Paraone Pita: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8066] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I share similar views to those of the previous speaker. We are talking about Part 1 where we have the opportunity to define just what different comments mean and I have noticed that something is missing from the bill. I am concerned by a particular part that is absent which relates to the Treaty of Waitangi particularly the principles of the treaty. Why is it that I need to ask this Committee and Government members why this major legislation unlike a number of previous bills in the health field does not include the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi? The member for Whangarei made mention of the fact that irrespective of the culture of the patient parents are interested only in having services delivered to their children but where is the relevance in having people who deliver services to those of another culture particularly Maori not having obligations to the principles of the treaty? I suggest to the Committee that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi should have been included in this bill. 
The other point I will make relates to scopes of practice. During the debate on this bill much reference will no doubt be made to scopes of practice. They are not the same as the registration provisions of the Medical Practitioners Act—they are inferior to those provisions. “Scopes of practice” is a phrase used by the ministry rather than the health professionals and it could be replaced by the retention of the Medical Practitioners Act. Some consideration should be given to that. 
I also seek clarification of the definition of “professional peer”. In the case where regulating authorities are responsible for more than one group it is wrong to describe a professional peer as a person who is registered with the same authority. For an optometrist it would mean that after earning a degree in optometry following 4 or 5 years at university he or she would be given the same professional classification as a dispensing optician who would have had vocational training at a technical institute for around 18 months including distance learning. Peers must be those who practise within the same scope of practice. 
While I am talking about optometrists I point out that the Optometrists and Dispensing Opticians Act will be repealed by the enactment of this bill. That Act provided protection for the public in respect of both prescribing and optical appliances. The existing legislation defines who can be registered as an optometrist and what an optometrist may legitimately do and it prevents anyone other than an optometrist from practising optometry. It also effectively controls prescription optical appliances which are classified as medical devices within the Medicines Act. As it stands this bill provides insufficient protection for the public. It replaces only part of the old legislation—namely that which governs what an optometrist may do. This bill does not provide any controls over the prescription of optical devices or the sale or supply of prescription optical appliances such as spectacles and contact lenses even though there are grave risks for the public if they are supplied inappropriately. 
The bill does not contain an express provision regulating the prescription of medical devices. In the case of medical practitioners that is covered by other legislation that is not being repealed.