Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:667;Page:14417] 
6. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by his statement in relation to health funding that “the important thing is not how much extra money they’re getting—it’s what extra services you are getting as a taxpayer”? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Every district health board provides several hundred different services each year to meet the changing needs of its population. Under this Government front-line services overall are increasing as has the budget by $512 million this year. So I do stand by that statement. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does he agree that taxpayers see the services of an overnight supervisor in an IHC home as a front-line service? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes. There is no doubt that taxpayers would see the provision of front-line services in an IHC home as being important. The issues that have been raised by the current court action are quite significant for New Zealand and those matters are being dealt with presently. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Will he put the extra money in to support those front-line workers in the health and disability sector to ensure that people with intellectual disabilities will not have to return to live in the large institutions of the past or will he continue to refuse to provide the funding to pay those staff the minimum wage? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I can tell the member that when her party was in Government it was briefed on this matter and no action was taken. The case has very significant implications for the rest of the economy and the liability in fact rests with the provider. A few days ago the Labour Party promised $270 million— 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: —to remove GST from fruit— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been called. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: —and now it is promising— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: —$500 million of back-pay. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister took absolutely no notice of the Speaker on his feet. That is not acceptable. 
Hon Annette King 
: I listened very carefully to my colleague’s question and then I listened carefully to the answer and the Minister immediately went into a description of Labour’s policy. The member asked a very straight question about what the Government—this Government—would do. We did not hear an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the first part of the Minister’s answer was acceptable in that he did not refer to Labour Party policy but to what the previous Government had done. Ministers can report what the previous Government has done. However when the member got to her feet on a point of order he then started to go into what the Labour Party may have said or done recently. That is not a matter of ministerial responsibility. I invite the Hon Ruth Dyson to repeat her question so that we can all hear exactly what the question is and I invite the Minister to answer it again. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Will he put in the extra money needed to support front-line workers in the health and disability sector to ensure that people with intellectual disabilities will not have to return to live in the large institutions of the past; or will he continue to refuse to provide the funding to pay those staff the minimum wage? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am advised that the member’s Government was briefed on this matter and took no action whatsoever—hence the court case. The case has very significant implications for the rest of the economy and the Government is clear that the back-pay liability rests with the provider. Once the court case has been completed the Government will review its options going forward but the liability rests with the provider even though the Labour Party has promised to pay the $500 million in back-pay. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the House to show a little respect. I have called Dr Paul Hutchison. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What reports has he received recently on increased front-line services? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: In recent months the Government has announced that the number of patients receiving elective surgery in the past year increased by over 8000—more than four times the average achieved under the previous Government. Today I can inform the member that as well as this very large increase in elective surgery the number of people benefiting from urgent or acute surgery has increased by nearly 4000. This means that in the last financial year over 12000 more patients have benefited from additional surgery both acute and elective which is yet another example of improved front-line services under the National-led Government. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Has the Prime Minister expressed any concern about the Minister’s refusal to pay the IHC caregivers the minimum wage? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Prime Minister has expressed to me his view that the liability lies with the provider. It is extraordinary that within a week of promising to spend $270 million to take GST off fruit and vegetables Labour is promising another $500 million for back-pay and another $80 million ongoing. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is in support of the earlier one raised by the deputy leader of the Labour Party. As a diversionary tactic Ministers are not allowed to refer to the policies of the Opposition party; they have to be responsible for their own policies and what they are doing and speak about those with some conviction. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point of order the member is making but he knows it is a long practice in this House that Ministers make passing references. In all my 26 years in the House to me the important issue is that the Minister should answer a question before making any such reference at all. If I try to stop Ministers making any such reference I think I would be departing a fair way from previous practice—as long as it is no more than just in passing. I believe that the Minister made that reference in passing. But Ministers should be careful how much they assert that any other parties in this House have certain policies because they are not responsible for those policies at all. The member is quite right. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How long is he prepared to leave the IHC caregivers in limbo before he decides whether their employers who are now in statutory management are given the funding to fulfil the contract determined by the Employment Court last year under his watch? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: As the member would know that contract was signed under the previous Government. I can tell that member that we will await the outcome of the court case but unlike the party opposite we will not be paying the $500 million back-pay which is a liability that rests with the provider. If that party opposite thinks it has $500 million to spare on that matter then it should explain where it is coming from.