Category: MIL-OSI

Source: Govt’s austerity Budget to cause real harm in communities

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was listening really carefully last night. The frustrations of these debates is that often we don’t take the discussion forward, so I want to do a little bit of that today, but I want to make sure that I’m mindful of what you’ve talked about in terms of bringing up new issues.

One thing that came up last night is the issue of exceptional circumstances on the length of time that people are unable to take a claim. What we haven’t really heard is what is envisaged as exceptional circumstances and where it will apply. So I’ve been thinking about some of the cases I had where I was concerned about inequity and how it would apply in those circumstances. So I’ve got a couple of questions: I might take you through a few scenarios and ask you to explain how the new legislation will work.

For example, I had one woman—the case has always haunted me. She was on very low pay and she had been a caregiver her entire career. She had actually worn herself out in the job by lifting, and her employer frustrated her employment because she could no longer lift patients. She would have been in her early 60s. So she was basically just given a termination notice over a time. A person like that—are they a person where they might be able to reopen for that group of people who are of that age? So they’re not going to be able to take a case in their late 60s, because they’re going to be terminated from their employment for a long time—are they a person who might have exceptional circumstances applied to them, because their career is ending, and it might end at a time which isn’t necessarily retirement time even?

So how flexible is the rule going to be in terms of who can reopen the issue because, in fact, their personal circumstances are going to be affected. I heard a lot from the Minister about how we always had to think about the big systems and we weren’t concerned about the individuals. But obviously there’s a real balancing act, and when it comes to something like exceptional circumstances, that is where I’d expect the balancing act to take place.

Now, a similar issue is one about opt-out provisions, because what I heard the Minister talk about was a system—I think this is clause 15—and this is an issue about who can opt out from a multi-employer claim. So take my woman that I’ve just given you—a real human, a multi-employer claim—with her particular provider of care services. Is that employer able to, halfway through a claim, think, “OK, I want to opt out of this claim.” So she’s relying upon a claim that’s being made by many employers at once, or going through a process with that.

The employer that was employing her—are they allowed, under this, to actually leave, and, if so, my understanding is they don’t have to provide reasons as to why they leave, but they leave her high and dry because she’s no longer covered by the claim. It says that they’re allowed to leave without providing reasons, but it’s got to be based on reasonable grounds. Well, sorry, how do we know what grounds it’s based on if they never have to provide any reason? What’s the balance, what’s the check-in place that means that her employer can’t just walk away in the middle of something where that is the only process that she’s got, and not have reasonable grounds? How do we know that there are reasonable grounds?

Then it says—my understanding is that the employer’s decision to opt out cannot be challenged by another party. So is that right? Are we saying that nobody can challenge [Time expired] Sorry, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Helen White. I’ll let Helen White finish her question, but please can you—

HELEN WHITE: I’ll move on to one other point—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, short call.

HELEN WHITE: I hope that you’ve understood that point.

I’d also just like to talk about—and I really, really, would genuinely like an answer over the issue of back-pay. What I got didn’t go far enough into the logic of the situation here. If you’ve got an embargo on the authority awarding back-pay, when that happens and somebody can’t award at the end—and my understanding from the Minister’s answer last night is you can still negotiate back-pay—isn’t the reality that we’re going to see more back-pay claims because there’s no stick, there’s nothing where somebody can award it? And so we’re going to have these people who have 10 years to go for their claim and they’re being discriminated against every one of those years, and it’s an accumulation of harm to them—they’re missing out on all the interest, they’re missing out on all the wages over that time, their KiwiSaver’s being affected, etc. And their employer’s going to go, “Well, what is in it for me, because I do not have to give you any form of back-pay, and you’ve missed out for a 10-year period, and all I have to do is commit on the last possible time I can in that process to something that doesn’t discriminate going forward, and then we’re locking in for another 10-year period before you can go for it again, so I can discriminate for the next 10 years.”

Isn’t that the impact of what is happening, and what I’d like to know from the Minister is: if I’m right, because I’m pretty sure I am, then how is the Minister going to monitor the failure? I suspect what we’ll see is our equity claim change entirely. We’re going to see a wider gap. We’re going to see a wider Pasifika gap, we’re going to see a wider gap in pay. What is going to happen to make sure that if she’s so confident that this isn’t going to cause a problem—what is going to happen in two years? Are we going to see a monitoring of this situation by the Minister to see whether that gap’s growing again, because I’m pretty sure we are going to see a gap growing.

