Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Health Committee. I acknowledge my colleague Jo Goodhew, MP for Aoraki, who was instrumental in getting this bill into the ballot. The bill is very simple and straightforward, as members will have appreciated when reading through it. Its purpose is to amend the Official Information Act 1982 so that any entity representing one or more district health boards, such as District Health Boards New Zealand, will be subject to the Official Information Act.

As a background to this bill, District Health Boards New Zealand was formed in 2000 as an incorporated society, and as such is not subject to the Official Information Act. When the 21 district health boards were established, District Health Boards New Zealand was subsequently formed to provide a sector group through which district health boards could coordinate their activities at a national level on selected issues. The overall purpose of District Health Boards New Zealand is to assist district health boards in meeting their objectives and accountabilities to the Crown.

It is clear that the Government and Parliament have accepted District Health Boards New Zealand as the official representative of district health boards. Its staff meet with the Minister and are asked to appear at select committees. From its website it is apparent that District Health Boards New Zealand is involved in high-level negotiations on behalf of the district health boards, such as negotiations on the roll-out of primary care funding for 45 to 64-year-olds and on the resident medical officers’ multi-employer collective agreement.

This organisation is making decisions that impact on all New Zealanders, but the public are not able to find out what the group does or how it functions. Just what other activities District Health Boards New Zealand has been, or is currently, involved with is hard to know, as it is not subject to the Official Information Act. District Health Boards New Zealand is funded by taxpayers’ money through contributions from the 21 district health boards, and it is an anomaly that this organisation is exempt from the Official Information Act when other organisations that are funded by taxpayers’ money are subject to it. This bill will bring accountability and transparency to the organisation. District Health Boards New Zealand is functioning outside our constitutional situation, and that needs to be rectified.

There has been wide support from the medical sector for this bill. It is clear that many, many people have been frustrated by District Health Boards New Zealand’s lack of accountability. The New Zealand Medical Association supports this bill. It goes further and suggests that the organisation should be disbanded. The New Zealand Medical Association has been concerned for some years about the role of District Health Boards New Zealand, which it feels is increasingly taking on coordination and operational policy functions that should more appropriately be carried out by the Ministry of Health. The chairman of the New Zealand Medical Association has called District Health Boards New Zealand a “private club” for the district health boards, and has said it is time that the organisation was absorbed back into the Ministry of Health.

The bill also has the support of HealthCare Providers New Zealand. That organisation says that the existing situation is an anomaly that chips away our constitutional framework, and asks whether it was intentional that District Health Boards New Zealand was made an incorporated society—not subject to the Official Information Act—or whether it was an oversight. The precursor to District Health Boards New Zealand was the Crown Health Association Inc., which was also not subject to the Official Information Act, and when District Health Boards New Zealand took over from the Crown Health Association it may well have been an oversight that had unintended consequences. Either way, it is high time to bring back consistency and maintain Official Information Act principles, which are based around the belief that information should be made available unless there is a good reason to withhold it.

Researchers have been frustrated by the results of Official Information Act requests for information from district health boards, and have often drawn the response that the information is collected nationally by District Health Boards New Zealand. But because District Health Boards New Zealand is not subject to the Official Information Act, in order for our researchers to get a complete picture of the health sector, they often have to make 21 separate Official Information Act requests. Official Information Act requests can take up to a year, particularly if the Ombudsman is involved. It is slow and frustrating for all concerned, and even then there is no guarantee that the information is forthcoming. The district health boards often protest that by having to answer the requests themselves, their staff are being taken away from their core business and roles. It would seem, therefore, quite logical that by bringing District Health Boards New Zealand under the Official Information Act, information could be obtained directly and expediently, and district health board staff would not need to be sidetracked from their own work.

There is very little information about this organisation. It was therefore quite revealing when Sean Plunket recently interviewed, on Morning Report, Dr Ross Boswell of the New Zealand Medical Association and Michael Ludbrook, chair of District Health Boards New Zealand. In the interview Mr Ludbrook confirmed that District Health Boards New Zealand develops national strategies, such as workforce development, and that it currently employs 21 people and has a budget of $2.5 million. In the interview there were disturbing comments that District Health Boards New Zealand may have been involved in discussions regarding the current nationwide laboratory reviews that have unsettled the sector. Although the issue was not satisfactorily resolved in the radio interview, by making District Health Boards New Zealand accountable and subject to the Official Information Act, the truth will be revealed in due course.

