Parties want to alter health bill

Government plans to restructure the health sector ran into uncertainty yesterday, with both the Green Party and New Zealand First reserving judgment on the merits of planned law changes.

The minority Labour-Alliance Government now faces compromises if the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Bill formalising the reforms is to become law.

NZ First opposition during the bill's first debate centred on its "divisionist" commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi, said spokesman Ron Mark.

Greens spokeswoman Sue Kedgley had broader concerns. She said the bill was a mere outline and flawed.

It was sent to the health select committee for public submissions and discussion on a 71-45 vote, with the Greens and NZ First supporting the Government.

Both parties said further support was dependent on changes being made before the committee reported it to the House on November 14.

Political observers said the Greens were unlikely to vote against the bill in its final stages, as they disliked the competitive health-sector model it would replace.

Health Minister Annette King said the introduction of the bill marked the beginning of a return to a genuine public health service.

In a departure from the National-led Government's focus on competition, the bill proposes 21 elected district health boards and the abolition of the Health Funding Authority.

It includes a treaty clause seen as precedent-setting.

Mr Mark said that posed a dilemma for his party, which supported the thrust of the bill and the empowering of communities through health boards.

"Where we differ is in the treaty clause ... We believe this is divisionist. We believe it is separatist."

Ms Kedgley said the powers of the boards were narrow. They should be able to examine the social and environmental causes of ill health and recommend how to improve nutrition and well-being.

"Matters such as employment, housing, education and even transport policy have a significant impact on health."

She saw little point in creating community health institutions that had little or no influence over the health of their communities. "The bill ... reserves important powers and details for executive Government and regulation."

National health spokesman Wyatt Creech said the reforms were a recipe for upheaval when the sector should be fixing day-to-day problems.

The Government did not know how much the moves would cost, and had included treaty provisions without knowing where they could lead.

"This is extremely serious and of major constitutional significance. If a treaty clause is to be included in health legislation, there is no logical reason why it should not be included in all social legislation," said Mr Creech.

"When it comes to access to health services, all New Zealanders should be treated equitably and the criteria for treatment should be need."

- NZPA