MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this
If I recall, before the adjournment we were talking about information and openness in our hospital system. I was reflecting on what I felt was the distinct lack of historical knowledge shown by some new National members of the House. Although I was complimentary to the author of the bill on the work done, I could not believe that the author had worked in the health system yet seemed so incredibly ignorant of what had actually happened in the 1990s. I could not believe that the author of the bill appeared totally ignorant that in the 1990s the National Government had got rid of democratically elected health boards, had got rid of openness in decisionmaking in the health system, and had sent the media and public away. I recall that we had a creation called Crown health enterprises—
Anne Tolley—and I know that there is interjection from the other side, because I am hitting a very raw nerve. I am hitting a very raw nerve. I find it difficult to listen to the simpering feelings expressed by members opposite who say they want to be for the consumer, they want to be for the patient, and they want to be advocates. Yet there is this Stalinist ignorance of their party’s history—this failure to recognise what their Government did in the 1990s.
Well, excuse me! Anyone who worked in the health system in the 1990s knows exactly what happened. That Government got rid of democratically elected health boards. That Government brought us a thing called a “CHE”—or was it a cheese, or a double cheese? It was called a Crown health enterprise.
That Government also changed the word “patient”. What did a patient become known as?
Sue MoroneyWas it a client; was it a consumer? There was nothing at all about patients having a right to know, or about the public having a right to information. I find that really difficult.
I compliment the author of this bill, because I think her intentions are sincere, but I find it very, very difficult that there is no honesty on the other side in terms of members opposite acknowledging what their Government did in the 1990s. There is no acknowledgement of their hstory. At least one of them could be honest enough to say: “We made a mistake. We are sorry.” How can they come back into this House, so many years later, and suddenly say they believe in the flow of information and they believe in accountability, without acknowledging the actions of their Government in the 1990s around that flow of information.
Can I repeat slowly, so that those people opposite who have collective amnesia can be reminded, what their Government did in the 1990s?
Russell FairbrotherI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We on this side of the House have been relatively patient, waiting for the member on his feet to address the bill before the House. We have had a very interesting, and selective, history lesson, but surely after several minutes it is time to ask the member to address the bill before the House.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
The member has been addressing the matter of district health boards, which is what the bill is about.
Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I am addressing the bill because, as I understand it, the bill is about empowering patients, and it is about information. If we talk about “selective history”, I ask what is selective about the previous National Government getting rid of democratically elected health boards. What is selective about closed-door meetings? What is selective about replacing a health board with a thing called a CHE—a Crown health enterprise—which was run on a company model by Government appointees? Those appointees ran our health services around the country, and community-elected representatives were sent packing. What is selective about that practice? That is history, and all I am asking is that new National members of the House, including National’s senior whip, recognise that. Indeed, the senior whip was on the Napier City Council. She knows all about confidential meetings and the whole principle of democratically elected meetings. She understands, totally, that process. I cannot use the “h” word, but all I am asking is that newer members of the National Party at least have the honesty to stand up in this Chamber and say: “Yes, in the 1990s our Government of the day got it wrong. We were in error, and that now informs us—
Oh, they did not! So it is OK now? How can members opposite support this bill, yet support the closure of democratically elected health boards and support closing the doors to the media and the public? I do not understand that; it is a disconnection of logic. I think that it is worse than a flip-flop. It is far worse than a flip-flop. I actually think it is speaking with a forked tongue. They say one thing, over on that side, and believe something totally different.
I think that what happened in the 1990s was a disgrace. I just ask for one member opposite to say that they got it wrong, and that that is the reason now why this legislation has informed them, in terms of wanting to improve systems whereby patients and the community can have access to information. But to support a bill without making reference to the lesson this country should have learnt in the 1990s astounds me, quite frankly.
I have commended the author of this bill, but what, if you like, deeply saddened and amazed me, in witnessing the debate earlier in the Chamber, was the apparent total ignorance of what did happen in the 1990s. I believe that one has to be honest, and that it is very important to address history. Heaven forbid that that other lot ever becomes the Government again, but are they saying that a National Government would not go back to those dark old days? Their silence in that area speaks volumes. There is a stunning silence around the concept of retaining democratically elected health boards. I think they have an open mind about health reforms. I think their open mind will include, potentially—if we are not careful—getting rid of community participation. We need to watch those words and listen very carefully. If we think about it, we realise that that stunning silence speaks volumes.
In closing, I again commend the author of this bill, because I think her intentions are genuine, but I do not commend the lack of ability of National members to learn from history, or their stunning silence as to what they would do, should they ever regain the Treasury benches. Do they guarantee that we would retain this Government’s present structure of democratically elected health boards? Believe you me, National’s record in the 1990s speaks volumes, and some of us on this side of the House do not forget.
KATRINA SHANKS (National) Link to this
I rise tonight to speak to the second reading of the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill—for those who are listening out there and who are not quite aware of what we are talking about. I also give a special “Good evening!” to Sam, Annabelle, and Lachlan, who are listening tonight—and watching, I do believe.
