The state is MY servant

25 comments on “The state is MY servant ”

• Comments are now closed

1. eszett 1

   2 January 2011 at 2:10 pm

   “He said health boards should be given electronic access to Internal Affairs’ citizenship records.”

   Would that not violate any current privacy laws? I mean the DHB having access to Internal Affairs records just ike that?

   Question is whether it is really money well spent to set up an IT infrastructure give all DHB the ability to query the citizenship records.
   • lprent 1.1

     2 January 2011 at 2:40 pm

     Question is whether it is really money well spent to set up an IT infrastructure give all DHB the ability to query the citizenship records.

     Figure out the costs. If they ask every citizen to validate their citizenship which is what this appears to be, then what is the total cost of that (including to those that they are asking the question of)? Of course if you insist that everyone carries identity papers then you run into another more political issue.

     The DHB’s carry data on a patient in their systems. The DIA carries computer records of all births and residencies. You’re only talking about sending a query one way and receiving a yes/no the other. Which is exactly what they get now by seeing a birth certificate, passport, or residency

     Would that not violate any current privacy laws? I mean the DHB having access to Internal Affairs records just ike that?

     Nope. It would be a simple limited query to say that given some details if the person has citizenship or residence. That is exactly what they are currently requiring when they ask for a birth certificate or a passport. What they get off that is the same answer – yes or no. Presumably that does not violate privacy since they are able to ask for it now?
     • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1

       2 January 2011 at 3:13 pm

       You’re only talking about sending a query one way and receiving a yes/no the other. Which is exactly what they get now by seeing a birth certificate, passport, or residency

       No it’s not. By being able to produce the document you actually prove that you are who you say you are. Admittedly, such documents are easy to forge but having a two way identification procedure (having the document and having that documents validity checked via DIAs database) would help reduce such fraud. It would also help reduce the instances of identity theft.

       Of course if you insist that everyone carries identity papers then you run into another more political issue.

       Yes you do but if you’re going to have absolutely no qualms about non-citizens and residents having to pay for medical treatment then you’re going to have to have a way so that citizenship can be proved reasonably cheaply and reliably as just taking everyone’s word doesn’t cut it.
       • lprent 1.1.1.1

         2 January 2011 at 9:46 pm

         That is pretty much the point. I suspect overall that taking peoples word would probably be a damn sight cheaper overall.

         Trying to establish identity on everyone is just outright expensive. It is also effectively requiring identity papers using a scrap of paper that was signed by a doctor 51 years ago that has absolutely no security.

         It is just silly. So why in the hell are they doing it?
         • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.1

           2 January 2011 at 10:02 pm

           Trying to establish identity on everyone is just outright expensive.

           Considering that everyone already has such an identity then it’s relatively cheap.

           I suspect overall that taking peoples word would probably be a damn sight cheaper overall.

           It would also help enable identity theft.

           So why in the hell are they doing it?

           Because otherwise anybody from anywhere in the world can walk in and say that they’re a NZer and get the treatment which would run into millions of dollars per year quite easily. All they’d have to ensure is that they had the information of a compatible person whose identity could be used.

           Or, hey, it could be an export “earner” – people could sell their information so that other people could come into the country and get free medical coverage.
           • lprent 1.1.1.1.1.1

             3 January 2011 at 11:30 am

             I suspect that you are missing my point completely.

             A birth certificate is issued to the parents. If they don’t hand it on (and they have no legal requirement to do so), then the DHB is forcing a citizen to acquire identity papers at their own expense. Now as far as I can see that is not a requirement in the act’s governing them. So this is something that the DHB is attempting to foist into the legal requirements for their own administrative convenience.

             As far as I can see from the legislation, the onus is actually on the DHB’s to establish citizenship or residency. For them to attempt to turn the onus around almost certainly will not stand up in court.

