9. TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
to the Minister of Health
How will the proposed disestablishment of the public health directorate, and the consequent split across at least five separate groups, affect the capacity of the ministry to carry out its public health advisory functions, which are a statutory requirement set out in section 3E of the Health Act 1956?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) Link to this
It is intended that the ministry’s change and development programme will strengthen public health’s influence across the whole system, by ensuring public health leadership is more widely spread rather than remaining concentrated in one directorate, where it is now. Of course the changes are compliant with New Zealand statutes.
What reassurance can the Minister provide that the ministry has the capacity to respond effectively to possible public health emergencies, such as the recent outbreak of severe respiratory syndrome (Sars) in Toronto, or environmental disasters such as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in Gulfport, Mississippi?
The member raises a really good question and raises, I think, two really interesting examples. The effective response to Sars, and the effective response to civil defence emergencies of various forms, depends on mobilising a great many more officials and a great deal more assistance than can possibly be found in any public health directorate. It is important, however, to recall that, for example, with Sars, we are going to be reliant on public health technical expertise, which will always be at the centre of our response—and that, I am sure, will continue.
Jill PettisFurther to the answer that he has just given, can the Minister advise the House how he can be sure that something as important as, for example, pandemic planning preparedness will be reliably undertaken in the new ministry structure?
That is another good example. An influenza pandemic is a very good example of a significant public health risk. Public health officials have been heavily involved in New Zealand’s planning, but they have not been the only ones. In fact, the planning has been led by the risk and assurance group within the ministry. That group has been involving staff across all directorates in the ministry and, actually, across most of Government. If we think further, we know that planning also involves business, local government, and civil society. So it is a good example of the importance of better coordination, and that idea of better coordination sits at the heart of the ministry’s change and development programme.
Does the Minister agree with his colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who in the debate on the Health and Disability Amendment Bill in August 1995, said: “I will tell the House why we need statutory protection. As easily as the positions of deputy director-general of public health and the public health group were created, just as easily can they be removed. Just as easily as they were created, so can they be destroyed.”; if not, why not?
I strongly agree with my colleague’s remarks back then, and I strongly agree with the sentiments behind the member’s question. I have the new organisation chart here—the new one. The public health group is in the top left-hand corner under the strategy directorate. That is a proper place for something as important as that group. I would be happy to make this chart available to the member, should she have any interest.