King Annette: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Annette: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 11 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8917. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that “we’ve slowed the growth of public spending” given growth in health spending has slowed from over 9 percent under Labour to just 2.6 percent over the last five years and what impact has this had on district health boards?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes. If we had maintained the rates of growth in public spending that we inherited from Labour New Zealand would have owed $100 billion more in debt by 2021 and the debt to GDP ratio would have grown to 60 percent rather than the 30 percent that we have reduced it to. Although health expenditure has grown by $4 billion we have focused on the quality of spending with district health boards delivering more services to Kiwis than ever before.Hon Annette King: If an increase of 2.6 percent is OK by him how does he explain the insufficient funding being given to the Canterbury District Health Board for mental health services to cope with an increasing number of cases of people suffering mental trauma arising from the earthquakes?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: There is not insufficient funding. I was down in Canterbury at the start of November. I announced an injection of an extra $13 million to that district health board part of which would be used for mental health services at the discretion of the chief executive officer. So that member might run her political argument but it is not the truth.Hon Annette King: Is he denying that he has been told that Canterbury District Health Board mental health figures show that child and youth cases are up 67 percent rural adult cases are up 80 percent and adult psychiatric assessments at emergency departments are up 102 percent since 2012 increases that are way out of line with other district health boards?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would have to check those figures but I can tell the member that I was meeting with the Mayor of Christchurch this morning and I was down in Canterbury last week making an announcement. The fact is obviously that there have been unusual pressures in Canterbury over the last 5 years. The Government has supported the people of Canterbury with an extra $70 million on top of the extra $254 million that has gone in over the last 7 years and it is up to the chief executive to make sure that he provides within that budget the services that the people of Canterbury need.Hon Annette King: In light of some people recognising demand and circumstances in Canterbury why is mental health funding at the Canterbury District Health Board significantly below the national average for mental health services as highlighted by the chief executive at the select committee yesterday?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would absolutely dispute that. I mean the fact is that mental health funding is ring-fenced. There have been extra injections of funding into Canterbury—an extra $70 million. Also we have had special programmes to actually promote awareness around mental health issues down there. More and more money has gone into Canterbury—an extra $254 million over 7 years. It is a huge budget and the chief executive has to make decisions at his discretion in order to provide the services that people down there need. It is a far cry from when Annette King injected another $3 billion and delivered less.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just wonder whether you could give a ruling later as to whether this year we are going to have the Ministerbringing up at the end of his answers in all his answers the fact that I was a Minister 11 years ago in order to justify his own inadequacy.Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a good point and the last part of the answer from the Minister was not going to help the order of the House. On this occasion I was possibly more lenient than normal in that in the very primary question the member asking the question has actually taken the opportunity to bring into the question the previous Government’s record. So I think that gives a little more leeway to the Minister but I would also be grateful if the Minister could refrain from normally putting in a flick at a previous health Ministertowards the end of his answer. [Interruption] Order! I am not going to put up with that amount of interjection coming from my right-hand side. Supplementary question to be asked by the member. Otherwise we will move on.Hon Annette King: Why did the Government turn a blind eye to the request for an additional $4.1 million for mental health services in Canterbury 2 years ago and even as recently as 2 months ago the director-general was told by the district health board: “There is an increased demand particularly for women children youth and new entrants to school who are demonstrating developmental delay and parental distress.”?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well that is absolutely incorrect. I mean I was down there in November announcing the extra $13 million and that is more than ample to cover the $4 million that Canterbury said was necessary to cover mental health demands. So you have got to get your facts straight.Hon Annette King: Why is the Minister not aware that the $16 million he gave to the district health board was not in fact for mental health services but was in fact for deficit support; not for additional mental health services? I would have thought he would know that—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No that is totally incorrect. That is money that the chief executive can use at his discretion to fund the services that the people of Canterbury need. Those are the facts.Hon Annette King: Why is the Ministry of Health not passing on information to the district health board about detainees arriving from Australia with mental health problems who are adding to the burden for under-funded mental health services in that region?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look all that bluster sounds like a great conspiracy but in actual fact there are very clear lines of communication between the ministry and the Canterbury District Health Board and to suggest otherwise is totally mischievous. You know that.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table from 26 January this year a hospital advisory committee meeting report saying—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! In tabling documents a member is required [Interruption]—hold on—to nominate what the document is and give us the date both of which were done but it is not an opportunity to then detail the contents. I will now put the leave and the House will decide.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You must surely want a little bit of an idea about what it is about. It could be about any old thing.Mr SPEAKER: I have got enough of an idea and it is actually more for my information as to whether I put the leave. The House will decide whether it wants the information. But as we had yesterday on one occasion the tabling of documents is not an opportunity to make political points; it is about informing members. Members have enough information I am sure for what is being given. It does not need to be described further. I will put the leave. The House will decide. Leave is sought to table that particular medical information dated 26 January. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Once again I would like you to consider this because the reason why I wanted to table it—if you listen the Minister disputed that I was telling the truth.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have put the leave the document will be tabled and that is the end of the matter. Does the member have further supplementary questions?Hon Annette King: No I think I have used them all.