Point of Order: Discriminatory health services

Hipkins plays the “racism” card to duck question about who lives in cities and in rural areas

Remember when Act’s deputy leader, Brooke van Velden, gave the Government’s Willow-Jean Prime some discomforting moments at Question Time in Parliament?

Van Velden questioned the Associate Health Minister about pregnant mothers being given $50 Prezzy cards simply for turning up to pregnancy assessments, and then – after the child is born – for the six-week assessment.

But wait. Not all pregnant mothers will be treated to Prezzy cards – they are doled out only to women who identify as Māori.

As if that isn’t outrage enough, the funding for this race-targeted initiative comes from a scheme intended to benefit economically vulnerable Kiwis, regardless of race.

The issue was raised again in Parliament yesterday.

ACT leader David Seymour seized on a statement from the PM that “the healthcare system should be treating people equally”.

He asked if this was a statement the PM stands by, and as Prime Minister was there anything he could do about…

• Race being used to prioritise surgical wait-lists;
• Prezzy cards being given exclusively to pregnant Māori women;
• A pharmacy service being accessible only to Māori and Pasifika;
• A separate Māori Health Authority; and
• A medical health line that opens with “Press 1 if you are Māori”?

Here’s how Hansard records the PM’s response:

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the member’s question, yes, absolutely. I recognise that our health system has delivered inequitable outcomes for Māori and Pacific New Zealanders, including New Zealanders in rural communities, for example, and proactive targeting of ensuring that we are creating equal outcomes for different population groups, I think, is a positive thing. I note the member isn’t attacking the fact that there are now targeted support services—health services—for rural communities in the way that he is some of those other population groups.

The PM was much less forthcoming when responding to the next question.

David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that both Māori and non-Māori live in cities and in rural areas, and what New Zealanders object to deeply and strongly is the constant profiling of citizens by race by his Government?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely reject the statement in that question, which is just plain racism.

Which part of the question Hipkins rejected because it is just plain racism is unclear.

Obviously, both Māori and non-Māori live in cities and in rural areas.

Whether the Prime Minister is aware of this might not be so obvious.

But then there’s the notion that New Zealanders object deeply and strongly to the constant profiling of citizens by race by his Government.

Fair to say, this one is open to challenge because not all New Zealanders share Seymour’s repugnance. Every Labour MP – for starters – has become ideologically committed to policies which call for citizens to be identified in terms of their race.

But let’s take another look at Hipkins’ statement that

“… proactive targeting of ensuring that we are creating equal outcomes for different population groups, I think, is a positive thing.”

Are the outcomes the same for citizens of the Oamaru district as they are – let’s say – for the Timaru district?

The question is prompted by news that the Oamaru Hospital’s emergency department was closed at night last weekend because of the nationwide doctor shortage.

Chief executive Keith Marshall said the hospital covered nearly 40,000 people in Oamaru and nearby regions.

“There is an ED in Oamaru for a reason, and the reason is that we see around about 9000 people per year through our ED,” he said.

“It’s not a general practice after-hours care centre, it’s an emergency department – and so closing an emergency department’s never a good thing.”

The closure of the hospital’s ED over two nights at the weekend was the third in six weeks.

National’s Shane Reti raised questions about this in Parliament:

Dr Shane Reti: What specific actions is she taking to ensure that Oamaru ED will not have to close for a fourth time this year?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Those contingencies are managed by local clinicians, and it is important that those plans are in place to make sure that patients are looked after when staffing levels are low. Te Whatu Ora has taken responsibility for increasing the resourcing that was previously provided to the district health board to make it more able to face these challenges, and works in the longer term with that centre—and the trust that owns it—in order to address the staffing challenges it faces.

Dr Shane Reti: How many people have been diverted to other hospitals because Oamaru ED has been closed?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That’s a very precise question. That does occasionally happen, and it is not ideal but it is important that when that decision is necessary, clinicians are supported to make it to take care of people.

Dr Shane Reti: Have any patients been diverted to other hospitals because Oamaru ED has been closed?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I am aware that patients were referred both in advance of the change and during the time when staffing levels were low.

Reti also questioned Verrall about her inability to report emergency department wait time data until two weeks after the election, although it has been previously reported monthly for decades?

On this issue, Verrall said it is not her job to report ED wait time data. Te Whatu Ora has a responsibility to do that.

The health authority has written a very long report on the appropriate process for doing so, and if Reti wants accurate information (Verrall said), the processes outlined in that report need to be followed.

We may regard this as a splendid example of what ministerial accountability means under the Hipkins government.

Point of Order is a blog focused on politics and the economy run by veteran newspaper reporters Bob Edlin and Ian Templeton