Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7629] 
6.  
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by his statement “I have to say having sat through question time today I think the decisions and announcements that are being made are entirely defendable and make sense.”? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 In response to a question about reports from Nick Smith on accident compensation funding changes to a programme to prevent over-80s from falling yes I did make those comments and I stand by them. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Will he review the evidence from Norway and British Columbia that shows that for every dollar invested in the falls prevention programme New Zealand saves $2; and will he then ask his colleague Nick Smith to reinstate the falls prevention programme? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am not aware of the veracity of the figures quoted by the member because I have experience of relying on the figures that that member quotes. What I can say is the Government is concerned about the injury prevention situation in New Zealand. Since the injury prevention strategy— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise for interrupting but there was concern over what the Minister said. I ask the Minister whether he actually alleged that the member had not been telling the truth about figures. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No Mr Speaker I did not say that. I said that I have had some experience of the veracity of some of the figures the member gives. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought that the Minister had used the word “lying” and that would be totally unacceptable. If the Minister denies it then I totally accept his word. I ask the Minister to be careful about questioning the integrity of a member. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Since the Injury Prevention Strategy was launched by the member in 2003 to some great fanfare the frequency of falls amongst the over-75s has continued to rise according to the latest available information. 
Hon David Parker 
: That’s because there are more people over 75. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The frequency—that is on a per head of population basis—has continued to rise so it obviously needs more than one programme. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What programmes contributing to falls prevention does the Ministry of Health fund? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am advised that the Ministry of Health funds a number of programmes. One is with Age Concern which in turn funds a number of falls prevention programmes such as the Steady As You Go programme in Otago which provides exercise and falls prevention for up to 300 people at any given time. Other falls prevention programmes include for example Stay On Your Feet Canterbury run by the partnership primary health organisation and in the Wairarapa there is the Whoops! programme. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does he have any evidence that the cancellation of the falls prevention work and the shifting of the cost of preventable falls to the elderly will be anything other than a disaster? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is a very difficult question to answer because of the way that it is phrased but I can tell the member that if someone has a fall his or her costs are met by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) and the ACC has made some decisions about that programme. But the fact that the number of falls amongst the over-75s has continued to rise despite that member’s Injury Prevention Strategy indicates that the issue is far more complex than just one programme. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How many more elderly will be admitted to hospital in extreme pain and will require surgery and rehabilitation as a result of the cancellation of the falls prevention programme and what will be the increased cost to our health system and to New Zealand taxpayers? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I do not have that information of course but I can tell the member that she launched the Injury Prevention Strategy in 2003 with the goal of reducing the number of falls in those over 75 and the figure has gone up in every year since she launched it. That is the reason why we need a multiplicity of programmes and approaches not just one.