4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
to the Minister of Health
Does he stand by his health target to get genuine reductions in waiting times for elective surgery?
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) Link to this
The premise of the member’s question is incorrect. The health target for elective surgery—
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the Minister just as he is beginning his answer, but—[ Interruption]
Mr SPEAKERI say to the National backbench that the noise coming out of the back corner of the House is unacceptable.
A question, as you know, has to be authenticated, and so the premise of the question has been authenticated with your office. For the Minister to begin his answer by saying that the premise of the question is incorrect cannot possibly be true.
Although questions are authenticated in terms of the face of the question, it does not necessarily mean that the question is not out of context, or is not in a somewhat different context from where a Minister’s statement or target may have been placed. So I do not want to hear the Minister criticising the member for asking the question, but it is not out of order to argue that it may be out of context or that the premise is not correct.
The premise of the member’s question is incorrect. The health target for elective surgery is an increase in the volume of elective surgery by an average of 4,000 discharges per year. The Government’s concern is that sick people should get their operations as soon as possible, and far more people are getting their operations now than under the previous Government. This year the Government will deliver 140,000 elective operations, which will be 22,000 more patients a year than that member’s Government ever delivered.
Given that answer, is the Auditor-General wrong when she says that the waiting times for elective surgery are between 9 months and 1 year, not the 6 months required by his target?
The member has to note that I have not seen the Auditor-General’s report. I can tell the member that when we inherited this portfolio a lot of people were waiting more than 6 months to get their operations. For example, 5 years ago, in January 2005, of the thousands of people who had been promised treatment and had not received it, 4.5 percent—or over 1,348 patients—had been waiting for more than 18 months. By January 2010 that figure had been dramatically reduced to 0.3 percent, or 118 patients.
I was critical of the National backbench. I say to the Labour front bench that the noise is pretty excessive today. But I say to the Minister that the question was pretty simple. The member asked a very simple question about the Auditor-General’s report. The Minister used the opportunity to tell the House what he wanted to tell the House, and not actually answer the question. That is not really a part of the game or the rules, but I will let him get away with it on this occasion. I am just alerting him to that.
Is the Auditor-General wrong when she says that it appears that district health boards are actually working towards providing a first specialist assessment within 12 months and treatment within 9 months, instead of the 6 months required by the strategy?
As I said earlier on, I have not read the Auditor-General’s report. I know that the report is at the Ministry of Health. I also know that I am never going to fix a waiting list problem by culling 30,000 people from the waiting list just because I want the numbers to look good, which was what the party opposite did.
Dr Paul Hutchison Link to this
What reports has he received about how the previous Government handled elective surgery?
I have received a number of reports that under that Government elective surgery did not keep up with population growth, which meant patient access was cut. Five years ago, of the thousands of people who had been promised treatment but had not received it, 4.5 percent—or 1,348 patients—had been waiting for more than 18 months. By January 2010 that figure had been dramatically reduced to 0.3 percent, or 118 patients. There is more to be done, but this Government is providing thousands more people with surgery, and we will not do what the party opposite did, which was to fix the problem by sending 30,000 people a letter saying that they had been culled from the waiting list.
Will he commit to releasing the Auditor-General’s report as it now stands, without his interfering or trying to doctor it?
I have the report. The report is the property of the Auditor-General, and I am sure she will release the report once she has had the numbers checked and precisely looked at by the Ministry of Health. But despite whatever may be in the Auditor-General’s report—
The Minister had answered the question absolutely adequately, and he is not to go on to say “despite” and attack the questioner.
Will he allow the Auditor-General to investigate the credibility of his other target, in particular his target on cancer treatment, given the cutting of cancer patients from waiting lists in the central North Island?
I would welcome the Auditor-General’s looking at the cancer radiation targets. I am sure she would find that, unlike the previous Government, we do not have lots of women whose lives are being disrupted by their being sent to Australia for treatment. We are providing most treatment within 4 weeks, which is a world standard that that failed party opposite could never match.