             It is not like a passport which does have a legislative requirement for me to establish my right to carry a NZ passport, or a drivers license to prove that I am qualified to drive a vehicle. The legal requirement is for the DHB to establish their right to treat citizens and residents with a subsidy. It is not a requirement for me to prove that I am eligible for that subsidy.

             If they asked for me to help them establish citizenship/residency, then most people including me would probably help. But they aren’t. They are attempting to force people to prove their eligibility without a legislated basis to do so.

             If they attempt to force me to prove my citizenship then I and probably a lot of other people will force them to prove their right to do so on the basis that we have no requirement to carry identity papers. I suspect that the DHB will be unable to do so.

             I’d expect that this will be an issue that heads through the courts or Tony Ryall will try to push and amendment through on the legislation. In either case the issue of requiring identity papers should get properly debated in the political arena rather than by an arbitrary administrative fiat by a DHB.

             Of course this government will probably try to sneak it through using urgency and other undemocratic means. But even in that case it will be debated and the politicians responsible can be held to account.
   • Draco T Bastard 1.2

     2 January 2011 at 3:05 pm

     Interesting concept I know but I would expect a government department to have access to government held information. Not necessarily all of it but at least some of it.
2. John Dalley 2

   2 January 2011 at 2:17 pm

   I too had to received a letter after recent surgery and t o say the least was more than a little pissed.
   After sending back a initial shitty letter (by email) and then getting another letter that made it obvious that the writer had not seen my original, i rang him and vented some what in as polite a manner as i could.
   The Waitemata DHB staff member said, after i had pointed out that i was registered through my NH number for more than 40 years and to which he replied that due to the privacy laws (that one again) his department was not able to view past information, WTF!
   It seems that a new law, act, edit has rendered them unable to go back and check past history so this is why they are sending out these letters and pissing of the New Zealand public, What i am not sure, is this being done by just the Waitemata DHB or all DHB’s.
   • Ed 2.1

     2 January 2011 at 2:43 pm

     Surely if someone is admitted to hospital they would expect the medical staff to have access to records from previous admissions, and that would include the results of any past checks about citizenship. It seems bizarre to block any information from a doctor treating a patient – or am I mis-reading something?
     • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1

       2 January 2011 at 3:21 pm

       All medical records should be on a government database. When I go to the hospital or change doctors then I want them to have access to my full medical records so as to help them do what they do which is to maintain my health. Keeping such information from the doctors will, inevitably, result in that failing to happen as they go and (i.e.) prescribe drugs that I happen to be allergic to but which they don’t know about due to such information not being available to them.
       • Rex Widerstrom 2.1.1.1

         2 January 2011 at 4:15 pm

         And on a chipped card you carry around with you so that, in an emergency, or when “the computers are down” a stand-alone scanner can bring up your medical history for an EMT or ED doctor.

         Only medical information, though, and only to be used by emergency services and hospitals.
       • Rosy 2.1.1.2

         3 January 2011 at 8:56 pm

         Medical information IS available to doctors through the NHI number. It’s whether the DHB has given clerical staff access to the information that is the problem, I suspect. Given a number of cases where there has been a release of private information some DHBs maybe running scared but isn’t it up to them to sort that out, not the patient?

         I’m living in Austria for a couple of years and the method here, once access to care is established is for those eligible (citizens and residents) to present a card which is produced at each medical encounter. It is not a fully-fledged identity card, it just access to the medical system. It seems to work.
3. BLiP 3

   2 January 2011 at 2:48 pm

   What a perfect opportunity for public disobedience – in every case, let the DHB take the matter to court to try and extract payment only to be stymied by evidence of legal residency.
   • Vicky32 3.1

     2 January 2011 at 3:46 pm

     I have my birth certificate and my two expired passports handy, because a scary number of potential employers (and employment agencies!) asked for them in order to do a police check!
     Like a worm, I complied in 2010, but I won’t in future. I underwent police checks when working in special education, which is fair enough, but for an admin job? Fuggeddaboudit!
     (The passports were because I don’t drive and never have, hence no licence.)
     Deb
   • jcuknz 3.2

     2 January 2011 at 11:00 pm

     I hope the DHB would be awarded costs against the stupid idiots who took such a course of action.
     Utterly irresponsible.
4. mcflock 4

   2 January 2011 at 3:51 pm

   It would be interesting to see where the directive to ask for “proof of citizenship” comes from.

