Sharples Pita: Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Sharples Pita: Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11194] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Less than 24 hours ago I came into this House and asked that the books be opened transparency be valued and that accountability to the State and to every Maori be accorded a priority. Today hello we have a bill advocating for openness. We have a bill promoting exactly the ideals that I hold high including that the district health boards or the entities representing them such as District Health Boards New Zealand are now accountable under the terms of the Official Information Act. Great stuff. I congratulate Dr Blue. 
Why should this be so important? Well according to my extensive research during the 2005-06 financial year the Ministry of Health received 834 Official Information Act requests as listed in its annual report while in the same period the Ministry of Justice received just 182 requests. Clearly there is sufficient appetite out there to warrant the highest level of public scrutiny that we can expect to see with the opening up of 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 there are also broader concerns such as the progress that is made in reducing health disparities by improving health outcomes for Maori and other population groups. We need to know just how well we are doing as a nation in promoting the inclusion and participation in society of all people. So it was worrying to learn from the submission of the Pharmacy Guild of New Zealand that it had experienced situations in the past where district health boards have used the mechanism of District Health Boards New Zealand to unofficially withhold 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 taxpayer funding? Well we appreciate that if there are matters of commercial sensitivity involved then the value of being able to receive aggregated data without having to make individual requests to different district health boards should not be understated. For example in the critical area of Maori representation on district health boards section 29(4) of the New Zealand 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 district health board’s resident population and that there are at least two Maori members on the board. In 2001 when district health boards were first established only three Maori were elected to the 21 district health boards throughout Aotearoa. The Minister used her power of appointment to appoint 18 Maori but the issue of Maori representation remains 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 district health boards still lacked Maori Pacific Island and rural members. In Wellington the only Maori member was the reappointed chairperson; while in South Auckland the Counties Manukau District Health Board had only one woman member one Pasifika member and one Maori member. In December last year Ngai Tahu Tumu Whakahaere Mark Solomon revealed that it had been a long journey to achieve a representative on the 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. It was not until 2 years later that Dr Matea Gilles was able to get on the board. Dr Gilles for those who do not know is the chairman of Manawhenua ki Waitaha which is a collective of health representatives from seven runaka in Canterbury. Dr Gilles 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. In another district health board area that of the Southland District Health Board media reports alleged that the statutory requirement for two Maori representatives actually meant only one in that case.  
I have taken the time to trawl over this one area of vital information about Maori representation because it reveals the mystery and intrigue that can arise when information is not freely available. Why was a Ngai Tahu nominee rejected? Why does two Maori representatives mean only one Maori representative in Southland? How is it considered suitable that in South Auckland there are no Maori representatives? It is curious. In the light of all 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 in that they can request official information from district health boards. We want to avoid any situations of misinterpretation or of passing the buck between district health boards District Health Boards New Zealand and the Ministry of Health. 
 Being able to access specific information about how decisions are made or about the basis for internal policies principles rules guidelines strategies and reports is vital in being able to assess the value of the funding provided to district health boards to meet the health needs of the communities of iwi Maori. We endorse therefore the advice of the deputy Health and Disability Commissioner Tania Thomas who told the select committee: “I support any statutory amendment which increases transparency and availability of information in the health and disability sector.” 
Therefore the Maori Party congratulates Dr Blue once again on bringing such an important issue to the House and we are happy to support the recommendation of the Health Committee that the bill not be passed confident in the fact that its intentions will still be honoured through another area. Kia ora.