Roy Heather: Budget Debate 
Roy Heather: Budget Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:21105] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 The member who has just sat down is participating heavily in Dianne Yates’ world of fantasy that she was describing before and I can see why two of the Labour Party members would want to move across to this side of the House: they do not want to be part of that fantasy. In fact Mr Hughes had to speak very fast purely so people would not understand what he was saying—and the fantasy caught out. 
This Budget is going to go down in history as being the “Great New Zealand Disappointment of 2005”. The deep dark secret that the Labour Party president kept telling New Zealanders about did not eventuate. There were no tax cuts in this Budget despite the fact that the Minister of Finance announced a $7.4 billion surplus. The Budget contained no surprises in health either. There were very few surprises because everything had been pre-announced in the election bribes. The election-year bribing began very early. In the area of health the Government announced funding of $17 million for cataract surgery which was a bribe to the elderly so that Labour’s vote would be shored up in a few weeks’ time. A couple of months ago the $40 million Cancer Control Strategy was announced then re-announced in the Budget. Despite $40 million being announced only $5 million will go towards the very necessary area of treatment. In fact it was much more about being a good photo opportunity for the Prime Minister and her Minister of Health—looking very much like the wicked stepmother from  
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs 
—when they handed apples out to school children. 
Most things were announced some time ago. I had been predicting for a couple of months that Vote Health would see an extra $1 billion being poured in—and I was right by the way. Adding that extra $1 billion to Vote Health in election year is totally unprecedented. At no time in New Zealand’s history has this amount of money been poured into one particular area in one go. That money is unsustainable. The explosion to the $1 billion is to be spent in the following way. The sum of $550 million the annual increase already announced is just to tread water. Then there was Labour’s 2005 election bribe. Actually the bribe happened in 1999 but did not eventuate until this year. It will come into being on 1 July. An extra $110 million a year for asset testing was the biggest bribe but that will cover only an extra 333 patients in rest homes. It is nowhere near enough to cover the $150000 threshold. There was an extra $145 million for the nurses’ pay jolt an extra $61 million a year just to cover the Labour Government’s legislation the Holidays Act an additional $50 million for aged care services and an extra $50 million for demographics and numerous other announcements. 
The tragedy about this extra $1 billion in health funding is that the health gain is near non-existent. So as Radio New Zealand reported this morning it is an extra $1 billion with no extra services—and the Minister of Health was not even proud enough of her Budget announcements to be present in the country when they were announced this year. That was on Radio New Zealand this morning. 
So what will this Budget mean for New Zealanders? Will waiting lists drop? I doubt it. They have done nothing but rise since 2001. At the moment we have 120000 New Zealanders waiting to see a specialist for the first time. That number is rising rapidly. Sixty-one thousand patients have seen a specialist and have been told they need further treatment. That number is rising. Of those 30000 patients are parked on the Government’s hidden waiting list—the waiting list to get on the waiting list that of active review. Of those 2138 people have been waiting for their surgery for over 2 years. The Government has said that no one will wait longer than 6 months but 2138 people have been waiting for over 2 years. Of those 90 have been waiting for surgery for over 4 years and 15 have been waiting for surgery for over 5 years. One person has been waiting for surgery for over 8 years and that is a disgrace. So $1 billion has been poured into health but that person is still not going to get an operation. 
Let us look at operations. The Minister of Health’s own answers to questions showed that in the 2000-01 financial year there were 269000 surgical case-weighted discharges. That figure rose over 3 years to 272000—a measly increase of 1.3 percent in operations. The population grew 4.3 percent in that same time but the number of case-weighted discharges over those 3 years actually dropped. It is another disgrace. Members of this Government stand up day after day in this House and tell us what a great job they are doing in health and how many more operations are being performed. But when one considers population growth the number has actually decreased. 
The Minister of Health might not be very worried about hospital deficits but the Minister of Finance is extremely worried about them—so much so that in the specific fiscal risks in the back of the Budget booklet he said under the heading “District Health Board Deficits”: “Initial draft  
District Annual Plans 
 from District Health Boards for 2005/06 indicate deficits in the order of $100 million”—this after the Minister announced in 2002 a 3-year funding pathway of an extra $400 million injected into health every single year and deficits down to zero in 3 years. The Minister of Health said not to worry just to wait 3 years and everything would come right by itself. Now in the 2005-06 year deficits of $100 million have been indicated—and guess what? In the year 2006-07 another $100 million deficit is projected. Again it is another disgrace. 
Health in this country is in a very very sorry state and no one is in a better position to tell us just how sorry it is than Treasury. The  
Treasury Report: Budget Bilateral 2005 Health 
 went on to the website on Thursday last week after I sent in an Official Information Act request. It states: The Health Allocation in Budget 2005 represents approximately a 10% increase in the size of Vote Health.” That would be all well and good if there were any more health services but of course Treasury has told us in the last 2 years that there is no improvement and that this growth pattern is unsustainable. It has asked the Minister of Finance to request that the Minister of Health stay within her funding allocation. In fact its specific recommendation was to “request the Minister to re-submit her Budget 2005 to include … a re-prioritisation of her current proposals so that total expenditure comes within the Allocation; and … a demonstration of how she will manage known risks so that expenditure remains within the agreed funding track …”. Well that is not about to happen because the Minister of Health has absolutely no control over the spending in this vote. 
Treasury also notes the risks around district health board deficits particularly Auckland which we know is in terrible financial strife. It has asked that the Ministry of Health agree to target key district health boards and reduce the deficits there. Treasury recommendations were to “defer discussion on the roll-out of the Health Funding Package until work on sustainability of funding is completed”. It also noted that it “has not had any input into the $750 million roll-out figure proposed by the Ministry”. So here we have a Minister of Health and a Ministry of Health merrily giving out money and Treasury has not even been consulted. 
Treasury also noted that the health allocation represents approximately 40 percent of additional Government spending for Budget 2005—a huge amount of money—as well as an extra $167 million for pressures in the current year. It goes on to state that in out-years the money will be poured in and it raises grave concerns about the sustainability of health funding. That is from Treasury which actually can do its sums. “The Allocation” it stated “was intended to be all-inclusive allowing the Minister of Health to prioritise within the funding available.” But it does not think that is about to happen either. 
So what responsibility will Annette King take for the 61000 people waiting for surgery and the 120000 people waiting to see a specialist for the first time? The answer is none; she thinks it is not her job to take responsibility. What responsibility does she take for the 7 percent increase in hospital funding but only a 1.5 percent increase in outputs? None. The health system is heading for a crisis as soon as the economy softens. Annette King should resign. This is a sign of Labour’s failed ideology. The answer is to introduce the private sector to reduce hospital waiting lists.