Heatley Phil: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8147] 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 What members will gather from that tirade is not only the concern the Minister has in defending this legislation but a recognition from her that one can hide the flaws of poor legislation for only so long before they eventually come to the fore and everyone recognises the legislation for what it is. That is why the Minister acknowledged during the debate on Part 5 that appeals before the District Court and the High Court were more likely to happen under the new legislation than under the current legislation. Members will recall that there are rights of appeal against any decision to decline or register a person as a health practitioner to decline to issue a practising certificate to cancel registration with the authority and on it goes. Scopes of practice were discussed there as well. It is acknowledged that this bill will lead to more appeals in both those courts and that litigation is much more probable. 
So we come to Part 6 which talks about structures and administration. Throughout this legislation we have seen the Minister decide that she will have more fingers in the pie more political appointments and more influence over the process. The importance of clinical safety and the safety of those suffering ill health have been put down the scale of importance. Previously professional groups set their own codes of ethics. That is what happened in the past and that is part of being in a profession. All of those professions we have discussed—pharmacists midwives osteopaths GPs surgeons or whatever—set their own codes of ethics. However this bill proposes that the relevant authorities will now set those codes of ethics. Not only that those sitting on the relevant authorities will be appointed by this Minister and they will set the codes of ethics. I would argue that the Minister should have an arm’s-length relationship with those authorities and that certainly will not happen if she appoints her Labour Party cronies as they retire or get kicked out of their seats in 2005. That is a concern for me. 
I see that clause 110(1) sets up the Dental Council. Clause 110(2) “establishes a body corporate as the authority appointed in respect of the profession of midwifery;” and that authority will be known as the Midwifery Council. We will see an Osteopathic Council set up as well and in respect of the profession of pharmacy we will see an authority known as the Pharmacy Council. All of those will be political appointments by the Minister who may or may not ask those professions for recommendations. She might decide that David Benson-Pope would be best sitting on an authority when they put him out to pasture and that is a concern to me and many New Zealanders. 
It is inappropriate to have this function performed by a statutory body whether or not—I have to add—it is politically appointed. It will be politically appointed but regardless professional groups should set their own codes of ethics. That is what works in other sectors so why does the Minister not accept that it can work in the health sector? These two measures destroy an important check on the power of Government. That is what is happening here—we are destroying a check on this Government.