KEY POINTS:
No matter how much money is devoted to health services, there will always be calls for more. Evidence for this demand is supplied almost daily by reports on waiting lists for surgery, hospital overcrowding, patients being sent to Australia for lifesaving operations, and suchlike.
In the normal course
of events, media stories highlighting shortcomings in the sector significantly outweigh those proclaiming its achievements. This makes it all the more surprising and all the more damning that the National Party's health spokesman has tried to browbeat the Auckland District Health Board over its release of information before the election.
Tony Ryall has sent a letter of warning to the board's chief executive, saying his party has received reports that the board intends to promote Government achievements. A "significant political issue" would result if the board generated too much good news over the campaign period, he wrote.
The exact grounds for Mr Ryall's concern have not been disclosed. But he told the Herald he had "heard suggestions" the output of proactive good news would be beyond normal levels. This had prompted him to remind the board of the rules governing state-sector organisations during election periods.
Mr Ryall will have to provide a more compelling explanation for his action than this. Otherwise, it can be interpreted only as a naked attempt to put the wind up Garry Smith, the district health board chief executive, pressuring him to request his managers to think twice before releasing positive information about the board's operations. Thinly veiled and underpinning the warning is the notion that the board will be answerable to Mr Ryall if, as current polling forecasts, National wins the election.
This is totally beyond the pale. The health board hardly needs to be reminded that state servants are expected to behave impartially at all times. This means operational information, good or bad, should continue to be released to the public during the campaign.
Any attempt by a politician to interfere in the process by placing restrictions on this flow is untenable. Undermined would be the public's right to know what is happening in the health sector in a timely manner.
In terms of the Auckland District Health Board, part of that knowledge is the recently disclosed fact that the number of heart operations has dropped by a fifth since cardiac services shifted from Green Lane Hospital.
This statistic could not be characterised as good news. Nor could an officials' report stating that Greater Auckland is short of 53 beds for the acutely unwell in its main hospitals, jeopardising patient safety.
Any playing down of such information, surely an expected corollary if Mr Ryall's concern was firmly grounded, has not been evident. There has not, in other words, been any indication that the board has become an instrument of the Government's election campaign.
Mr Smith says the health board will not change any practices as a consequence of Mr Ryall's letter and will continue to abide by official guidelines. That is the way it should be and, hopefully, will be.
Partisan requests from whatever political quarter have to be resisted. Mr Ryall has not provided any evidence of the board's intention to promote Government achievements. On that basis, he is ill-equipped to make accusations of politicisation.
Ironically, any kowtowing to him by the health board, even by default, would prompt that very outcome. The reliability of board information would be an immediate casualty. That Mr Ryall seems not to see this is the ultimate indicator of the shallowness and errant nature of his missive.