Gallagher Martin: Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11611] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 If I recall before the adjournment we were talking about information and openness in our hospital system. I was reflecting on what I felt was the distinct lack of historical knowledge shown by some new National members of the House. Although I was complimentary to the author of the bill on the work done I could not believe that the author had worked in the health system yet seemed so incredibly ignorant of what had actually happened in the 1990s. I could not believe that the author of the bill appeared totally ignorant that in the 1990s the National Government had got rid of democratically elected health boards had got rid of openness in decisionmaking in the health system and had sent the media and public away. I recall that we had a creation called Crown health enterprises— 
Anne Tolley 
: Just address the bill. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: —and I know that there is interjection from the other side because I am hitting a very raw nerve. I am hitting a very raw nerve. I find it difficult to listen to the simpering feelings expressed by members opposite who say they want to be for the consumer they want to be for the patient and they want to be advocates. Yet there is this Stalinist ignorance of their party’s history—this failure to recognise what their Government did in the 1990s. 
Well excuse me! Anyone who worked in the health system in the 1990s knows exactly what happened. That Government got rid of democratically elected health boards. That Government brought us a thing called a “CHE”—or was it a cheese or a double cheese? It was called a Crown health enterprise. 
That Government also changed the word “patient”. What did a patient become known as? 
Sue Moroney 
: Probably a client. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Was it a client; was it a consumer? There was nothing at all about patients having a right to know or about the public having a right to information. I find that really difficult. 
I compliment the author of this bill because I think her intentions are sincere but I find it very very difficult that there is no honesty on the other side in terms of members opposite acknowledging what their Government did in the 1990s. There is no acknowledgement of their hstory. At least one of them could be honest enough to say: “We made a mistake. We are sorry.” How can they come back into this House so many years later and suddenly say they believe in the flow of information and they believe in accountability without acknowledging the actions of their Government in the 1990s around that flow of information. 
Can I repeat slowly so that those people opposite who have collective amnesia can be reminded what their Government did in the 1990s? 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What was that? 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: The National Government closed down democratically— 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We on this side of the House have been relatively patient waiting for the member on his feet to address the bill before the House. We have had a very interesting and selective history lesson but surely after several minutes it is time to ask the member to address the bill before the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has been addressing the matter of district health boards which is what the bill is about. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I am addressing the bill because as I understand it the bill is about empowering patients and it is about information. If we talk about “selective history” I ask what is selective about the previous National Government getting rid of democratically elected health boards. What is selective about closed-door meetings? What is selective about replacing a health board with a thing called a CHE—a Crown health enterprise—which was run on a company model by Government appointees? Those appointees ran our health services around the country and community-elected representatives were sent packing. What is selective about that practice? That is history and all I am asking is that new National members of the House including National’s senior whip recognise that. Indeed the senior whip was on the Napier City Council. She knows all about confidential meetings and the whole principle of democratically elected meetings. She understands totally that process. I cannot use the “h” word but all I am asking is that newer members of the National Party at least have the honesty to stand up in this Chamber and say: “Yes in the 1990s our Government of the day got it wrong. We were in error and that now informs us— 
Anne Tolley 
: We did not. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Oh they did not! So it is OK now? How can members opposite support this bill yet support the closure of democratically elected health boards and support closing the doors to the media and the public? I do not understand that; it is a disconnection of logic. I think that it is worse than a flip-flop. It is far worse than a flip-flop. I actually think it is speaking with a forked tongue. They say one thing over on that side and believe something totally different. 
I think that what happened in the 1990s was a disgrace. I just ask for one member opposite to say that they got it wrong and that that is the reason now why this legislation has informed them in terms of wanting to improve systems whereby patients and the community can have access to information. But to support a bill without making reference to the lesson this country should have learnt in the 1990s astounds me quite frankly. 
I have commended the author of this bill but what if you like deeply saddened and amazed me in witnessing the debate earlier in the Chamber was the apparent total ignorance of what did happen in the 1990s. I believe that one has to be honest and that it is very important to address history. Heaven forbid that that other lot ever becomes the Government again but are they saying that a National Government would not go back to those dark old days? Their silence in that area speaks volumes. There is a stunning silence around the concept of retaining democratically elected health boards. I think they have an open mind about health reforms. I think their open mind will include potentially—if we are not careful—getting rid of community participation. We need to watch those words and listen very carefully. If we think about it we realise that that stunning silence speaks volumes. 
In closing I again commend the author of this bill because I think her intentions are genuine but I do not commend the lack of ability of National members to learn from history or their stunning silence as to what they would do should they ever regain the Treasury benches. Do they guarantee that we would retain this Government’s present structure of democratically elected health boards? Believe you me National’s record in the 1990s speaks volumes and some of us on this side of the House do not forget.