Hutchison Paul: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8151] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I must admit I was somewhat concerned that the Minister of Health must have a sore tooth tonight because she certainly did carry on a bit when challenged about the membership of the authorities. There are some quite extraordinary ironies about this issue. The Minster has gone to huge trouble in the health and disability legislation to endorse the thought of elected members there—and God help New Zealand in terms of the 21 district health boards that have been personed by Labour Party hacks and various other cronies—and to have an extraordinary mixture of people. But when it comes to professional bodies the Minister says no she will appoint the lot. Undoubtedly that absolutely undermines the independence of the professions. It undermines that whole concept which is hugely important. An amendment that I put forward earlier on was sadly rejected by this Labour Government. 
One of the underpinning purposes of this bill should be that professional responsibility and independence is maintained in order to serve the public best. There are two amendments regarding that. One is in Supplementary Order Paper 103 in the name of my colleague Dr Lynda Scott. It is quite right and appropriate and it states: “Where under any enactment in force prior to the commencement of this Act a health profession has elected members of its governing body that profession may elect 50 percent of the members of the authority or such lesser proportion as the governing body or authority may decide.” I think that is quite appropriate but I must say that for once the Green member Sue Kedgley has come up with quite a sensible suggestion in Supplementary Order Paper 114 in her name. I must admit that my mind boggles at the thought of a whole lot of osteopaths but nevertheless the principle behind her suggestion is absolutely right. 
Not so long ago the Hon Richard Prebble mentioned that this Labour Government has put political correctness in front of everything. When we look at clause 114 we see that no more so than with any other clause. Clause 114 “Functions of authorities” includes the requirement “to set standards of clinical competence cultural competence and ethical conduct”. Well here we are with a bill in which the Minister of Health cannot even define “competence” and she suggests that the area of cultural competence can sit well in it. I can tell members that the other day I bumped into a nurse who was coming home from her cultural class at Auckland Hospital where she works in the intensive care unit. I asked her what her class was about and she said it had spent the last 4 hours talking about the fourth article of the Treaty of Waitangi. Heaven knows where this politically correct Labour Government is going! Undoubtedly that really does take the cake. Quite rightly again my colleague Dr Lynda Scott in an amendment has suggested that paragraph (i) of clause 114 be thrown out. 
I want to very briefly talk about clause 123 “Disputes about overlapping scopes of practice”. That is one of the areas of the bill that has all the professions extremely concerned. I put it on the record that I would like the Minister to take a call and tell the Committee what her plans are for nurse-anaesthetists in New Zealand. The history of this issue is that only 5 to 6 years ago for the sake of maintaining standards general practitioner – anaesthetists who had a diploma in anaesthesia were phased out because we wanted to have increased standards in New Zealand. Here we go! The Minister of Health is suggesting that there be a stream of nurses who can now become independent nurse-anaesthetists. Will the Minister of Health take a call and tell us her intentions?