I was very interested to find out, in the course of working on the bill, that the service support agencies that support the district health boards regionally are also not subject to the Official Information Act. These agencies include the Northern DHB Support Agency, which supports the northern part of the North Island; HealthShare Ltd, in the midland region; the Technical Advisory Services, in the central region; and the South Island Shared Service Agency, in the South Island. These agencies are all owned by their respective district health boards and are accountable to their district health boards. Their common purpose is to support the activities of the owner district health boards. All are companies, and they are not subject to the Official Information Act. This bill will also bring these agencies under the Official Information Act.

I urge members to support this bill going to the select committee. That is an appropriate place to examine the rationale of whether the status quo should exist. That is the appropriate forum to hear from District Health Boards New Zealand and its stakeholders as to whether the organisation should remain outside the Official Information Act—or, indeed, whether it should be disbanded.

Last month the Auckland District Health Board withdrew from District Health Boards New Zealand over concerns about how tertiary services are charged out to other district health boards. Clearly, all is not well with District Health Boards New Zealand. It is very timely indeed that we have this bill in front of us. I urge all members to support the bill.

I thank the member Dr Jackie Blue for bringing the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill to Parliament. The Government will be supporting her legislation going to a select committee, but quite possibly not beyond that—we will see what happens. [Interruption] I listened in silence to the member. The reason we think it should go to a select committee is that we think the problem, the prospective problem, or the idea there might be a problem, ought to be explored. If there is a view in society that there is some secret club operating in our health system, when our health system is itself subject to the Official Information Act, then that itself is worth a bit of exploration. We are very happy to support this bill, and I hope the select committee enjoys the subsequent exploration of what District Health Boards New Zealand is or is not.

I will make a couple of points. I suppose there will be some debate at the select committee about the wording of the bill—let us not worry too much about that now. There will also be debate at the select committee about whether other like agencies should be similarly treated. For example, Local Government New Zealand, which, of course, is not subject to the Official Information Act, is comprised of local governments that are individually subject to the Official Information Act, so that is quite a similar situation.

The point worth making in the few minutes in which I intend to address this bill is that District Health Boards New Zealand exists with the permission of the district health boards. If the district health boards decided to get rid of it, it would go. District Health Boards New Zealand is beholden, if you will, to the district health boards and there is actually a bit of tension there. The district health boards, on the one hand, want District Health Boards New Zealand to do things, to save them being done 21 times, but, on the other hand, the district health boards are always watching District Health Boards New Zealand to make sure it does not run away with too much authority. In essence, District Health Boards New Zealand’s greatest weakness, in many respects, is that it is beholden to 21 separate points of view.

In respect of the resident medical officer negotiations that the member mentioned, those negotiations have been led by three chief executives of district health boards. To the extent that District Health Boards New Zealand or any of its 21 staff were involved—and it would have been to a very slight extent—they would have been involved under the instruction of the three district health boards. Similarly, for the 45 to 64-year-old primary-care roll-out, which was negotiated between the district health boards and the primary health organisations, there was a representative chief executive from the district health boards—in this case, the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—and various numbers of folk representing the primary health organisations. They got together and did the negotiating. It is quite possible that District Health Boards New Zealand supported them; it certainly did not lead or decide the negotiation and has no authority to do so.

In respect of a person having to make 21 requests under the Official Information Act to seek material, I think the member has a point to make—that there are some transaction costs to be reduced there. But the member ought to be clear that even if information is collected nationally and held by District Health Boards New Zealand, it is the property of the district health boards, and it is not for District Health Boards New Zealand to give it out without individual authority from the 21 district health boards. District Health Boards New Zealand is not a creature of statute. It is a figment of the Incorporated Societies Act 1908; that is its status.

I myself did not hear the interview that the member mentioned between Ross Boswell, Michael Ludbrook, and a Radio New Zealand interviewer. Michael Ludbrook is the chair of District Health Boards New Zealand only because he also chairs a district health board—in this case, the Waikato District Health Board. This is another piece of evidence that District Health Boards New Zealand exists at the permission of the district health boards. Let us have further discussion in the select committee by all means.

