6. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) Link to this
to the Minister of Health
Does he stand by his earlier statement rating the health system 5½ out of 10, and why?
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Health) Link to this
The member asked the same question on 1 May, and my reply will be the same. I mark the health system as continually improving and expanding because the Labour-Progressive Government, assisted by its support parties, has always made health investment a continuing high priority and will continue to do so. As an indication of that, the Commonwealth Fund, a highly regarded American foundation, in a report recently released, compared the New Zealand health system with that of five other higher-income nations and found our system best for patient-centred care and No. 2 for efficiency. This nails the myth about low productivity that the misinformed regularly spread.
Does he recall the statement of Annette King in 2004 in which she crowed that New Zealand had scored top overall place in the respected Commonwealth Fund’s survey of five developed countries’ health systems, and how does he explain the latest report, released overnight, which shows New Zealand has fallen from No. 1 to No. 2 to No. 4 over successive reports?
One of these days, the shroud-waving Mr Ryall will find something good to say about the health system of New Zealand—
Madam SPEAKERIf he wants a comparison—say, with the United States of America, which has the most developed economy in the world—I will tell him New Zealand spends one-third less per capita on its health system, for a much better result than the Americans get. When I hear Mr Ryall praising the productivity of the New Zealand health system against that, I will almost be gobsmacked by the positivity that he displays, for once in his life.
Ann HartleyOn what basis does the Government claim that the health system is continually improving and expanding, and would he like to give examples?
There are so many examples that I would not think the House would give me enough time to give them. Just a few examples are that immunisation rates are up, infant mortality is down, smoking is down, breast screening is up, mental health services are way better than they were, there are more nurses, there are more doctors, there is more transparency, there is better primary health care, there are lower doctors’ fees, there is more elective surgery, and there is a longer life expectancy—and, of course, there are more complaints from Mr Ryall.
Has he seen the press statement of the Hon Pete Hodgson in which he crows that New Zealand rated second in the 2005 overall survey of health systems, and can the Minister explain how it can be that after the Government has spent an extra $4 billion each year, New Zealand’s rating has fallen year on year; what makes him think spending another $750 million on the health system tomorrow will reverse that trend?
I would have thought rating between one and four in a comparative table with Australia, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States was pretty good news. If Mr Ryall does not believe me, he should listen to what the report says: “The U.S. can learn from what physicians have to say about practices that can lead to better management of chronic conditions and better coordination of care. Information systems in countries like Germany, New Zealand, and the U.K. enhance the ability of physicians to monitor chronic conditions and medication use. These countries also routinely employ non-physician clinicians such as nurses to assist with managing patients with chronic diseases.” This is a testament to the productivity of the New Zealand health system, and one day Mr Ryall is going to give praise where it is due, instead of being the ambulance chaser that he is.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
In view of the last question by Mr Tony Ryall, is the Minister aware that only a couple of weeks ago, on radio, the Opposition spokesperson on finance, Mr English, said we needed to spend about $600 million to $700 million a year more on health just to keep pace with demand?
Nothing would surprise me about the inconsistency of the Opposition. It continually asks for more spending while promising to give away even more money, which the Government then will not have to spend on the health system, as this Government has done.
New Zealand is first in one of the six categories. It is second in another category, third in another, and equal fourth in the rest. I would have thought that one of these days that kind of record might actually get through even to Mr Ryall as being a very good performance on the world stage.
Will the Minister of Health, Mr Hodgson, be returning from Wales, where he has been advising the Labour Party there on how to form a stable Government, and has he told the Labour Party—
Hon Annette KingPlease be seated. Would the member please just ask the question, and would the other members please have the courtesy to listen to it without intervention. Just ask the question straight.
Will the Minister be returning from Wales, where he has been giving advice to the Labour Party there on how to form a stable Government, and has Mr Hodgson told the Labour Party there that it too must now rely on the Greens?
As far as I know, Mr Hodgson comes back on Monday. I do know that he has been enjoying, from a distance, the silly questions that Mr Ryall asks and the very good answers that the Acting Minister is giving to him in the House.
Dr Jackie BlueCan the Minister explain why, according to a recent international review of 25 countries—which included Australia, the United Kingdom, the USA, and most of the European Union—with a combined population of almost 1 billion people, only Poland invests less than New Zealand in cancer medicines; and is he at all concerned that New Zealanders’ access to cancer medicines could best be described as Third World?
This Labour-Progressive Government, with the assistance of its support parties, has increased the investment in health by 59 percent in the period it has been in Government. It ill behoves a party that promises to give away tax cuts to the richest New Zealanders, and that would inevitably be cutting health expenditure to this country, to call for even more expenditure. If the member had a modicum of economic understanding, she would know that National’s leadership has promised it will not have that money to spend on the health system in New Zealand.
I seek leave to table a copy of the 2004 Commonwealth Fund survey, which shows New Zealand rated as the No. 1 health system.
I seek leave to table the Commonwealth Fund 2005 survey, which shows New Zealand with the second-best overall health system.
I seek leave to table the latest Commonwealth Fund survey, which shows New Zealand dropping to fourth.