Dr Pita Sharples: Official Information Bill
te-pati-maori
Thu Aug 16 2007 12:00:00 GMT+1200 (New Zealand Standard Time)
Dr Pita Sharples: Official Information Bill
Thursday, 16 August 2007, 9:42 am
Speech: The Maori Party
Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill
Dr Pita Sharples, Co-leader, Maori Party
Wednesday 15 August 2007
Less than 24 hours ago, I came into this House and asked that the books be opened, that transparency be valued, that accountability to the state and to iwi/Maori be accorded priority.
And hello, today we have a Bill advocating for openness.
We have a Bill promoting exactly the ideals I hold so high – including that the District Health Boards, or entities representing them, such as District Health Boards New Zealand, are now accountable under the terms of the Official Information Act.
Great stuff Dr Blue.
Why should this be so important? Well according to my extensive research, during the 2005 and 2006 financial year, the Ministry of Health received 834 Official Information Act requests – as listed in their annual reports.
While for the same year, the Ministry of Justice received just 182.
Clearly there is sufficient appetite out there to warrant the highest level of public scrutiny, as we could expect to see with opening up to the Act.
When we think of the influence and significance that the 21 District Health Boards have in providing state funded health care services throughout Aotearoa, we can only guess at how vital the information they hold is for New Zealanders.
New Zealanders need clarity about their individual health records, but also broader concerns such as progress that is made, in reducing health disparities by improving health outcomes for Maori and other population groups.
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
We need to know just how well we are doing as a nation, in promoting the inclusion and participation in society of all people.
And so it was worrying to learn from the submission of the Pharmacy Guild that they had experienced situations in the past where DHBs have used the mechanism of DHBNZ to artificially with-hold information that should have been in the public arena.
Why would District Health Boards New Zealand want to avoid the public duty of being accountable for tax payer funding?
While we can appreciate if there are matters of commercial sensitivity involved, the value of being able to receive aggregated data without having to make individual requests to different DHBs should not be under-stated.
Say for example, in the critical area of Maori representation on DHBs.
Section 29 (4) of the Public Health and disability Act 2000 requires the Minister to endeavour to ensure that Maori membership of the board is proportional to the number of Maori in the DHB’s resident population, and that there are at least two members of the Board.
In 2001, when DHBs were first established, only three Maori were elected to the 21 DHBs throughout Aotearoa. The Minister used her power of appointment, to appoint 18 Maori, but the issue of Maori representation remained high on the agenda of Maori health practitioners.
Three years later, there was still concern expressed about Maori representation in the aftermath of the 2004 elections.
A report from Radio New Zealand in November 2004, revealed that many DHBs still lacked Maori, Pacific Island and rural members. In Wellington the only Maori was the reappointed Chair, while in South Auckland, the Counties Manukau DHB had only one woman, one Pasifika person and no Maori member.
And in December last year, Ngai Tahu Tumu Whakarae, Mark Solomon, revealed that it had been a long journey to achieve a representative on Canterbury District Health Board, even as an observer.
The media reported that the Minister of Health had supposedly rejected a Ngai Tahu nominee when appointees were chosen after the 2004 board elections, and so it wasn’t until two years later, that Dr Matea Gillies was able to get on the board.
Dr Gillies, for those who don’t know is chairman of Mana Whenua ki Waitaha, a collective of health representatives from seven runanga in Canterbury. He lectures in Maori health at the Christchurch School of Medicine. He has worked for many years in indigenous health, including a significant amount of time with Aboriginal peoples.
And then in another DHB area, that of the Southland District Health Board, media reports alleged that the statutory requirement for two Maori representatives, actually only meant one in the case of Southland.
Mr Speaker, I have taken the time to trawl over this one area of vital information about Maori representation, because it reveals the mystery and the intrigue that can arise when information is not freely available.
Why was the Ngai Tahu nominee rejected?
Why does ‘two Maori representatives’ only mean one for Southland?
How is it that in South Auckland, there were no Maori representatives considered suitable?
Curious.
In light of all of this ambiguity, the amendment proposed in this Bill has been welcomed by the Maori Party as it provides certainty and clarity to the public and to Maori that they can, in fact, request official information from District Health Boards.
We want to avoid any situations of mis-interpretation; or passing the buck between DHBs, DHBNZ or the Ministry of Health.
Being able to access specific information about how decisions are made, or the basis for internal policies, principles, rules and guidelines, strategies and reports, is vital in being able to assess the value of the funding provided to DHBs to meet the health needs of their communities and iwi/Maori.
This is important to access information which affects us.
We endorse, therefore, the advice of the Deputy Health and Disability Commissioner, Tania Thomas, who told the Select Committee that “I support any statutory amendment which increases transparency and availability of information in the health and disability sector”.
Having gone through all of this process then, and absolutely on board with the need for information to support the democratic purpose, it was somewhat of a surprise to receive the recommendation from the select committee that the Bill should not be passed.
But we are assured that District Health Board New Zealand can be included in Schedule One of the Ombudsman Act – that the Governor General has signed a Order in Council to effect just that – and with these actions in place, the intention of the Bill will be met.
Therefore, the Maori Party congratulates Dr Blue once again, for bringing such an important issue to the House; and we are happy to support the recommendation of the Select Committee that the Bill not be passed, confident in the fact that its intentions will still be honoured through another avenue.
Ends
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
a.supporter:hover {background:#EC4438!important;} @media screen and (max-width: 480px) { #byline-block div.byline-block {padding-right:16px;}}
Using Scoop for work?
Scoop is free for personal use, but you’ll need a licence for work use. This is part of our Ethical Paywall and how we fund Scoop. Join today with plans starting from less than $3 per week, plus gain access to exclusive Pro features.
Join Pro Individual Find out more
Find more from The Maori Party on InfoPages.