Hutchison Paul: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8084] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I thank the chair for the opportunity to speak on Part 2 of this very important Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill. A few minutes ago we were treated to an unmitigated conglomeration of verbosity from the Minister of Health signifying absolutely nothing. She tried to remind this Committee about the purpose of the legislation and that is to protect the public and for once I can agree with her on something. However I cannot agree with her explanation of why those who are responsible for the ultimate health of the public—the professionals at the foot of the cliff—have expressed an absolute lack of confidence in her bill. 
It is remarkable when we see the media statement made by Ian Powell with the headline: “Senior doctors very disappointed with Government action over flawed health bill”. The Minister must take a call to address seriously what Ian Powell is saying. He says: “Associate Health Minister Ruth Dyson incorrectly claimed that the Bill was based on the successful Medical Practitioners Act. This is untrue and she has been badly advised. In some key features especially the untested scopes of practice the Bill is seriously inferior and risks compromising the health and safety of the public.” That statement comes from Ian Powell on scopes of practice 
. 
 That issue is absolutely integral to Part 2—in fact integral to the whole bill. [ 
Interruption 
] Those comments in reply to the Minister are from someone whom she has tried to work with but who at the end of the day has rejected her process. There is no doubt that the medical profession would have loved to see this bill come in with support right across the board. It is indeed an omnibus bill. We on the National side were very keen to see the problem solved. 
This is what the New Zealand Medical Association said about scopes of practice: “Scopes of practice already exist within the profession of medicine and other professions but they have never before been required by legislation to be codified as this Bill does. The introduction of codified scopes of practice is likely to have significant long-term implications but neither the intentions behind the introduction of scopes of practice nor their potential outcomes have been properly debated. Indeed an Official Information request of the Ministry of Health in respect of discussion papers on the issue of scopes of practice revealed that no serious internal discussion or debate has taken place.” It is an indictment on the Labour Government and on the Minister that she has failed to consult properly on the absolutely vital area of scopes of practice. 
I go on to the nurses’ submission which states: “Specific recommendations were made on the basis of … principles and previous policy. An issue that is fundamental to NZNO”—the New Zealand Nurses Organisation which has 32000 members—“is the need for increased consultation on specific clauses of this Bill. It is our contention the Bill in its present form will not develop the culture that is required to prevent the incidence of errors or that it is fair for health professionals and health workers.” The first of its major recommendations is: “The inclusion of consultation with professional bodies before scopes of practice are introduced into legislation”. The Minister might say she has achieved a victory by bringing the nurses on board but what are they interested in? They are interested in increasing their scopes of practice and they are particularly looking at the area of nurse anaesthetist practitioners. General practice anaesthetists who were well qualified were phased out only 4 to 5 years ago because of the increasing standards required by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists.