Thursday, July 5, 2018

ANOTHER (CLEAR) TRIUMPH FOR OUR MINISTER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT

Fact ... Jacinda Ardern pledged that her government would be more open and transparent than previous administrations.

Fact ... the Health Minister has directed DHBs to stop publishing performance data statistics ... such things as waiting times for emergency surgery, elective surgery and cancer treatment and the like.

Fact ... Health targets were not an invention of the National government.   They were put in place by the Clark Labour/NZ First administration.   In introducing them the then Health Minister, Pete Hodgson, said they were doing that to help "achieve the best possible outcomes for all New Zealanders".   What's changed?

Easy ... this government doesn't what you to know how successfully (or not) they're spending the health budget.

Another clear triumph for Clare Curren as Minister for Open Government ... NOT ... and a cop out by St Jacinda amd her CoL.



24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Veteran........Can you supply a link or a ref for this?

Lord Egbut

Psycho Milt said...

In particular, a citation for this:

Fact ... Jacinda Ardern pledged that her government would be more open and transparent than previous administrations.

As far as I can tell, far from being a "fact," this is a piece of propaganda peddled by right-wing blogs in the hope that repeating a lie often enough will make it accepted as truth.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Too lazy to do a simple google search ledgut? You'll find it in the herald.

Anonymous said...

Walter...... I'm annoyed that I actually took any notice of you......DHB data search in herald returns zilch

Lord Egbut

Psycho Milt said...

I wasn't too lazy to do a quick Google search.

I could find no record of Jacinda Ardern making that claim, but I did find this article in the Herald, in which Bryce Edwards examines John Key's claim "We've been way more transparent than any other Government that's been around" and Bill English's claim "John Key runs the most transparent government that New Zealand's ever seen."

As you can imagine, Edwards found plenty to write about, under the headings "Official Information Act abuse," "Failings of the Ombudsman's office" and "Open government partnership farce." Suffice to say, once Edwards had examined the claims, Key's government did not pass the exam.

Snowflake said...

Veteran must have got this from somewhere. The right never tells lies. Ever. I’m sure he will clear this up. Waiting....

Johno said...

PM, Egbut and Snowflake are plumbing new lows in lefty apologism and denial.

Labour/Green confidence and supply:
20. Strengthen New Zealand’s democracy by increasing public participation, openness, and transparency around official information.

Speech from the throne:
"This government will foster a more open and democratic society. It will strengthen transparency around official information."

Meanwhile, the government continues to avoid answering questions, continues to obstruct the release of official information, and continues to keep a minister responsible for open government who presides over an environment where committees don't keep notes for fear of them ending up in an information request.

And the three monkeys Egbut, Snowflake and Milt cover their eyes, ears and mouths and chant "la la la, can't find it on google".

Pathetic.


The Veteran said...

Hi all ... try this for size https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/04/24/106096/grading-the-government ... the bit under Open Government and Transparency ... marked F (Fail).

Or this ... https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/345381/how-open-and-transparent-is-the-new-government

Or this ... https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11948427 ... save you the trouble ... Curran promises the new Government will be much more open than the last "Openness and transparency and doing things differently is important so we've got to practise what we preach and actually do it".

Fixed it for you.



Anonymous said...

Ardern never made thay quote...it's a mish mash of sound bites.........where is the ref link to the DHB claim??????????

Lord Egbut

Psycho Milt said...

Or, put simply, no Jacinda Ardern didn't pledge that her government would be more open and transparent than previous administrations.

Noel said...

I'm for a review of health targets.
We have always followed then NHS and the rationale for adopting targets originated in part from a study way back.
"Willcox and colleagues
compared governments’ attempts to reduce
waiting times in Australia, Canada, England,
New Zealand, and Wales from 2000 to 2005
and concluded that “England has achieved
the most sustained improvement, linked to
major funding boosts, ambitious waiting-time
targets, and a rigorous performance management
system.”

So targets themselves are not the only part of the improvement triad.

I'm reminded of my been hospitalised with a serious bowel obstruction. When the condition stabilised I was discharged before full evidence of a clearance. This was to fit the 6 hr ED target. On the only other bowel obstruction I did not avoid, prior to that target been imposed they would transfer me to a ward to await proof.

There was a funny side. At two in the morning in terrible weather I decided not to get the wife out of bed for a 45 minute drive to the hospital and made a bed out of the chairs in the ED admission room. Later a nurse said she had put a bed in the ambulance admission bay and then quietly said "it was the same bed you were in on admission".

I guess there a different ways to measure targets.



Johno said...

PM: "Or, put simply, no Jacinda Ardern didn't pledge that her government would be more open and transparent than previous administrations."

As I already posted, it is in the confidence and supply agreement and speech from the throne. Ardern is the leader of this government so she is responsible for its pledges and statements.

Please don't demean yourself trying to wriggle out of this with weasel words. It's too excruciatingly sad to watch.

The Veteran said...

Gueez ... I seem to have hit a nerve with this one.

For Lord Egbut ... go to https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/104976776/hows-your-dhb-doing-govt-does-away-with-national-health-targets ... for the decision by Health Minister Clark to do away with DHB targets.

For the rest of you ... you're tying yourselves in knots over the open government and transparency issue ... and it's funny/sad to see. On one hand you're arguing the Government didn't pledge to be more open and transparent than previous administrations as if that's something to be proud of. On the other side you show you don't understand Cabinet collective responsibility. When a Minister speaks relating to the portfolio he/she holds he/she is speaking for the Government. Minister Curran is speaking for Ardern's Government when she said "the new Government will be much more open than the last ... Openness and transparency and doing things differently is important so we've got to practise what we preach and actually do it".

Doing away with the reporting on health targets is certainly doing things differently ... but it is also the antithesis of openness and transparency.

Practise what you preach and actually do it ... your words not mine ... another saying ... the proof of the puddings in the eating ... and your pudding has been burned beyond recognition. Hubris and cant rules ok with leftie apologists ... figures.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Just for dumbarses ledgut and PM. NZ Herald 2nd July.

"Health targets were not invented by the last Government, they were introduced by the previous Labour Government to "achieve the best possible outcomes for all New Zealanders", said its Health Minister, Pete Hodgson."

Psycho Milt said...

As I already posted, it is in the confidence and supply agreement and speech from the throne. Ardern is the leader of this government so she is responsible for its pledges and statements.

Yep, and I'm disappointed in their performance in this respect. Every government makes noises about being open and transparent and most of them don't do much to back it up. It would be nice if this one turned out to be different, but there's not much sign of it so far.

It would also be nice if Jacinda Ardern pledged that her government would be more open and transparent than previous administrations, but she hasn't - which was the point of my original comment.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Veteran.......in the Stuff article there is very little substance or reasoning behind the decision, not even enough to comment on. Target orientated performance and the time spent on recording data collection has long been looked at as just another layer that needs to be managed. The Brits seem to be reducing the number clipboards.
Is there anymore information on why this decision was reached? Personally I think It's a good thing that unnecessary departments and agencies sucking on the health service should be closed.
Seems like the Brits are doing similar.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/04/jeremy-hunt-alter-nhs-performance-targets-perverse-incentives

Lord Egbut

Anonymous said...

If this govt is so open and transparent, why were they at such pains not to release the secret document of the col agreement? More like, the most shady and evasive govt we've had since the days of Clark. And to think, we could have had Bill English and co...


Ron

The Veteran said...

Egbut ... no, I don't know why Minister Clark ordered DHBs to stop reporting especially as this was an initiative introduced by the last Labour government and since then we have seen an steady improvement in the wait times for cancer treatment and in the number of elective surgery operations. Perhaps he is expecting those numbers to go south under his watch.

Gerald said...

There are a number of reasons Health targets are under scrutiny world wide.
Gaming been only one.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/90770259/thousands-left-off-surgery-waiting-lists-suffering-indefinitely--study

Psycho Milt said...

Gaming been only one.

But it's the big one. If you impose target numbers, people will find ways to meet those numbers, and those ways won't necessarily involve progress towards the goals the target numbers were meant to encourage. That doesn't matter too much if it's all about who on the sales staff gets paid the most in bonuses this year, but it matters a hell of a lot if it's all about public health and education.

Labour may have introduced targets, but it's proved to be a bad idea because, duh-uh, it's created a culture of making sure numbers in reports look good rather than a culture of treating the sick and injured. Gerald's linked article provides an example of the effects that has. And that's also the reason teachers fought tooth and nail against National's efforts to impose that culture on the education system, despite DPF's vigorous attempts to suggest otherwise.

Snowflake said...

Equating the sound approach to abolishing silly health targets to government transparency is a stretch even by the desperate and poor standards of Vet and his tragic hangers on. The poor Tories are being driven crazy at the notion they’re out of power. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people. Keep clutching those pearls girls. Soimon to the rescue!

Johno said...

So much BS from the left as they attempt to weasel out of accountability for health targets.
One of the key targets, emergency wait times, has reduced leading to lives saved, no gaming there. The new government is preparing to hide its failures and they'll have bodies to hide as well.

Snowflake said...

Yep, and in other news, the right gets all hysterical. Other targets were gamed and led to perverse outcomes, but hey they allowed the worst health minister in NZ history to show off, so Johno says they were cool. Putting his state funded education to great use.

Noel said...

Johno you should read the studies to the end.
“Limitations. As this was an observational study, we are unable to attribute causality, and it is possible that factors other than the implementation of the ED target contributed to the observed changes in the outcomes measured, which is a weakness of our study. This is particularly relevant to the observed reduction in elective in-patient mortality as the introduction of two other health targets (improved access to elective surgery and faster cancer treatment) at the same time as the ED target in New Zealand may have impacted positively on this outcome.”

Farrs claim of thousands been saved is unsubstantiated.

https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2017/vol-130-no-1455-12-may-2017/7240

I’m more inclined to believe there has been a better outcome but the most important reason probably been earlier access to the clinician.

https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2017/vol-130-no-1455-12-may-2017/7239