I appreciate the Minister saying it’s very confusing at the moment because we do deal with this in bargaining, as if it’s illegitimate to deal with in bargaining, but we’re not going to necessarily know. Well, what’s the other side of that coin? What processes are being put in place to look at this gap and measure the gap in other ways so that there can be an intervention, and I’m going to go right back and say, “Is this an exceptional circumstance, where we see the gap?”—where somebody like the woman from AUT, who’s the academic in this area and is measuring the gap, sees the gap grow and says to the Minister, “Actually, it’s happening in this sector.” Is that an exceptional circumstance where we might open again, because it seems to me that New Zealand women are going to pay the price for 10 years and then they’re never going to be able to claim back? And this is going to happen. So there’s going to be an adjustment every 10 years, with weak bargaining power, not strong bargaining power—actually, artificially weakened bargaining power. Because under the old law, under the 1970s law, they could’ve claimed the lot. They could have actually gone out and claimed the lot, and what we’ve done is we’ve robbed them today.

So can I please have an answer to those various questions? I appreciate the time that I’ve been given. Thank you.

Source: Govt’s austerity Budget to cause real harm in communities

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was listening really carefully last night. The frustrations of these debates is that often we don’t take the discussion forward, so I want to do a little bit of that today, but I want to make sure that I’m mindful of what you’ve talked about in terms of bringing up new issues.

One thing that came up last night is the issue of exceptional circumstances on the length of time that people are unable to take a claim. What we haven’t really heard is what is envisaged as exceptional circumstances and where it will apply. So I’ve been thinking about some of the cases I had where I was concerned about inequity and how it would apply in those circumstances. So I’ve got a couple of questions: I might take you through a few scenarios and ask you to explain how the new legislation will work.

For example, I had one woman—the case has always haunted me. She was on very low pay and she had been a caregiver her entire career. She had actually worn herself out in the job by lifting, and her employer frustrated her employment because she could no longer lift patients. She would have been in her early 60s. So she was basically just given a termination notice over a time. A person like that—are they a person where they might be able to reopen for that group of people who are of that age? So they’re not going to be able to take a case in their late 60s, because they’re going to be terminated from their employment for a long time—are they a person who might have exceptional circumstances applied to them, because their career is ending, and it might end at a time which isn’t necessarily retirement time even?

So how flexible is the rule going to be in terms of who can reopen the issue because, in fact, their personal circumstances are going to be affected. I heard a lot from the Minister about how we always had to think about the big systems and we weren’t concerned about the individuals. But obviously there’s a real balancing act, and when it comes to something like exceptional circumstances, that is where I’d expect the balancing act to take place.

Now, a similar issue is one about opt-out provisions, because what I heard the Minister talk about was a system—I think this is clause 15—and this is an issue about who can opt out from a multi-employer claim. So take my woman that I’ve just given you—a real human, a multi-employer claim—with her particular provider of care services. Is that employer able to, halfway through a claim, think, “OK, I want to opt out of this claim.” So she’s relying upon a claim that’s being made by many employers at once, or going through a process with that.

The employer that was employing her—are they allowed, under this, to actually leave, and, if so, my understanding is they don’t have to provide reasons as to why they leave, but they leave her high and dry because she’s no longer covered by the claim. It says that they’re allowed to leave without providing reasons, but it’s got to be based on reasonable grounds. Well, sorry, how do we know what grounds it’s based on if they never have to provide any reason? What’s the balance, what’s the check-in place that means that her employer can’t just walk away in the middle of something where that is the only process that she’s got, and not have reasonable grounds? How do we know that there are reasonable grounds?

Then it says—my understanding is that the employer’s decision to opt out cannot be challenged by another party. So is that right? Are we saying that nobody can challenge [Time expired] Sorry, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Helen White. I’ll let Helen White finish her question, but please can you—

HELEN WHITE: I’ll move on to one other point—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, short call.

