Hospital Nurses To Take Nationwide Strike Action
Press Release: New Zealand Nurses Organisation
More than 36,000 Te Whatu Ora nurses, midwives, health care assistants and kaimahi hauora have voted to strike for 24-hours after Health NZ failed to address their safe staffing concerns.
New Zealand Nurses Organisation Tōpūtanga Tapuhi Kaitiaki o Aotearoa (NZNO) Chief Executive Paul Goulter says there was strong support from members to take strike action after a new offer from Te Whatu Ora last week was worse than a previous one in May.
"This latest offer from Te Whatu Ora fails to address concerns about safe staffing despite them being raised continually throughout the collective agreement bargaining process.
"Patients are at risk because of short staffing. Nurses, midwives and health care assistants are stretched too thin and can't give patients the care they need. This is heartbreaking for our exhausted members who became health care workers because they want to help people.
"Te Whatu Ora data obtained by NZNO under the Official Information Act shows between January and November last year, 50% of all days shifts were understaffed across hospital wards in 16 health districts," Paul Goulter says. (see table in editor's notes)
To "add insult to injury" members have again been offered a wage increase which doesn't meet cost of living increases and will see them and their whānau go backwards financially, he says.
"There were 30,000 New Zealanders who moved to Australia in the past year. We know some of them are burnt out nurses moving for better conditions and wages.
"Te Whatu Ora needs to do more to retain our nursing workforce, employ graduate nurses and ensure patients get the care they need. This is about the health and wellbeing of real people and their whānau, not the need to meet some arbitrary budget set by the Government.
"It looks like this Government has lost control of health," Paul Goulter says.
Notes:
-The nationwide strike will be held from 9am on Wednesday 30 July until 9am on Thursday 31 July.
-The strike will be a complete withdrawal of labour at every place in New Zealand where Te Whatu Ora provides health care or hospital care services.
-Life preserving services will continue to be provided.
© Scoop Media
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
Who Benefits From Outsourcing Planned Surgery: Follow The Funding
I still remember metaphorically sitting at the knee of legendary union leader Bill Andersen while listening to him opine pearls of wisdom. The most important question, when assessing a particular proposal or initiative, was 'who benefits?' This was the opening paragraph of my column published in Newsroom on 13 June: Who benefits? Follow the money. Levering off the expression 'follow the money' popularised by the film 'All the President's Men' about the Watergate scandal which brought down United States President Richard Nixon in 1974, and in the context of Aotearoa New Zealand's health system, I argued that: It is becoming increasingly clear that Government funding decisions are strongly oriented towards the for-profit private health sector rather than addressing the critical needs of our health system. I discussed this with specific reference to outsourcing (privatising) elective or planned (non-acute) surgery, public private partnerships, and funding urgent care facilities. My conclusion was: Following the funding will confirm whether or not the Government changes direction for the good of the public and their health system. The answer lies with who benefits. Benefitting private health insurers and telehealth providers Since my column was published further reporting has reinforced my conclusion that the Government's health focus is on benefiting the for-profit private health sector and enhancing privatisation. On 19 June Radio New Zealand health reporter Ruth Hill revealed on Morning Report that from 1 July taxpayers would foot the bill for cancer drugs administered in private facilities for private patients: Private health insurers benefit from publicly funding cancer drugs for private patients. This amounts to a 12-month subsidy to private health insurers while at the same time leaving the vast majority of New Zealanders who don't have private health insurance missing out. The decision is a conscious government action to benefit the for-profit private health sector instead of investing in the public hospital oncology workforce (specialists and nurses) with the objective of enabling people can get free care there. Meanwhile, NZ Doctor journalist Steve Forbes in a paywalled article (3 July) reported concerns over how 'extravagant' funding gives telehealth providers a huge advantage over general practices in the Government's new Online GP Care service. This service provides telehealth for casual patients who are not enrolled in a general practice. The rate paid to telehealth providers for casual unenrolled patients is similar to the funding rate paid to general practices for their enrolled patients through capitation. The General Practice Owners Association (GenPro) convincingly argues that telehealth providers should be paid the same (much lower) casual rate that is paid to general practices for casual unenrolled patients. GenPro Chair Dr Angus Chambers succinctly explains the differential this way: A [telehealth] provider offering the new online medical service would receive $65 for a consultation with a 14-year-old casual non-enrolled patient whose caregiver holds a Community Services Card. In contrast, a general practice would only receive $20.45. The Government's favouritism towards private telehealth providers has reinforced the view among many general practices that instead of seeing telehealth as an aid or enabler for GPs, it is