Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I want to add to the list of questions on a section that I don't believe has had any substantive debate and in particular an amendment in the name of my colleague Arena Williams which I know has not had any debate at this time. That is clause 18 of the bill which covers section 33 of the original Act. Now for the most part what Part 1 of this bill does is simply remove references to the Māori Health Authority.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It's 15.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yeah 15—18 section 18. Clause 18 in fact if we're being specific. Clause 18 which is amending section 33 of the original Act. For the most part we've got a bill that removes references to the Māori Health Authority or the Health Authority. What clause 18—and in particular clause 18(2)—does however is replace section 33(1)(d) of the Act the Pae Ora Act which currently says Health New Zealand the Māori Health Authority and relevant iwi-Māori partnership boards to agree to locality plans for localities:". But unlike most of the other clauses this one ditches the iwi-Māori partnership boards from their role in approving the locality plans.My question for the Minister is: how is he going to ensure that the voice of hapū and iwi at the local level is protected in the creation of locality plans? Because that is the very point of their existence. So I get it; the Government is disestablishing the Māori Health Authority and they want to take all the references to the Māori Health Authority out of the original Act. I disagree with that strongly. But now we're altering the role of iwi-Māori partnership boards here. This is going much further—and illogically much further—because the iwi-Māori partnership boards were to be that very linkage at the local level when the locality plans are being developed.So my colleague Arena Williams has proposed changes here in particular in clause 18(2): after the word "locality" insert the phrase "based on the advice of the relevant iwi-Māori partnership boards." So the Minister might like to tell us if it was a mistake. It is possible it was a mistake but I don't think it was. I think it was an intentional move and I think the Minister should explain to the committee why in the cause of ridding references to the Māori Health Authority we are now ridding reference to the iwi-Māori partnership boards in the development of these locality plans. And by way of explanation—and I know there's a lot of buzzwords in health that are being used in the Chamber tonight—those locality plans were and are indeed absolutely critical to the overall health reform process in order to make sure that in creating Health New Zealand creating a Māori Health Authority we give respect to the fact that local communities know the health needs of their communities.Now that was what lay behind the district health board model; it didn't work. So we've come up with a different model that says "locality plans". This clause excludes the group of people who were designed to make sure that we had iwi and hapū voice in the development of the locality plans. I find it extraordinary that a party and a Government who would tell us that they don't like centralisation and that they want to see things done at a local level would remove the very Māori voice that has been created. The Minister in a couple of his contributions has said he wants the iwi-Māori partnership boards to keep doing their jobs albeit neutered through the bill that's in front of us tonight. So that is my question for the Minister.Firstly is this an intentional thing to take iwi-Māori partnership boards out of locality planning which seems completely illogical to me? And secondly would he consider Arena Williams' amendment which would at least mean that those plans would be based on the advice of relevant iwi-Māori partnership boards?"