Scott Lynda: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Scott Lynda: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3323] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I would like to respond to some of the attacks that Steve Chadwick made on Katherine Rich. I think that this National Party has every right to talk about mutual obligation when it comes to welfare. I will give members a little story about something that happened over the summer. Unemployment is down a little bit and that is great. Marlborough is growing—it has been for decades—and we need workers. So what happened? A group of young men were sent over to Marlborough from Wellington and put up in the district’s best motel for 2 weeks. Did they respect that? No they did not. One of them ended up under curfew having been charged with assault. Did they go to work for the time they were supposed to be there? No most of them were back at 10.30 a.m. having been picked up at 7.30 a.m. What happened when they left that motel because it was only paid for for 2 weeks? The next place they went into they smashed up and they were out in 3 days. Some mutual obligation is required. If people are to be paid given motel accommodation in one of the best motels and taken to a place where there are jobs then there is an obligation on them to actually do some work. This party will stand up for that again and again. I back Katherine Rich in standing up for the need for mutual obligation.  
But what I want to talk about today is health which this Government made an awful lot of promises about. I also want to talk about broken promises. Promise No. 1 for the people of New Zealand that expected so much from this Labour Government was that waiting lists were to be reduced. I reckon that most people in New Zealand actually thought that would be done by more patients being treated. But no the lists are to be reduced by just bumping patients off them. In south Auckland alone 5000 people were just bumped off the list. They were not treated in public or private institutions; they were just bumped off the list. New Zealanders expected improved access and more treatment. They have not received it. We can ask Rosslyn Green who is waiting for a first appointment with a cancer specialist after her surgery. She has been told she is not an urgent case. 
No wonder New Zealand cancer patients die at higher rates than Australian cancer patients. Not only does the situation put huge stress on Mrs Green by her not being able to get her first specialist assessment; it is also false economy. With cancer patients who have had surgery and who are waiting for further treatment—radiotherapy or chemotherapy—one has to consider the window of opportunity available to treat them in order to prevent a recurrence. If Mrs Green does not get treatment on time she risks recurrence and that costs her. It costs her family it costs society and it costs the health system of New Zealand. That is why there are set times in which one is supposed to see people. Ask Ida Gaskin what she thinks about Labour’s delivery in health. She has been a Labour Party stalwart for 50 years. What happened to her? She got bumped off the list for a hip replacement. She was on the list but the financially sustainable threshold went up and off she went—“Sorry Ida no surgery for you; you’re off the list!”. 
I have to say that acute care in New Zealand is excellent and I experienced that a little bit over the summer holidays having had to take two members of my family to accident and emergency. One went back repeatedly for dressings after an accident and the care was excellent. I want to thank the doctors and nurses at Wairau Hospital who worked so hard on the front line over the Christmas holidays. They do an excellent job in the face of adversity. But the pressure points in New Zealand are those of elective surgery and waiting lists. The current system is doing nothing to make hospitals more responsive to patient need. There are ways to achieve that but this Government is failing to consider them and it is failing to deliver. The 21 district health boards are taking short-term views because of their deficits and that leads to another broken promise—that there will be no cuts. The move from one funder the Health Funding Authority to 21 district health boards would be more efficient we were told. How can 21 district health boards doing the job of one authority be more efficient?  
The hospital deficit last year was $238 million. Why does that matter? It matters because the human cost of those deficits is district health board after district health board making cuts to services. MidCentral District Health Board is planning to not give some cancer patients treatment and is raising the threshold for elective surgery. Otago District Health Board plans to bump 1200 people off its waiting list including those waiting for hip replacements before June. Counties Manukau District Health Board put up the points for eligibility for hip operations and gynaecology. Those hospitals cannot invest in new equipment. They are not able to pay staff competitive salaries or to fund new medicines. 
Having 21 district health boards increases bureaucracy and is less efficient. I ask members whether it is sensible to have 21 different contracts for pharmacy instead of one national contract. The 21 district health boards cannot get agreement. There are six of them still out there that cannot agree with the community funds. I think there should be centralised national contracts for some of those. We are only a small small country the size of Melbourne and we have 21 different district health boards. That is not efficient.  
The Minister of Health said she would revert to a national contract if the boards could not settle their contracts by the end of January but that has not happened. It is causing a waste of time and money. Mr Cullen stated that he would have the deficits down to $80 million in this financial year. Well the Auckland district health boards alone have deficits over that. It will not be that easy when we have the system that has currently been set up. Financial management is not occurring and the Government’s answer is just to throw more money at it. That will not work. There need to be structures in place to improve delivery.  
We heard that this Government would reduce bureaucracy. That was another promise and we heard it time and time again. Over the last year $8 million went out the health door in redundancy payments. That would have been OK and I would have been the first person to applaud if that meant a reduction in bureaucracy but we know it was not. The people leaving are casualties of restructuring and their jobs will be filled by others or restructured to another name. The ministry and the Minister of Health said that the ministry’s numbers would decrease by 20 to 25 percent. When the Health Funding Authority merged the Minister of Health said: “We’ll reduce the bureaucracy. We’re going to cut it by 20 percent.” That is the first time I nearly applauded her. Has she delivered? No she has not. The numbers have increased not decreased—and that is health dollars spent. That is not delivering services to patients.  
I come to promise No. 4—income and asset testing. While this Government has not given a single dollar to geriatric hospital-care—not one dollar in 3½ years—the Prime Minister stated in her speech that legislation on asset testing would also be prepared. I hope Grey Power has seen that. For two elections this Government has promised to introduce asset-testing removal. Now we find that legislation has not even been prepared. That is the plan for this year. What about the Government’s promise to introduce asset-testing repeal in its first term? It is a broken promise. Then come the next election the Government said: “We’ll definitely have that legislation before the House at the end of 2002.” Where was it? No we have not even seen it. It has not even been prepared. The legislation has not been delivered and now we find that it is not even on the Order Paper. It is nowhere to be seen. It is another broken promise. So why should older New Zealanders believe anything this Government wants to promise?  
I could go on. I have quite a few examples but there is not enough time. There are many more examples. Nothing in this plan for health delivers more surgery to more patients. Nothing in it tackles the serious epidemics of diabetes heart disease and cancer. Nothing in it delivers access to new medications. Nothing in it delivers new technologies and treatments or more doctors and nurses and allied health professionals to the front line. Nothing in it delivers to rural health services. Ask Kaitaia Hospital and Kaitaia-Northland what they think about the promises to keep surgery up there. That is another broken promise. There is everything in this plan to deliver more bureaucracy and less care more wasted health dollars more divergent health delivery with the 21 district health boards rather than national consistency and more broken promises. Labour must do better and I will hold it to account.