seen as an alternative. Privatising planned (non-acute) surgery Back on 13 May Radio New Zealand investigative reporter Anusha Bradley had covered on Morning Report Health New Zealand's (Te Whatu Ora) intention to privatise planned surgery waitlists by outsourcing them to private hospitals on two to three-year contracts, along with extending the working hours of doctors in public hospitals: Privatising planned (non-acute) surgery. Expecting public hospital specialists (and nurses) to work longer hours in evenings and on weekends and public holidays on more complex planned cases enables private hospitals to 'cherry pick' the less complex high volume (ie, revenue generating) cases. Bradley reported Nelson Hospital based surgeon Ros Pochin, Chair of the New Zealand Committee of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons questioning what surgeons might be able to do this extended hours' work. In her words: Most surgeons already work long hours, including evenings and weekends. There are some surgeons who work purely privately, but most work privately and publicly so there isn't a cache of private surgeons sitting there twiddling their thumbs in the evenings and weekends who can suddenly call in. She added that most surgeons were already working long hours, including after-hours: There's only 800 of us in the country. We already work out-of-hours, as we all do on call. I'm about to start a week of continuous on-call myself, which I'll do 81 hours straight day and night. And so we get very little time off as it is. Outsourcing is essentially an admission that we have not got an adequately funded and resourced health system. Interestingly Health Minister Simeon Brown chose to ignore Health New Zealand advice that outsourcing to private hospitals was more expensive than expanding public hospital. Health New Zealand also advised the health minister that outsourced operations could only be delivered if there were senior clinical staff available, 'whilst ensuring Health NZ remains able to safely manage the clinical workload of our public hospitals'. Further, he was warned of the risk that private hospital capacity would be 'insufficient' due to workforce availability. Particularly important is the advice Brown received from the Chair of his Health Workforce and System Efficiencies Committee, Middlemore Hospital general surgeon Andrew Connolly: It is vital those establishing contracts recognise there are clinical obligations and responsibilities in the public sector that must not be weakened by outsourcing. Health New Zealand must consider such risks in the contracting process. Connolly is now the deputy chair of the newly appointed board of Health New Zealand. This will be interesting. His advice to the health minister became even more imperative following Brown's subsequent decision discussed below. Privatising planned surgery morphs into public-private partnerships The above-mentioned outsourcing reported by Anusha Bradley, including the warnings ignored by Simeon Brown, was trumped by the Minister's subsequent decision that private hospital contracts would be almost permanent – 10 year contracts which are longer than the terms for public service chief executive appointments. These 10-year contracts for cherry-picked surgery has rightly been called Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) by economist Brian Easton in a column published by Pundit on 4 July: PPPs based in private hospitals. PPPs enable in varying ways for private partners to maximise profit opportunities in the design, construction and operation of health facilities. These PPP opportunities have been quickly recognised by private investors as reported by Hamish McNeilly in The Post (5 July): PPPs encourage private investors change plans. The investors undisclosed company had resource consent granted to build private student accommodation in Dunedin. Now they have changed their plans by seeking to build a new private hospital instead. The only way these PPPs by another name can maximise private profits will be for the crisis-ridden rundown public hospitals to be even further rundown. This includes growing the private hospital specialist workforce at the expense of the public hospital specialist workforce. Non-evidence based decision-making On 17 June Treasury received the following request under the Official Information Act: I would appreciate any Treasury papers on the proposal that HNZ should outsource treatment to private hospitals on ten year contracts. I am especially interested in how they will impact on the government's fiscal position. On 9 July Treasury responded: I am refusing your request under section 18(e) of the Official Information Act as the information requested does not exist or, despite reasonable efforts to locate it, cannot be found. Given that the information requested would have been recent, not historical, it is obvious that Treasury's advice was neither sought nor provided. The only information received by the health minister from his official advisers (Health New Zealand and his expert committee) was apprehensive at best. Responsibility for this poor and risky decision-making rests solely and squarely on Health Minister Simeon Brown and his government colleagues. Ideology, not evidence based, has prevailed – again! Ian Powell Otaihanga Second Opinion is a regular health systems blog in New Zealand. Ian Powell is the editor of the health systems blog 'Otaihanga Second Opinion.' He is also a columnist for New Zealand Doctor, occasional columnist for the Sunday Star Times, and contributor to the Victoria University hosted Democracy Project. For over 30 years , until December 2019, he was the Executive Director of Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand.
