King Annette: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
King Annette: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8149] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I take a call to answer Richard Prebble’s comments. He told Steve Chadwick that he had read the bill but I direct him to clause 116. We are talking about who makes up these bodies and that clause states that a majority of the members will be health professionals. They are not lay people who are dragged off the streets—old Labour Party hacks—and then put on to some council. The majority are doctors not people working down at the trade union office whom Richard Prebble does not like. The majority of members must be doctors if we are talking about doctors. 
Let me read the provision to the member. Clause 116(2) states: “… (a) a majority of members who are health practitioners; and (b) 2 laypersons if the authority has at any time 8 or fewer members; and (c) 3 laypersons if the authority has at any time 9 or more members.” Mr Prebble said today that he could add up and that only ACT can add up. I say to him that he should have another go at adding up and if he can add those numbers up to be a majority of lay people on those bodies then: “You’re a better man than I am Gunga Din!” One cannot do so. The majority of the members on those bodies are doctors nurses physiotherapists pharmacists dentists etc. 
I suppose Mr Prebble is saying that we have so many doctors who are members of the Labour Party that I will go around shoulder-tapping them and putting them on these boards. If that is true something has changed. That is not the case. In fact the member probably does not know that until 1995 all members of these bodies were appointed under the Medical Practitioners Act of the past. They were not elected and even now a minority is elected. So the majority is appointed. If Mr Prebble would like to look at the membership of those councils he would see that I have not made political appointments to any of them. Members have been appointed from their professions together with a minority of lay people and that will not change. Mr Prebble came into the Chamber wanting to make a song and dance. He did not read that clause of the bill and he got it wrong. 
He then said what an insult it was that I said health professionals were more interested in looking after themselves than their patients. I have said on many occasions before about many organisations including the Medical Association the Dental Association and the Pharmaceutical Society that there is a public perception that health professionals look after their own. I have said I do not actually believe that that is the case but there is a public perception of that. If the member does not want to believe me he may like to speak to some of those organisations. If he rings them up now they will confirm that that is exactly what I have said. I have said there is that public perception and I have to say it comes from cases like that of Dr Fahey from Christchurch. It comes from perceptions about doctors who appear to have got away with things when patients have not been listened to. Perhaps the case of Dr Bottrill is a better example of what has caused that perception as other health professionals who knew about his practice did not do anything about it. There is a perception that the medical profession looks after itself and in this part of the bill we want to have a process that is transparent. We will know whom the Minister has appointed. We will know who the people are. They will be there for us to see with no doubt about it because that gives a transparent process. 
The member may also not know that only 3 of the current 11 boards have a minority of members elected to them. The nurses’ council does not. The council that governs Mr Prebble’s sister does not have elected members. The boards are very happy with the way that the system works because it is open and transparent. People are nominated for appointment and they are appointed. So that member’s speech was about nothing. It showed a whole lot of ignorance about what is in this bill and what already exists.