Genter Julie AnneTHIRD READINGSDebate resumed from 20 October on the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Burial and Cremation Amendment Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 2) the Holidays Amendment Bill (No 2) the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 3) the Medicines Amendment Bill the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill and the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 2).JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I rise to take a short call on the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill—or the bills that it has been split into. The Green Party has supported this bill from the beginning. We had some questions during the Health Committee process but all of those were resolved satisfactorily. The main purpose of the bills is changing medical practitioners" to "health practitioners" in a range of legislation so that it provides greater flexibility and potentially allows us to use our health resources more efficiently because it enables health practitioners other than medical practitioners—that is medical doctors—to be responsible for a variety of things that they are qualified to do. I think it is quite practical. It recognises the skills of people like nurse practitioners and physicians' assistants as well as other types of practitioners who are able to deliver critical health services and who should be recognised as such. I believe the bills have unanimous support within the House. This has not been a particularly controversial change and as I said the select committee process was robust and we congratulate the officials who helped us navigate our way through the bills. I guess there are two concerns that I have—one was raised by my colleague the Hon Annette King earlier in this debate which is that this change has been mooted as something that will save vast amounts of money because it will enable physicians' assistants nurse practitioners nurses and other health practitioners who are not medical doctors to undertake a range of actions and responsibilities and since generally they are paid less than medical doctors that therefore it will cost the health system less. That may well be true and that may be appropriate in some cases but any additional responsibilities that health practitioners are undertaking should also be reflected in the pay of those health practitioners. So it is not just that we are going to get things cheaper; we actually need to reflect the skills and responsibilities of those health practitioners who will be undertaking additional responsibilities. That brings me to my second concern which is that our health system is increasingly stretched and under financial pressure. We have had 8 years of a National Government that has prioritised tax cuts over investment in the health of our society. The fact that we have had rapid population growth and we have not had a matching increase to health funding is becoming more and more obvious as people working in the health sector across all areas in the health sector are increasingly overworked and find themselves stretched for resources. This is particularly true in the area of mental health where in some parts of New Zealand the mental health system is stretched to breaking point. We have severe problems with staff morale because of the ways in which they are overworked. People are not able to receive the help that they need in time when they reach out and that is why we have not made any improvement to the tragic levels of suicide in this country which have stayed at the same elevated level because there simply has not been the investment in the mental health services that they need. Young people all around the country are having to wait as long as 8 weeks for a follow-up mental health appointment and that is simply too long when people are experiencing significant issues and pressure. So I guess although the Green Party supports this legislation and although it is a practical endeavour to use our resources more efficiently we also simply need to resource the health system better and we need to focus more on prevention and the areas in which Government can get better health outcomes outside of the health portfolio—you know by reducing inequality; by alleviating child poverty; by investing in smarter transport; having warmer drier housing; and having more affordable housing. There is a whole range of ways in which the Government can influence the health of a society and I simply think the National Government is failing to do that. It is failing to invest properly in the health system. Our own health Minister has admitted to the media in an article to the Listener that the health system is stretched and it will continue to be stretched as long as we continue to experience this high population growth because this Government has no intention of increasing the amount of funding for medical services and the health system. Instead it is talking about tax cuts. Well that is a very short-term approach and I think it is very indicative overall of the ideology of this National Government which is a very short-term approach to managing the politics day to day trying to give tax cuts where it can rather than investing in the long-term health of our society which I think is what most New Zealanders would like to see. Most New Zealanders want to live in society where we are looking after our environment and we are looking after our people where we do not have this tragically high suicide rate and where we do not have people struggling to receive the health services that they need. Fundamentally it will require a paradigm shift and a completely different approach—one that puts people and the environment first before the profits of large corporations and before the interests of the highest-income earners and the wealthiest people in this society."