Hutchison Paul: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill Medicines Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Hutchison Paul: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill Medicines Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:611;Page:8632] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 What a case of denial the Government has on this legislation. The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill is hugely important and has now had two additional bills split off from it—the Medicines Amendment Bill and the Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill. I appreciated the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Damien O’Connor’s complimenting me on my work on the Health Committee when he spoke last night. However he is so much out of touch that he failed to recognise that I was not a member of the committee. That is a reflection of just how much out of touch the Labour Government is and the Associate Minister of Health is in terms of managing the resolution of this legislation. His lack of touch and knowledge absolutely reflects the summation of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists when it commented on this legislation by saying in essence that: “The revived HPCA Bill continues to threaten the capacity to ensure standards of care and safety through a major encroachment on professional self-regulation and a major enhancement of political and bureaucratic control in this area.” 
One of the major themes that should have occurred today was that finally a Government managed to get agreement from the various health practitioners and parties involved with the evolution of this legislation so that it would truly support the health services of the New Zealand people well. I absolutely agree with my colleague from ACT Heather Roy that it is a tragedy that the Government has failed in that and while Stevie— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member may not use personal names. I refer to Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement). 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I had not quite finished my reference but I take note of your comment. While the honourable member for Rotorua Ms Chadwick has mentioned that there is something in the order of 73000 practitioners in this country she has failed time and time again to recognise that medical and surgical specialists take on some of the most onerous responsibilities in the field of health. The fact that neither the New Zealand Medical Association nor the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists has supported this legislation is a huge indictment on the fact that the Labour Government has continued not to listen to them. I reject Ms Chadwick’s comments when she started to quote the Medical Council which indeed has been in contact with the Government over the last 2 years. But the other bodies have lamented that there has not been ready access to the Minister of Health. Time and time again she has ignored what they have said and brushed them off. I would agree with those headlines; making good legislation does take time. This Government has failed to achieve that. 
There is almost a sense of déjà vu because there was a possibility of that some 4 weeks ago in the second reading of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill when I held up the bill and said that I did so with considerable dismay. That dismay was first at the fact that the bill had not achieved the unity that it should have—that opportunity was lost—and second at the fact that it was of immeasurable size. Much to my further dismay this legislation is no longer 272 pages long but is now about 291 pages long—again an absolute morass of the bureaucratic complexity that this Labour Government seems to feed on wherever it possibly can. That was indeed the case when it brought in the health and disability bill 2 years ago which heralded the most complex health system New Zealand has ever seen with its 21 district health boards. 
We should not lose sight of the main purpose of this legislation which is said to be to protect the health and safety of members of the public by providing for mechanisms to ensure health practitioners are competent and fit to practise their professions. I say again for the record that it is vital to remember the summation of the medical specialists: that in essence the revised legislation continues to threaten the capacity to ensure standards of care and safety. 
On the more positive side the National Party has indeed supported Part 8 of the original bill which encompasses the Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill. Again I think all parties recognise that there have been some horrific tragedies over the last 15 to 20 years in New Zealand: firstly the National Women’s Hospital cervical cancer inquiry followed by the Gisborne inquiry with regard to Dr Bottrill and more recently the Parry inquiry. The Parry inquiry in itself was a huge tragedy and it exemplified the fact that there were so many different agencies dealing with health matters and reporting that the situation was totally out of hand. So we all recognised the useful suggestions made by Helen Cull in terms of the one-stop shop and the very strong work that Mr Paterson the Health and Disability Commissioner did in helping to evolve this very useful Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill. I believe that it will stand the test of time in its usefulness. 
Again as an indictment of the lack of insight of the Minister of Health I just recall that  
New Zealand Herald 
 article where Sandra Coney brought up the huge concern about the reflex reaction of the Minister of Health when she wanted to dob in incompetent health workers. Fortunately the Minister did listen to that and she did respond but it seems incredible that we have a Ministry of Health where the deputy director Dr Gillian Durham said the legislation would make it a statutory requirement for health workers to report colleagues if they felt they were working below standards. She said a complaint would prompt a competency review of the practitioner. The aim was to tip the balance in the mind of health professionals from their duty to a peer to their duty to the public to ensure that the safety of the public was their primary consideration. Undoubtedly a “blame and shame” environment was being suggested. Fortunately that has been revised to a certain extent and that has to be a great relief. But it did take a lot of pressure on the Minister of Health before she was prepared to do even that. 
I also want to comment again on the lack of consultation recorded by the New Zealand Medical Association. It said: “Quite simply we have no confidence in the policy development process or the consultation process behind this bill. We believe that the lack of adequate consultation has led to a number of major deficiencies within the legislation.” It went on to say this regarding professional self-regulation: “The opportunities for greater concern by the Ministry of Health and by politicians are substantially increased to the extent that it is doubtful that effective self-regulation can continue.” I brought in an amendment to the Committee suggesting that one of the major purposes should be the recognition of professional self-regulation as the basis of health practice in New Zealand and the Government rejected that. I believe that that is a sad indictment on the failure of this Government and this bill.