Attempt to speed up area health board investigation fails

Press, 26 February 1987, Page 2

Attempt to speed up area health board investigation fails

An attempt to hurry the Canterbury Hospital Board’s investigation into becoming an area health board failed yesterday. Mr David Close, a newly elected board member, moved three amendments to the policy committee’s recommendations on setting up a steering committee to consider changing to an area health board. The amendments were: that the reporting date for the steering committee be moved from October to July; that the board “recognise the advantages of having a single body to co-ordinate preventive health care and treatment of the sick;” and that the board negotiate with the Minister of Health and the Director-General of Health on the degree of delegation for planning and expenditure and on adequate funding for health education and preventive services. All three amendments were lost by a big majority, and the board accepted the original recommendations. In support of his amendments, Mr Close said he was concerned that the recommendations did not clearly state the board’s purpose. ',"

“I am concerned that this is a tentative, timid approach. I agree that we can’t commit ourselves at this stage because there are a lot of unknowns, but what I would like to see is

the board have a firm intention to achieve this goal if at all possible,” he said. Mr Close said he was also concerned that the steering committee had until October to report and even then the board might not make .a decision — “it seems to be to be a very slow approach.” If the Hospital Board became an area health board it would need to have some level of local autonomy, he said. "The board is hamstrung by a lack of autonomy. Too often we are merely an instrument of policy-makers in Wellington. , "P don’t believe the Wellington Health Department officers can make better recommendations than our own officers here on the spot,” Mr Close said. Several board members spoke against the amendments. Mr Cyril Whitty accused Mr Close of “trying to run before he can walk,” having been on the board only five months. “We have considered an area health board over a number of years. I believe you have got to give this time — people have got to think it through very clearly indeed. We have to be sure an area health board is to the benefit of our patients in Canterbury.” Mrs June Gardiner, the board’s deputy chairman, said it had an obligation

to consult very widely all organisations before any decisiion was made. Many health organisations had the mistaken idea that an area health board would take over their role in the community. “It is most important that the public, health professionals, and voluntary organisations understand clearly that this new body will not take over — it is there to assist and coordinate. “This is why we must have enough time for us to achieve the right climate to allow this to go ahead. I think it would be a mistake to try to rush it through,” Mrs Gardiner said. Mrs Janet Aitken, the only speaker in favour of the amendments, said that New Zealand health organisations tended to “dilly-dally” before making decisions. “They take so long and consider so many people and in the end we come back to square one and start again.” The board’s chairman, Mr Tom Grigg, who voted in favour of the negotiating amendment, said the board had to work within the Hospitals Act and its relevant amendments. "All the finance comes from the Government and whatever Government is in power they have obviously got to have some over-all supervision of how that money is spent.”