National MP Michael Woodhouse said issues raised by Ms Brooking, including community care for older people and spaces for staff, were at odds with her position that the $90 million design cuts announced in December will not affect clinical services.
Two city council members and a constituent also voiced criticism following the publication of an opinion piece by Ms Brooking on Tuesday supporting the design changes to the planned hospital.
In the piece, Ms Brooking— who on Wednesday became Minister of Oceans and Fisheries and Associate Minister of Environment and Immigration — said her focus was on clinical outcomes for Dunedin families.
"Everything I have seen, read and heard leads me to believe that will be true."
Advocating for the hospital to be built to the design of the 2021 detailed business case was "intellectually lazy", and missed the critical importance of clinical outcomes.
Other issues were more important, she said, listing six questions about the new hospital she sought answers to.
"If some of the beds originally planned to be available for older people with dementia are shelled because more care should be provided in the community, where is the funded plan for care in the community?
"If collaboration spaces are important for attracting staff and are usually measured by seats available in informal meeting spaces, how many were in the original plan, and what assurances do we have those spaces will be found in the final build?"
Other questions were on IT capacity, training and recruitment of health staff, the delivery of the interprofessional learning centre and the adequacy of pathology space.
Mr Woodhouse said Ms Brooking’s questions were valid, but were largely consequences of the cuts.
"You can’t have it both ways," he said.
It seemed Labour was trying to create the perception the design changes were an improvement on the hospital as planned in the detailed business case.
"I just find this appalling from MPs that are meant to be advocating for their communities.
Deputy Mayor Sophie Barker said she agreed four items on Ms Brooking’s list needed to be assured, and the project needed to be compared with the detailed business case, as this was based on an analysis of Dunedin’s future health needs.
Cr Jim O’Malley said the opinion piece was written as if changes were caused by a new focus in health delivery, rather than the Government’s goal of saving $90 million.
Years of hard work had gone into designing the business case, he said.
Wānaka resident Andrew Millar wrote to Ms Brooking regarding the piece, and said it did not address her fundamental point about prioritising the best clinical outcomes.
"Why is it that the almost universal opinion from a great many highly respected clinicians, that have been widely publicised and with which you must be familiar, are seriously opposed to the cutbacks because of inferior clinical outcomes?"
He urged her to support the building of the hospital as originally planned.
Contacted by the Otago Daily Times yesterday, Ms Brooking reiterated her position that she was focused on clinical outcomes.