First of all, I would like to congratulate Dr Jackie Blue on this bill, which triggered action by the Government to bring District Health Boards New Zealand under the Official Information Act and to ensure that all of its work is subject to the complaints jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Why is this bill so important? It is important because it brings openness, transparency, and accountability to district health boards. Why have they not had that before? Why has it taken until 2007 to get that? I could go back in history. I could go back to the 1900s, I could go back to 1910, I could go back to 1920, 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, and to 1990. The previous speaker just spoke to 1990. What year are we in now? 2007! No, no, but let us spend 10 minutes addressing 1990, because that is historical.
National is looking forward, and Dr Jackie Blue in 2006 brought a member’s bill to this Parliament. Yet Labour has been on those Government benches for the last 8 years, and has not even managed to address the simple issue of the Official Information Act. So why is this so important? Why is transparency important? It is because a lot of money—millions and millions, billions and billions of dollars—is going into district health boards, but up until now we have not had the transparency we need in talking about these big bucks that go into those health boards without accountability, without openness, and without the transparency that the Crown health enterprises had had. Why is that? It is because they are incorporated societies and they have not been caught in the net of the legislation. This is simple legislation to change that, thanks to Dr Jackie Blue, who has had the insight to bring that change herself with a member’s bill.
But not only that. There are millions and millions, and billions and billions of dollars going into the health sector. In fact, I believe that this Government has brought in another—I think—$6 billion to the health sector since 1999. That is a huge amount of money for district health boards to account for. But what has it bought us? What has this accountability shown us? What has transparency shown us? It has shown that no more services have been offered.
Let us talk for a moment about neonatal care in Wellington in 2007—today, not 1990. What has the Government done about the neonatal unit in Wellington, or the units in New Zealand? Why are pregnant women being threatened with having to be flown all around New Zealand to get this care? Why are they being threatened with having to fly to Australia to have their babies delivered when they cannot be delivered in New Zealand? Why cannot New Zealand deliver babies in New Zealand any more? Why have we got these shortages? Why are the services not there, when another $6 billion has gone into district health boards? Where is the accountability? Where is the transparency? Where is the openness? Where is it?
Let us go back to 1990, because that is much more relevant, according to members on the other side of the House. They should go and tell those pregnant women in Wellington why 1990 is so much more important than now. They should go and live back there, because we are living now and we are looking to the future. We are not living in the past like members opposite. We are the party of vision. But let us talk about section 88 of the Primary Maternity Services Notice 2007, shall we, because all that funding is going into the district health boards.
That funding is going into district health boards in 2007—the policy of that member’s party—so in 2007 the funding will go to district health boards. That is why it is important that as more money is put in there, we need this transparency and openness in moving forward. It is thanks to Dr Jackie Blue, who has brought this to our attention once again, and got it through, which the Government has not been able to do in the last 8 years. So let us talk about section 88, and maternity, and the services that are being offered out there.
And why is it being voted down? It is because Dr Jackie Blue has brought this to the attention of this Government, and then others have got it passed. That is why we are here today.
So let us talk about services to these women in New Zealand, shall we, in 1990—no, in 2007, because National is looking forward; we have a vision for New Zealand, unlike the tired Labour members opposite.
Well, let me talk to those members about the additional funding that is going into district health boards, because that is what we want to talk about. This funding is going into the workforce of midwives, general practitioner obstetricians, and the obstetricians around New Zealand to deliver babies in New Zealand. But no—let me get it right. With this money that is going into this midwife sector, this maternity sector, why is there no retention? Why is there a workforce shortage?
Let me give members a little story that will tell them why transparency needs to be in there, and how the Government is underperforming in the health sector. Just let me tell them. If a woman is pregnant in Wellington she goes along to her general practitioner. When she goes along to her general practitioner and says she is pregnant, he says: “Very good. Here is the 0800 MUM 2 BE number.” So she picks up the phone, rings that number, and gets someone on the end of the phone, who says: “Here is a list of six people. You can ring these midwives. Ring any one of them.” But the only problem is that if that woman is more than 8 weeks pregnant, if she has had a complicated pregnancy in the past, or if this is her first baby, her chances of getting a midwife are slim to none. That is after 8 weeks. This is New Zealand; this is Wellington we are talking about. So what do these women do? Well, they cannot go to a general practitioner obstetrician because there are no general practitioner obstetricians. They have been driven—
Darien FentonSorry—is the member on the Government benches denying there is no general practitioner obstetrician in Wellington, because there is not one. If a woman cannot get a midwife, what does she do? She pays $2,500 to go to an obstetrician, but that is a lot of money for many, many people. Believe it or not, and those members may not believe it, but National appreciates the value of money and how expensive that $2,500 is to a family. Even to my own family that is a lot of money. So if the woman cannot afford that $2,500 and does not go to an obstetrician, what happens to her? She is a pregnant woman who cannot get a midwife, and as there is no general practitioner obstetrician, and she cannot afford an obstetrician, she defaults to the tertiary health system—to a district health board. They are not designed to take healthy women and healthy babies—
Tariana TuriaIt is not the purpose of the tertiary health sector to take healthy women and healthy babies. It would much prefer women to have a midwife, a general practitioner obstetrician, or an obstetrician than to deliver their babies in a hospital. That is what it is about in Wellington, and that is what it is about all through New Zealand. That is why it is important we get accountability and transparency in district health boards, and thanks to Dr Jackie Blue that is what we will have today.