It seems to me that the member’s comments about the service support agencies may not, in law, be accurate. She may not have the right end of the stick there. I myself am not sure, but if those service support agencies are themselves wholly owned subsidiary companies of district health boards, then they will be subject to the Official Information Act. Actually, they will not hold any of the information, because it will all be owned by the principal companies that comprise their ownership.

As to the Auckland District Health Board’s withdrawal from District Health Boards New Zealand, yes, it is true that the board did spit the dummy a few months ago. It had some good reasons to—it will be back soon, it is OK—but they were nothing to do with tertiary services. Those prices are determined by the ministry, not by District Health Boards New Zealand. There are some things that are decided amongst district health boards, and sometimes an outfit like the Auckland District Health Board might think it is on the losing side of a majority vote. That sort of situation can arise when the chief executives get together, as they do every couple of months.

I hope I am adding a bit of useful information to the debate. Labour supports the legislation going to a select committee. I think the idea of making District Health Boards New Zealand a creature of statute through this bill is a bad idea. I myself had thought about making it a creature of statute and empowering it somewhat more than it is empowered—it is a relatively disempowered organisation, contrary to the member’s viewpoint. But my personal view is that we have the health structure of the country about right as far as the district health boards are concerned, and that the structural reform in the era that began in the late 1980s and finished early this decade should probably be left unmolested any further by me.

New Zealand First will support the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill going to a select committee, so that there can be some further input into this whole issue and some further clarification around that agency. As Dr Blue said earlier, the purpose of the bill is to amend the Official Information Act so that the entity representing district health boards in New Zealand can be subject to the Official Information Act in the same way that district health boards currently are.

The bottom line is that agencies using public money should be accountable, and should be open to scrutiny in the same way that other public entities are. I looked through my filing cabinet at my Health Committee papers from the previous 3 years to try to find some papers on District Health Boards New Zealand but, really, they are noticeable by their absence. We have received no financial review papers or anything to indicate that the entity is scrutinised by Parliament in any way whatsoever. It is very interesting that District Health Boards New Zealand was set up as an incorporated society, which ensures that it falls outside the Official Information Act. The reasons for that need to be explored fully, and during the select committee process we will, no doubt, be made aware of the reasons for that. On the surface, it is a very interesting anomaly.

We know that District Health Boards New Zealand carries out the business of the 21 district health boards, and that its decisions impact on every New Zealander. I had to go to its website to find some information, and I read that District Health Boards New Zealand was set up in 2000 “to provide a sector group through which DHBs could coordinate their activities at a national level on selected issues.” It is not a lobby group, but it does support district health boards through collective activity and collaboration. I could not deduce a lot from those particular words, even though they were on its website.

I was interested to read a recent press release from the New Zealand Medical Association that definitely expressed support for this particular bill. I looked back, too, over past issues of New Zealand Doctor. Back in September 2001, an issue stated: “The name DHBNZ crops up frequently in the media but what exactly is this organisation and who works for it? The mystery surrounding DHBNZ is compounded by the fact that its employees say they do not usually comment in the media, although the organisation is involved in many health sector policy discussions.”

From our point of view, the role of District Health Boards New Zealand is interesting. Initially it appears to have some functions that could perhaps be appropriately carried out by the Ministry of Health. We see, too, from its website that it coordinates report-writing projects, and provides conferences and workshops, health workforce information and development projects, and leadership and management programmes—a whole range of activities that hopefully add value to district health boards. That would lead one to believe that this organisation should be open to public scrutiny, just as district health boards are.

We all know here in this House that health policy is becoming an increasingly important issue in New Zealand. We know that the need for health services is increasing at a very rapid rate, but as Dr Boswell from the New Zealand Medical Association has said: “We don’t need precious health dollars wasted on a private club for Government agencies.” We will be very interested to follow up further on this issue, so New Zealand First definitely supports the passage of this bill to the select committee.

The Green Party is very pleased to support the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill. We have been concerned that various aspects of the health system have been essentially beyond scrutiny and transparency. We welcome this bill as taking us one step further towards greater openness, scrutiny, and transparency within the health system.

