1. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this
to the Minister of Labour
What, if anything, is being done by the Department of Labour to ensure we have a pathology workforce that is able to meet our needs?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) Link to this
There is a worldwide shortage of pathologists. Pathology is listed on the Department of Labour’s long-term skill shortage list, meaning that New Zealand employers can recruit, without the need for a specific labour-market test.
Is the Minister concerned about the prospect of a significant loss to New Zealand of competent, experienced staff resulting from the decision of the three Auckland district health boards to change the provider of community laboratory services, given that significant numbers of staff and pathologists have indicated publicly that they would rather move overseas than work for the new provider; if she is not concerned, why not?
I share the member’s obvious concern about the loss of any skilled New Zealand workers, and particularly about those who would leave permanently. Could I refer the member to an answer given by the Minister of Health, who reported to the House that the evidence that he was presented with was that our pathology workforce was growing. He further invited the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia to present him with any evidence to the contrary, which he would then consider. I invite the member to do the same.
Dr Ashraf Choudhary Link to this
What reports has she received about the growth of the health workforce in the last 7 years?
New Zealand has a hard-working, world-class, and growing health workforce. There are 4,000 more nurses and 1,000 more doctors working in our public hospitals than there were in 2000.
Does the Minister consider a cut from 645 fulltime-equivalent skilled jobs in an established laboratory, to around 450 in a phantom laboratory—a laboratory that does not yet exist—to be more of a reduction in profit, or of a blatant cut in the skilled workforce of this country?
The comparison the member has made is not between apples and apples. My understanding is that the total number in the workforce, regardless of who held the contract, would have been reduced because of the requirement in the contract for a significant reduction in collection points.
Does she believe that the method of awarding a tender to a phantom tenderer and the impact of that on the staff are good ways to treat skilled, professional people?