Kedgley Sue: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8084] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would like to start by responding to some issues that the Minister of Health raised. She said we should all be focusing on putting in place a system for public safety and on ensuring that we have a system that New Zealand consumers can trust. I think we all agree that consumers in this country are disillusioned with the health system and the complaints system as a result of the endless stream of inquiries—the Gisborne cervical cancer inquiry the Parry inquiry and so on. So we have a great deal of work to do to restore consumer confidence in our health system and in the complaints procedures surrounding the health professions. There are some very serious problems that we have heard about—in particular in the Parry inquiry. We hope that some of the issues covered in this bill will go a long way to address those issues and enhance consumer confidence in our health system. 
But I cannot resist responding to that the Minister’s point that the whole legislation should be based on public safety. Well if that is the case if this legislation is consumer based if its objective is to protect the public from harm then acupuncturists should be included in it. The Minister said that public safety is the sole thing we should be looking at. I have already pointed out that acupuncture involves poking needles into people and if those needles are not sterilised or if they are poked into the wrong place there is a serious risk of harm to the public. So why are acupuncturists not included in this bill? 
The Minister said that nurses have been waiting since 1988 for their statute. Well acupuncturists have been waiting for two decades for their statute. They have been traipsing up to this Parliament and requesting that they be covered by statute for decades. They have written requesting legislation so why are they not included in this bill? One of the major reasons they want to be covered by statute is their concern about what could happen to New Zealanders and to the reputation of their profession if irresponsible acupuncturists who are not competent set themselves up in practice and poke needles into people. It would be a disaster. The acupuncturists recognise that risk and that is why they have put such passionate submissions to us to be included in this bill. 
So why are osteopaths included but acupuncturists are not? It is simply for one reason and one reason alone: Labour made a political commitment for reasons best known to itself to osteopaths in the 1999 election but it did not make such a commitment to acupuncturists. Let us at least have a level playing field. I am quite happy that Labour made that political commitment that promise to include osteopaths and that they are included in this bill but if they have a case to be included acupuncturists have an even stronger case. It is extraordinary that the Government is refusing for no good reasons that have been advanced to include acupuncturists. Acupuncturists are doing their bit they are undergoing consultation they are doing all the things that are supposedly required of a group if it is to come under this bill yet the door is firmly shut on them whereas osteopaths are included. If this legislation was as the Minister said genuine consumer-based legislation whose overriding objective was public safety then acupuncturists would be included and we would not have this seemingly political decision not to include them but to include only osteopaths. 
This part deals with scopes of practice. The other problem is that the omission of acupuncturists could cause very serious anomalies in the future because if acupuncture is made a restricted activity—as it ought to be if we are concerned about public safety—then only medical and physio acupuncturists will be able to practise.