Health System—Scope and Range of Services

Is one of the changes to the scope and range of services that he meant the cutting of beds, of the emergency department, and of palliative care services at Hāwera Hospital, which have been described by the chairman of the Ngāti Ruanui rūnunga as “a drastic and unacceptable reduction in health services”?

There is a consultation currently under way on services at Hāwera. The proposals do include the maintenance of maternity beds, palliative care beds, and short-stay emergency department beds. They are all in the plan, along with after-hours general practitioner services. The Government and the district health board believe that the people of South Taranaki deserve better facilities and services, and we are consulting on those.

How can he interpret the people of South Taranaki as getting better services when he is cutting $1.1 million worth of services to Hāwera Hospital?

Borrows Chester Borrows Link to this

First of all, $1 million is about 0.3 percent of the district health board’s budget. The important issue here is that—[ Interruption] One of the biggest issues faced by the people of South Taranaki, which we have inherited from the previous Government, is a difficulty with regard to general practice access. That is part of this plan: to improve general practice access, and also to improve access to other specialist services. The consultation on the plan is under way.

What advice has the Minister received about proposed changes to health services in South Taranaki as to whether they are set in concrete, or is this a genuine public consultation?

I have seen a number of reports. One report said the emergency services at Hāwera Hospital were privatised to a private company under the previous Labour Government—[ Interruption] They were privatised under the previous Labour Government. And it fell over. I have also seen another report about a comprehensive consultation process under way with the people of South Taranaki about how best to meet future health needs. It is important to remember that no decisions have been made by the district health board, and that the people of South Taranaki deserve something more future-orientated than what they have at the moment.

Given that 8,000 people have now signed a petition to retain the services at Hāwera Hospital, does he stand by the statement he “repeatedly” made to local MP Chester Borrows, as reported in the Taranaki Daily News last month, that “health services in South Taranaki will not change unless the people want them to change.”?

That is why there is a public consultation under way. It is interesting to note that I do not think there was any public consultation when the previous Government privatised the emergency department at Hāwera Hospital—privatised without consultation.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that I began the question with the word “Given”, but I did then ask “does he stand by the statement”, and the Minister did not make any attempt to answer that question.

The member is clever enough to know that once he starts a question with “Given”, he leaves a lot of scope for a Minister’s answer.

Can he advise whether one of the reasons that tough choices are required is the fact that the health sector suffered a 15 percent drop in doctors’ productivity and an 11 percent drop in nurses’ productivity under the previous Labour Government?

I am aware of the numbers the member refers to. This National Government is doing 20,000 more elective procedures a year. There are 1,000 extra nurses and 500 extra doctors. We have put in place programmes to make wards more productive—this is being led particularly by nurses—and we have seen a remarkable improvement in waiting times in emergency departments, cancer treatment times, and immunisation rates. I think productivity is on the way up because the clinical staff of New Zealand know they have a coalition Government that is prepared to back them and their services.

Mallard Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this

What is his best estimate of the number of operations and procedures that were lost as a result of the massive fall in productivity under Labour, and are there any estimates of the pain and suffering this caused to New Zealanders?

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to rule on whether the assertion in that is necessary for the question; if not, I think you are obliged to rule it out.

My goodness, does the member really want me to rule out assertions in questions on a regular basis?

Point of order—

Before I hear the honourable member, I say the question asked the Minister about what advice he had received on the reasons for the reduction in productivity. In answering it he will need to be careful, because he is not responsible for the policies of the previous Government. He can report on any advice he has received, but he must not give any personal views about the previous Government. That is not his responsibility.

It is difficult to obtain an estimate of the number of operations and procedures that were lost as a result of the massive fall in productivity under the previous Labour Government, but I suspect the appropriate number is 30,000, which is the number of patients culled off waiting lists under the previous Government, even though they had been promised they would get treatment.

I seek leave to table a report entitled Productivity Performance of New Zealand Public Hospitals 1998/99 to 2005/06 by Mani Maniparathy.

The report was prepared by whom?

The author was Mani Maniparathy.