DSC challenges CEO to defend claim

The latest Canterbury/West Coast DHB responses to OIA requests by the Democrats for Social Credit Party (DSC) have descended from evasive and time-wasting to complete farce, according to DSC Leader Stephnie de Ruyter and Health Spokesman David Tranter.

The DSC’s enquiries began when Canterbury/West Coast DHB CEO David Meates informed the West Coast board members that they had the ultimate responsibility for health and safety on the Greymouth Hospital building construction site. He stated that they would be advised by appropriate DHB staff regarding the contractors' health and safety reports.

Subsequent enquiries disclosed that board members could be charged under the Safety at Work Act if they did not properly carry out this responsibility. At this point the DSC requested specific details about the expert staff - who they are and details of their qualifications to advise the board on building construction site safety.

The DHB's initial response was evasive. It made no reference to who the staff were other than to state, "The West Coast DHB Facilities Redevelopment team, the Wellbeing, Health and Safety team, and project managers, amongst others, all have expertise in the risk management of health and safety issues”. Significantly, no reference was made to the obviously specialised area of building site health and safety.

It is patently absurd to imply that the extensive collection of people covered by the groups named all have the specialised knowledge required to advise a board on building contractors' health and safety reports.

Consequently the DSC followed up with a request for the names and positions of the staff concerned, and details of their expertise in building construction site health and safety.

After the usual delays, which included an extension of the time as permitted under the OIA, the DHB replied; 'The information is declined according to section 9(2)(a) of the OIA…..i.e. “to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons; on the grounds that there is no public interest in the skills and experience of staff members that outweighs the privacy inferred to employees” '. (The DHB's full response is quoted below)

The DHB is deliberately wasting time by delaying its answers. There doesn’t appear to be any intention to answer the questions.

Flaws in the OIA system are highlighted when publicly funded organisations can fob off reasonable information requests with increasingly absurd responses such as those given by Mr. Meates and his bureaucrats.

To cite "the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons" as grounds for refusing to identify these alleged experts would be hilarious if it were not such a serious issue.

Ms de Ruyter and Mr. Tranter challenge CEO David Meates to stop hiding behind his bureaucrats. He must defend his original claim that appropriate staff would be able to advise board members on this matter. Or admit that no such persons exist.

ENDS

© Scoop Media