Opinion
As I’ve repeatedly warned BFD readers, always assume that a so-called “fact-checker” is trying to mislead you. But, if it’s bad enough that professional, often taxpayer-funded, liars in cahoots with the mainstream media are bullshitting you, it’s far worse when a statutory body is joining in the mendacious censorship.
In this case, New Zealand’s Broadcasting Standards Authority.
Radio host Kate Hawkesby‘s suggestion Maori and Pasifika patients are prioritised for surgery due to their ethnicity was misleading and discriminatory, the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) has ruled.
How was it “misleading”?
The BSA ruled Hawkesby’s claim Maori and Pacific people were being “moved to the top of surgery waitlists” gave the misleading impression that ethnicity was either the only or the key factor involved in the assessment.
But did she actually say that?
As the BSA quietly admits, no:
While not said explicitly…
So, she didn’t say it. The BSA just chooses to interpret it that way. So much for objectivity.
So, what did Hawkesby say?
During the broadcast, Hawkesby discussed Te Whatu Ora / Health NZ’s new Equity Adjustor Score in the Auckland region, which uses five categories to place patients on the non-urgent surgical waitlist: clinical priority, time spent waiting, location, deprivation level and ethnicity.
Yet, the simple fact is that Maori and Pasifika are being given preferential treatment based on their ethnicity, among other factors.
“The broadcaster chose to frame an important news story in a misleading and inflammatory manner. The framing of the issue created an environment where potentially harmful comments from the audience were foreseeable, and the broadcaster chose to read many such comments out on air.
Newshub
In other words, she told the truth: that public health authorities are prioritising people, not just on the basis of need, but race. That might seem “inflammatory” to those who want to draw a polite veil over the racist inequalities of the so-called Equity Adjustor Score, but it’s not “inaccurate”: it’s the truth.
A truth the BSA apparently doesn’t want New Zealanders to hear.
The “equity” argument just doesn’t fly.
Maori die on average seven years younger than non-Maori.
And the reason for that is? Is there a law anywhere in New Zealand which prohibits Maori from eating healthy, exercising, quitting smoking, or keeping regular health appointments, all of which would extend their lifespan?
[Dr Morgan Edwards, president of the New Zealand Society of Anaesthetists] pointed out Maori and Pasifika have a tougher time in the health system, whether that’s seeing a GP, getting specialist referrals, and attending appointments.
That’s before they even get on a waitlist.
By the time they’re in line for surgery, Dr Edwards said Maori are likely to be at a later stage of disease.’
Once again: where is the law or policy which mandates those outcomes? Or is it simply a result of poor personal decision-making?
Maori and Pasifika have higher obesity rates, but “surgical rates for gastric bypass is highest in Pakeha, and lowest in Maori and Pasifika”, [Sir Collin Tukuitonga] said.
Maybe it’s because one group of fatties is more likely to get off their fat arses and do something about it?
But, as always, the simplest way to get to the heart of such matters is: flip the script.
If New Zealand doctors announced a “White People First” policy, would it be racist?
What if a broadcaster said that white people are being moved to the top of surgery waitlists? This is, in fact, exactly what Tukuitonga claims:
“Maori and Pasifika [are] often not referred as readily as others.”
Newshub
Where’s the BSA, now?
Or, like so many other policies, does this only ever work one way?