DSC Calls for Future DHB Members to Rebel
The withdrawal of the Auckland & Canterbury DHBs from DHBNZ and the scathing comments by Canterbury chair Syd Bradley (The Press, 2 August) reveals another absurd aspect of corporatised health management in New Zealand, according to Democrats for Social Credit health spokesman David Tranter.
This episode makes it clear that the next set of elected DHB members must challenge the status quo whereby they are dominated by their CEO aided & abetted by the government-appointed board members.
The public could be forgiven for thinking that DHBNZ is something which DHB board members can participate in, but given that it is a non-governmental organisation of health board chief executives it is obviously another closed shop for bureaucrats again confirming the absolute power of CEOs over their boards, Mr. Tranter said.
Bradley’s statement not only damns this particular expensive and secretive aspect of the corporate management of health but is an indicator of the ill-conceived nature of the entire post-1993 health management set-up which has disillusioned a whole generation of health professionals who rightly object to their experience and expertise being over-ridden by hordes of inappropriately-qualified bean counters. According to Bradley, DHBNZ was established with a “very loose constitution. The fee structure kept rising. The CEOs got more scope than they should have been able to have. It took on a life of its own. It’s as big as Ben Hur. Now it’s running conferences”. Coming from someone with a record of being a pillar of the corporate health structure these comments sound clear alarm bells for the politicians who still cling to the notion of corporatisation as a sensible way to run a public health system, Mr. Tranter said.
DHBNZ chair Michael Ludbrook’s claim that DHBNZ is accountable, “because boards held their chief executive in check”, is laughable since the powerlessness of DHB boards has been repeatedly spelled out, most notably by highly respected Christchurch surgeon Phil Bagshaw when he left the Canterbury board in 2004. Ludbrook’s statement, “We’re not concerned about it” (the withdrawal of the two biggest DHBs) further demonstrates the arrogance of those who now control the public system.
The Democrats for Social Credit party urges concerned members of the public to stand in the forthcoming DHB elections and, if elected, to challenge the dictatorial nature of the present corporate management-dictated DHB board processes, Mr. Tranter said.
Published: August 2007