It seems odd to the Green Party that a body that effectively is the monitoring board for all of the 21 district health boards in New Zealand should be beyond the Official Information Act. It has no statutory basis and, therefore, is not open to any public scrutiny. This seems odd to us, but it is not only odd; it is also deeply frustrating for those of us who want to obtain information about what is happening within the health system. It is frustrating to be told: “Sorry, this is beyond the Official Information Act. We can’t provide you with any of that information.” It will be interesting to learn why it was set up as an incorporated society and therefore not subject to the Official Information Act.

It is not only District Health Boards New Zealand that is beyond the Official Information Act. The bill does not cover only District Health Boards New Zealand; it covers any entity representing district health boards. We would like a number of other organisations to be investigated to see whether they too should be subject to the provisions of the Official Information Act. It seems to us there are various anomalies in the health system. For example, a blood bank up in Auckland somewhere—I do not know where—holds all of the bloods samples used for the Guthrie test. So it holds literally millions and millions of samples of blood DNA. These are all held indefinitely; they are not disposed of as in other places. So there is a huge collection. Yet that body is not statutory and is beyond the Official Information Act. It is something that we would like to look at in the context of this bill.

The reason that District Health Boards New Zealand is beyond the Official Information Act is because it is an incorporated society. Another proposed, and very significant, entity that the Government is hoping to set up in the near future—we hope it will never have the political support to do so, but I know that it is attempting to do so—is the Trans-Tasman therapeutic goods agency. That too is being set up as an incorporated society, so I imagine we would have the same problems in trying to obtain official information about it. I have been trying for 4 years to get official information from the interim ministerial council that has been set up to develop the legislation and set up this complex Trans-Tasman therapeutic goods agency. All of my Official Information Act requests have been withheld. Even the Health Committee has been told that we cannot get various pieces of information because the Official Information Act does not apply. It is a very frustrating experience to be constantly denied information because something is beyond the Official Information Act.

So we strongly support the principle of openness, transparency, and accountability within the health system. We think this bill is a very positive step forward. We strongly support it, and look forward to examining it in the select committee and considering whether other entities within the health system that at the moment are not subject to the Official Information Act should be, and should have more openness and transparency.

Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. The Māori Party is happy to take a call on the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill. We support the purpose of this bill, which we understand as amending the Official Information Act to bring District Health Boards New Zealand—known as DHBNZ—under the Act.

District Health Boards New Zealand was set up to carry out the business of the 21 health boards and to coordinate selective activities. As such, it is an entity that is funded by public money through financial contributions from the 21 district health boards, which should, in a way, be focusing their money on waiting-list reduction. The Māori Party has always considered that transparency and accountability of the State to the public is critical, and this bill applies these values to District Health Boards New Zealand, and we commend that.

District Health Boards New Zealand as a body undertakes negotiations, develops strategies, generates guidelines, and issues advice on behalf of all the 21 district health boards. As such one would think that District Health Boards New Zealand, as an agent for the district health boards, would welcome public accountability. As the central engine room of our health industry, it makes decisions that impact on all New Zealanders, yet it is somewhat bizarre that the information it holds is not accessible because it was set up as an incorporated society and it falls outside the Official Information Act. In essence, it means that public resources are used by District Health Boards New Zealand, yet it is not accountable in terms of releasing public information. It is also frustrating, if anyone wants to aggregate data from all 21 district health boards, that the 21 boards have to be gone to individually for the same information.

The current situation is clearly an anomaly. Agencies that use public money should be accountable and open to scrutiny. An amendment to the Act, which is the focus of this bill, will mean that any person will now be able to have proper access to official information held by district health boards and their representatives. The amendment will also enable information requests of aggregated data to be sought and obtained from District Health Boards New Zealand without people having to make individual requests. The amendment provides certainty and clarity to the public, and to Māori, that they can in fact request official information from district health boards. Currently, in the corridors of the health bureaucracy, isolated Official Information Act requests from members of the public for information get pushed out to the ministry, which then passes them back to the district health boards.