Otago Daily Times
14 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Alcohol guidelines 'outdated, understate health risks'
By Guyon Espiner of RNZ The country's official low-risk drinking guidelines are outdated and "understate the health risks" of alcohol, according to Health New Zealand documents. Efforts to update guidelines were halted after alcohol lobbyists complained to a Ministry of Health general manager Ross Bell. Bell, who works within its Public Health Agency, says he intervened to clear up confusion about whether HNZ or the Ministry of Health (MOH) should manage the guidelines. He said the MOH would manage them now but that work was on hold while it considered its priorities. Documents released to RNZ under the Official Information Act show why HNZ considered updating the safe drinking guidelines was crucial and that it saw "scrutiny from the alcohol industry" as a risk factor in the process. New Zealand's drinking guidelines say that to stay low-risk, men should have no more than 15 drinks per week and women 10. The maximum number of drinks recommended per week to stay low-risk (for men and women) is set at two in Canada, 10 in Australia and 14 in the United Kingdom. Canada, Australia and the UK all significantly reduced their safe drinking guidelines in recent years as evidence emerged about the health risks of alcohol, which is linked to seven types of cancer. A November 2024 memo from HNZ alcohol harm prevention manager Tom Devine said New Zealand's guidelines, written in 2011, were now out of date. "The evidence around alcohol and its risks to health has evolved since then and other countries like ours, such as the United Kingdom (in 2016), Australia (in 2020), and Canada (in 2023), have updated their Alcohol & Health Advice, resulting in much lower recommended drinking limits," Devine wrote. "The current advice is complex (and) out of step with other jurisdictions." Current guidelines also did not meet the needs of pregnant and breast-feeding women and young people, he said. "A review and update are necessary to ensure the advice is clear, inclusive and based on the most up-to-date evidence." Another HNZ document, written in January 2024, said: "The current advice does not reflect the latest scientific evidence meaning that it understates the health risks from alcohol." The documents show HNZ commissioned Massey University to work on the first phase of a review in February 2024 - at a cost of about $130,000 - but later that year MOH's Bell intervened. Emails obtained by RNZ show a lobbyist with the Brewer's Association emailed Bell in October 2024 asking why a HNZ website was reporting that the drinking guidelines were under review. He emailed again a month later complaining that references to the review were still on the website, run by HNZ, and also took issue with the fact the site linked to Canadian drinking guidelines. Bell emailed HNZ in December 2024: "All work on this project will now pause. You will update relevant Health NZ websites to remove references to the review and also to other jurisdictions' guidelines (including the Canadian one)." Bell has declined requests for an interview with RNZ, but in a previous statement said material was removed from the website to avoid confusion, as the drinking guidelines were now led by the Ministry of Health not HNZ, which runs the website. He said that was an internal decision by the MOH and that a review of the drinking guidelines was now on hold while the ministry considered its priorities. But the documents released to RNZ show HNZ believe it is crucial to update the guidance. A memo from HNZ alcohol harm prevention manager Tom Devine said health professionals relied on accurate guidelines, which were "foundational" for screening, interventions and referral for treatment. "This is where health professionals ask patients about their alcohol consumption using the advice as a baseline to assess risk, which informs the need for brief interventions or referral for counselling or treatment." Devine's memo said one of the risks in reviewing the guidelines was "scrutiny from the alcohol industry" and his mitigation strategy included "a strategic communications plan to articulate the evidence base and reasoning". Associate Professor Andy Towers, the co-director of the Mental Health & Addiction Programme at Massey University, worked on the initial stages of the review for HNZ and said current guidelines understated the risk. "There's more and more evidence now, especially with longitudinal health data, to show that even low levels of alcohol use over a long time can result in some significant alcohol related harms." He said sticking with the 2011 guidelines could lull drinkers into a false sense of security. "For us to set low risk advice thresholds that are quite high, much higher than other countries, means that we will continue to have serious alcohol related harms occurring across the country, in communities, and that will flow through into hospitals." Cancer Society evidence and insights lead Emma Shields said a review of the drinking guidelines was needed to bring them into line with the latest evidence and international guidance. She said alcohol caused seven different types of cancer including breast, bowel and oesophageal. "When it comes to cancer risk, there is no 'safe' level of alcohol use, and even small amounts of alcohol increase the risk of cancer."
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Mum of two Ramiri Paul's life hangs in the balance while she awaits a new kidney
Wāhine Māori Ramiri Paul is one of the 400 New Zealanders on the kidney transplant waiting list. The killer disease was in the headlines a fortnight ago when Te Pāti Māori MP Takutai Moana Tarsh Kemp died suddenly. Kemp was also on the kidney transplant waiting
