Hodgson Pete: Official Information (Openness of District  Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Official Information (Openness of District  Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5264] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I thank the member Dr Jackie Blue for bringing the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill to Parliament. The Government will be supporting her legislation going to a select committee but quite possibly not beyond that—we will see what happens. [ 
Interruption 
] I listened in silence to the member. The reason we think it should go to a select committee is that we think the problem the prospective problem or the idea there might be a problem ought to be explored. If there is a view in society that there is some secret club operating in our health system when our health system is itself subject to the Official Information Act then that itself is worth a bit of exploration. We are very happy to support this bill and I hope the select committee enjoys the subsequent exploration of what District Health Boards New Zealand is or is not. 
I will make a couple of points. I suppose there will be some debate at the select committee about the wording of the bill—let us not worry too much about that now. There will also be debate at the select committee about whether other like agencies should be similarly treated. For example Local Government New Zealand which of course is not subject to the Official Information Act is comprised of local governments that are individually subject to the Official Information Act so that is quite a similar situation. 
The point worth making in the few minutes in which I intend to address this bill is that District Health Boards New Zealand exists with the permission of the district health boards. If the district health boards decided to get rid of it it would go. District Health Boards New Zealand is beholden if you will to the district health boards and there is actually a bit of tension there. The district health boards on the one hand want District Health Boards New Zealand to do things to save them being done 21 times but on the other hand the district health boards are always watching District Health Boards New Zealand to make sure it does not run away with too much authority. In essence District Health Boards New Zealand’s greatest weakness in many respects is that it is beholden to 21 separate points of view. 
In respect of the resident medical officer negotiations that the member mentioned those negotiations have been led by three chief executives of district health boards. To the extent that District Health Boards New Zealand or any of its 21 staff were involved—and it would have been to a very slight extent—they would have been involved under the instruction of the three district health boards. Similarly for the 45 to 64-year-old primary-care roll-out which was negotiated between the district health boards and the primary health organisations there was a representative chief executive from the district health boards—in this case the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—and various numbers of folk representing the primary health organisations. They got together and did the negotiating. It is quite possible that District Health Boards New Zealand supported them; it certainly did not lead or decide the negotiation and has no authority to do so. 
In respect of a person having to make 21 requests under the Official Information Act to seek material I think the member has a point to make—that there are some transaction costs to be reduced there. But the member ought to be clear that even if information is collected nationally and held by District Health Boards New Zealand it is the property of the district health boards and it is not for District Health Boards New Zealand to give it out without individual authority from the 21 district health boards. District Health Boards New Zealand is not a creature of statute. It is a figment of the Incorporated Societies Act 1908; that is its status. 
I myself did not hear the interview that the member mentioned between Ross Boswell Michael Ludbrook and a Radio New Zealand interviewer. Michael Ludbrook is the chair of District Health Boards New Zealand only because he also chairs a district health board—in this case the Waikato District Health Board. This is another piece of evidence that District Health Boards New Zealand exists at the permission of the district health boards. Let us have further discussion in the select committee by all means. 
It seems to me that the member’s comments about the service support agencies may not in law be accurate. She may not have the right end of the stick there. I myself am not sure but if those service support agencies are themselves wholly owned subsidiary companies of district health boards then they will be subject to the Official Information Act. Actually they will not hold any of the information because it will all be owned by the principal companies that comprise their ownership. 
As to the Auckland District Health Board’s withdrawal from District Health Boards New Zealand yes it is true that the board did spit the dummy a few months ago. It had some good reasons to—it will be back soon it is OK—but they were nothing to do with tertiary services. Those prices are determined by the ministry not by District Health Boards New Zealand. There are some things that are decided amongst district health boards and sometimes an outfit like the Auckland District Health Board might think it is on the losing side of a majority vote. That sort of situation can arise when the chief executives get together as they do every couple of months. 
I hope I am adding a bit of useful information to the debate. Labour supports the legislation going to a select committee. I think the idea of making District Health Boards New Zealand a creature of statute through this bill is a bad idea. I myself had thought about making it a creature of statute and empowering it somewhat more than it is empowered—it is a relatively disempowered organisation contrary to the member’s viewpoint. But my personal view is that we have the health structure of the country about right as far as the district health boards are concerned and that the structural reform in the era that began in the late 1980s and finished early this decade should probably be left unmolested any further by me.