HELEN WHITE: I hope that you’ve understood that point.

I’d also just like to talk about—and I really, really, would genuinely like an answer over the issue of back-pay. What I got didn’t go far enough into the logic of the situation here. If you’ve got an embargo on the authority awarding back-pay, when that happens and somebody can’t award at the end—and my understanding from the Minister’s answer last night is you can still negotiate back-pay—isn’t the reality that we’re going to see more back-pay claims because there’s no stick, there’s nothing where somebody can award it? And so we’re going to have these people who have 10 years to go for their claim and they’re being discriminated against every one of those years, and it’s an accumulation of harm to them—they’re missing out on all the interest, they’re missing out on all the wages over that time, their KiwiSaver’s being affected, etc. And their employer’s going to go, “Well, what is in it for me, because I do not have to give you any form of back-pay, and you’ve missed out for a 10-year period, and all I have to do is commit on the last possible time I can in that process to something that doesn’t discriminate going forward, and then we’re locking in for another 10-year period before you can go for it again, so I can discriminate for the next 10 years.”

Isn’t that the impact of what is happening, and what I’d like to know from the Minister is: if I’m right, because I’m pretty sure I am, then how is the Minister going to monitor the failure? I suspect what we’ll see is our equity claim change entirely. We’re going to see a wider gap. We’re going to see a wider Pasifika gap, we’re going to see a wider gap in pay. What is going to happen to make sure that if she’s so confident that this isn’t going to cause a problem—what is going to happen in two years? Are we going to see a monitoring of this situation by the Minister to see whether that gap’s growing again, because I’m pretty sure we are going to see a gap growing.

I appreciate the Minister saying it’s very confusing at the moment because we do deal with this in bargaining, as if it’s illegitimate to deal with in bargaining, but we’re not going to necessarily know. Well, what’s the other side of that coin? What processes are being put in place to look at this gap and measure the gap in other ways so that there can be an intervention, and I’m going to go right back and say, “Is this an exceptional circumstance, where we see the gap?”—where somebody like the woman from AUT, who’s the academic in this area and is measuring the gap, sees the gap grow and says to the Minister, “Actually, it’s happening in this sector.” Is that an exceptional circumstance where we might open again, because it seems to me that New Zealand women are going to pay the price for 10 years and then they’re never going to be able to claim back? And this is going to happen. So there’s going to be an adjustment every 10 years, with weak bargaining power, not strong bargaining power—actually, artificially weakened bargaining power. Because under the old law, under the 1970s law, they could’ve claimed the lot. They could have actually gone out and claimed the lot, and what we’ve done is we’ve robbed them today.

So can I please have an answer to those various questions? I appreciate the time that I’ve been given. Thank you.

