3. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this
to the Minister of Health
Does he stand by all his statements regarding health services?
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) Link to this
Yes, including the statement that despite doubling the health budget, the previous Government got less for it.
Does he still support the Southland and Otago district health boards cutting home support services; if so, what does he say to Lisa Gray, who said in her local paper: “When mum’s home help is cut her meals on wheels will end, too. Receiving help is a prerequisite for eligibility for meals on wheels.”? She goes on to ask the Minister: “Can I coin a new word—geriatricide.”
I would say to that lady—and I am unaware of the particular circumstances that she has raised—that it would be very important for her to be in touch with her district health board, because the chairs of the boards have been quite clear that no one will be unsafe or forced from home as a result of these changes.
What does he say to the Christchurch man who received a letter from his doctor on 17 March, stating “My request for you to have a knee X-ray has been declined because of financial restraints. We could try again later if things get a lot worse, or you could pay to go privately.”?
I would say to the member that if she has a specific case that she would like me to look into, I will be very well prepared to do so. I can tell her that the Canterbury District Health Board last year received a substantial funding boost of $52 million.
Michael Woodhouse Link to this
What reports has he received on improving front-line health services, and, in particular, childhood immunisation?
I have received a report from the Ministry of Health on progress in getting more Kiwi kids immunised. I am pleased to be able to report that the national immunisation coverage for 2-year-old children has now reached 85 percent, the highest that it has ever been, and that the June 2010 target figure has been met already. This is an amazing achievement, when we consider that the figure was only 75 percent a few short years ago under the previous regime.
What advice would he give to the 66-year-old south Dunedin man who received a letter on 26 June last year, telling him that he would get his eye surgery within 6 months, but who is still waiting for that surgery 9 months later?
I would say that it would be very concerning, if the facts are as the member represents them. If she is prepared to give me details of the case, I will look into it. I can observe that far more elective surgery is being provided for patients than was provided under the previous Government.
What does he say to the people of Canterbury, who have been told in an article headlined “Health cuts ‘hitting the front line’” that they have lost a Samoan community health worker, a Māori community health worker, and contracts for chronic conditions care and child health care, which are all front-line services, and which have all been cut?
I would say to people in Christchurch that they know we have inherited a very difficult situation in their district health board area, and that despite our putting $52 million of extra money into the area, there are problems. I would also say to those people they should not necessarily believe everything that is put to them by the member opposite. Yesterday she said a general practitioner—
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It cannot help the good order of the House for Ministers, in their replies, to suggest that members of the public should not believe certain statements that are made by members. This is a very clever Minister, and I am sure he can craft an answer—
Mr SPEAKERThe member’s point of order is perfectly valid; he does not need to comment on the Minister. He is pursuing under a point of order the kind of thing that he was just saying should not happen. The member is quite right. I ask the Minister to desist from referring in any derogatory way to the questioner. That is not really necessary in answering a question.
Members of the public in Christchurch should not accept everything that the member opposite says, because, under scrutiny, what she often represents to be the case does not prove to be the case. I would say that work is under way in Canterbury to look at the various contracts, and that work is being led by general practitioners, nurses, and primary health organisations.
I seek leave to table three documents. The first is the letter to the 66-year-old south Dunedin man to whom I referred, telling him that he would get his surgery within 6 months, who is still waiting for it 9 months later. It has his name removed.
I seek leave to table a second document, which is a letter from a local general practitioner in Christchurch, stating that a patient’s knee X-ray has been declined because of financial constraints, and that the man could try again if things got worse, or could pay to go privately. Again, it has been “anonymised”.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can the member confirm that the general practitioner whom she says is a general practitioner is actually a general practitioner?
I blame myself for allowing this to happen, but in the interests—[ Interruption]—a point of order is being considered—of the House being better informed about what the document was, I did not interrupt the Minister. I come back to the Hon Ruth Dyson seeking leave to table that letter. Can she give the House an assurance that it is a letter from a general practitioner?
—I accept that the member had a perfectly fair point—to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
I seek leave to table a third document, which is the letter to the Southland Times that I referred to in my first supplementary question from Lisa Gray in relation to her mother’s home support cuts.