The Māori Party is concerned that District Health Boards New Zealand creates a further layer of unnecessary bureaucracy, the work of which could be carried out by the Ministry of Health. These layers of bureaucracy deny providers of health services and consumers the opportunity to have their issues addressed appropriately, because they cannot get access to information. The Māori Party is well aware of the concerns of Māori providers and services about the difficulties in communication that currently exist in trying to get access to information from district health boards, let alone District Health Boards New Zealand, to assist in the application of policies. It is precisely this issue—this crisis of confidence—that has prompted the claim by Taitimu Maipi, Tūreiti Moxon, Elaine Tapsell, and Hākopa Paul in respect of the objectives, funding, and administration of primary health organisations.

The Wai 1315 claim contends that an urgent hearing is required, regarding the impact of the establishment of the primary-care strategy. In particular, the claim advises that the implementation of the framework has been unfair, that Māori health providers have been inadequately resourced, and that the objectives, funding, and administration of Māori primary health organisations have been therefore placed at risk.

The Māori Party wishes to say today in the House that we support this bill going to the Health Committee. We look forward to promoting the opportunity it provides for Māori, and all other organisations, to use the Official Information Act to access information that affects them. Kia ora.

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of this first reading of the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill. We are concerned, as are others who have spoken tonight, about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny—of any kind—of this organisation.

As I have been sitting here tonight, I have been thinking of all the questions I have. I agree with the New Zealand First speaker, Barbara Stewart, that it is very difficult to get answers to these questions from any reliable source. What does District Health Boards New Zealand do? What policy initiatives are attributable to it? Who does it negotiate with, and on what matters does it negotiate? Does it purchase products or services? Why was it set up? Has its purpose changed over time? What is the yearly budget? How is that budget spent? Does District Health Boards New Zealand have a work programme, and what is it? When the Auckland District Health Board pulled away, what did that mean? When the Minister reported this evening that it would soon be returning to the fold, what did that mean? He clarified that, contrary to popular belief, its departure was not due to a disagreement over tertiary services, so what was the problem? The fact is that there are many questions, and these questions highlight the need to support this bill to go to the select committee. United Future is pleased to do so.

I am pleased to contribute to this debate this evening, and as my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson has said, Labour will be supporting the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill going to the Health Committee. I am particularly pleased to contribute to this debate, because I am the only person in this House who can actually add some inside information, having been, for the last 2½ years prior to entering Parliament, an employee of District Health Boards New Zealand. In that capacity, I was the employee relations portfolio manager for 2½ years, or thereabouts. I have listened with interest to the comments that members have made, and with some amusement to the kinds of things they have in fact imputed to District Health Boards New Zealand. However, I support this bill going to the select committee in the first instance, because I think it raises some important points—points that others have mentioned—about openness and access to information.

But can I first of all say that District Health Boards New Zealand was set up as an incorporated society for all the reasons that other members have read off the briefing sheet. But, in practice, it was set up as an incorporated society that was accountable, as the Hon Pete Hodgson said, to all of the 21 district health board chief executives, in order to provide some economies of scale, in order to provide some leverage in arriving at contracts across the country, and in order to arrive—particularly in my own area—at some consistency of remuneration and employment conditions for people employed in the district health board sector.

On one occasion, I was served with an Official Information Act notice in my area of industrial relations for District Health Boards New Zealand. I was not obliged to answer it, but I asked the organisation why it had “OIA-ed” me and why it had not just rung me up and asked me. In the event, District Health Boards New Zealand decided to contest the legality of our position that we were not bound by the Official Information Act. I think that is one of the events that has probably given rise to this bill. However, the organisation did have the grace to say to me that in fact all it needed to do was to ask one district health board for the information and it could get it, and that is exactly what it did. Because the district health boards were under the Official Information Act they had to provide the information, and they did. There was no problem about that.

I am interested to know what kind of information has not been accessible. I hope the Health Committee will be able to probe this. What kind of information has not been accessible? If it was information about the nurses’ negotiations, for example, I would have been very happy to tell anybody who asked, that we arrived at a very good agreement. We came in on budget, and we came in without any industrial action. It has meant a huge improvement in the conditions of nurses in the district health boards—not only in their salaries but in the actual conditions of work—and it has resulted in some consistency across the country.