   Bureaucratic cockup? Idiotic legislative tweak under urgency? Or just a handy way to throw one more hurdle to jump over so that the cost spends time a)as an asset to be collected by the DHB ; b)not as a debit from the funding authority; c)actually being paid by some folk who didn’t read the fine print properly and maybe charged it to their insurance or paid it outright.
5. hateatea 5

   2 January 2011 at 10:08 pm

   The DHB are idiots. If he is on an invalids benefit he will have a community services card. In order to have on of those, he must be a NZ resident or citizen. If the local chemist and the doctor can make a telephone call to check that you have a current community services card surely the DHB can?

   Surely they only need eligibility checks for those who say that they were not born here or have not attained residency status

   I don’t have a birth certificate and my passport has been lost. Someone stole my wallet with all my identification in it and it is taking ages to replace them all but I was born here. I am mana whenua and I WILL NOT be made to prove my right to any services by petty bureaucrats such as described in the article.
   • Draco T Bastard 5.1

     2 January 2011 at 10:12 pm

     Surely they only need eligibility checks for those who say that they were not born here or have not attained residency status

     Trusting people is a nice idea but, unfortunately, some people lie.
6. jcuknz 6

   2 January 2011 at 10:18 pm

   Obviously Nanny State is striking again from what John Dalley writes … or should that be Daddy State now we have a male PM? Altogether a rather foolish rant. It is common sense to hold on to these documents once you get them. As for the indignation of one of the indigenous, LOL, rather childish.
   It would so much simpler if everybody was given a number at birth or when they are granted residence … I remember mine from WWII …. WLML 124/4 or the army 22348453 Korean War period 🙂
   • hateatea 6.1

     2 January 2011 at 10:29 pm

     I was prepared to get a passport to enter other countries. I don’t see why an agency of the government should need me to provide proof that I have been here all my life when I am on record since the date my birth was registered. You may call me childish because I am certainly not as old as you but I am not young either.

     Count me amongst those who will be civilly disobedient about this issue

     captcha: corrupted
     • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1

       3 January 2011 at 12:13 am

       I don’t see why an agency of the government should need me to provide proof that I have been here all my life when I am on record since the date my birth was registered.

       Prove it. And, no, that’s not prove that the records exist but that those records relate to you.
7. jcuknz 7

   2 January 2011 at 10:36 pm

   I also have the numbers of my passport and local hospital number … they appreciate being given that when I’m a guest of theirs. Also my ESTA number, all 16 digits …. to me this is all about being a responsible citizen without hang-ups about dam fool beaurocrats, we just have to live with them in a socialist sate. It is a price I am quite happy to pay to live in ‘God’s Own Country”.
   The DFBs are simply like most of us not that clever, over worked underpaid working under silly rules invented by other not so clever thinking people.
8. Cannot think of a clever name 8

   2 January 2011 at 11:31 pm

   Often when you are told that the Privacy laws prevent this, that or the other then they’re wrong. It’s typically some mega risk avoiding intepretation of what the rules just might be able to be understood as in the worst possible light. A***e covering. To be fair to the DHB many commercial organisations including banks and telcos are just as bad. For instance, the DHB could get you to allow them to confirm with the appropriate government database quite simply.

   Considering the poor, less travelled and less educated (those least likely to have the required documentation easily to hand) are overrepresented amongst the those using the DHB’s services it is pretty damn stupid though and not a conspiracy (remember hanlon’s razor). However, like any monopoly they get to set the rules so a bit tough if you need be treated on an ongoing basis.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 2 January 2011 at 12:14 am
2. Gabriella Turek: posted on 2 January 2011 at 12:39 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS