O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you Mr Speaker and I just thank that last speaker Chris Penk and his reference to Yes Minister. It's good to see that the Opposition are doing their homework there. I think Jim Hacker was a very unlikely leader that got a very circuitous route to leadership and didn't have much success so I just had that vision. So it's good to see your in-service training being carried out on the opposite beaches. But I think I should put my attention to the bill to a certain extent. What I would say this bill is about if I were to sum it up—particularly for those watching at home—is that it's really about who guards the guards. As much as it's about the actions of the medical authorities it's really about the actions of those who oversee them and so often we come to the case where there has been some sort of failure particularly systemic failure. Often we have had faith in the system that there was someone actually keeping an eye on what was happening and that there was some authority the them" that we often talk about—why did they do this and what the heck happened there—and this is the "they". It's the regulatory authority the responsible authorities that we really rely on to be overseeing a profession that has changed considerably certainly in my very short lifetime and probably close to your own Mr Speaker and others. But it's from a time when really our medical authorities occupied a different status in society and what they said went. The old saying is that "Often they buried their mistakes" but I suppose the status they occupied in our society meant that really they were their own regulatory authority. That was at a time when perhaps the actions of those at that status of society weren't really questioned. Well really that has changed in so many ways as has so much about that profession. We watch the television at night and we'll see drug companies advertising miracle cures for everything from impotence through to acne through to everything in between and you can imagine the pressure that's putting on the medical authorities and those that have the ability to make decisions. We have practice nurses. We have practices where the chances of seeing your own doctor when you go—if you can get an appointment—may be some days or weeks away and often you're offered the services of a doctor who you may not have met and are unlikely to meet again. These are the sorts of changes that those who only periodically—or some maybe never use medical services. So it is important that any oversight body or any oversight at all into such professions is kept modern that it is kept effective that it is kept relevant and that it is reassuring to those who need that reassurance. When I read this legislation I see that it makes a lot of sense as we go through the various parts with one of them being—I sort of focus here on the ability to name a medical practitioner who has perhaps run foul of best practice. I do like to see that it's very strong and is ensuring we don't disregard the human rights aspect of it. We ensure that any doctor who is likely to be named will in fact receive a fair play and that the natural rights and natural justice will not be denied to such a person. However there is the ability that those who are likely to come under the ministrations of that person in the future will actually know that there has been an issue and that is extremely important. So without any further ado I'll just sum up by saying that this really is about making sure that the guardians of the profession—a changing profession; a profession that I think New Zealanders are generally very well served by—who are those we put our faith in and those that are overseeing it and ensuring that the changes in practice are relevant and are giving us reassurance and are providing a better service are overseen. So for that I'll commend this bill to the House.Bill read a second time."