Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. Given that you are new in the Chair this morning, I will just say that my questions from my last contributions last night haven’t actually been responded to by the Minister. The debate was closed down after that—
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I was watching.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Thank you. I’m going to start on a different clause, but I still want answers to my previous contribution.
I want to talk to clause 40 in Schedule 1. This is my first contribution on clause 40. I want to talk to clause 40 and to clause 43, but I may not be able to do that in the short five minutes that I’ve got. Clause 40 is about the transfer of employees, and I want to know: did the Minister consult with the unions about this legislation that has been brought under urgency?
I want to refer to a press release put out by the Public Service Association (PSA), who are saying that “The Government’s decision to ram legislation abolishing Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, through the House under urgency is a travesty of democracy and an insult to te Tiriti o Waitangi. PSA Te Kaihautū Māori Janice Panoho says the indecent haste with which the legislation is being pushed through shows how desperate the Government is to avoid scrutiny of [any] divisive decision that has been universally panned by Māori” and public health service experts.
I want to say that in their press release they said that ” ‘Māori health workers, who are experts on how to address Māori health inequity, have also been shut out of this discussion … The debate about Te Aka Whai Ora goes to the heart of the wider debate about the relationship between Māori and the Crown and yet Māori, who will be the most impacted, have not even been afforded a conversation,’ Panoho says. ‘For such an important Constitutional issue it is vital that Parliamentary processes are used to allow proper public scrutiny and debate rather than to lock out people with dissenting voices.’ Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi, the Public Service Association represents about 30,000 workers in the health sector. Of the PSA’s 92,000 members more than 10,000 identify as Māori. The PSA views the abolition of Te Aka Whai Ora as attack on Mana Motuhake and the ability of Māori to deliver health services for Māori in a way that works for Māori. ‘Te Aka Whai Ora aimed to tackle the well documented barriers Māori face to accessing health care. There is clear evidence of Māori health inequalities that deserves to be addressed by more than empty slogans and a rushed parliamentary process … This Government promised evidence-based decisions, but like its decision to row back smoking reforms, which also impact Māori, it would rather embrace ideology than good public health policy.’ ” —
Mike Butterick: Where’s the question?
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: The question was right at the beginning: did he meet with the PSA? Has he afforded the employees who are going to be impacted by clause 40, “Transfer of employees of Māori Health Authority to Health New Zealand”? I am reading for the House’s benefit the press release from the PSA, who say they have not even been afforded the opportunity, the decency, to have any consultation about this legislation, which is being rushed through urgency.
So my question to the Minister is: did you talk to the unions? Did you talk to any of the kaimahi? Do you think that it would have been appropriate to talk to your kaimahi Māori who work for Te Aka Whai Ora, who work in the health system, who have the responsibility, the weight, of delivering these health services for our whānau? Did you talk to them about your proposed changes? Not you, Madam Chair—to the Minister. Did the Minister meet with unions? Did he meet with delegates? Did he meet with kaimahi to talk about the abolition of Te Aka Whai Ora? Because it would appear from the press release put out by the PSA that that has not happened, and I think that that is disgraceful. I look forward to the answer.
Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to thank the members for their questions. I want to go back to the last question last night from member Utikere. He was asking again around the date in the future for locality plans, which is 2029, which I’d already said was a placeholder for localities. He was asking how that number came to be. I said it was just a placeholder. Turns out in further discussion with officials that there are certainly clear precedents for the five-year period. I won’t read through a range of legislation which have review periods of five years. One, two, three, four, five, six—probably at least seven. Then it’s also commented to me that it’s also used in international instruments, so a clear figure there.
Again, the question was raised around the transfer arrangements. The transfer arrangements, as I discussed many times last night—indeed, the member who’s just taken her seat has also raised the question—are consistent with the Health Sector (Transfers) Act, which was how people were transferred from the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand into the Māori Health Authority anyway. In fact, member Jackson also asked exactly that same question. So it is the same process, actually in the same legislation, putting those people, repatriating them, back into Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health.
The member also asked about data probity when that information is transferred back into those two organisations. What I’ll say to that is it’s consistent with all of Government data policies—that transfer of information that will accompany the Māori Health Authority.
The member this morning raised the question around subclause 43(2) in Schedule 1, which was also raised by member Willis and others during the debate last night, and that’s around the “reasonable consultation process before introducing any employment policy”. I’ll elaborate further on that, because the reply to that wasn’t just that it’s consistent with the Employment Relations Act, but it’s also been copied across from existing schedules. It already sits there as part of the legislation—that narrative, that wording, is already there—and it just happens to be consistent with the Employment Relations Act as well.
To the member who’s just taken her seat, the question she asked at 2146 last night, questions of timing—already addressed that, thoroughly and multiple times during this debate, so I don’t envisage going there again. The transfers Act, which I’ve just described—that describes a process by which the workforce will transfer back into Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health.
Furthermore, the good discussions I have had with the leadership of the Māori Health Authority give me every faith that they will address the concerns that the member has just raised.