The second point I would like to make is one that concerns me: what does this mean for other incorporated societies? It was an issue that Pete Hodgson touched on, with reference to Local Government New Zealand. But there are further implications that the select committee should consider. For example, if this could be applied to other incorporated societies, what does that do to the ethic that underpins, and the integrity that surrounds, our voluntary sector in New Zealand, which is made up of non-governmental organisations that are largely incorporated societies? If this does not apply, or is not meant to apply, to incorporated societies in general, then why is District Health Boards New Zealand being singled out? The select committee should consider this as a possible unintended consequence of this bill.

Thirdly, what else could or should be added to this bill and to schedule 1 of the Official Information Act? This point was made by the honourable member Sue Kedgley earlier. There may be a number of other organisations that, although not in receipt of Government moneys particularly, may impact on public policy and should be covered. I suggest that the New Zealand Medical Association could be amongst those.

I rise to support Dr Jackie Blue’s Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill 2006. National is adamant that we need this bill because sunshine is the best disinfectant, and most New Zealanders expect the sun to shine on and to keep clean and healthy all those dark and murky places where their money—that is, taxpayers’ money—is being funnelled by this Government.

As members know, District Health Boards New Zealand is an organisation that coordinates the work of 21 district health boards in New Zealand. The district health boards will spend over $10.6 billion of taxpayers’ money this year. If people have been listening to Parliament or reading the newspapers, or even talking to their neighbour over the fence, they will know that not every dollar is spent wisely. How do we know? Well, the district health boards themselves are subject to the Official Information Act, so that anyone who is concerned about any issue can seek information about those organisations. Through the Official Information Act we can keep an eye on the proceedings and make sure that everything is above board. So we can have confidence in the district health boards, because they are accountable. Their workings are transparent. If the taxpayers’ money is not going as far as we would like, it is likely to be because of poor financial management, rather than blatant corruption.

In fact, until now New Zealand has been well known as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. In 2005 the Berlin-based organisation Transparency International rated New Zealand as the third least corrupt country, after Iceland and Finland, out of a total of 158 countries. The scores range from 10, which is squeaky clean, to zero, which is highly corrupt, and a score of five is the number that Transparency International considers a borderline figure. New Zealand was scored at 9.6, and Kiwis have the right to be proud of that. It is nice to know that we can trust each other and that we have a real commitment to running an honest country. That is a great attraction in the global economy, when businesses want to trade with us. It is at our peril that we risk this hard-earned reputation.

Kiwis, as individuals and as a Government, have always been known as people of integrity. They are known as people who are prepared to be accountable, who will face up to their responsibilities, and who will pay back their debts—and that is why this bill is so important. Most New Zealand organisations are subject to the Official Information Act, and that is the way we like it. It is the way we can have confidence in an organisation’s honesty and transparency. But District Health Boards New Zealand is not open to public scrutiny. That does not necessarily mean that what it is doing is dishonest or wrong, but it is an anomaly, and that tends to make us honest Kiwis a little uncomfortable. National believes it is important that this bill is passed, so that we can let the sun shine on a possibly dark and murky District Health Boards New Zealand and let it do its great disinfectant work. Finally, I thank Dr Jackie Blue for bringing this bill to the House and for reinforcing New Zealand’s reputation as a country of honesty and integrity.

I thank my colleague Nicky Wagner for her kind comments. In fact, I thank all the parties for their supportive comments tonight, and I am very gratified that the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill will be going to the select committee.

Comments have been made that District Health Boards New Zealand is secretive and perhaps a private club. It is reassuring that the Minister feels very confident that when we examine the workings of District Health Boards New Zealand in the Health Committee, we will be reassured that there are no deep, dark secrets. I am also reassured to hear from Maryan Street, who has been an employee of District Health Boards New Zealand, about her insights into how the organisation works. This is all very, very reassuring. I thank Tariana Turia for her party’s support, and I thank Sue Kedgley for her comments about other organisations that could come under this bill.

All parties, of course, will now have the opportunity to examine the bill in the select committee. The select committee is the appropriate forum to debate whether District Health Boards New Zealand should stay out of the Official Information Act or come within that Act and be subject to its requirements. So I say thank you very much to all the parties and the members for their comments today, and I look forward to debating this bill at the select committee. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.