Source: Govt’s austerity Budget to cause real harm in communities

Question No. 8—Health

8. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is his first priority as Health Minister still “focusing Health New Zealand on delivering the basics and achieving targets”; if so, why have wait times for first specialist assessment and elective treatments worsened?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Yes, you cannot manage what you don’t measure, and that’s why this Government reinstated health targets: to drive accountability and ensure access to timely, quality healthcare. Too many New Zealanders are waiting too long for first specialist assessments and elective treatments, and addressing this is a priority. Wait-lists have been growing over several years. Despite an increase in elective procedures and first specialist assessments being completed last year, the rate at which people were being referred on to wait-lists continues to outpace the rate at which people were receiving treatment or being seen. However, I’m pleased to inform the member that Health New Zealand advises me that the number of patients waiting for a first specialist assessment in the week ending 13 April has reduced by over 8,000 since the first week of January.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How can he expect others to be accountable for targets, if he doesn’t own up that there has been a 6 percent deterioration in first specialist assessments, and a 3 percent deterioration in elective treatments since the change of Government?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: If we’re going to talk about percentages, we could talk about the 6,500 percent increase in the number of people waiting more than four months for a first specialist assessment when that party was in Government; or we could talk about the 2,500 percent increase in the number of people waiting for an elective treatment more than four months, while that party was in Government. The wait-list ballooned. We’ve put in place targets. Now we’re focusing the system on delivery so that people can get the healthcare they need in a timely and quality manner.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Who does he expect to do the additional procedures, when Health New Zealand’s last quarterly workforce report shows 310 fewer nurses and 47 fewer doctors employed in our health system?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There are more doctors and more nurses working at Health New Zealand than in 2023. We’re investing in front-line services and we’re focusing on ensuring that we treat the patients and get the timely and quality access to healthcare that is needed. As I said in my primary answer, I’m pleased to inform the member that Health New Zealand advises me that the number of patients waiting for a first specialist assessment in the week ending 13 April has reduced by over 8,000 since the first week of January. That is progress. Because of the huge wait-list that we inherited, it’s going to take time to deliver. I’m focused on delivery.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he stand by his statement “There is no such thing as a hiring freeze.”, or does he accept that official statistics now show hiring has been frozen?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There are more doctors and more nurses working at Health New Zealand today than there were in 2023. We’re investing in front-line health workforces and we’re focusing on delivery. We’re investing $16.68 billion over three Budgets, so we can invest in the front-line services that New Zealanders need.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister confirm that with the last three answers on the statistical improvements that he gave in those answers, the primary question, or the questioner, was demonstrably, deliberately false?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We’re focused on delivery. We’re focused on outcomes. We have more doctors and more nurses working at Health New Zealand today than in 2023. We’re focused on outcomes. As I said in my primary answer, 8,000 fewer people are waiting on the first specialist assessment wait-list for the week ending 13 April than in the first week of January. That’s progress. We inherited massive wait-lists which ballooned under the previous Government, and we are focused on getting patients the care they need.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did he try to blame senior doctors for longer waits for treatment, when it is his Government’s hiring freeze that means New Zealanders are going without the care they need?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I was very clear when it came to the union deciding to go on strike that they should have put the offer that was presented to them a week prior to the strike to their members to vote on, rather than going on a strike which has caused 4,300 elective treatments or first specialist assessments to be delayed. That’s unacceptable. We must put patients first.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Question No. 9—just waiting for a bit of quiet.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Oh, supplementary. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you. How does the ministry’s decision to remove ethnicity as a factor in wait-times align with his targets to reduce wait-times when Māori are still waiting longer for treatment than non-Māori?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our Government is very clear: we are focusing on need and we’re focusing on making sure that we are ensuring that patients get the treatment they need in a timely and quality manner, and that applies to all New Zealanders.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. That was a mischaracterisation of the actual question. The question, which is an equity-based, policy-based, needs-based—

Hon Judith Collins: Just ask the question.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer:—addresses Māori and Pacific Islanders, and there wasn’t actually an answer in that—thanks, Judith.

SPEAKER: Well, the Minister could say the same thing again if he likes.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Government is focusing the health system to treat people based on the needs that they have and ensuring that all New Zealanders can get the access to timely and quality healthcare.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Supplementary—Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How did that go?

SPEAKER: Because she was faster off her feet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, she wasn’t.

SPEAKER: Yes, she was. I’m pretty sure. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—it was like a blur; you could hardly see it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you. How will proposed cuts to Māori and Pacific health and immunisation providers, many of whom serve high needs and hard to reach whānau, achieve his target to increase immunisation rates for children to 95 percent at 24 months?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this Government is very much focused on delivering on the basis of need. We continue to invest in providers who serve a variety of communities to ensure that we are reaching out into Māori and Pacific communities so that we can meet those targets. But as I said in the previous answer, we are focusing healthcare delivery on the basis of need so that all New Zealanders can access timely and quality healthcare.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to why on earth he hasn’t consulted with Ayesha Verrall, who’s an absolute expert on medical waiting lists and endless delays?

SPEAKER: No. Is there another question?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Yes. How does his decision to cancel bowel cancer screening for Māori and Pasifika from the age of 50 align with his target of faster cancer treatment for 90 percent of patients when these groups have the highest rates of bowel cancer in the country with 18 percent of cases diagnosed under the age of 50?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we’re focusing on, as I said, healthcare delivered on the basis of need. We are lowering the age for all New Zealanders to be able to access bowel cancer screening to the age of 58. We are also making targeted investments to target those communities—Māori, Pasifika, Asian communities—where they have lower bowel cancer screening rates, to lift those rates so that we can save as many lives as possible.