King Annette: New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Annette: New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10931. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): Labour supports the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill. We supported the bill at the first reading and we supported the bill at the select committee. We supported the bill in the second reading last week. We supported the bill because we recognised there was a problem at the Southern District Health Board that needed to be rectified. We supported it because it was a longstanding problem that went back to the time the two district health boards were amalgamated without the necessary work being done to see the financial impact on that district health board. We know that over time there had been huge pressure on that district health board—its deficits were growing there was a lack of confidence in the board itself and finally there was a lack of confidence by the Minister of Health in the board’s performance—so there needed to be some action taken.We supported the Minister when he put in a commissioner. In fact I had suggested that the Minister put in a commissioner some time earlier—the Minister might not remember that but I actually did suggest it several months before you put in a commissioner. We supported delaying the 2016 election. We did it because the commissioner and deputy commissioners would have been in place since only 15 June 2015—so 11 months—and 5 months later we would be going into an election for the October triennial election. They will not have implemented their recommendations and they would not have implemented their plan. I agree that they need time to do that. We need time so that when they do present their plan the Minister needs to be held accountable for the implementation of that plan. It comes very much back to him then—not to a board but to the Minister because they are his commissioners.We are concerned—and in fact both New Zealand First and the Greens who have voted against this bill have been concerned—about the loss of democracy. We had something like eight submissions to the Health Committee. The two from Māori submitters were not opposed to the delay in the election so much as about what representation they could have for Māori on the Southern District Health Board. The other submitters were opposed to the loss of democracy. I wish we did not have to delay the election because I strongly do believe that we ought to have democracy in district health boards. In fact I was the Minister who brought back democracy to district health boards. It had been got rid of in the 1990s under the zealots who were in Government at that time—Hon Ruth Dyson: That was National.Hon ANNETTE KING: —National at that time; think Ruth Richardson. National had got rid of democracy—it was getting rid of area health boards and putting in place a whole lot of things with funny names like “CHEs” Crown health enterprises and “RHAs” regional health authorities and “HFA” the Health Funding Authority and so on. When we became the Government under the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act we brought back democracy within district health boards. So we strongly support the ability for local people to have a say on their district health boards.We are also concerned Minister that the track record of this Government since it has been in power relating to Environment Canterbury has meant that when a promise was made—and a promise was made—to have an election for Environment Canterbury when it came to the time to have that election it was delayed and the commissioners’ times were stretched out and the election was delayed again until the people of Canterbury lost faith in the Government’s promise that there would be an election held for them. We have some grave fears that this will not be a delay of just one election.So I have come to the Committee with a suggestion for the Minister. Of course the Minister would have to be a big man to take it but it is a serious suggestion that in fact he replaces the word “cancellation” and puts in place “postponement” of the 2016 election of the Southern District Health Board and that it be postponed until a date set by Order in Council. What that would mean Minister is that when the commissioners have presented you with the report and they have implemented the requirements that you have put upon them it is no longer necessary to delay an election in the Southern District Health Board—that there is the ability for you by Order of Council to be able to then hold an election. It might be only a year from now. No time frame has been given to us as to when the work of the commissioners would be completed. It might be a year—it could be 18 months. But why delay it if there is an ability having then got the recommendations having put in place what was required for the Minister to then be able to call an election by Order in Council?I think that my amendment satisfies a number of issues. It gives commissioners time to do the work that the Minister wants. It does not cancel an election if one could be held earlier. There are no extra costs because if it is cancelled the $300000 that was the cost for the last election would be used for one when it was called by the Minister and when the next election came round it would be straight back into the same timetable. It would also meet the demands of southern New Zealanders to have a say in the health board.If the Minister was not prepared to accept this approach then is he prepared to follow the lead of the previous Minister of Health who in December 2008 when he became the Minister turned the commissioner at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board Sir John Anderson into the chair of a board and then appointed the previously elected board members to a governance board until 2010? That was the way that he had managed a board that had been dismissed: turning the commissioner into the chair and making the former elected members into a board of governors a governance board. Would the Minister consider this approach if he would not consider calling an election earlier if everything that he has asked for has been undertaken?I do accept and support the Minister wanting to have a board that is financially strong has the confidence of the people of the southern district is able to provide the services that are so needed and is able to do the rebuild of that hospital. Where I do not agree with the Minister is that the southern people have to find the money to be able to help build their hospital. Most hospitals around New Zealand have had funding from the State but one of the requirements is that southern people show how they are going to be able to help rebuild their own hospital.But Minister when they have achieved all those things that you require why would you then delay when you could have the opportunity to say: “Right you’ve performed what we want. You’ve done what is needed. I’m confident that what’s been put in place works. I will therefore by Order in Council call an election for the people there.” We will continue to support this bill Minister but we put up a suggestion for you and I would like to hear your arguments as to why you would not accept an earlier election. You do not have to wait until 2019 for an election if what was required was done earlier.I would be interested in the Minister’s response to that and also in whether the Minister will give an assurance that there is not a delay in an election for beyond 2019—that there is an absolute cast-iron guarantee from him that this is for one period only. I have to tell you that there are a lot of nervous people and I have gone through many of the press clippings from out of the southern area written by people within the community from doctors from Grey Power from nurses and from others who are very worried that this democracy has been removed from them and that it may be some time before they get it back.So it is a serious issue but having said that I also know how serious it is to ensure that we get a board back into financial shape. It may mean Minister that the review that you have done on the population-based funding formula needs to take another look at the rural factor for the southern district because it does not make sense to me that South Canterbury has a higher per head of population funding than they have in the southern district.