Hague Kevin: New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHague Kevin: New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10935. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KEVIN HAGUE (Green): The Green Party is going to continue its opposition to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Billthis evening. We opposed it at first reading; we opposed it at second reading. In the Health Committee we explored ways to improve some of the less satisfactory aspects of the bill in particular around the Treaty of Waitangi and the effective suspension of the Crown’s responsibilities under the Treaty which the commissioners being in place amounts to. Unfortunately those improvements were ruled to be out of scope for what the committee could do.We supported the appointment of commissioners in the first place and we did so probably for somewhat different reasons to those that the Minister of Health had for appointing them. We supported the appointment of those commissioners because in our view based on the evidence that we had gathered from the southern region the board of the Southern District Health Board had lost the confidence of the people of that region. It had not stood up to the underfunding of services. It had not pursued the recovery of the debt from Southland Health when clearly it ought to have done if it were doing its duty properly. It did make the decision to bring in those awful hospital meals from Compass Group.So the board in our view had lost the confidence of the people of that district and in our view that is its job. Its job is to represent the people of the district. It is an interesting tension—is it not—in the law under the statute whether a board is more accountable to the Minister of Health or to those whom it represents on the ground the population of that district. My view has always been that in a situation where we support elected boards—or at least partly elected boards—there is a very clear accountability to the population being served. There is a notion of the district health board as being the purchasing agent of the population it serves and that can work only if the board is accountable to that population. That is an important question because the hurdle for suspending democracy is an extremely high one—or we believe it ought to be an extremely high one.The question now is with commissioners in place is there something that is inherent in elected board members that would be an obstacle to the commissioner achieving the goals for that commission? The Green Party’s position is that there is not an inherent problem with elected members and that being the case our view is that we ought to be returning to the democratic process that enables the people of the southern district to appoint or to elect their representatives once again forthwith with no further delay.If there is something that is inherent in elected board members getting in the way of achieving the purposes of a district health board then why would we have elections at all? Why would we even bother with elected positions? If there is not then the Green Party’s position is that we can have the best of both worlds and we should. As Dr John Chambers indicated in his submission to the Health Committee in fact the majority of the members of a district health board are appointed by the Minister. If it is so important that the people who are occupying the commissioner and deputy commissioner roles right now are able to have continuity in the work they have begun well why does the Minister not appoint those individuals to some of the roles that he can appoint to on that board? Why does he not make Kathy Grant the chair of the Southern District Health Board and appoint Richard Thomson? That would allow the people of the southern district to also elect their representatives.It is possible to have both and I would certainly be very keen to hear from the Minister in the chair Jonathan Coleman what objection he might possibly have to that suggestion what objection he might have to having the best of both worlds. I am also keen to hear from the Minister in the chair as to whether in fact he believes elected board members are an inherent obstacle to the achievement of a district health board’s aims.Annette King has spoken about an amendment that would provide for elections to be held sooner if certain conditions are met so this denial of democracy would become a postponement rather than a cancellation. Certainly the Green Party will support that amendment.One of the other issues that was raised by submitters to the select committee was the issue of democracy and transparency of process. They indicated that since the commissioners had taken up their roles there had been a loss of that transparency. David Clark indeed has spoken about that in his contribution this evening. We certainly welcome the statements made by the commissioners that they will do what they can to improve that transparency and to lift their game when it comes to consultation of the people of the southern district.I want to take up with the Minister his comment in the second reading debate when he noted that increased transparency would be provided by the Southern District Health Board through the mechanism of advisory committees being open to the public to attend. Of course we welcome advisory committees being open to the public to attend; that is actually how they ought to normally operate. If they have not been doing that at the Southern District Health Board that I guess indicates yet another problem in that district health board. I think that when the people of the southern district come to this Chamber and say they are concerned about a loss of transparency they do not just mean at advisory committees; they mean at the highest level within that district health board where governance decisions are being made.I would welcome the Minister’s contribution as to why the discussion and deliberation by the commissioner and her assistants is not also subject to that same requirement of transparency because I am sure that is what is required and desired by the people of the southern district. It is what is available to all of the other citizens of New Zealand. They are able to attend the meetings of their district health boards. Certainly some matters might be taken behind closed doors because of commercial sensitivity for example or because of privacy concerns. But successive Ministers have been clear that their expectation is—and the law provides that it ought to be—that district health board meetings are held primarily in public. And so it ought to be for the deliberations of the current governance arrangements at the Southern District Health Board.I would welcome the Minister’s contribution on that matter and in the event I am granted a further call later on I want to talk about Treaty of Waitangi issues.