7. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) Link to this
to the Minister of Health
How many calls were made to Plunketline (excluding calls transferred from Healthline) in the month of October 2005, and how many of these were answered?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) Link to this
The total number of calls answered in October was 5,155. The non-response rate, however, was over 80 percent. The non-response rate is why I announced last week that the Government will contract directly for a Plunketline service. The tender process is now under way.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister failed to answer the question. I have been specific, because I have some information here that he could have confirmed. I asked about the total number of calls and the number of calls that would have been answered, excluding the Healthline transfers, and he has given me a figure that includes the Healthline transfers. I think he should address the question and provide the information that was sought. The question has been on notice for some hours.
Madam SPEAKERI put all this information into the public area last week. If the member wants to know the number of calls answered by Plunketline that came directly to Plunketline in the month of October, the answer is 3,425. The reason I gave the higher number is that a number of calls are made to Healthline and then directed to Plunketline, and it seemed to me that it would give the member a better idea.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to labour this point, but we do need to have the information. There were two questions: how many calls were made to Plunketline, and how many calls were answered? We know that 3,425 were answered. Now the Minister should be able to tell us how many were actually made.
I think that the Minister, through both his answers, has addressed the question, but the member may like to redirect a supplementary question.
The Minister, however, has addressed the question. Ministers are not required to answer specifically with yes or no answers. They are required, however, to address the question.
Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. When the Speaker is speaking to this House, it is a requirement that members of Parliament sit down—even if the member is a Government poodle like Mr Peters.
Mr Hide, you always spoil your points of order with irrelevant comments. Yes, you were right that members should remain seated, but I was not on my feet. Can we recommence with a supplementary question from the Rt Hon Winston Peters—no, a point of order first.
Ron MarkI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the light of Mr Hide’s point of order, I also remind you that you have already given a final warning for people who interject whilst a point of order is being made. Whilst the Hon Tony Ryall was making his point of order to you Mr Hide interjected, calling Mr Peters a “poodle” across the floor of the House. That was an interjection during a point of order, after a final warning, and I ask that you exercise your authority and chuck him out of the House as he deserves—he has nothing to offer.
No, he was actually on his feet making a point of order, but he made an irrelevant comment in the course of it.
He made the comment long before the point of order was taken by him, Madam Speaker. He was sitting in the seat, as he is now, talking while you were talking and hearing a point of order.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Does the Minister have any reports on Plunketline’s success over the years, particularly in the year 1999 when National’s leader, Jenny Shipley, shut it down?
I certainly have. The issue around funding for Plunketline in the late 1990s, when the member who asked the primary question was in Cabinet but when the member who asked the first supplementary question had already left the Government, was a mean and foolish part of our recent history, characterised by, amongst other things, Plunketline shutting down for months through lack of funding.
I seek leave, before I seek the call to ask another supplementary question, to table the answer to question for written answer No. 8978, which shows that last month 3,425 calls to Plunketline were answered out of a total number of calls of 26,453. That is why he would not tell me the information.
Lynne Pillay
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House needs to know that that was a patsy supplementary question from a junior Labour Party back-bencher, written on a piece of paper—
When only 3,425 calls were answered out of 26,453 calls made last month—87 percent of calls to Plunketline are going unanswered, and it has got worse since the Healthline and Plunketline merger—why has it taken this Government so long to realise that Annette King’s merger was a complete and utter failure?
The House may be interested to learn that McKessons, who run Healthline, and Plunket, who run Plunketline, wrote to the Ministry of Health in August 2003, stating: “We want to assure you that we share your desire to ensure a fully functioning, integrated national Healthline service.” People thought it would work, and when Plunket came to the Government a few months ago and said it would take a direct contract in preference to that, we said it would be fine by us.
Why has the Government ignored endless correspondence from Plunket regarding dissatisfaction with Annette King’s merger of Plunketline and Healthline, and why did the Government arrogantly ignore the concerns of Plunket and of the desperate parents who were trying to get help?
I say again to the House that Plunket believed that an integrated service would work and said so in writing, and that is why it was embarked upon. It is clear, after a bit of learning by doing, that a direct contract between the Government and Plunket, which will be tendered for in due course, will work better.
How does this Government’s support for Plunketline compare with recent history in respect of dissatisfaction with service?
What an excellent question! It is now known that Plunket was so frustrated with the previous National Government that two rallies were organised in the late 1990s. Plunketline was shut down, through lack of funding, in 1999. It was then opened again, but only for part of the day and only at $400,000 a year. That was the level of support that National was prepared to give Plunketline when the member who asked the primary question was a member of Cabinet. When there was a change of Government the funding was doubled to more than $1 million, and now Healthline and Plunketline, between them, are working with about $10 million. There is a much higher level of support now than there was when the member who asked the primary question was a member of the executive.
Lindsay TischI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that New Zealand First has four supplementary questions and that it has taken four. It is not entitled to any more.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall, Madam Speaker, that you ruled out the first two supplementary questions. That being the case, we have one to go.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
How can you count a question that has been ruled out? Usually one is given the right to rephrase the question, which is a privilege that you did not extend to me. I seek leave to ask one more question.
I was going to suggest to the member that he can always seek leave. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hone HarawiraHe aha ngā mahi kua wakaritea e te Kāwana i ēnei tau 2005 ki te 2006 kia ōrite ai te utu o ngā nēhi, arā, wērā o Te Rōpū Tiaki Tamariki a Plunket, me Ngā Nēhi Māori ā-Rohe, ki ngā nēhi e mahi ana mō ngā Pōari Hauora ā-Rohe?
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[What provisions has the Government considered for the years 2005-06, to ensure that nurses working outside district health boards, such as Plunket or Māori community health workers, receive salaries on a par with district health board nurses?]
Some nurses are employed by the Government and some nurses are employed through non-governmental organisations. The Government is responsible for the setting of the salaries of the first group of nurses.
How, when the Minister is reported as saying he was shocked to discover that only one in seven calls to Plunketline were being answered—saying: “You couldn’t rate it as a success.”—can he explain those comments, when Mrs King said on behalf of the Government, in light of facing the same rate of unanswered calls earlier this year, that she was pretty relaxed about the situation that six out of seven people calling Plunketline could not get anyone to answer the phone?
The hope has been, and had been for some time, that an improved use of software and triaging facilities would improve the non-response rate. That has proved, with the experience of time, not to be the case.
If this Labour Government cannot even arrange a decent telephone service to deal with 26,000 phone calls—[ Interruption]
Would people please keep their chatter down. [ Interruption] Those were not interjections; they were comments—[] Then I am sorry, but half of this side of the House will have to go, too. The interjections have been the problem, but members do keep the level of chatter at unacceptable levels.
If the Government cannot arrange a decent telephone service to deal with 26,000 phone calls from desperate parents who need some advice, how can the public have any confidence at all that this Minister could manage the hundreds of thousands of phone calls that would need to be answered during a possible bird flu pandemic?
What the member does not know, and neither do I, is how many people are not getting through. We do know how many phone calls are not being answered. Plunketline invites people to ring back. Plunket has, apparently, analysed how many phone numbers the unanswered calls come from, and it estimates that the unmet demand is much lower than the unanswered calls would indicate.