The Herald reports today that Treaty of Waitangi clauses are included in DHB dental contracts, and possibly in a wide range of other health contracts as well. It specifically states that the DHBs must consider "the Treaty of Waitangi principles of partnership, proactive protection of Maori health interests, co-operation and utmost good faith", and they must agree that Maori health was a "specifically identified health gain priority area".
I think that this is a really dangerous idea. Health funding should be on the basis on need, not race. What does this clause actually mean? Does it mean that priority should be given to Maori patients over non-Maori patients? If not, what is the point of it?
There is a very big danger in inserting these generic Treaty clauses into legislation and other government without considering exactly what the purpose of these is. Sure the courts can eventually interpret them, but what about the agencies that are supposed to implement them first. What did Parliament really intend when it inserted the Treaty clause into the health legislation?
We don't know. Consequently we have the Ministry putting in these clauses into DHB dental contracts, and we still don't what what it actually means.
There should be very few acts of Parliament and government contracts that actually require Treaty references. When they are needed, the Act or contract should spell out specifically what it means, rather than leaving a generic reference that could be interpreted in a number of ways.severs muonline 97b
I think that this is a really dangerous idea. Health funding should be on the basis on need, not race. What does this clause actually mean? Does it mean that priority should be given to Maori patients over non-Maori patients? If not, what is the point of it?
There is a very big danger in inserting these generic Treaty clauses into legislation and other government without considering exactly what the purpose of these is. Sure the courts can eventually interpret them, but what about the agencies that are supposed to implement them first. What did Parliament really intend when it inserted the Treaty clause into the health legislation?
We don't know. Consequently we have the Ministry putting in these clauses into DHB dental contracts, and we still don't what what it actually means.
There should be very few acts of Parliament and government contracts that actually require Treaty references. When they are needed, the Act or contract should spell out specifically what it means, rather than leaving a generic reference that could be interpreted in a number of ways.severs muonline 97b
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
severs muonline 97b