for their third attempts at operations that they obviously needed; does she stand by her statement that people are not dying of the condition that they are on the waiting list for? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Unfortunately people who are booked for elective surgery do have their operations cancelled sometimes. They are usually cancelled because somebody has had a car accident or a heart attack and those people take priority in terms of the theatre. Unfortunately that does happen and there is very little we can do about it because we must take those people in priority order. There have always been people who have died on a waiting list but when we looked at the numbers that that member provided to the New Zealand public and did a search of those numbers we found that few if any had died of the condition for which they were waiting for treatment—they were waiting to have cataracts or knee replacements done. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Died of old age! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes some did die of old age. That is correct because people do die when they become old. But they did not die of the condition they were on the waiting list for as that member dishonestly said to the public. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In the answer to the first supplementary question from the ACT member the Minister read out what must have been personal and confidential information from a patient record. I have listened to many debates about waiting-list patients over the years and that would be the first time that that has happened in the House. I would be interested to know whether you regard it as fit and proper that a Minister of Health has access to confidential medical records of individual patients. I also ask the Minister to table the document from which she read out so the House can see whether that was confidential personal medical information. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: This issue arose once before and I think it was actually Mr Richard Prebble who gave the most complete and useful comment on it. Once a member in the House raises a question about an individual patient presumably with the permission of that patient then it must be presumed that permission has been given to release all details. Otherwise the Minister cannot possibly answer the question or the accusations that have been raised. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not any more assistance but thank you for your contributions. It is not for the Speaker to judge whether it is fit and proper for a Minister to have access to official information. I make that point to begin with. But as members are aware there is no privacy rule as such in this House according to Speaker’s ruling 49/1. Whether personal details should be mentioned by any members or Ministers is of course a matter for the judgment of the members or Ministers themselves and in the context of the matter having been raised as has been mentioned then that has been considered to be appropriate. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I accept your ruling but this is really a matter of parliamentary behaviour. The question is not so much whether the information can be presented to the House—it certainly can be—as whether the Minister has broken the law by having access to that confidential information. Health legislation states that for people to have access to that confidential information they have to fit a definition in relation to a public agency. If the Minister does not fit that definition then she would be in breach of the law. The second point is that documents were quoted from and I can therefore ask the Minister to table those documents and then we can ascertain their nature. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: In answer to the first point I say that it is not for the Speaker to say whether the Minister has broken the law. On the second point I ask the Minister whether she was quoting from an official document and I say that if she was it should be tabled. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I was not and I tell the House that Alvin Wright’s case has been in the newspaper. 
Rodney Hide 
: Putting aside her criticisms of me for trying to help at least one New Zealander— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will come to the supplementary question please. 
Rodney Hide 
: Actually the rules are quite simple Madam Speaker: if a Minister has a crack at someone who asks a question then just as you ruled that the Minister can take a cheap shot back so too can the person asking the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What is the question please? 
Rodney Hide 
: If you let me finish I will ask it but I keep getting interrupted by the Labour members behind me who are trying to cover for their Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please ask his supplementary question. 
Rodney Hide 
: Putting aside the Minister’s criticisms of me for trying to help at least one person out of the 180000 on the waiting list what can she say that her great health system can do for Alvin Wright who I can assure her is in pain and having difficulty eating because of his decayed teeth and toothache—what can she do for Alvin? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can assure the member that if Alvin Wright is in pain and is having difficulty in eating then he will be seen in the health system as soon as possible. 
Heather Roy 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table several documents. The first is question for written answer No. 13655. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Heather Roy 
: The second is a table of the first specialist assessment numbers on the waiting list in September 1999. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Heather Roy 
: The final documents are parliamentary questions Nos 5986 and 5984 confirming a number of 181000 patients on the waiting list. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek leave to table Ministry of Health figures obtained under the Official Information Act showing the number of people on active review as at 31 December 2004 and showing the great amount of time they have been waiting in this category. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek leave to table a newspaper report from the  
Dominion Post  
dated 30 May 2003— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Heather Roy 
: Nobody actually knows what this newspaper article states because I was not given the opportunity to outline it. They do not even know what they are objecting to. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am afraid that the Government takes the position that it objects to the tabling of almost all newspaper articles on the grounds that those articles are already in the public arena. It is a waste of parliamentary time to seek leave to table them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member wishes to re-put her point of order and describe the document she may well do so and we will do it again. Does the member wish to do that again? 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am dealing with the first point that was raised and then I am happy to take the member’s point of order. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a newspaper article from the  
Dominion Post 
 of 30 May 2003 which outlines the cases of the two men who died while waiting for heart surgery at Wellington Hospital and who were readmitted twice before they died. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. While my colleague Heather Roy was seeking leave to table those documents which any member of Parliament is perfectly entitled to do you sat by and allowed Trevor Mallard and Michael Cullen to heckle someone seeking leave. They were calling out and I am sure that members opposite will all agree with me. I am appalled that the Speaker would allow that to happen when someone is seeking leave. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You asked whether there was objection and we said “Yes”. 
Simon Power 
: Just to assist Mr Hide he is dead right when he described the situation that occurred. While Ms Roy was trying to describe the content of the document during a point of order the Minister of Education interjected upon her. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: My recollection is that after Ms Roy started you asked whether there was objection we said “Yes” and she kept on going. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I am sorry that was my recollection too and— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I am—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That comment from the member is totally out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please withdraw and apologise. 
Rodney Hide 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. What I was about to say was that I think it was a question of timing. I apologise to the member if I interrupted her before she felt she had clearly identified the article. I thought she had. She was given another opportunity to do so. The process then went on. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not believe that what you have described is in fact what we observed. I was sitting exactly opposite the Minister of Education and while you did ask whether there was any objection the Minister said “Yes”. But then subsequent to that he went on to interject while a point of order was still in process. You ejected me from the House for exactly that same offence not so long ago and it is important for both sides of this House to be treated equally. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The point of order raised by Heather Roy was over at the point where you had sought whether there was objection. The point of course is that it is necessary to give information only sufficient to identify the document. The practice has been growing in recent weeks to try to read out the entire document for which leave is sought for tabling. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This matter has been dealt with. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this a new point of order? 
Rodney Hide 
: Yes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As long as it is not on the matter that has already been dealt with. 
Rodney Hide 
: Of course not. What Mr Cullen just said was totally untrue. Heather Roy did not seek to read out the entire article. Of course that would be wrong. The confusion is this. Ms Heather Roy was seeking several points of order to table several documents. Leave was denied for one document. When she sought leave to table the next document that is when the members opposite interjected. They were not saying “No” to the previous document; they had already done that. But they continued to badger her while she was seeking a point of order and that was the purpose of it: to badger someone because they did not believe she should be seeking that point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I have ruled on the point of order.