Chadwick Steve: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill Medicines Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Chadwick Steve: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill Medicines Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:611;Page:8630] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am proud to be given an opportunity to speak in this third reading debate. It was difficult to sit quietly and listen to the cant and misinformation of the Opposition during the previous two stages. As the Health Committee chair I was responsible for the select committee stage and we were always aware of the task ahead and the long-term implications of the bill for over 73000 health practitioners in New Zealand. It is those practitioners that I would like to thank today. They worked collectively with us on the need for one consolidated piece of legislation that covered 11 health professional groupings. I also wish the 23 other health groupings good luck with the work they will need to undertake in order to be included in the legislation by Order in Council. 
Our commitment to get this legislation passed completes a policy undertaking in 1999 to review health occupation legislation. This has been an exciting and a long—not rushed—journey with representative groups communicating together over this issue for the first time in decades. There has been a genuine sense of goodwill in finding common issues of professional practice and then working on the points of difference under the framework of this bill. 
I thank the officials from the Ministry of Health for their commitment to this task. I will not name them—the approach has been a collective one under the leadership of Karen Poutasi and Gillian Durham. They have ironed out the varied challenges of interpretation and misinformation with the registration bodies the colleges and the councils. Consultation and the development of this law have not been rushed as the Opposition has suggested. The ministry met with professional groupings for 3 years after the discussion document was put out and work will begin in earnest with groups such as acupuncturists once this bill is passed. The ministry will then lead this work and the ongoing discussions acting as a resource to the professions. 
I would also like to acknowledge the leadership of the Minister Annette King. Unlike previous Ministers she has had an open-door policy for the professions to work through commitments such as pharmacy ownerships and the establishment of professional councils for dentistry midwifery osteopathy and pharmacy. She has stuck by her word and her commitment. 
Pharmacists are not disappointed. They are delighted with this Government. Aspects that do require more work such as the protection of quality assurance activities were resolved with the appropriate groups such as the clinical advisory group of District Health Boards New Zealand. They were the experts we worked on to get those aspects ironed out. It was critical for us all that the sector worked on wording that gave practitioners confidence about the role of clinical audit review and protection of significant-event case reviews as opposed to commissions of inquiry police investigations or inquiries under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act. 
I appreciated the members of the committee who worked with us collectively to make this legislation as robust as we could. The legislation has to be sustained for many years even though there is a 3-year review provision. I am pleased to see it there and thank the Greens for that. I want to thank the members of the committee who gave their input and who do understand how health professionals think behave and enact the intent of the law in their relevant spheres of professional practice. This legislation is also about public safety and cultural competence to practise in very diverse clinical settings. Those on the committee familiar with professional aspects brought a balance; others brought a valid consumer counterbalance to a dominant medical view. 
Many other health professionals who want to be deemed valid practitioners in an ever-expanding health environment will now work towards inclusion in this legislation. It is a tool that will bring practitioners together through registration competency oversight and the management of professional complaints. That is unprecedented and it is exciting for the field of clinical practice in New Zealand. That approach will also ensure public safety and some of the members of the Opposition from the medical profession have forgotten that that was one of the key principles of this legislation. 
I would also like to thank the office of the Health and Disability Commissioner for its work and Ron Paterson. His was a major contribution towards ensuring that we made the one-stop shop provisions for complaints as robust as possible. That system is now so much more streamlined than the 14 agencies that currently deal with complaints. I want to get to those health practitioners who worked with us and then in June announced that they were withdrawing their support for this legislation. 
Patients have asked me to explain the difference between a nurse a midwife and a doctor. Under this law there are very few differences because the relevant registration bodies remain as they were under the previous registration authorities for those professional groupings. The dominant right to self-regulate is something that we have been determined to break down and it goes into this legislation. We are pleased to see that consumers are included which will provide a counter-balance to those medical practitioners. As a Government we were not prepared to compromise that view. On reflection even though the two groups concerned previously said that the Medical Practitioners Act was an imperfect beast they have at least remained consistent in their concerns about the extent of the Ministerial powers proposed in this legislation and their assertions in favour of professional self-regulation. 
In 1999 we undertook a review of the Medical Practitioners Act and those concerns were addressed then as well as part of the review and rejection of the Medical Practitioners (Foreign Qualified Practitioners) Amendment Bill. We then built on the robustness of the Act. What Opposition members fail to understand is that 110 of 167 clauses in the Medical Practitioners Act are carried over into this bill. They should relax—making good legislation takes time and Professor John Campbell the president of the Medical Council of New Zealand says just that in the latest doctors’ magazine. For over 2 years through each stage the Medical Council has been involved in the development of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill and the resulting legislation. I am sure that we will be able to move on with those professionals. The Minister has always had an open door. 
When this legislation is passed it will have to sustain future Ministers of Health and administrations and during the Committee stage we were all acutely aware of that. This legislation was an ambitious task but I remain very optimistic of its outcome after today and I am well aware of how leading-edge it is considered to be in terms of the health practice field in New Zealand. I am proud to support this bill.